Potential
Despite the fact that Genie's knowledge of anthropology and archaeology grossly overwhelms my own, I cannot help but be intrigued by the nature of political discourse in this country (the United States). It is probably my academic experience with postmodernism and semiotics that drives me to relentlessly catalogue the real meanings behind throwaway words and off-the-cuff remarks, but it seems those things we say carelessly are those that betray our actual thoughts. Freud thought so, too, but it is quite unpopular in modern circles to mention (or indeed grant a shred of validity to) Freud's psychoanalytic work.
That is, though, a different post.
Reading the back-and-forth of the Republicans' approval of Alito over Democratic objections by the House Judiciary Committee displays a view of the nature of truth that is wholly alien to most of us, but is becoming more familiar--that veracity is simply a matter of striking while the iron is hot. The art of "spin" or image-manipulation is fodder for high concept movies like Wag the Dog, but has yet to really be fabricated into a thoughtful, appropriately experimental work like other films about the broader nature of identity. (I speak now of the inimitable Charlie Kaufman, whose next film I await with breathless abandon.)
I honestly cannot remember who it was that postulated the importance of the truth in a nonliterate society, but I have a feeling it was around the era of Levi-Strauss or, more likely the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The idea is that the notion of the lie prior to the written word was just unheard-of; for societies whose communication relied solely on the verbal, to introduce the unreliability of the word into these societies would engender a massive breakdown. It is a similar thread to the solipsistic paranoia experienced by first-year philosophy majors when they start wondering if Descartes' "brain in a jar" theorem might just have some weight to it, but in this case I feel it is valid.
Well, the majority of the world has been literate for quite some time, and it is the suggestion of some linguistic theorists that the lie only came into effect with the written word. Here you had some account that held locked inside it an air of greater authority and permanence than the spoken account; suddenly, reliance on the verbal alone became unnecessary. If I believed I rightly had more cows than my neighbor, I could reference my tallied lists of cows I made as I led them back from pasture. I now have a record that, in some small manner, appears to prove I am honest.
Of course the problem with vesting the written with authority is the same as assuming the verbal has authority. Seeking to place authority in circumstances we have not empirically witnessed is necessarily an act of faith, but a necessary act of faith that provides the underpinnings of greater society. We have to believe in the relative honesty and authority of some source, or else we become constrained to believe only those things we have sensed directly.
But prior to the written word, can we really suggest there was no such thing as dishonesty? I think the supposition is less that no one ever thought to lie, but simply that lying was so strongly discouraged that people just did not do it. After all, to be dishonest in one regard, and to assert that you are in fact right when you know you are not, is to participate in creating an atmosphere where someone else--with their best interests above yours--will reciprocate. To be honest, even when one does not directly gain from the interaction, is actually a furtherance of self-interest (insofar as it prevents others from lying about you more authoritatively than you can defend yourself).
Which brings me to the more-apropos discussion I initially brought up. The root of the word "politics" is in a Greek branch of philosophy that studied the relationship of the one to the many (specifically one member of society to the rest of society). Defining it suchly carries with it connotations of oligarchy, which are not entirely inappropriate as that's how Athens governed itself, with privileged citizens making decisions based on majority votes that had binding power over noncitizens. This is the background chatter I have in my head when reading the political discourse.
It strikes me that politicians and their political parties would do well to remember their self-interest is not just in immediate gratification, but also in long-term survival (and perhaps that long-term survival serves a greater self-interest). Though harder to see, the current nature of the discussion in this country--which is to "spin" and "counterspin" until one is blue in the face--serves no purpose but to disengage voters from the system. The Democrats call Republicans liars, and vice versa; the Republicans position themselves as morally superior, and vice versa; the Democrats condemn Republicans, and vice versa. By engaging in a game of one-upmanship over who knows the most vitriolic language to term the other dishonest, they create an atmosphere of hopelessness. Why should an otherwise neutral voter even bother with this system, when neither party is better than the other?
(Nevermind the abominable fixation on the two-party system in this country.)
And again, it is striking that both Republicans and Democrats continue to recreate the debate as ad hominem attacks and bitter rivalry without really focusing on the issues. It might be simply that both parties' efforts to court the majority of moderate America has resulted in two parties with only nominal differences from each other, and by violently skirmishing over extreme language they distract voters from their growing irrelevance as political engines. If there is no meaningful division between Republican and Democrat there is no real purpose to support either, and one would think the machina would rust away.
The low voter turnouts, the widespread distrust of the government, these things might be the cause of the polarization (and polemicization) of political discourse. Without a reason to believe in these parties, without meaningful differences to separate voters along reasonable issues, the only people left to support these parties are the extremists and the ideologues. It is hard to read, one way or the other, how this situation has arisen.
My, this long and probably confused post was merely the result of seeing the parties attempt to shape the truth in ways most conducive to their own interests. I wonder if those preliterate societies knew, better than we did, how fluid that "truth" really is.
That is, though, a different post.
Reading the back-and-forth of the Republicans' approval of Alito over Democratic objections by the House Judiciary Committee displays a view of the nature of truth that is wholly alien to most of us, but is becoming more familiar--that veracity is simply a matter of striking while the iron is hot. The art of "spin" or image-manipulation is fodder for high concept movies like Wag the Dog, but has yet to really be fabricated into a thoughtful, appropriately experimental work like other films about the broader nature of identity. (I speak now of the inimitable Charlie Kaufman, whose next film I await with breathless abandon.)
I honestly cannot remember who it was that postulated the importance of the truth in a nonliterate society, but I have a feeling it was around the era of Levi-Strauss or, more likely the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The idea is that the notion of the lie prior to the written word was just unheard-of; for societies whose communication relied solely on the verbal, to introduce the unreliability of the word into these societies would engender a massive breakdown. It is a similar thread to the solipsistic paranoia experienced by first-year philosophy majors when they start wondering if Descartes' "brain in a jar" theorem might just have some weight to it, but in this case I feel it is valid.
Well, the majority of the world has been literate for quite some time, and it is the suggestion of some linguistic theorists that the lie only came into effect with the written word. Here you had some account that held locked inside it an air of greater authority and permanence than the spoken account; suddenly, reliance on the verbal alone became unnecessary. If I believed I rightly had more cows than my neighbor, I could reference my tallied lists of cows I made as I led them back from pasture. I now have a record that, in some small manner, appears to prove I am honest.
Of course the problem with vesting the written with authority is the same as assuming the verbal has authority. Seeking to place authority in circumstances we have not empirically witnessed is necessarily an act of faith, but a necessary act of faith that provides the underpinnings of greater society. We have to believe in the relative honesty and authority of some source, or else we become constrained to believe only those things we have sensed directly.
But prior to the written word, can we really suggest there was no such thing as dishonesty? I think the supposition is less that no one ever thought to lie, but simply that lying was so strongly discouraged that people just did not do it. After all, to be dishonest in one regard, and to assert that you are in fact right when you know you are not, is to participate in creating an atmosphere where someone else--with their best interests above yours--will reciprocate. To be honest, even when one does not directly gain from the interaction, is actually a furtherance of self-interest (insofar as it prevents others from lying about you more authoritatively than you can defend yourself).
Which brings me to the more-apropos discussion I initially brought up. The root of the word "politics" is in a Greek branch of philosophy that studied the relationship of the one to the many (specifically one member of society to the rest of society). Defining it suchly carries with it connotations of oligarchy, which are not entirely inappropriate as that's how Athens governed itself, with privileged citizens making decisions based on majority votes that had binding power over noncitizens. This is the background chatter I have in my head when reading the political discourse.
It strikes me that politicians and their political parties would do well to remember their self-interest is not just in immediate gratification, but also in long-term survival (and perhaps that long-term survival serves a greater self-interest). Though harder to see, the current nature of the discussion in this country--which is to "spin" and "counterspin" until one is blue in the face--serves no purpose but to disengage voters from the system. The Democrats call Republicans liars, and vice versa; the Republicans position themselves as morally superior, and vice versa; the Democrats condemn Republicans, and vice versa. By engaging in a game of one-upmanship over who knows the most vitriolic language to term the other dishonest, they create an atmosphere of hopelessness. Why should an otherwise neutral voter even bother with this system, when neither party is better than the other?
(Nevermind the abominable fixation on the two-party system in this country.)
And again, it is striking that both Republicans and Democrats continue to recreate the debate as ad hominem attacks and bitter rivalry without really focusing on the issues. It might be simply that both parties' efforts to court the majority of moderate America has resulted in two parties with only nominal differences from each other, and by violently skirmishing over extreme language they distract voters from their growing irrelevance as political engines. If there is no meaningful division between Republican and Democrat there is no real purpose to support either, and one would think the machina would rust away.
The low voter turnouts, the widespread distrust of the government, these things might be the cause of the polarization (and polemicization) of political discourse. Without a reason to believe in these parties, without meaningful differences to separate voters along reasonable issues, the only people left to support these parties are the extremists and the ideologues. It is hard to read, one way or the other, how this situation has arisen.
My, this long and probably confused post was merely the result of seeing the parties attempt to shape the truth in ways most conducive to their own interests. I wonder if those preliterate societies knew, better than we did, how fluid that "truth" really is.
<< Home