Conformity as Control - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Conformity as Control

There are some who like to think of themselves as different, indeed pride themselves on being so. It may or may not be the case. Often it appears those who perceive themselves as 'whacky' or 'crazy' seem just to be a bit silly, but will generally conform to societal norms. Those who truly do seem to have a level of perspective on 'normal' are much rarer, and even those will be unable to see every last piece of their own conformity. Of course we're all (theoretically) constrained by the laws of the land, so to be a non conformist requires the ability not only to have that perspective but also to know how and where it would be unwise to step beyond those lines. It's funny how some of us seek to fit in, to be seen as normal, part of the crowd, while others would be appalled to be considered such.

Big business, politics and the media impose enormous social pressure for all to be biddable conformists, to spend spend spend on items and modifications not needed, to be puppets to the spurious belief that to be different you have to be the same. Most buy into the belief that those who wield some sort of power are beyond such things, and can lie and cheat with impunity. The one law for them and another for us mentality is quite an extraordinary aspect of human psychology. Policing one anothers behaviour is often considered responsible and to maintain good order, while in reality it is more often borne out of a desire for the world to be forced into a personal view of what is and isn't 'right'. Moaning and complaining helplessly seem to assuage frustrations while keeping everything resolutely in place.

Those considered non conformist may be demonised, assumed to be insane or dangerous. Rigid control is imposed in terms of what is and isn't acceptable, though hypocrisy rife. Acceptable behaviour is measured in inverse proportions. Drunkenness, debt, pharmaceutical addictions, body dysmorphia (with all the attendant requirements for cosmetic surgery), insecurity and self hatred, materialist desires unsatisfiable and dishonesty are all staples of our society. Conversely, creativity, individuality (which we're sold as desirable yet steered clear of), honesty, intelligent examination of the facts, observation, responsible living and behaviour, care and concern for others and advocating for the vulnerable presently all seem to be non conformist activities. While not actually and specifically illegal they're no longer (if indeed they ever really were) part of societal norms.

Of course there are a small minority of genuinely dangerous people. Those who are pathologically unable to empathise with others and will do whatever it takes to get what they want (though as I write this I realise this sounds exactly like a lot of the elite). They are paraded before us with an exhortation to be good, to conform, to not stand out and to fear stepping beyond the bounds of acceptability, as if all that exists are drones and madmen. Yet we all know this is not the case.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, yet it's hard to escape the fact that in one form or another, throughout history, conformity and crowd control have been utilised for the minority to gain control of the majority. We may look back to the past and chuckle indulgently at the stupidity of our ancestors, wonder how they could have been so gullible as to allow themselves to be duped so easily. We might be better served in wondering what our future relatives will think of us.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Art - By Rachael Berry

This weeks artist was Rachael Berry: http://rachaelberry.wordpress.com/

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab - By St.Zagarus

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab

The great elephant in the room of our times - Elitism! How mixed up the masses of our land have become over this word. It is as if they went in discovery of an attitude toward it, discovered a reason, and then turned their conclusion upon its head!

Our culture is infused (or should that be poisoned with) equalitarian values in all areas of life, turning our collective experience into one long grey mush. Democracy has intruded its nose where it is not welcome, and has failed to overthrow the tyranny it was actually supposed to!

To be clear: ownership of machines and parliaments is left to the last people we should leave them to - aristocrats. And the creation and appreciation of artistic culture is left to the last people we should leave them to - plebeians!  And the result is dire. For so long as the cultural world is poisoned by equalitarian values, the cultural human has nothing to aspire towards. If every artist is equal, then there is no self-improvement, no growth, no cause to strive after. The lowest, basest mass-artist is as valid as the soulful musician. How appalling it would be if we had no tools to differentiate between the two. We would be left with no critique to attack the microwaveable doner kebabs of art and culture.

What are we so afraid of?

Nature's Meritocracy -

Let us now examine what it is that makes creation and culture 'genuine' (a word much overused indeed). My argument is simple: genius comes from an uncomfortable place, and often leads to an uncomfortable place. Genius is miserable, thrust into greatness. She throws away her double-edged sword, as Elric would disgard Stormbringer. Yet it follows, and will do so til the end. It is a curse as much as it is a blessing. It is self-indulgent, yet universal, selfish, yet possessed with a tortured love for humanity. It is not learnt (though it can be improved with practice), but comes from somewhere far more profound.

It is empty and void, forever disatisfied - yes! This is genius, nothingness. This is the cosmos speaking to you through its silence, asking 'What you have done?' This is the raw power of creativity, unable to be pinned down or defined, yet still recognisable. We cannot define creativity because it should be equivalent to defining the nothingness from whence it emerges. Nor can we set a blueprint to repeat it, however much we should enjoy doing so. Genius tramples barriers, it loathes chains. Genius tears apart its diploma, and curses the academy. Her art is painful passion, a mirror held up against nature, and it ignites the same in the viewer.

The true 'creative nothing' is a natural nothing, and it cannot fill itself up from without. No warm embrace can comfort the genius. Nor can they fill themself at all. For there is nothing but constant movement toward-the-unreachable for this genius, and constant sorrow at their constant failure to transcend themselves. Still, they must create, or wither and die. This is the driving engine of progress! It shuns the false paradise offered by the bulk, bloated mass. What a sad day it is when the plebeians aspire to nothing more than plebeian decadence.

For religion has gone nowhere. The religion of old and the 'materialism' of new empties-out each subject and then offers them redemption through their particular means. Religion, 'materialism', they each hold their worshippers in warm embrace, and they are easy with such love. One need only submit to them. This is the emptiness-fullness dichotomy for the masses; a watered-down void! the emptiness of the lowest common denominator! Democracy has been applied to culture, art has become associated with easily available pleasures or talentless provocation - talentless provocation for all! The bar has not so much been lowered as it has been buried under ground - plunged under magma! The 'organic' nature of creative art has been captured, distilled, put through a refinery, and rolled out the other end, infinitely reproduceable and imitable. The culture is democratic in that the 'creatives' know what the people want and give it to them, a paternalistic and patronising affair. Challenge is not 'accessible', and risks are not to be taken.

It is everywhere, and it is all pervasive. It can invade any space and colonise any land. When it's banners appear on the horizon, the people welcome it, even calling it over, seduced by plastic promise. Such a world impresses itself upon me, it's loud, rude culture too foolish to know how grotesque it truly is. The healing light of true genius, which also pervades, is nonetheless drowned out by banality. Woe is I, the bedraggled St.Zagarus, the besieged one, pulled down into such an abyss of purility! Only the dull, lowing roar of a castrated bull can utter from my pained, heaving lungs, a desperate rallying cry for the righting of the world.

Yet when we each of us aspire to become deities of our own boundless selves, then I shall fall silent.

The state of affairs -

Civilization is not under threat of annihilation. There is no looming Dark Age and there is no danger. Let no doomspeaker coil you into a fearful serpent, and charm you with their lies. It is under threat of something perhaps worse - it is on the brink of being defined by a microwaveable doner kebab. It is plebeianism, low conformity, congealed mediocrity, what-went-before, repetition, recurrence, routine, banality, habit, stupidity, lowered standards, appeasement of the easily appeased, trivia, false hope, emotional manipulation, a river of herd mammals, ignorance, denial of instinct, backwards-looking, downwards-gazing, trough-feeding, collectivistic, microwaveable mass cultural death, a grey stain to mark the already shoddy history of our shoddy species.

Dissent has always been the changing force of civilization, and dissent has always followed great individuals. The philosophers almost universally had one message to the Establishment, directly or indirectly. That message was 'Fuck you!' (complete with an exclamation mark). Kant declared himself a 'Copernican revolutionary!' after all! Yet the so-called rebels of our decadent civilization are as wretched as the forces of Order they suppose to attack - they are just a bit worse at hiding their tracks. Most of them are concerned with 'entertainment' to fill the void of meaning created by meaningless labour; they are an essential part of the soulless engin. Where are our heroes! Why are our artists not dissenting?

Answer: They are, they are just drowned out by the white noise of herd-culture.

St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners - By Martin Prior

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners

In my last article on liberalism, Liberalism: from Philosophers to Society? I surveyed a number of philosophers, with the view of seeing how far they could be a new concept, social liberalism. Adam Smith basically added the social – and economic - dimension with his Wealth of Nations, and his formalisation of a laissez-faire economics.  But he urged the abolition of slavery.  

John Stuart Mill is seen as the father of Social Liberalism, and is noted for his marriage of utilitarianism and this concept of social liberalism.  But his predecessor Jeremy Bentham (England, 1748-1832) set the path.  It should be noted that Bentham [according to Wikipedia] “demanded economic and individual freedom, including the separation of the state and church, freedom of expression, completely equal rights for women, the end of slavery and colonialism, uniform democracy, the abolition of physical punishment, also on children, the right for divorce, free prices, free trade and no restrictions on interest.”  But nevertheless he was not an economic liberal or libertarian, urging government intervention in the form of restrictions on monopoly power, pensions, health insurance and other social security.

Now here we have a liberal who is unlike the self-styled liberals who followed him: he rejected colonialism and laissez-faire, whereas among modern politicians, liberalism differs from conservatism in the way these are implemented, even if they are now called the market economy and neo-colonialism.  Here we come back to socialism, which as I argued, sometimes equated to non-economic liberalism, and sometimes to an economic liberalism termed the ‘social market economy’, which I rejected.

I stated:

When we move from philosophies to politics, we move into an area where I believe we must look into the political adherents’ motivations in terms of their part in patterns of exploitation.  And in the developed countries, this really means thieves squabbling over the booty from exploitation of the Third World.  This issue is in no way addressed by social marketers and mainstream social democrats.

So, as I argued, regardless of the self-image of liberals and conservatives, we must consider their behaviour in practice among leading world powers.  The liberals, or in former days the Whigs, were smart at advancing power and making tactical retreats.  A notable example of their callousness when in a position of advance is in 1846, when Lord Russell succeeded Sir Robert Peel.  Peel, originally a Tory, repealed the Corn Laws which protected British agriculture in good times, but in times of food shortages exacerbated them.  In 1846, Lord Russell took over, heading a free trade government with Peelite support, but now extended free trade to outright laissez-faire, and refused to intervene in the market to ease the Great Potato Famine (roughly 1845-52).

Here the Tories appeared more humane than the laissez-faire Whigs, not least in the writings of Benjamin Disraeli (PM 1868 and 1874-1880).  However a generation after the Famine, when the Irish were becoming more militant, William Ewart Gladstone  (PM 1868-1874,1880-5, 1886, 1892-4) realised that Home Rule was inevitable.  This realisation came in 1886, and triggered the critical divide between Liberals and ‘Unionists’ (Conservatives and Liberal Unionists): the Liberals believed in strategic advance and withdrawal, whereas the Conservatives were slow to advance, but under Disraeli and his successors, staunchly adhered to a policy of ‘what we have we hold’.  Disraeli strongly celebrated Imperialism, making Victoria Empress of India, and his successors, notably Salisbury, resisted any loosening of the British hold on Ireland.  They felt that concessions led to a slippery slope which would to the dissolution of Empire.  They could not find a flexible approach, drawing on the fact that Irish , both Catholic and protestant, had no objection to being part of Empire.

This leads me to an analysis of liberals and conservatives behaviour, regardless of their self-image.  Basically we see an interaction of culture and power:

LIBERALS, the flexible exploiters	TORIES, hanging on to what they’ve got
(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Skills and technology of exploiters(pink) (iii)           Superior power (blue), (iv)          Ignorance and fear of the exploited (grey), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.	(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Ignorance and fear among exploiters(grey) (iii)           Superior power of exploiters(blue), (iv)          Skills and technology (e.g. military) used against the exploited(pink), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.

Note the contrast: the liberals value and develop their skills, and are quite ready to create empires and ‘neo-colonies’, which take advantage of their targets’ ignorance and often fear.  The approach of the Tories, with whom conservatism is an asset, is to frighten would-be supporters into loyalty, playing on ignorance and fear.  This rather than technology is their power base, but despite its shaky nature, they will resort to force against their opponents rather than persuasion.

So in the two diagrams, the pink and the grey are switched round.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'