This is a continuation of the series on the essence of knowledge (epistemology) and its relation to power.
II) The Mystique of Power
Power is knowledge, and power has its mystique. The powerful knows something you do not. We can take as an example the mystique of the bureaucrat. The less you know of them, the more powerful they are. The more arcane their character, the more pointless their rules and regulations; the more removed they are from any logical, rational, tangible reality, the better for them and the worse for you. Their counter-intuitive rules are capable of entrenching themselves into the world of things and beings, until jumping through their hoops becomes an accepted facet of existence. Just by their strength alone (the strength of the State) they can carve themselves into reality.
The know-it-all is the smaller cousin of the bureaucrat. They do not express things for any useful end. They like appearing intelligent as a means of controlling others. They are an expression of power as knowledge – their power does not come from knowing anything, but from the pretention that they have an infinite well of knowledge to draw upon. Such a character, desperate to impress, understands the mystique of power. They are deceitful, epistemological sorcerers, who can produce nothing of value, attain no results, speak not a single truth, and yet still maintain power over others.
The mystique of power is what maintains its position. This is why the powerful present themselves as inevitable, eternal, inheritors of some legitimate reign. Power maintains itself when the powerless have no hope. Power hates imagination, because imagination quickly realizes the mystique. The powerless do not only need to know injustice - knowledge is not power. The powerless need imagination, to lead them to hope, and then to wage war against power, until it is vanquished, and knowledge freed from its tyranny.
III) Knowledge is part of us
Knowledge is not something removed from the whole human being. To think of knowledge as some dis-embodied (distanced from the body), floating, transcendent well of information is to forget that we are biological beings. Knowledge is literally attached to the human being, and this means it is entangled with everything that makes us what we are. For instance, the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist cannot be removed from their personhood, nor separated from their emotions. The two are bound together. Far have they carried their erroneous beliefs with them, a companion through the shift of time; a warm body to hold in the cold, existential night.
Knowledge can also become attached, quite literally, to an authority. For instance, in the patriarchal family unit the father is power and it is this power that allows him to dictate what is and isn't true. He is an embodiment of power; it is conflated with him.
Much of our never-ending journey to enlightenment consists in shedding off false-beliefs, with an occasional shift in world view (or rebirth). But evil (untruth) is literally contained inside of us, and that is why it can never wholly be vanquished. Philosophy can only go so far in equipping us with shields against untruth, and no spiritual fire can wholly scorch away our epistemological sins.
Selim Talat
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Civic Liberalism: self-image and reality
Herewith another brief contribution. Last time I was looking at economic liberalism, now I shall look at civic liberalism and its self-image, and consider the reality in the pecking order of exploitation.
So Picture One is the self-image for an economic liberal. It defines authority, as regulating the market-place but not the market forces. Civic liberalism sees itself as confronting authority, asserting the rights of ‘Man’. Feminism might be regarded as an applied form, operating within a society it seeks to change, substituting ‘men’ for ‘authority’ and ‘women’ for ‘society’. In fact civic liberalism conflates limited resources, skills and expertise and the supply curve into ‘authority’ since it is not sensitive to the economy:
So Picture One is the self-image for an economic liberal. It defines authority, as regulating the market-place but not the market forces. Civic liberalism sees itself as confronting authority, asserting the rights of ‘Man’. Feminism might be regarded as an applied form, operating within a society it seeks to change, substituting ‘men’ for ‘authority’ and ‘women’ for ‘society’. In fact civic liberalism conflates limited resources, skills and expertise and the supply curve into ‘authority’ since it is not sensitive to the economy:
Now we see that far from confronting each other, they are intricately related, but have different skills, and different cultures, the latter, in yellow, not on the critical path of exploitation. The second diagram characterises people who I would call secondary exploiters.
Once again we have the grey, and the various freedoms are no longer white, and we see grey: the ignorance and fear of those they jointly exploit.
The culture of those exploited has a place in Marxist interpretation of culture. In particular the term subaltern was coined by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (subalterno in Italian). According to Wikipedia:
“In critical theory and post-colonialism, subaltern is the social group who are socially, politically, and geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure [my italics] of the colony and of the colonial homeland. In describing "history told from below", the term subaltern derived from the cultural hegemony work of Antonio Gramsci, which identified the social groups who are excluded from a society’s established structures for political representation, the means by which people have a voice in their society.”
However, in characterising exploitation as an economically-driven relationship between the cultures of exploiters and exploited, I am not focussing on social groups who are “geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure [again my italics] of the colony and of the colonial homeland.” I am talking about people within the hegemonic power structure.
For me it is the secondary exploiters who are partially if not totally outside the hegemonic power structure, though they depend on it. And it is this degree of cultural independence which looks like individual choice.
And the capitalism of the primary exploiters is still a cancer, which the hegemonic powers try to protect from its host. And the cancer still continues to move forward, like a drunken crab, conscious only of its very immediate surroundings.
Once again we have the grey, and the various freedoms are no longer white, and we see grey: the ignorance and fear of those they jointly exploit.
The culture of those exploited has a place in Marxist interpretation of culture. In particular the term subaltern was coined by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (subalterno in Italian). According to Wikipedia:
“In critical theory and post-colonialism, subaltern is the social group who are socially, politically, and geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure [my italics] of the colony and of the colonial homeland. In describing "history told from below", the term subaltern derived from the cultural hegemony work of Antonio Gramsci, which identified the social groups who are excluded from a society’s established structures for political representation, the means by which people have a voice in their society.”
However, in characterising exploitation as an economically-driven relationship between the cultures of exploiters and exploited, I am not focussing on social groups who are “geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure [again my italics] of the colony and of the colonial homeland.” I am talking about people within the hegemonic power structure.
For me it is the secondary exploiters who are partially if not totally outside the hegemonic power structure, though they depend on it. And it is this degree of cultural independence which looks like individual choice.
And the capitalism of the primary exploiters is still a cancer, which the hegemonic powers try to protect from its host. And the cancer still continues to move forward, like a drunken crab, conscious only of its very immediate surroundings.
Martin Prior
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
