Humanity, social systems, authoritarianism, existence

nyarlothothep

This has been bugging me for a while, think this is the best forum for it as I'll get more temperate analytical answers.

I get the impression that the UK, US and Ireland and probably a few other Western countries are becoming less and less democratic, with a shift in policies towards increased surveillance of the population under the justification that they have to stop terrorists/criminals. Now I believe that Islamic terrorism is largely the result of the West going into the middle east and invading countries and the problem will persist so long as Western powers continue to interfere in the region in order to secure oil resources and act on the behalf of private interests.

But these related issues bring up the central question. The elites which orchestrate these wars, many of these people were brought up in similar environments to us, I assume ie there is no vengeance rationales for them to embark on such colonial crusades. Yet those who are lucky enough to be born into the elite or to join it continue to support policies which go against the interests of the public domoestically and which result in the deaths of millions globally, whether through wars/famine which can be interpreted as benefiting financial goals. Why? Imo I think one of the reasons is that you have other competing corporations/nation states which impose certain restrictions on what you can or cannot do, hence why the world is still largely a shambolic violent place. But why do people participate, in America for example, in indoctrinating other people through the media/advertisements etc or even here for that matter? Yes I know, greed, but I'd like to look at the engine behind greed.

People who have status and wealth are largely put into those positions by other people. I'm slightly confused as to why. For example I do not recognize status or wealth as being signifiers for personal worth yet other people do. So they work to keep these people at the top of the hierarchy whether they're a dictator or not. Yes they could have more responsibilities, yes they may have expertise, but I think the end result across the whole of a society is a tiered system which perpetuates itself and leads to exploitation of the lower classes. Why not work collectively with each other rather than under some authority.

Similarly why do the majority work ardently to prop up this system? I know the 9-5 workday plus commute isn't strenous for some though I've read that productivity decreases after 4 hours of work. There is the idea that an 8 hour work day is designed to exhaust you so that you have no interest in anything other than watching the tv. Similarly job insecurity will keep you focused on that next paycheck rather than for example, joining a political party, digging up info which normally wouldn't be conveyed to you by the media and so forth. This is one of the reasons why there are so many moves to keep the net under constant surveillance as imo it represents a real threat to state power. In addition why do people elect representatives who belong to the elite and who constantly betray their electorates to win the favour of their private backers. Why don't they represent themselves.

There are many arguments about human nature and what it means to be human. A lot of the time human nature is immediately associated with cruelty, greed and stupidity. Historically nature has been equated with darkness, regression, the stone age. Human nature can also encapsulate positive qualities yet I have rarely if ever seen such comparisons on the net.

So the question as to what human nature is, if its the product of evolution and we, as humans, are in the position to critically evaluate what that nature might entail, can we then think, well the universe is what created us, we are the products of the laws which were set in motion by its axioms and now here we are. What does that say about the universe? Is it the case that human nature with respect to the operation of its own values, reflects how things operate in the universe, always in a state of flux, violent, compassionate, cruel, empathetic, tending towards negativity? Do we as a species like to create our own nightmares with recessions/wars, giving into racism, violence and a lack of long term planning? Does this echo the potential negativity of the universe as gradually undergoes heat death. Yes this is applying a subjective interpretation to reality, but if reality encapsulates subjective interpretations is that not a part of reality which means something to us, and isn't lessened by the fact that its not measurable in the conventional sense? As in a song or film that you like will matter to you.

Perhaps the opposite is true, maybe we aren't fully governed by the laws of the universe in the sense that we can conceive of things which don't physically exist within it? Are we the runaway effect within a deterministic existence? Right now we are beset by crises, do we not then have the potential to rescue ourselves from our own failings or are we doomed to constantly fall into a cylce of authoritarian systems, short term interests, war and exploitation?

I know that human traits are the products of evolution and maybe this explains it, but I don't think we're bound like robots by it, or maybe we are. This a fairly disorganized rambling post, but I'm trying to figure out why we are where we are now socially, maybe though I don't know, from existential and cognitive standpoints.

Offalycool

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I get the impression that the UK, US and Ireland and probably a few other Western countries are becoming less and less democratic, with a shift in policies towards increased surveillance of the population under the justification that they have to stop terrorists/criminals.

I agree, I think is down to bureaucracy. As the different states come together to protect the interests of their citizens (no citizens, no state), the bureaucratic infrastructure has bloated exponentially. As citizenship is so integral to this equation, the state has become obsessed with certainty about members and non-members of society. This coupled with security concerns and the rapid development of technology has brought about what is termed 'securiocratic' thinking. Again, this is not the act of a dictatorship class, but the result of bureaucracy.

Now I believe that Islamic terrorism is largely the result of the West going into the middle east and invading countries and the problem will persist so long as Western powers continue to interfere in the region in order to secure oil resources and act on the behalf of private interests.

I agree, but I use oil all the time, so there you go!

But these related issues bring up the central question. The elites which orchestrate these wars, many of these people were brought up in similar environments to us, I assume ie there is no vengeance rationales for them to embark on such colonial crusades. Yet those who are lucky enough to be born into the elite or to join it continue to support policies which go against the interests of the public domoestically and which result in the deaths of millions globally, whether through wars/famine which can be interpreted as benefiting financial goals. Why? Imo I think one of the reasons is that you have other competing corporations/nation states which impose certain restrictions on what you can or cannot do, hence why the world is still largely a shambolic violent place. But why do people participate, in America for example, in indoctrinating other people through the media/advertisements etc or even here for that matter? Yes I know, greed, but I'd like to look at the engine behind greed.

I agree about greed, but I cannot just blame one particular element of society. We must take responsibility for our own part in this if anything is ever going to change.

People who have status and wealth are largely put into those positions by other people. I'm slightly confused as to why. For example I do not recognize status or wealth as being signifiers for personal worth yet other people do. So they work to keep these people at the top of the hierarchy whether they're a dictator or not. Yes they could have more responsibilities, yes they may have expertise, but I think the end result across the whole of a society is a tiered system which perpetuates itself and leads to exploitation of the lower classes. Why not work collectively with each other rather than under some authority.

Our society is hierarchical, and this is reflected in wealth. However it is a mistake to think somebody chooses how things will play out. Everybody in the bureaucratic system behaves in a bureaucratic way, what ever is rational to do given the particular circumstances and presupposing a certain purpose.

Similarly why do the majority work ardently to prop up this system? I know the 9-5 workday plus commute isn't strenous for some though I've read that productivity decreases after 4 hours of work. There is the idea that an 8 hour work day is designed to exhaust you so that you have no interest in anything other than watching the tv. Similarly job insecurity will keep you focused on that next paycheck rather than for example, joining a political party, digging up info which normally wouldn't be conveyed to you by the media and so forth. This is one of the reasons why there are so many moves to keep the net under constant surveillance as imo it represents a real threat to state power. In addition why do people elect representatives who belong to the elite and who constantly betray their electorates to win the favour of their private backers. Why don't they represent themselves.

That's one way of looking at it, but its a bit back to front for me. We work eight hours a day because that's the amount of man hours required to build all the crap society craves. Class struggle is important, the identification of class enables people to be politicly active with others, to struggle politicly via solidarity with other we identify with.

There are many arguments about human nature and what it means to be human. A lot of the time human nature is immediately associated with cruelty, greed and stupidity. Historically nature has been equated with darkness, regression, the stone age. Human nature can also encapsulate positive qualities yet I have rarely if ever seen such comparisons on the net.

So the question as to what human nature is, if its the product of evolution and we, as humans, are in the position to critically evaluate what that nature might entail, can we then think, well the universe is what created us, we are the products of the laws which were set in motion by its axioms and now here we are. What does that say about the universe? Is it the case that human nature with respect to the operation of its own values, reflects how things operate in the universe, always in a state of flux, violent, compassionate, cruel, empathetic, tending towards negativity? Do we as a species like to create our own nightmares with recessions/wars, giving into racism, violence and a lack of long term planning? Does this echo the potential negativity of the universe as gradually undergoes heat death. Yes this is applying a subjective interpretation to reality, but if reality encapsulates subjective interpretations is that not a part of reality which means something to us, and isn't lessened by the fact that its not measurable in the conventional sense? As in a song or film that you like will matter to you.

Humans have many natures. We can be compelled by process thinking, blindly adhering to bureaucracy. We can also be unique people with the power to move the world with others. What we can't do is escape the existential requirements of the world, and the images we have of how things should be, both destructive in equal measure.

Perhaps the opposite is true, maybe we aren't fully governed by the laws of the universe in the sense that we can conceive of things which don't physically exist within it? Are we the runaway effect within a deterministic existence? Right now we are beset by crises, do we not then have the potential to rescue ourselves from our own failings or are we doomed to constantly fall into a cylce of authoritarian systems, short term interests, war and exploitation?

We are as free as we can ever be. The world will never be sorted out, it'll never be all right in the end. We have a window of life in this existence, both individually and collectively. We can make things and the circumstances of our fellow creatures better, never perfect, but better.

I know that human traits are the products of evolution and maybe this explains it, but I don't think we're bound like robots by it, or maybe we are. This a fairly disorganized rambling post, but I'm trying to figure out why we are where we are now socially, maybe though I don't know, from existential and cognitive standpoints.

We are not computers.

nyarlothothep

Thats an interesting perspective on society. But why do people allow tyranny to reign so to speak, or allow themselves to suffer injustice? I mean nowadays we have a long hours work culture, impossibly job markets for grads, hyper competitiveness, gross unaccountability from the elites and yet we do nothing about it. After the French revolution a dictator came to power. Why do people let this happen much less put up with it, in addition why do they want it to happen? Is it possible that most people are fairly ethically neutral or simply don't care about the long term consequences beyond their own patch of grass? Is it the natural state of humans to be ruled and does the absence of a state or corporations run contrary to the natures of most humans?

Offalycool

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Thats an interesting perspective on society. But why do people allow tyranny to reign so to speak, or allow themselves to suffer injustice? I mean nowadays we have a long hours work culture, impossibly job markets for grads, hyper competitiveness, gross unaccountability from the elites and yet we do nothing about it. After the French revolution a dictator came to power. Why do people let this happen much less put up with it, in addition why do they want it to happen?

Thanks. It’s been greatly influenced by the philosopher in my sig.. not that I can really do her justice in her absence (but I try). This is a really complicated discussion. For the most part, the state is corrupted overtime by capitalism (not that I can think of a better system), due to the way it isolates and individualises people from each other. As capital accumulates, more people are marginalised, unneeded and effectively unnecessary from an economic point of view. On the other side, the holders of great capital, take political power from the people by corrupting the states institution, effectively rendering them side shows and politically insignificant. This happens because the economically powerful use the state to enhance their ability to generate wealth. Capitalism requires not only wealth accumulation, but the use of wealth if the value of wealth is to be maintained. The state could only retain the value of wealth within its borders for so long before it became unprofitable to create wealth, requiring imperialism, or expansion beyond national borders. However, if it was obvious to all that the state had started to favour the private interests of a small number of citizens, the people would revolt. So, the wealthy keep the appearance of democratic accountability through political institutions, but in effect, render the political intuitions impotent.

Excluded for a genuine political realm in which to effect change, many people in effect become a mob. The mob will comprise elements of all classes (as the exclusion of people from political power increases in line with the accumulation of capital), in effect giving the appearance of classless society (The coloniser considers himself French, not working class). It is at this stage that the political people are overtaken by the social people (The mob who are politically powerless, due to being excluded from parliament, and atomised by capitalism). Due to the fact the mob are excluded from power, they may resent the state, but can in fact support the state as social citizens for some time. But due to a lack of a genuine political realm in which to express political power, the mob will come to be susceptible to false politics, or ideology. This resentment may turn to violence and eventually revolution can take hold. Ideological belief can seize us in turbulent times, and there can be a sense in which the one is part of progressive history. People will suffer for the greater cause, and due to a lack of political experience and political cohesion, are susceptible to ideology. The ‘leader’ can become a focal point of ideology, he (supposedly) understands the processes of history, he can help history along and so on.. (which is nonsense).

Is it possible that most people are fairly ethically neutral or simply don't care about the long term consequences beyond their own patch of grass? Is it the natural state of humans to be ruled and does the absence of a state or corporations run contrary to the natures of most humans?

People can be good and bad (as I’m sure you know), if we have an ideological belief, in church, state, politics, whatever.. we can commit the most appalling crimes because it’s our job too. We find it hard to think rationally when faced with an irrational ideology that pervades our societies, communities etc. The ideology says the future is certain, and all you have to do is play along, so get busy killing, or working (or both). On the other hand, if we reject ideology, we can think for ourselves, and question authority. Political power can be grasped by political people; that is everybody who is willing to accept others as deserving of respect, whilst expecting the same in return. Genuine political power is expressed when people work together, for common interests, with respect for plurality (difference).

Post script... Bits of me fussed with Hannah, Sorry Hannah.

Joycey

Good post, is there an Arendt book in particular which this comes from or is it from a more general reading of her work?

Offalycool wrote: »

The ‘leader’ can become a focal point of ideology, he (supposedly) understands the processes of history, he can help history along and so on.. (which is nonsense).

Not so sure about that, do you deny that a king under a monarchic society is not a focal point in that he, more then anyone else can influence the course of history? If you accept that in such an extreme instance an individual can be justified in their position as a focal point of ideology, then why not see that such influence is on a spectrum rather then denying the impact of individual action on world events. As for the "understanding" of the processes of history, if we understand "history" in this sense as the repitition certain patterns in human interactions at a large scale then Im not sure what allows or disallows the "understanding" of historical processes. Surely I understand history to the extent that I can identify recurrent patterns of past events in society?

Offalycool

Joycey wrote: »

Good post, is there an Arendt book in particular which this comes from or is it from a more general reading of her work?

Thanks. I have read a few essays, and her work, The Origins of Totalitarianism. I would like to read more of her stuff, but I have only come across her quite recently, and am writing my thesis at the mo.. so I must cover other philosophers also. I have found an excellent secondary text, Hannah Arendt: Politics, History & Citizenship by Phillip Hansen, highly recommended.

Not so sure about that, do you deny that a king under a monarchic society is not a focal point in that he, more then anyone else can influence the course of history? If you accept that in such an extreme instance an individual can be justified in their position as a focal point of ideology, then why not see that such influence is on a spectrum rather then denying the impact of individual action on world events.

The Monarch is a different social system, one that pre-dates the emergence of State. In today’s world, monarchs are but traditions, and hold very little power. I know that there are kingdoms, such as Saudi Arabia, but they are more likened to totalitarian societies, than kingdoms in the traditional sense. What really influences societies today is capital, and this is always plural, not sovereign (I.e., not exclusively owned by the king, but shared among a minority of individuals with a common interest). The king was not a focal point of ideology, in the sense I use above, because the sovereignty of the king was real, it existed in the world. Ideology is always imaginary, and because sovereignty is anti political (– only one can be sovereign, and no more than one) and a thing of the past, it is ideology today. I am not denying the impact of the individual, but acknowledging the role the group of individuals play in politics, which really does not exist in a monarchy (to the extent that the will of the majority was not respected by the king).

As for the "understanding" of the processes of history, if we understand "history" in this sense as the repitition certain patterns in human interactions at a large scale then Im not sure what allows or disallows the "understanding" of historical processes. Surely I understand history to the extent that I can identify recurrent patterns of past events in society?

To understand what has happened in the past, does not guaranty it will happen in the future. Ideology supposes the key to history has been found, and all that is left to do is stride down the road to utopia. There has been much study done on the human memory, and it has reviled that we use the same parts of our brain that remember our past to visualise the future. What this indicates is that we are susceptible to look at perceived patterns in our past, and infer the future as being inevitable, an outcome of ‘the process of history’. The thing about it is, whilst developments in circumstance impact our societies, nobody can exactly foresee these changes in circumstance, or evaluate the impact on humans prior to their emergence. But Ideology does not need to be rational; in fact it is inherently irrational. Ideology tells you “you are part of something meaningful, greatness that once established will reign forever”. What it masks is the reality of the world around us; the greatness in truth is the relationships we have with people in the present.

majikthise

Interesting discussion, and I'm not sure I've much to add, but it did make me think a bit about Thomas Hobbes view of the natural default state of humanity being one of constant warfare.

I think that's one factor that is present. Getting people to co-operate is actually challenging, hence all the folderol of national identity or royal honours or whatever makes people commit to a common purpose. How else do you explain the extent to which independent Ireland accepted Roman Catholicism as its defining culture? It worked as a way of keeping the society orderly, whatever about the damage elsewhere.

Another thought is that we are born into a social structure. Hence, you may already be halfway down your career path before you ask "why am I doing this, why do I believe this, why do I vote for Tipsy McStagger". By then you may be so far down the path that you've more to gain by clinging on to whatever place you've managed to gouge out of life, than by risking a revolution.

Signs on our present situation. The country could be tipped into economic ruin. But I see no constituency demanding revolution. All people are searching for is a way of putting the genie back in the bottle.

Offalycool

Thomas Hobbes is an interesting alternative to Arendt, she would accuse Hobbes of justifying and promoting totalitarianism. It may be true that humans tend to demand a unifying purpose, a common denominator, such as religion, or nationality or whatever.. On the other hand Arendt would argue man is naturally unique and cooperative, but people tend to shrink from being themselves. For some bizarre reason people tend to adapt a social convention. Rather than being ourselves among others, many recite conventional views (even seemingly unconventional views can be conventional if not one's own views, that is, developed by the self through experience with others), which often obscure distinctiveness of character in favour of a mechanical, destructive, opinionated, generalisation of life and its possibilities. We tend to try and give people what we believe they expect, in order to be accepted. It is unfortunate that we generally expect so little from our fellow man. Much of this acceptable social convention is negative, in so far as it anticipates the other as an individual who wishes to trick us, or manipulate our weakness to its advantage. Hobbes account of a society in cooperation through stalemate, but naturally inclined to war indefinitely, reveals a dark side of human relations. But it is important to note this is but one side, humans can be motivated by wonder as much as fear. In Arendt's view, power is not the need to dominate the other, but the possibility that may be realised in cooperation. What this requires is self, the acceptance of others first and foremost which is a great challenge, but natural nonetheless. Ultimately this results in the acceptance of oneself.