| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="ThirdPaper" |
|---|
* [Redo in progress. I'm redoing this essay over the next two days. I wrote the first draft in a hurry at the end of the semester with very little time, and I'm not happy with it. In the past I've done my work on a word processor and then imported it into the wiki all at once. This time I'm going to try working mostly on the wiki, so it may look a little ragged.] |
|
<
< | The Key to All Mythologies |
>
> | The Key to All Mythologies -- A Confession of Delusions of Grandeur |
| | "You don't have to change the world." -- Eben during one of our last classes
The Dream |
|
<
< | For the last few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, where then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up an unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students by dissolving the representative assembly, an action that exposed the divisions in their ranks as they were forced to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! A less dramatic but more omnipresent example of the group-wide production of desire is the music and film industries. |
>
> | For the past few years I've been interested in mobs. I've been fascinated by the May 1968 strikes in France, a spontaneous movement that ended then Prime Minister Georges Pompidou broke up the unlikely coalition of worker's unions and students. He accomplished this dissolving the National Assembly, an action calculated to expose the divisions in the strikers' ranks by forcing them to chose new representatives. Now there's someone who knew how groups behaved and how to control them! May 1968 was a dramatic instance of a spontaneous movement by a group of people, but less dramatic and more examples exist. Take the entertainment industry, epitomized by the life and death of Michael Jackson. Or Mardi Gras in New Orleans. In each of these cases its unclear what the mob wants. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Millions and millions of people came to Michael Jackson's memorial service on the 7th, and new channels still spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. They gather simply to see and hear about "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason. |
| | |
|
<
< | I'm interested in spontaneous desires that form in large groups of people. The two examples I mentioned above illustrate what I mean by the vague term "desire". In each case the crowd wants a nebulous constellation of things. In 1968 no-one knew what the strikers wanted. They wouldn't call off the strike after the government and the union representatives agreed to a %25 increase in the minimum wage and a %10 increase in average salary. One piece of graffiti read: "We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy." Michael Jackson is a good example of collective desire captured by the entertainment industry. Millions and millions of people came to his memorial service on the 7th, and new channels spend all day reminding us that he's still dead. What content can we give the desire to see "The King of Pop". I'm not sure what to call this other than a "movement" -- a mass of people that see or hear something that they desire in Michael Jackson, and are moved by him for whatever reason.
There are also people that, while they can't create collective desires, can destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). |
>
> | In each of these examples, there are also people that, while they don't participate in collective desires, know how to control them. They destroy them if they become dangerous, or shape them so that they become profitable. They exploit the undetermined nature of the desire to their advantage -- either forcing it to define itself within a pre-existing political structure and thus diffusing the movement (in the case of May 1968), or adding their own content to the desire and profiting from the association (Pepsi or MTV in the case of Michael Jackson). |
| | Think of the power I would have if I could understand how mobs worked! There must be some way to understand the feedback loop between individuals and the large groups of people that somehow produces collective desires and inhibitions -- something like a practical understanding of Freud's super-ego, that institution that is at once intensely personal and collective. If I could understand how this process worked, then I would be a super-ant in Arnold's anthill. I could change the world.
Black Holes |
|
<
< | In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?" -- kind of a really big version of What's the Matter with Kansas?. I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world. |
>
> | Something basic to human nature is happening here -- some herd-mentality that lies dormant in everyone. In looking for the mechanism that would explain this phenomenon, I've found myself reading authors that I thought attempted what George Eliot would call "The Key to all Mythologies" -- grand-unified theories of everything. I've tried to read Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the result of a collaboration between Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari that promises to answer the question "why do people most desire their own repression?". I've studied Spinoza's Ethics, which promises a rational explanation for everything, and assures me that when I get to the bottom of something I will discover my own power to act. The idea is, since this is something so basic, then I simply need to get a handle on it and then I can wield it. And yet, I still don't know how to change the world.
I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world with minimal effort. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that his theory is a variation of an old theory I adopted in high-school: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. |
| | |
|
<
< | I can't blame my failure on these authors. The fault lies in the way I've been reading. I've been looking for a lever and a place to stand that will allow me to move the world. I've assumed that I could understand masses of people like Newton understood gravity, and that this knowledge would teach me how to act. Now I'm embarrassed to say that I recognize this implicit theory as a disguised version of an old high school theory I had. I thought that it stood to reason that: 1) the world is made up of matter organized into particles; 2) There must be some smallest particle; 3) there must be some laws that govern this particle's movement. Therefore, if I knew what the smallest particle was and how it moved, then I could reconstruct and completely understand the world. I could master the entire world through knowledge. But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they claim they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. |
>
> | But if I look at what these theories actually do, rather than what they say they could do (if only I knew the secret formula!), then I see that all Grand-Unified-Theories that attempt to grasp one fundamental aspect of the world – be it the movement of an elementary particle, or the relationship between a group and the individuals that make it up – easily become black holes whose main function is to suck up intellectual energy that could be used for more modest projects. |
| | Other People |
|
<
< | Linked to the grand-unified theory mentality is the desire to change the world -- by myself that is. This idea is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. And yet the world still needs to be changed. |
>
> | The desire to change the world, all by myself that is, is a intellectual and spiritual heat-sink as well. As a practical matter, the weight of the way-things-are is just too great for me to lift by myself, no matter how much history or philosophy or law I absorb. |
| | |
|
<
< | So how do you think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean not to have to change the world all on your own? Well, the world seems more child-like. The unexpected can happen again. It's OK to desire without worrying about what evil forces are creating or exploiting that desire. There are things that I do not know, and that's OK. There's a freedom to try things without completely understanding them yet. Most importantly though, there are other people. If the world is going to change, then they will only be changed by the combined efforts of lot of people. |
>
> | So how to think without trying to find a theory of everything? And what does it mean to not have to change the world all on your own? Let me start by rethinking the phenomenon I was trying to understand in the first place. The spontaneous desire formed in crowds is first of all a desire to be with other people, and to feel that other people exist. It is also the desire to feel the inherent power that is present in a mass of people. So I don't have to change the world, but the world still needs to be changed -- and it is only going to be changed by a lot of people. The task then, is to participate in a movement, rather than to control one. |
| |
--PatrickCronin |