For a great many of us the term Ossetia is new on the ear. It’s the sort of noise one might hear briefly on mainstream news in the context of an earthquake or flood or ‘senseless’ war, before returning to the reality of London or Hollywood. Only with Russia’s recent incursion has Ossetia become worthy of elevation into media and public consciousness.
Such background ignorance is a gift to propagandists. The less we already know on a subject the more scope there is to bend or invert our understanding. If we have no will or desire to probe any deeper the message on Ossetia is simple: It’s the bloody Russians. They have invaded Georgia, a neighbouring sovereign state. They have broken international law.
All other details then take the form of supporting evidence. We can be reminded of Russia’s history of invading its neighbours – Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and of course the baseless cold-war fear of Russian tanks rolling over Western Europe. The invasion of Georgia fits perfectly with this rekindled world-view. Russia is simply up to her old tricks.
Likewise the West can be painted in its traditional colours, as the defender of freedom. The only questions to be asked relate to our integrity in standing up to this criminality. “What can we do to contain Russia?” implore the leader-writers. “Countries need to know that their territorial integrity is absolutely secure” insists the British Foreign Secretary, “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century” adds the American President” both presumably with straight faces. Russia, we are told, must face the consequences of this “blatant aggression”.
You could leave it there – and to the great relief of our government and media many do. But pan-out a little and certain absent facts modify this simple moral landscape. A hint comes from Russian mainstream news. According to these propagandists the Russian invasion was a humanitarian intervention to protect the people of South Ossetia from Georgian war crimes. Naturally “humanitarian intervention” should ring alarm bells for anyone familiar with modern history. Invading to protect has been the cynical pretext for war-crimes from Czechoslovakia to Vietnam to Iraq. Nevertheless it is a testable claim.
Firstly, regardless of Russian motives, it certainly is a fact that Georgia was pummelling the people of South Ossetia prior to the Russian invasion. No mention or condemnation of these war-crimes from Milliband or Brown.
Secondly, the people of South Ossetia certainly have voted by an overwhelming majority to become independent of Georgia (99% in favour with a turn-out of 95%). This fact seems particularly pertinent and particularly suspicious by its absence in western news reports. After all, haven’t we just been told that breakaway autonomous states are a good thing? Haven’t we just been sold the wonder of Kosovo’s autonomy from Serbia? If that was a miracle of democracy and self-determination, why not so in South Ossetia?
Even if Russian motives are wholly cynical surely these facts could only add to public understanding. Instead, on the odd occasion we hear of the Ossetian referendum it is only in the context of its supposed invalidity and illegality. South Ossetia is not recognised by the “international community” i.e. the UN, NATO the EU and all the other international bodies that can usually be relied upon to rubber stamp western interventions and atrocities.
And it doesn’t stop there. Another potentially illuminating but suspiciously absent fact is the enormous oil pipeline running through Georgia. Might this not be helpful in explaining the West’s indifference toward the wishes of South Ossetia’s inhabitants and its toleration of Georgia’s crimes? Likewise the fact that the West is pushing for Georgia to enter NATO – in strict violation of promises made to Russia. Might this not be useful in explaining Russia’s actions more than its supposed malignant desire to begin a new cold war? (For these and copious other inconvenient facts see Chomsky here.)
No doubt such thinking will be written-off as paranoid nonsense. To even entertain such thoughts is to be suckered by Russian propaganda. But note that nothing here is in dispute. You don’t have to believe anything Vladimir Putin believes that Condoleezza Rice wouldn’t also admit to. It’s only that our government and media have decided that these particular facts are not relevant to our understanding of the situation. For one reason or another ignorance of these topics is seen to be preferable to knowledge of them. We can only wonder why.
Monday 22 September 2008
Tuesday 22 July 2008
Knife Crime: New Hoodies for Summer ‘08
Like the paedophile summer of 2000 and the hoodie summer of 2005, 2008 seems all set to be forgotten as the summer of knife crime. Rather than pit-bulls or perverts this season’s ephemeral terror is the blade.
Which is not to mock the horror of reality. If ownership of knives really is on the increase it’s a genuine cause for concern. What does deserve ridicule is the political and media response. As discussed in this post written during the great hoodie terror of 2005 such moral panics have little to do with solving social problems and a great deal to do with selling newspapers and furthering political ambitions.
As suggested at that time, the fact that these vital crusades are dropped as soon as something else comes along is a good measure of the sincerity of those leading them. Judging by the date, the London bombings were soon to blow the hoodies off the headlines. By the time the dust settled the threat posed by jogging-tops was long forgotten.
Hopefully it won’t take anything as awful as the London bombs to remove ‘knife culture’ from the front pages, but in the event of slow news summer (i.e. no large quantities of dead westerners) we can still fully expect the issue to wear-out and slip from the public eye. As a threat with a long pedigree, and a long list of personas (teddy-boy razor gangs, skinheads with flick-knives) it will surely re-emerge in time, with a suitably macabre new name. But for the meantime it will be consigned to the same scrapheap, or rather recycle bin, as mad dogs and trampoline photography.
In the midst of a given panic such observations will likely encounter indignation. Some will contend that even if such campaigns are short-lived and insincere they are better than nothing. But it’s a difficult position to defend. In most articles the growth of ‘knife culture’ is attributed to two factors, fashion and fear: Some children see knife ownership as an essential part of seeming tough while others claim it's necessary for self-defence. If this is the case then saturation media coverage can only exacerbate the problem. The press are actually cranking-up both the sinister glamour and the perceived threat.
And even if evidence could be found that a saturation of ‘knife culture’ articles really does reduce knife crime, wouldn’t this imply negligence of other topics? The fashion for reporting every single dog attack on every single news bulletin has long passed but the attacks continue. Should we assume that the current crusade is causing more children to be mauled by diverting our attention onto knives?
The only possible beneficiaries it seems are those breast-beating from the bandwagon. Cherie Blair must be hoping for a bit of the Princess Diana landmine factor to rub off on her. Perhaps it’ll help to detract from the great lake of children’s blood her husband has spilt. The media on the other hand always enjoy a firm moral stand when there’s no risk of its own implication. British newspapers don’t have a history of excusing children for stabbing each other like they do for excusing governments that drop bombs on children. A convincing moral crusade should always focus on the guilt of others, the last thing you want on board is uncertainty about your own deeds.
Which is not to mock the horror of reality. If ownership of knives really is on the increase it’s a genuine cause for concern. What does deserve ridicule is the political and media response. As discussed in this post written during the great hoodie terror of 2005 such moral panics have little to do with solving social problems and a great deal to do with selling newspapers and furthering political ambitions.
As suggested at that time, the fact that these vital crusades are dropped as soon as something else comes along is a good measure of the sincerity of those leading them. Judging by the date, the London bombings were soon to blow the hoodies off the headlines. By the time the dust settled the threat posed by jogging-tops was long forgotten.
Hopefully it won’t take anything as awful as the London bombs to remove ‘knife culture’ from the front pages, but in the event of slow news summer (i.e. no large quantities of dead westerners) we can still fully expect the issue to wear-out and slip from the public eye. As a threat with a long pedigree, and a long list of personas (teddy-boy razor gangs, skinheads with flick-knives) it will surely re-emerge in time, with a suitably macabre new name. But for the meantime it will be consigned to the same scrapheap, or rather recycle bin, as mad dogs and trampoline photography.
In the midst of a given panic such observations will likely encounter indignation. Some will contend that even if such campaigns are short-lived and insincere they are better than nothing. But it’s a difficult position to defend. In most articles the growth of ‘knife culture’ is attributed to two factors, fashion and fear: Some children see knife ownership as an essential part of seeming tough while others claim it's necessary for self-defence. If this is the case then saturation media coverage can only exacerbate the problem. The press are actually cranking-up both the sinister glamour and the perceived threat.
And even if evidence could be found that a saturation of ‘knife culture’ articles really does reduce knife crime, wouldn’t this imply negligence of other topics? The fashion for reporting every single dog attack on every single news bulletin has long passed but the attacks continue. Should we assume that the current crusade is causing more children to be mauled by diverting our attention onto knives?
The only possible beneficiaries it seems are those breast-beating from the bandwagon. Cherie Blair must be hoping for a bit of the Princess Diana landmine factor to rub off on her. Perhaps it’ll help to detract from the great lake of children’s blood her husband has spilt. The media on the other hand always enjoy a firm moral stand when there’s no risk of its own implication. British newspapers don’t have a history of excusing children for stabbing each other like they do for excusing governments that drop bombs on children. A convincing moral crusade should always focus on the guilt of others, the last thing you want on board is uncertainty about your own deeds.
Friday 20 June 2008
Two thoughts on the recent BNP victories II
Media
Comical as it might seem most news outlets maintain the pretence of sticking to the following journalistic principles:
1. Strive to tell the truth.
2. Strive to reflect opinion.
At first this might sound worthy and sensible enough, the only obvious problem being the sincerity of the striving. How hard does the Murdoch press really strive to tell the truth about anything in the world?
However this masks a deeper problem, one well-illustrated by the recent BNP victories. What if principles one and two conflict? What if a section of the public starts believing something mistaken? Is it still the media’s duty to reflect it back at the rest of us, perpetuate the error? Shouldn’t principle one always trump principle two?
The standard defence against this is context. The BBC would argue that it makes clear when its output is fact-based and when it is ‘just’ opinion: Newsreaders read facts, Question Time panellists express opinions – and the public is fully aware of the distinction.
Certainly if you ask the producers of Question Time why a fruitcake like Melanie Phillips is persistently invited back they wouldn’t dare suggest it’s because she speaks the truth. You’ll be told that it is because her opinions reflect the views of a substantial section of the British public. Likewise there is no suggestion that the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade who dominate Radio Two phone-ins are painting an accurate portrait of Britain in the twenty-first century, only that they speak for millions of Britons.
Whatever the truth of this it remains highly problematic. Broadcasting or publishing falsity is still allowing falsity to calibrate the agenda, even when the audience is advised to take it all ‘with a pinch of salt’. Worse still as bogus opinion often yields a larger audience than painful truth frequently it is allowed to actually set the agenda.
It’s certainly possible to defend a great raft of lies like The Great Global Warming Swindle by citing principle two, but not without jettisoning principle one. For those who wish to continue driving and flying and consuming without restriction it was music to the ears. The delightful idea that the scientists had got it all wrong had wide appeal and led this ‘documentary’ to be sold across the globe, attaining audience and pundit attention the truth could only dream of.
But for all this interest it remains what it always was – a raft of lies. The fact that a sizeable audience is keen to hear that humans are not causing rising temperatures has no bearing on the wealth of evidence that we are. The fact that some lies are more palatable and saleable than the truth doesn’t make them any truer, or excuse passing them on.
Likewise, the fact that the BNP is gaining support doesn’t make its outpourings any more accurate or valid. Like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin would have us believe there’s a danger of Islamism sweeping to power in Britain. Sad to say a growing number of people seem to believe this too. But does that make it true, a valid concern?
Similarly, like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin sees multicultural Britain as a failed experiment, and the root of most social evil. Crime, it seems, is a recent import. The BNP want a return to the good old London prior to mass immigration, the London of Hogarth and Dickens, free from gangs, drugs and prostitution, safe for a lady to walk unaccompanied at night.
A great many evangelicals believe that Satan stalks the earth but few serious broadcasters would make that the starting point for debate. While it’s everyone’s right to wallow in fantasy there is nothing democratic about broadcasting falsehood, even when falsehood is gaining popularity. As with global warming there is probably a keener audience for bogus interpretations of social history than those that might cause the viewer to question their own country’s role in the world. Patriotism is far easier on the eye and ear than imperialism. The benevolence of Britain and the ingratitude and ineptitude of her colonial subjects makes far more comfortable viewing than tales of colonial brutality and ongoing exploitation. But comfortable isn’t the same as true.
While it would be unrealistic to suggest that Britain is slipping into fascism the methods of the far-right remain the same: Scapegoating sections of the community and playing-on existing prejudices. Like unscrupulous mainstream politicians, unscrupulous journalists and editors may see opportunity rather than danger in the new terms of debate. Rather than countering the lies they will assist in the beating down of a wider terrain of idiocy. Any criticism can be countered by citing principle two – their duty to reflect public opinion. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying for increased circulation and higher ratings.
Comical as it might seem most news outlets maintain the pretence of sticking to the following journalistic principles:
1. Strive to tell the truth.
2. Strive to reflect opinion.
At first this might sound worthy and sensible enough, the only obvious problem being the sincerity of the striving. How hard does the Murdoch press really strive to tell the truth about anything in the world?
However this masks a deeper problem, one well-illustrated by the recent BNP victories. What if principles one and two conflict? What if a section of the public starts believing something mistaken? Is it still the media’s duty to reflect it back at the rest of us, perpetuate the error? Shouldn’t principle one always trump principle two?
The standard defence against this is context. The BBC would argue that it makes clear when its output is fact-based and when it is ‘just’ opinion: Newsreaders read facts, Question Time panellists express opinions – and the public is fully aware of the distinction.
Certainly if you ask the producers of Question Time why a fruitcake like Melanie Phillips is persistently invited back they wouldn’t dare suggest it’s because she speaks the truth. You’ll be told that it is because her opinions reflect the views of a substantial section of the British public. Likewise there is no suggestion that the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade who dominate Radio Two phone-ins are painting an accurate portrait of Britain in the twenty-first century, only that they speak for millions of Britons.
Whatever the truth of this it remains highly problematic. Broadcasting or publishing falsity is still allowing falsity to calibrate the agenda, even when the audience is advised to take it all ‘with a pinch of salt’. Worse still as bogus opinion often yields a larger audience than painful truth frequently it is allowed to actually set the agenda.
It’s certainly possible to defend a great raft of lies like The Great Global Warming Swindle by citing principle two, but not without jettisoning principle one. For those who wish to continue driving and flying and consuming without restriction it was music to the ears. The delightful idea that the scientists had got it all wrong had wide appeal and led this ‘documentary’ to be sold across the globe, attaining audience and pundit attention the truth could only dream of.
But for all this interest it remains what it always was – a raft of lies. The fact that a sizeable audience is keen to hear that humans are not causing rising temperatures has no bearing on the wealth of evidence that we are. The fact that some lies are more palatable and saleable than the truth doesn’t make them any truer, or excuse passing them on.
Likewise, the fact that the BNP is gaining support doesn’t make its outpourings any more accurate or valid. Like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin would have us believe there’s a danger of Islamism sweeping to power in Britain. Sad to say a growing number of people seem to believe this too. But does that make it true, a valid concern?
Similarly, like Melanie Phillips, Nick Griffin sees multicultural Britain as a failed experiment, and the root of most social evil. Crime, it seems, is a recent import. The BNP want a return to the good old London prior to mass immigration, the London of Hogarth and Dickens, free from gangs, drugs and prostitution, safe for a lady to walk unaccompanied at night.
A great many evangelicals believe that Satan stalks the earth but few serious broadcasters would make that the starting point for debate. While it’s everyone’s right to wallow in fantasy there is nothing democratic about broadcasting falsehood, even when falsehood is gaining popularity. As with global warming there is probably a keener audience for bogus interpretations of social history than those that might cause the viewer to question their own country’s role in the world. Patriotism is far easier on the eye and ear than imperialism. The benevolence of Britain and the ingratitude and ineptitude of her colonial subjects makes far more comfortable viewing than tales of colonial brutality and ongoing exploitation. But comfortable isn’t the same as true.
While it would be unrealistic to suggest that Britain is slipping into fascism the methods of the far-right remain the same: Scapegoating sections of the community and playing-on existing prejudices. Like unscrupulous mainstream politicians, unscrupulous journalists and editors may see opportunity rather than danger in the new terms of debate. Rather than countering the lies they will assist in the beating down of a wider terrain of idiocy. Any criticism can be countered by citing principle two – their duty to reflect public opinion. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying for increased circulation and higher ratings.
Friday 30 May 2008
Two thoughts on the recent BNP victories I
Politics
The BNP’s success in the May elections is clearly a matter of concern for the main parties. Condemnation rains down from all sides. To be fair some of this may be genuine, motivated by fear of what this nasty little clan might actually get up to. But then again it’s hard not to hear naked party/self-interest lurking behind the outrage. Just as powerful a motivation for the condemnation is the simple desire to snatch those votes back.
More darkly and quietly then we can also expect some effort to adopt the ‘appeal’ of the BNP (if that can ever be the proper term!) Politicians crave votes and they are usually not too choosy about how they acquire them. Clearly the BNP are saying things which chime with a section of the British public, one large enough to secure a hundred local government seats. Shrewd councillors, MPs and PR staffers will now be working overtime to ascertain the BNP’s electoral appeal, and working out ways to soften it and slip it into their own language and manifestos.
It won’t be the first time. While Margaret Thatcher certainly was a racist race was never really an issue in her vision of a new order. Thatcherism was about breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and getting industry back into private hands. But when a swell of traditional Labour and Tory voters drifted towards the National Front she and her advisors saw the perfect opportunity to feign concern about immigration, and steal those votes back. She could raise the vague “fear of being swamped by people of a different culture” to gain power, and then get on with the unrelated business of monetarism.
The politics of gaining power needs bear little relation to political agenda. Government is about economics. Gaining office is about foetal rights, marital fidelity, prohibitions on flag burning, and of course the delicate application of racism.
In 2008 many in New Labour and the Conservatives are not even racist in their personal lives – some are even members of the dreaded ethnic groups. But if they hope to win power and get the chance to implement their radical and distinct political reforms (breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and keeping industry in private hands) then the temptations of populism will beckon. Condemnation of Mr Griffin’s shabby little gang will continue for sure, but we can also expect mealy-mouthed appeals to its logic, vague talk of flags, Britishness, armed forces days, and when they dare, the fear of being swamped by foreign cultures. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying if the righteous are to gain office.
Second thought in progress...
The BNP’s success in the May elections is clearly a matter of concern for the main parties. Condemnation rains down from all sides. To be fair some of this may be genuine, motivated by fear of what this nasty little clan might actually get up to. But then again it’s hard not to hear naked party/self-interest lurking behind the outrage. Just as powerful a motivation for the condemnation is the simple desire to snatch those votes back.
More darkly and quietly then we can also expect some effort to adopt the ‘appeal’ of the BNP (if that can ever be the proper term!) Politicians crave votes and they are usually not too choosy about how they acquire them. Clearly the BNP are saying things which chime with a section of the British public, one large enough to secure a hundred local government seats. Shrewd councillors, MPs and PR staffers will now be working overtime to ascertain the BNP’s electoral appeal, and working out ways to soften it and slip it into their own language and manifestos.
It won’t be the first time. While Margaret Thatcher certainly was a racist race was never really an issue in her vision of a new order. Thatcherism was about breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and getting industry back into private hands. But when a swell of traditional Labour and Tory voters drifted towards the National Front she and her advisors saw the perfect opportunity to feign concern about immigration, and steal those votes back. She could raise the vague “fear of being swamped by people of a different culture” to gain power, and then get on with the unrelated business of monetarism.
The politics of gaining power needs bear little relation to political agenda. Government is about economics. Gaining office is about foetal rights, marital fidelity, prohibitions on flag burning, and of course the delicate application of racism.
In 2008 many in New Labour and the Conservatives are not even racist in their personal lives – some are even members of the dreaded ethnic groups. But if they hope to win power and get the chance to implement their radical and distinct political reforms (breaking unions, cutting welfare, dismantling the NHS and keeping industry in private hands) then the temptations of populism will beckon. Condemnation of Mr Griffin’s shabby little gang will continue for sure, but we can also expect mealy-mouthed appeals to its logic, vague talk of flags, Britishness, armed forces days, and when they dare, the fear of being swamped by foreign cultures. The price of such talk will be high for many citizens, but worth paying if the righteous are to gain office.
Second thought in progress...
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Authority and Obedience
Innate Levels of Obedience
Dissent isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. While some find it natural others find it excruciating.
Some feel it’s wrong to complain in the first place, wince at any challenge to authority, wish that everyone would just shut up and put up with things as they are, as they do. But even among those who want to push for change many find the act itself uncomfortable. Full in the knowledge that justice can only be attained through protest many of us squirm at the prospect. While accepting that every cherished liberty was secured by people who refused to be cowed by power and authority it can still seem a lot easier to keep your head down.
Some of this seems innate or at least sewn-in so early it appears so. Throughout life some people exhibit an ingrained awe of power while others find it all a joke. Some children struggle with tears outside the headmaster’s office, others struggle with laughter. Some adults go cap in hand to their bosses, others are happy to shout and thump the table.
For most of us however deference levels rise and fall with the particular situation. It all depends on who it is we actually respect or fear and that can vary greatly. Some children are rude to their parents but in awe of their peers. Some adults are happy to spit in the face of a prince but still squirm at foul language in front of the priest.
In an ideal world it would all boil down to legitimate authority – we would only acquiesce to the authority of those who truly know better – but it isn’t as simple as that. In this unjust world many of us have to feign respect for cynics and bullies just to hold onto our jobs, or avoid a punch.
And even when there is no such clear threat we can still be cowed by the psychological social hierarchy we each carry within. As a time-served customer-service drone I’d like think I treat each caller equally, but I can’t deny the change that comes over me if it turns out I’m addressing a police officer or MP or minor celebrity, particularly if they try to ‘pull rank’ – “do you know who I am?!” While I can find no rational reason to modify my behaviour towards these people I can’t deny the pressure their supposed status exerts.
Origins of Obedience
The roots of such conflicts become clear if we consider the origins of authority and obedience. As social beings there really are times when it’s best to accept the authority of others and times when it’s best to rebel.
Children certainly must accept the authority of responsible adults if they are to grow up well adjusted, or get to grow up at all. But just as crucially they also need to learn to assert their own rights and desires if they are not to be crushed and cowed by others. The persistent power struggle between parent and child can be seen as the exercising of this capacity. Children test our will as a means of testing their own power in the world. They are constantly feeling their way around the power structure they find themselves born into, checking what they can get away with, deciding when it’s time to throw in the towel.
Like it or not this process of standing-up and climbing-down continues throughout adult life. Although some of us might tend to veer towards rebellion and others towards conformity every well-adjusted adult is someone who has learned to exercise both strategies. The spoilt child and the bullied child both grow up with inappropriate notions of their own power and importance. The perpetually rebellious and the perpetually subservient are skewered on opposite poles. Neither can lead a happy or useful life.
Pressure to Conform
Even for those with a well-developed sense of justice it can still be a struggle to stand up to the powerful. Power is by its nature intimidating. It instils fear, not least the fear of getting into trouble. While we often despise it we usually remain dependant upon its patronage. Power holds most of the cards and is in a prime position to punish those that challenge it. Organising a strike or sit-in always carries the risk of reprisal – loss of pay or promotion, a beating, or even loss of life. Keeping in the good books of the powerful is a major incentive to tolerate injustice.
Similarly loyalty and sense of belonging bind many to powers that are not in their interest. Ingrained faithfulness to church, royalty, military and country are all blocks to rational thought and rational dissent. Questioning the powerful can involve questioning the things we are taught to hold dear, an internal conflict prone to cause nausea. This effect is by no means the reserve of the working-class Tory. Even those who consider themselves progressives often cling to something or someone long past reasonable support, perhaps a hero politician or nation state. It is these sorts of loyalties that lead supposed socialists to defend Stalin or Mao or even the current Chinese regime as it batters Tibet.
And of course power is in an excellent position to propagandise on its own behalf, much more so than those who seek to challenge it. The corporate media is one long advert for the legitimacy of the powerful and the impertinence and blind idealism of those who dare to challenge it. Arms manufacturers, rapacious oil companies and tax-exempt media moguls can paint themselves as the rightful guardians of the world. Those who campaign against them are presented as idealistic fools. Who wants to be in that gang?
Such propaganda also fuels another strong pressure to conform – peer pressure. The Sun, Mail and Telegraph don’t just sedate their readership, they also serve to crush the spirit of colleagues and acquaintances. For every progressive in the workplace there are a host of naysayers, waving their tabloids and dampening dissent. The deferent will always be on hand tell you you’re being a troublemaker or associating with troublemakers, and that besides, resistance is futile.
Pressure to Rebel
In part this is driven by embarrassment at their own inaction. Once someone has decided not to fight for their rights the last thing they want to watch is someone else try. Better to throw cold water on it. For in truth, just as there is a strong impulse to conform to power there is also a great deal of respect to be gained by standing up for yourself. And just as there is a fear of being singled out by power as a troublemaker there is also the opposing threat of being seen as a ‘yes man’ or ‘yes woman’ by one’s colleagues.
It is this opposing pressure that leads to many of the tall tales one hears in the workplace. Those renowned for tugging their forelocks are usually the first to claim they take no crap from the management, forever recounting the times they confronted the boss. Conveniently enough these magical transformations always seems to occur when there is no one about to witness them – “You should have seen me in there!”
While most of us want to avoid trouble nobody likes to be thought of as a carpet. Self respect and a will to protect the rights of others is widely recognised as a virtue, even amongst the powerful. The mere act of challenging authority can earn its respect rather than its punishment, even earn its promotion. The shrewd underling is the one who knows when to say thus far, and no further. Bosses (both shrewd and stupid) often respect and value such individuals (if they don’t send them to the gulag.)
Doing the Right Thing
Worthwhile disobedience takes some thinking about. Unchecked, the dissenting mind is prone to wander into utopia. It’s easy to overestimate the potential for change, particularly after a small victory or rousing rally. Many a wannabe progressive has seen the seeds of global revolution in an anti-war demo or local pay dispute. While such visionaries do little to affect change they are a great target for those who seek to paint all dissenters as blind idealists. Small wonder so many ultra-leftists end-up disillusioned and arguing on the right.
Alternatively the unchecked conservative mind can become complicit with all sorts of injustice. The mere existence of an institution or organisation does not justify its existence or justify compliance with its rules. While it’s fine in principle to love the state what if that state is corrupt? What if its leaders are unelected kings or generals or emperors or chairmen? What if they are formally elected but in league with robber barons or psychotic corporations or Mafiosi? What sort of natural order is that to defer to?
Progressive dissent walks a thin line. Naïve revolt and naïve deference are gutters either side. Naïve progressives can glibly claim the whole system is irredeemably corrupt whatever it is. Naïve conservatives can counter that this is the best of all possible worlds and that to rebel is to meddle with the natural order. The best course of action must surely lie somewhere between the two. The question is, where?
Dissent isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. While some find it natural others find it excruciating.
Some feel it’s wrong to complain in the first place, wince at any challenge to authority, wish that everyone would just shut up and put up with things as they are, as they do. But even among those who want to push for change many find the act itself uncomfortable. Full in the knowledge that justice can only be attained through protest many of us squirm at the prospect. While accepting that every cherished liberty was secured by people who refused to be cowed by power and authority it can still seem a lot easier to keep your head down.
Some of this seems innate or at least sewn-in so early it appears so. Throughout life some people exhibit an ingrained awe of power while others find it all a joke. Some children struggle with tears outside the headmaster’s office, others struggle with laughter. Some adults go cap in hand to their bosses, others are happy to shout and thump the table.
For most of us however deference levels rise and fall with the particular situation. It all depends on who it is we actually respect or fear and that can vary greatly. Some children are rude to their parents but in awe of their peers. Some adults are happy to spit in the face of a prince but still squirm at foul language in front of the priest.
In an ideal world it would all boil down to legitimate authority – we would only acquiesce to the authority of those who truly know better – but it isn’t as simple as that. In this unjust world many of us have to feign respect for cynics and bullies just to hold onto our jobs, or avoid a punch.
And even when there is no such clear threat we can still be cowed by the psychological social hierarchy we each carry within. As a time-served customer-service drone I’d like think I treat each caller equally, but I can’t deny the change that comes over me if it turns out I’m addressing a police officer or MP or minor celebrity, particularly if they try to ‘pull rank’ – “do you know who I am?!” While I can find no rational reason to modify my behaviour towards these people I can’t deny the pressure their supposed status exerts.
Origins of Obedience
The roots of such conflicts become clear if we consider the origins of authority and obedience. As social beings there really are times when it’s best to accept the authority of others and times when it’s best to rebel.
Children certainly must accept the authority of responsible adults if they are to grow up well adjusted, or get to grow up at all. But just as crucially they also need to learn to assert their own rights and desires if they are not to be crushed and cowed by others. The persistent power struggle between parent and child can be seen as the exercising of this capacity. Children test our will as a means of testing their own power in the world. They are constantly feeling their way around the power structure they find themselves born into, checking what they can get away with, deciding when it’s time to throw in the towel.
Like it or not this process of standing-up and climbing-down continues throughout adult life. Although some of us might tend to veer towards rebellion and others towards conformity every well-adjusted adult is someone who has learned to exercise both strategies. The spoilt child and the bullied child both grow up with inappropriate notions of their own power and importance. The perpetually rebellious and the perpetually subservient are skewered on opposite poles. Neither can lead a happy or useful life.
Pressure to Conform
Even for those with a well-developed sense of justice it can still be a struggle to stand up to the powerful. Power is by its nature intimidating. It instils fear, not least the fear of getting into trouble. While we often despise it we usually remain dependant upon its patronage. Power holds most of the cards and is in a prime position to punish those that challenge it. Organising a strike or sit-in always carries the risk of reprisal – loss of pay or promotion, a beating, or even loss of life. Keeping in the good books of the powerful is a major incentive to tolerate injustice.
Similarly loyalty and sense of belonging bind many to powers that are not in their interest. Ingrained faithfulness to church, royalty, military and country are all blocks to rational thought and rational dissent. Questioning the powerful can involve questioning the things we are taught to hold dear, an internal conflict prone to cause nausea. This effect is by no means the reserve of the working-class Tory. Even those who consider themselves progressives often cling to something or someone long past reasonable support, perhaps a hero politician or nation state. It is these sorts of loyalties that lead supposed socialists to defend Stalin or Mao or even the current Chinese regime as it batters Tibet.
And of course power is in an excellent position to propagandise on its own behalf, much more so than those who seek to challenge it. The corporate media is one long advert for the legitimacy of the powerful and the impertinence and blind idealism of those who dare to challenge it. Arms manufacturers, rapacious oil companies and tax-exempt media moguls can paint themselves as the rightful guardians of the world. Those who campaign against them are presented as idealistic fools. Who wants to be in that gang?
Such propaganda also fuels another strong pressure to conform – peer pressure. The Sun, Mail and Telegraph don’t just sedate their readership, they also serve to crush the spirit of colleagues and acquaintances. For every progressive in the workplace there are a host of naysayers, waving their tabloids and dampening dissent. The deferent will always be on hand tell you you’re being a troublemaker or associating with troublemakers, and that besides, resistance is futile.
Pressure to Rebel
In part this is driven by embarrassment at their own inaction. Once someone has decided not to fight for their rights the last thing they want to watch is someone else try. Better to throw cold water on it. For in truth, just as there is a strong impulse to conform to power there is also a great deal of respect to be gained by standing up for yourself. And just as there is a fear of being singled out by power as a troublemaker there is also the opposing threat of being seen as a ‘yes man’ or ‘yes woman’ by one’s colleagues.
It is this opposing pressure that leads to many of the tall tales one hears in the workplace. Those renowned for tugging their forelocks are usually the first to claim they take no crap from the management, forever recounting the times they confronted the boss. Conveniently enough these magical transformations always seems to occur when there is no one about to witness them – “You should have seen me in there!”
While most of us want to avoid trouble nobody likes to be thought of as a carpet. Self respect and a will to protect the rights of others is widely recognised as a virtue, even amongst the powerful. The mere act of challenging authority can earn its respect rather than its punishment, even earn its promotion. The shrewd underling is the one who knows when to say thus far, and no further. Bosses (both shrewd and stupid) often respect and value such individuals (if they don’t send them to the gulag.)
Doing the Right Thing
Worthwhile disobedience takes some thinking about. Unchecked, the dissenting mind is prone to wander into utopia. It’s easy to overestimate the potential for change, particularly after a small victory or rousing rally. Many a wannabe progressive has seen the seeds of global revolution in an anti-war demo or local pay dispute. While such visionaries do little to affect change they are a great target for those who seek to paint all dissenters as blind idealists. Small wonder so many ultra-leftists end-up disillusioned and arguing on the right.
Alternatively the unchecked conservative mind can become complicit with all sorts of injustice. The mere existence of an institution or organisation does not justify its existence or justify compliance with its rules. While it’s fine in principle to love the state what if that state is corrupt? What if its leaders are unelected kings or generals or emperors or chairmen? What if they are formally elected but in league with robber barons or psychotic corporations or Mafiosi? What sort of natural order is that to defer to?
Progressive dissent walks a thin line. Naïve revolt and naïve deference are gutters either side. Naïve progressives can glibly claim the whole system is irredeemably corrupt whatever it is. Naïve conservatives can counter that this is the best of all possible worlds and that to rebel is to meddle with the natural order. The best course of action must surely lie somewhere between the two. The question is, where?
Monday 28 January 2008
Switching People Off II
Much is made of the virtue of disregarding the lives of some in the name of others. It’s a real tough-guy decision, fetishised in popular culture: Do you have the guts do sacrifice the few to protect the many, or protect the higher ideal?
Less attention is paid to the fact that this is also the starting point of the whole cycle of woe. For all the supposed virtue of principled violence it is also the basis of everything we are supposed to despise. Such cool calculation is the trademark of our folk devils.
Every Al-Qaeda atrocity is born of the conviction that some lives can be sacrificed, discounted, switched-off, in the name of a higher cause. Every Mau-Mau, IRA and ETA killing was committed by people who firmly believed that there were more important things in the world than this particular group of humans. Like the bombers of Dresden and Hiroshima they didn’t necessarily despise their victims, they just judged their lives less important than their own cause. Like Western military strategists they calculated it was worth wasting one group of innocents to supposedly save another.
It doesn’t take a moral genius to invent situations in which it is right to kill another human: A thousand babies are about to be electrocuted by a psychopath. Would it be morally right to shoot him before he had a chance to throw the power-switch? For the vast majority of us of course it would. Nearly all of us would be happy to kill or sanction the killing of one maniac if it prevented the killing of masses of innocent humans. I hope I’d find the courage to do it myself.
But as history shows, it’s a slippery slope. Noble as some acts of violence can be, they set a dangerous precedent. The clarity of the philosophical mind-game slides swiftly into the murky morality of combat and on to the abyss of genocide. Defence is easily converted to proactive defence, bearing a striking resemblance to attack. Counter-terrorism is frequently just a euphemism for state terror.
Self-defence can be interpreted as broadly as the strategist’s imagination. Once a state or organisation awards itself a licence to kill it is easily extended to cover anything or anyone it chooses: We had to invade Afghanistan to prevent terror at home. We had to blow up the Arndale Centre to free the Falls Road. We had to build death-camps to prevent the death of civilisation. We had to bomb the village to save it.
Likewise, once a state or ideology has been labelled the enemy there is no end to the tortured logic that can excuse mistreatment of its innocent. Whatever new misery is inflicted upon the people of Iraq we are assured that this is better than the alternative: Better this than life under Saddam. Better this than risk the lives of our boys. Better this than another attack on home soil. Even children are not exempt from the book balancing: Better the school is bombed than the ‘insurgents’ escape. Once enemy lives have been reduced to statistics every cruelty can be justified by the claim that it prevented greater cruelty elsewhere.
Like the threat of death, the threat of enemy ideology can also tip the moral scales against the lives of the innocent. Over the centuries the threat of Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islamism, Nazism, Communism and decadent western capitalism have all been cited as good reason to take-out millions of innocent people. (It was sad that they had to die, but look at the alternatives….)
The trick here is guilt by association. Once you have persuaded people that it is morally right to kill to prevent Communism you can then call anything you dislike Communism, say, nationalism. You can then carpet bomb the peasantry of Vietnam, install a Shah in Iran, and train death squads for Latin America. Of course many innocents will die, but no matter. They die for a greater cause – anticommunism.
Once you have persuaded people that it is morally right to kill fascists you can then label all your enemies fascist, and even use this to defend your own fascistic excesses. Montgomery and Rommel, two white Europeans squabbling over whose right it was to exploit North Africa. One however was engaged in a moral war, a war against fascism. Harris and Goering, two white Europeans engaged in a competition to out-mutilate the other side’s civilian population. But of course the German civilians died differently, they died for good.
‘All’s fair in love and war’ is a dictum applied selectively. It’s fine for absolving one’s own violence, but you rarely hear people using it to justify violence against themselves. Note that those who still insist the bombing of Hiroshima was justifiable are the same who scream the loudest about Al-Qaeda targeting civilians. Terrorising our citizenry into submission is a war-crime. Terrorising their citizenry into submission is legitimate strategy.
As much as governments and groups are responsible for initiating indifference to suffering, once in motion it tends to multiply by itself. Viciousness is a vicious cycle. Switch someone else’s life off, treat it as statistical, and they’ll likely do the same back to you.
Empathy with the enemy drains the moment the bombs start falling, replaced by bitterness and a further cranking-up of the madness. While the war in Europe was always going to involve some aerial bombardment did it have to sink to the depths of firebombing civilian areas? Did it have to reach the lunacy of millions of British and German civilians assembling munitions only for them to be dropped on each other? Why didn’t they just drop them on themselves and spare the aircraft? (Perhaps those who defend Hiroshima as a humanitarian exercise could do the calculations, see if that would have ‘saved lives in the long run’?)
Likewise in the Pacific. Both American and Japanese forces had it drummed into them that the enemy was subhuman, brute, void of feeling. Each army went into battle convinced of the unique savagery of the other. You can imagine the consequences. War will never be a pleasant thing, but these lies paved the way to hell.
Killing always requires a higher cause. You have to value something more than the life of the victim before you can extinguish their life. A mercenary or thief must value the booty above the life of the victim. A soldier must value the victory of his own side above the lives of the figures in his sights, or cowering in the buildings below. Journalists, commentators and politicians must convince themselves something greater is at stake before they can convert bleeding burning bodies to collateral damage. In all cases empathy with the victim must be broken before the killing can take place or be excused. It must be replaced by the higher cause.
It is crucially important for states and organisations that we maintain this ability. We must be ready to turn each other into statistics whenever it is politically or economically expedient to do so. If we can’t be persuaded to drain the humanity from a chosen enemy we won’t be able to kill them, or condone their killing. There can be no crusades, pogroms, Somme, Belsen, Dresden, Twin Towers or Fallujah if we doggedly cling-on to the reality of each others lives, and refuse to switch each other off.
Less attention is paid to the fact that this is also the starting point of the whole cycle of woe. For all the supposed virtue of principled violence it is also the basis of everything we are supposed to despise. Such cool calculation is the trademark of our folk devils.
Every Al-Qaeda atrocity is born of the conviction that some lives can be sacrificed, discounted, switched-off, in the name of a higher cause. Every Mau-Mau, IRA and ETA killing was committed by people who firmly believed that there were more important things in the world than this particular group of humans. Like the bombers of Dresden and Hiroshima they didn’t necessarily despise their victims, they just judged their lives less important than their own cause. Like Western military strategists they calculated it was worth wasting one group of innocents to supposedly save another.
It doesn’t take a moral genius to invent situations in which it is right to kill another human: A thousand babies are about to be electrocuted by a psychopath. Would it be morally right to shoot him before he had a chance to throw the power-switch? For the vast majority of us of course it would. Nearly all of us would be happy to kill or sanction the killing of one maniac if it prevented the killing of masses of innocent humans. I hope I’d find the courage to do it myself.
But as history shows, it’s a slippery slope. Noble as some acts of violence can be, they set a dangerous precedent. The clarity of the philosophical mind-game slides swiftly into the murky morality of combat and on to the abyss of genocide. Defence is easily converted to proactive defence, bearing a striking resemblance to attack. Counter-terrorism is frequently just a euphemism for state terror.
Self-defence can be interpreted as broadly as the strategist’s imagination. Once a state or organisation awards itself a licence to kill it is easily extended to cover anything or anyone it chooses: We had to invade Afghanistan to prevent terror at home. We had to blow up the Arndale Centre to free the Falls Road. We had to build death-camps to prevent the death of civilisation. We had to bomb the village to save it.
Likewise, once a state or ideology has been labelled the enemy there is no end to the tortured logic that can excuse mistreatment of its innocent. Whatever new misery is inflicted upon the people of Iraq we are assured that this is better than the alternative: Better this than life under Saddam. Better this than risk the lives of our boys. Better this than another attack on home soil. Even children are not exempt from the book balancing: Better the school is bombed than the ‘insurgents’ escape. Once enemy lives have been reduced to statistics every cruelty can be justified by the claim that it prevented greater cruelty elsewhere.
Like the threat of death, the threat of enemy ideology can also tip the moral scales against the lives of the innocent. Over the centuries the threat of Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Islamism, Nazism, Communism and decadent western capitalism have all been cited as good reason to take-out millions of innocent people. (It was sad that they had to die, but look at the alternatives….)
The trick here is guilt by association. Once you have persuaded people that it is morally right to kill to prevent Communism you can then call anything you dislike Communism, say, nationalism. You can then carpet bomb the peasantry of Vietnam, install a Shah in Iran, and train death squads for Latin America. Of course many innocents will die, but no matter. They die for a greater cause – anticommunism.
Once you have persuaded people that it is morally right to kill fascists you can then label all your enemies fascist, and even use this to defend your own fascistic excesses. Montgomery and Rommel, two white Europeans squabbling over whose right it was to exploit North Africa. One however was engaged in a moral war, a war against fascism. Harris and Goering, two white Europeans engaged in a competition to out-mutilate the other side’s civilian population. But of course the German civilians died differently, they died for good.
‘All’s fair in love and war’ is a dictum applied selectively. It’s fine for absolving one’s own violence, but you rarely hear people using it to justify violence against themselves. Note that those who still insist the bombing of Hiroshima was justifiable are the same who scream the loudest about Al-Qaeda targeting civilians. Terrorising our citizenry into submission is a war-crime. Terrorising their citizenry into submission is legitimate strategy.
As much as governments and groups are responsible for initiating indifference to suffering, once in motion it tends to multiply by itself. Viciousness is a vicious cycle. Switch someone else’s life off, treat it as statistical, and they’ll likely do the same back to you.
Empathy with the enemy drains the moment the bombs start falling, replaced by bitterness and a further cranking-up of the madness. While the war in Europe was always going to involve some aerial bombardment did it have to sink to the depths of firebombing civilian areas? Did it have to reach the lunacy of millions of British and German civilians assembling munitions only for them to be dropped on each other? Why didn’t they just drop them on themselves and spare the aircraft? (Perhaps those who defend Hiroshima as a humanitarian exercise could do the calculations, see if that would have ‘saved lives in the long run’?)
Likewise in the Pacific. Both American and Japanese forces had it drummed into them that the enemy was subhuman, brute, void of feeling. Each army went into battle convinced of the unique savagery of the other. You can imagine the consequences. War will never be a pleasant thing, but these lies paved the way to hell.
Killing always requires a higher cause. You have to value something more than the life of the victim before you can extinguish their life. A mercenary or thief must value the booty above the life of the victim. A soldier must value the victory of his own side above the lives of the figures in his sights, or cowering in the buildings below. Journalists, commentators and politicians must convince themselves something greater is at stake before they can convert bleeding burning bodies to collateral damage. In all cases empathy with the victim must be broken before the killing can take place or be excused. It must be replaced by the higher cause.
It is crucially important for states and organisations that we maintain this ability. We must be ready to turn each other into statistics whenever it is politically or economically expedient to do so. If we can’t be persuaded to drain the humanity from a chosen enemy we won’t be able to kill them, or condone their killing. There can be no crusades, pogroms, Somme, Belsen, Dresden, Twin Towers or Fallujah if we doggedly cling-on to the reality of each others lives, and refuse to switch each other off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)