Under bad governments, this equality is only apparent and illusory: it serves only to-keep the pauper in his poverty and the rich man in the position he has usurped. In fact, laws are always of use to those who possess and harmful to those who have nothing: from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all have something and none too much. - Rousseau
I am in a total Rousseauian mood this week. Tired of work and political bullshit, I suppose, my appreciation of his use of "Enlightenment" logic to tear down human-imposed societal structures with ease is really hitting the spot. There are points in which I disagree with him, especially in his romanticization of the savage and his view on women, which also amounts to a romanticization of the fairer sex. If men are supposed to be free of imposing structures, so too should women, my dear J-J.
Rousseau, when taken broadly, points out that we're slaves to the societal structures we have created. They're stifling our potentials and pushing us to grow in particular directions - as though we're human topiary being meticulously groomed by an overzealous gardener. Our laws and societal norms impose structures that maintain not only the "peace" but also its own power. Society, conceptually, is hegemonic. Any burgeoning sociopolitical structure begins to exist for itself. We propagate it for its own purposes, not necessarily our own. How could a non-entity have "purpose" or a will to continue to survive? Because we've imbued it with one and are now beholden to keeping it going. It's a paradox - humans bring into "being" intangible structures with tangible effects. We, as a species, have collectively contributed to the creation of societies and all of the trappings that go along with that - laws, bureaucracies, gender roles, behavioral norms, etc.
Organized religion carries the same baggage - an imposed structure that eventually drives adherents away unless it can change over time. We see this happening now with the Catholic Church. For an organization to be as old and established as it is, is, in and of itself, impressive. However, the refusal for centuries to modify practices or beliefs has left the church in a crisis mode that it hasn't seen since the Reformation. The current pope has been instrumental in the changes that have recently breathed new life into the aging structure. Will it be too late to save the institution? Will the Church continue to change over the course of the next few generations? Times have changed and when an institution acts ignorantly of the culture surrounding it will continue to nail down its own coffin lid.
The United States is confusing to me in that there are so many "freedoms to" and "freedoms from" within both our legal base and populace, that an outsider would find much hope in the longevity of this society. However, the overriding ideology of democratic tradition has actually supplanted any sort of real democratic advancement with another rigid system of control. To embrace democracy fully would require a level of anarchism that many are uncomfortable with. Anarchy is not a lawless, chaotic society, although some groups have co-opted this definition to either: deride anarchists OR to embrace pursuing their own desires with no remorse for anyone that might stand in the way. What lies within anarchy is a freedom from ideologies and structures. There would be a constant reflection on what is working and what is not. A "democratic" anarchistic society would only thrive with hands-on participation from citizens.
Democracy as hegemony - as the US imposes democratic values and structures in places where it has not evolved naturally or where it may look different in practice - is not truly living up to its own values. Democracy as rule by the people insofar as how they choose to live, regardless of Western economic interests, would be embodying those values.Of course, the growth of education as in promotion of critical thinking and reflection would go a long way in ensuring that whomever is participating in said democracies would be cognizant of others' needs and would not subjugate particular groups by majority rule (ex: voting to ban gay marriage by "popular vote").
Throughout 1968, students, teachers and workers revolted in the US, France, Mexico and other "developed" countries. Their goals weren't to just get so-and-so out of office; their goals were bigger than that - to challenge and change the prevailing social, political and economic cultures. Although some of the demands were met, with particular attention toward opening society toward further acceptance of the many colors that make up the mosaic of human potential, the larger movement then faded out. The prevailing cultures stayed, with many of the protesters looking back on their actions in 1968 as foolish games that children play. Their remorse at even being involved saddens me because it reflects the close-mindedness many adults show toward the young. Sure, children and young adults haven't experienced as much as those older than they, but the young are also able to look at situations from different angles and can make connections that an older person would never be able to simply because the young have not been jaded by a lifetime of experience. The lesson here is that our own life "stories" can become as rigid and hegemonic, guiding our thoughts and actions, shielding us from possibility and change.
No comments:
Post a Comment