Retribution for a world lost in screens

[Edward theurj Berge]

Is a title of a recent blog by Christopher Hedges. I must say I really like his rhetoric since he turned liberal. Here's an excerpt from that blog I especially like, since I too think Facebook is nothing but narcissistic waste:

"The electronic image leads us back to the worship of ourselves. It is idolatry. Reality is replaced with electronic mechanisms for preening self-presentation—the core of social networking sites such as Facebook—and the illusion of self-fulfillment and self-empowerment. And in a world unmoored from the real, from human limitations and human potential, we inevitably embrace superstition and magic. This is what the worship of images is about. We retreat into a dark and irrational fear born out of a cavernous ignorance of the real. We enter an age of technological barbarism."

[Mary W.]

Isn't Facebook, link Gaia or Ning or any other social networking site, what you make of it? One could make narcissistic waste out of any of these places, certainly.

Or they could serve as another way to share ideas, thoughts, experiences, musings, art, etc., with a far-flung network of acquaintances, friends, and loved ones.

A friend of mine who is having chemo for lymphoma can keep in touch with her peeps easily through a place like Facebook -- letting us know a bit about how she's doing, sharing her fears and frustrations -- while receiving expressions of love, care, and encouragement.

"Preening self-presentation" and "worship of images?" Yes, if that's you're looking for -- and which is an approach one can take in day-to-day life whether or not one uses Facebook. Social networking sites are just tools. It is up to us to choose how we use them.

[Mary W.]

On the other hand -- playing devil's advocate against myself -- I can see how places like Facebook can intensify narcissism and self-absorption when they are pre-existing conditions. It provides so many more mirrors to look at one's self through. And the human brain's craving for novelty and stimulation makes all of our more recent communications technologies very addictive. The quick and constant feedback we get from internet searches, e-mail, chatrooms, social networks, and the like can morph into mental crack!

[Edward theurj Berge]

That was one of Hedges' points, that certain media environments are more or less conducive to self-absorbtion and/or social self-engagement. This meeting ground, IPS, while allowing for some basic social intercourse is primarily for deep dialogue of ideas, antithetical to superficial preening. So yes, while Facebook can be used responsibly like any other media one has to look to the motives and purpose of creating such a media source and the marketing to its main audience. Given that, one might then choose to participate in such media more responsibly? Sort of like choosing to shop at a more expensive local store that favors regional produce versus a mega-discount store that brings in cheap peppers from halfway around the world.

[Balder]

I enjoyed reading this article yesterday, Edward; thanks for posting it. His argument rang true for me, at least in part, and it resonated with other critiques I've recently heard. For instance, at the TSK retreat I recently attended, the teacher, Jack Petranker, talked about how Facebook, Twitter, and such are potentially magnifying our identification with self as "image," giving us increased opportunity and justification to always be "mugging for the camera." I agree there is potential here for relating in increasingly shallow or surfacey ways.

On the other hand, coincidentally, I was also reading a chapter in Bloom's Genius of the Beast: "Flash Isn't Frivolous -- Why We Need the Identity Biz," in which he takes an opposite view, talking about the evolutionarily efficacious roles that preening, self-adornment, and cultivation of appearance and image play. His basic argument is that there is an evolutionary mechanism called "lateral inhibition," which helps to set individuals apart, leads to specialization, and ultimately leads to a diversified "evolutionary search team." Lateral inhibition, he says, "makes different groups pursue slightly different approaches to food, clothing, shelter, ideas, metaphors, and worldviews," which he says furthers the evolutionary project in the long-term, even if such practices appear shallow to us. "Many things produce the spacing of lateral inhibition. One of the most effective is a sense of identity. A sense of where we belong and of our strategy for standing out within our crew."

He argues that we "specialized" in superficial image-adornment (painting the skin, etc) well before we developed many tools basic to our civilization, and that this is evolutionarily significant. Here's his conclusion:

So the trivial, the vain, the frivolous, and the seemingly wasteful often play a role we fail to see. They turn us into antennae of a search-and-innovation machine. And the fact that we denigrate “the superficial” hides a blunt fact -- that we don’t understand the function of the frivolous. And that we haven’t even made the effort to ask. But in our work lives, in emotional capitalism, in the capitalism of passion, we need to respect the role of the trivial, the frivolous, and the vain if we’re to serve the yearnings of the human soul. In fact, serving needs like these is key to the capitalist mission. What’s more, serving yearnings like these is uplifting. It’s messianic. It can help save others from being invisible in the eyes of those whose attention they need to survive. And in humans, just as in bees, the workings of attention mechanisms is vital to the evolutionary search machine.

Reflecting on this, my first thought is that he makes a good case not to discount the value of superficial-seeming activities of image-cultivation, social preening, etc, but doesn't really negate or upend the judgment of folks like Hedges that such activities are relatively superficial in relation to other values, which can also be seen as more evolved or sophisticated means of "lateral inhibition," or evolutionary "search engines" (or which serve other important roles). I think it's certainly possible that some superficial-seeming pursuits and activities might have some significant, long-term evolutionary effects or results which we're not in a position to judge, and I find this thought helps me to see such activities in a new light, but not to the extent that I am led to discount any relative, perhaps more socio-psycho-spiritually immediate judgments about the relative superficiality or frivolity of such a focus in relation to other (psychological, spiritual, moral, ethical, aesthetic) pursuits.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Certainly something for further contemplation. Although this line stuck out for me, as in, this is a rationale for it?

"...serving needs like these is key to the capitalist mission."

[Edward theurj Berge]

I especially liked the following two paragraphs from the article, highlighting the sort of fallacious MGM argument used by certain integralists and their "happy" alternative that refuses to address actual human suffering. This was recently pointed out in the happy face put on capitalism by said integralists while avoiding what that system actually does to most of us. Yeah, yeah, victim talk, if I'd only be more positive I could change that reality. Case in point.

Quote:

"In this state of cultural illusion any description of actual reality*, because it does not consist of the happy talk that pollutes the airwaves from National Public Radio to Oprah, is dismissed as “negative” or “pessimistic.” The beleaguered Jeremiahs who momentarily stumble into our consciousness and in a desperate frenzy seek to warn us of our impending self-destruction are derided because they do not lay out easy formulas that permit us to drift back into fantasy. We tell ourselves they are overreacting. If reality is a bummer, and if there are no easy solutions, we don’t want to hear about it. The facts of economic and environmental collapse, now incontrovertible, cannot be discussed unless they are turned into joking banter or come accompanied with a neat, pleasing solution, the kind we are fed at the conclusion of the movies, electronic games, talk shows and sitcoms, the kind that dulls our minds into passive and empty receptacles. We have been conditioned by electronic hallucinations to expect happy talk. We demand it.

"We confuse this happy talk with hope. But hope is not about a belief in progress. Hope is about protecting simple human decency and demanding justice. Hope is the belief, not necessarily grounded in the tangible, that those whose greed, stupidity and complacency have allowed us to be driven over a cliff shall one day be brought down. Hope is about existing in a perpetual state of rebellion, a constant antagonism to all centers of power. The great moral voices, George Orwell and Albert Camus being perhaps two of the finest examples, describe in moving detail the human suffering we ignore or excuse. They understand that the greatest instrument for moral good is the imagination. The ability to perceive the pain and suffering of another, to feel, as King Lear says, what wretches feel, is a more powerful social corrective than the shelves of turgid religious and philosophical treatises on human will. Those who change the world for the better, who offer us hope, have the capacity to make us step outside of ourselves and feel empathy."

*Actual reality? Ok, so it's a bit of the myth of the given that I'll forgive due to the excellent rhetoric and point.

[Balder]

Yes, I think he is explicitly linking this mechanism to capitalism. His book, Genius of the Beast, is essentially about re-visioning capitalism -- transforming how we understand it and work with it, rather than abandoning it. I've read the first couple chapters and have skipped around in a few others, and I think he makes some good, interesting points, and seems to be reaching in others, but I don't have a judgment yet on his thesis as a whole. Last hopeful, pleading gasp of a dying beast? A new, redeeming vision? I'm not sure yet.



theurj said:

Certainly something for further contemplation. Although this line stuck out for me, as in, this is a rationale for it?

"...serving needs like these is key to the capitalist mission."

[Joseph]

Hi all

I've been a big fan of Chris Hedges for a while. This essay seems to be a continuation of the theme of his latest book Empire Of Illusion. I find I can't read a lot of his writing at once as his style tends to run towards the polemic. I don't agree Edward that he has 'turned liberal'. I think that in our degraded political discourse the terms liberal & conservative are almost meaningless. One might consider him an intelligent conservative in the vein of Andrew Sullivan, Andrew Bacevich, or Frank Schaeffer who are equally critical of our present cultural & political state. Or an intelligent liberal such as Paul Krugman or Robert Reich. He has referred to himself as a socialist.

I have to confess that I joined Facebook a couple of months ago, mostly as a way to keep in touch with my extended family, who all live on the east coast. This probably has something to do with my not posting here lately. I have quickly experienced the crack factor of Facebook. It's a little intoxicating to post a link to a music video or article & come back to see if anyone has responded the post, as well as to check out what friends & family have posted. Some of my less educated southern relatives have posted links to simplistic diatribes about Obama or the "Ground Zero Mosque". I've had a lot of fun posting multiple opposing points of view. My postings tend to be links to political, artistic & spiritual articles & videos, more than personal. A lot of the content on Facebook is pretty narcissistic, but there is some intelligent & profound content as well.

I saw The Social Network yesterday & was deeply impressed by the collaboration between Aaron Sorkin & David Fincher. It's a well crafted depiction of the creativity as well as the angst, greed & betrayal that went into the formation of Facebook.

The point has been made before, but I see this technology as an amplifier of our basic human nature; good, bad & ugly. Creativity, intelligence, faith, hope, charity, self absorption, resentment, anger, fear, desire, hatred & xenophobia are all on amplified display. This makes dealing with our darker tendencies, the obscurations in Buddhist psychology or the passions in Eastern Christian psychology, all the more urgent. Damn, I'm talking like Wilber again.

I think Hedges is dead on about the manipulation of these technologies by corporate & political interests degrading our political systems. Here's a link to a Rolling Stone article about the corporate bankrolling & manipulation of the so called grass roots Tea Party movement.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904

peace
joseph

P.S. feel free to Facebook me anyone!

[Edward theurj Berge]

My comment about Hedges turning liberal was due to my initially mistaking him for Chris Hitchens, who had a come-to-Jesus moment (metaphorically) in turning from rabid conservative to rabid liberal. Turns out Hedges is more of what Lakoff calls a bi-conceptual, as he has a more liberal or conservative slant on particular issues. For example Hedges is pro "religion" and atheism is often associated with the liberal agenda. While I'd agree that there are many sensible biconceptuals somewhere in between, there are nonetheless strict liberal and conservative ideology-memes doing battle of Biblical proportions every day in our Congress in a devastating culture war that will leave this country in literal, not metaphorical, ruins. Taibbi, a great reporter that exposes both ideologies with equal aplomb, as usual does a fine job with the Tea Party.

[Joseph]

I stumbled across Chris Hedges latest book in the bookstore yesterday; The Death Of The Liberal Class. Here's a blurb from Amazon:

"The liberal class plays a vital role in a democracy. It gives moral legitimacy to the state. It makes limited forms of dissent and incremental change possible. The liberal class posits itself as the conscience of the nation. It permits us, through its appeal to public virtues and the public good, to define ourselves as a good and noble people. Most importantly, on behalf of the power elite the liberal class serves as bulwarks against radical movements by offering a safety valve for popular frustrations and discontentment by discrediting those who talk of profound structural change. Once this class loses its social and political role then the delicate fabric of a democracy breaks down and the liberal class, along with the values it espouses, becomes an object of ridicule and hatred. The door that has been opened to proto-fascists has been opened by a bankrupt liberalism

The Death of the Liberal Class examines the failure of the liberal class to confront the rise of the corporate state and the consequences of a liberalism that has become profoundly bankrupted. Hedges argues there are five pillars of the liberal establishment – the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party— and that each of these institutions, more concerned with status and privilege than justice and progress, sold out the constituents they represented. In doing so, the liberal class has become irrelevant to society at large and ultimately the corporate power elite they once served."

This gives context to some of his recent rants about the failure of liberals in this country.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Indeed it does, but let us not confuse the democratic party with progressives. The latter are a very small minority in the party and there are none in the republican party. Make no mistake that if the repubs return to power in the next election this country is going back to the exact policies that caused the worse financial crisis since the depression. Talk about bankrupt: that party in its entirety (as opposed to most but not all of the dems) IS the lapdog of the "corporate power elite."

And still, even as an emasculated class the liberals are a far, far better alternative than the conservatives. As Hedges notes, without them "democracy breaks down" and opens the door for the "proto-fascists," aka conservatives. Yes, there are reasonable conservatives but it doesn't appear any of them are in Congress when nary a one will vote for any measure proposed by the dems, even when several key issues they wanted are included in any given bill. If only the dems had the balls of their convictions like those repubs, even though in the latter it is misplaced by a proven, failed ideology. Put that sort of conviction into with the class that is the "conscience of the nation" and we just might get some justice for the people in our legislation.

Given that Lennon's 70th birthday was yesterday "you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

[Joseph]

Andrew Sullivan published an essay on the 10th anniversary of his blog yesterday that I found relevant to this discussion. He writes about how the process of blogging has changed him. Writing on the process of moving from being a supporter of the war in Iraq to a critic:

"All I can say is that the great virtue of this blog is that it gave me nowhere to hide. And if you read the archives, you can see my mind and soul twisting slowly in the wind of reality, as illusion after illusion fell from my eyes, until the knowledge that the president I had trusted and the noble project I thought I had supported ... ended up in secret torture chambers and mass sectarian murders and chaos and the empowerment of the very forces we were trying to defeat. That knowledge changed me as a human being and as a writer. I am not preening in that (how can a writer safe in his blog-cave ever preen in the face of a beheaded victim of anarchy or a child buried in rubble?); but I did in the end face up to it. In the glare of public scrutiny. In many ways, you forced me. You demanded that I hold myself responsible for my errors and, yes, sins. And we did this together, you and I, in a way that no form of media had achieved before. So in the shame and error, there was some kind of achievement. At its best, that is what blogging can do."

You can read the entire essay here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/the-vi...