Entry tags:
willingly chomping at the bit
The other day as I was walking towards the bus stop after work, I passed a demonstration in Harvard Square. About 30-40 protesters had gathered to accuse Harvard of complicity in genocide.
My cynical response (and that word "cynical" applies here in the classical sense as much as in the modern sense) is that there is little point in singling out a particular institution for protest, since, as it seems to me, virtually every institution in our society is complicit in dehumanization and exploitation.
Yeah, that's a pretty extreme stance.
I recall reading somewhere recently (in John Dominic Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, I think) that people are normally content to accept their lot in the social order, unless and until the people in the lower classes start losing what little property they have en masse. At this point a tolerance threshold is crossed. Radical-revolutionary movements tend to arise only during these times, and most often when people in the lower classes have articulate sympathizers in the middle or upper classes who have access to media that will allow their message to spread.
What characterizes such a movement is a strong egalitarian spirit and a message of social cooperation.
Such movements often fail because, on one level, wealthy people have police and military on their side, and on another level, because cultures cause social stratification to ossify like a hard shell to protect them from revolutionary memes. Unless the revolution succeeds at causing more than just a few superficial changes, revolutionaries tend to be re-assimilated (often in an environment of strong forgiveness and gregariousness -- another memetic survival mechanism).
Crossan believes that early Christianity was a revolutionary movement of this sort, and ideas that have been expressed by other writers like Robert Funk and Elaine Pagels make sense in this context -- that Christianity began as a refusal to participate in what was seen as a morally bankrupt and exploitative establishment operating at all levels of society. It was thus a rebellion against the Roman imperial regime, conservative attitudes in Stoicism and Judaism which taught that it is good for us to accept our lot in life and be quiet about it, and King Herod and the Sanhedrin which were widely seen as puppets of Rome. Refusal to offer sacrifices to the genius of the Emperor like good little imperial subjects (the primary crime for which Christians were executed) was more about refusing to be complicit in the evil establishment than it was about religious belief.
If Christianity was originally a revolutionary movement, it was eventually co-opted and became itself part of the establishment. This process was complete with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Something very similar happened after the French Revolution, and after the institution of soviet socialism in Russia. Once the revolutionaries take over, they have inevitably become simply a new kind of establishment, one that perpetuates the old patterns which the revolution opposed.
I've been intentionally using the word "establishment" here because on my mind is the memetic revolt of the 1960's. When one is a memetic outlaw, it is not difficult to see the ways in which even those institutions which can nominally claim to be non-participants in dehumanization (directly) perpetuate the mindset and culture that fosters it.
Refusing to participate in the social establishment, however, involves a great deal of personal sacrifice -- which may offer another level of explanation as to why radicals often get re-assimilated. It is very hard for most of us to go without creature comforts when we see everyone around us partaking of them so "easily."
Never mind that partaking of creature comforts means participating in a social machine that stresses us greatly. We might chomp at the bit when we become conscious of the stresses of "modern life," but we do so willingly.
Is there a happy medium? I'd like to think I've found one. People look at me like I'm crazy when I say that I've never owned or wanted a cell phone. The more scarce payphones become, though, I may eventually have to give in. Heck, I gave in and bought a CD player earlier this year.
My cynical response (and that word "cynical" applies here in the classical sense as much as in the modern sense) is that there is little point in singling out a particular institution for protest, since, as it seems to me, virtually every institution in our society is complicit in dehumanization and exploitation.
Yeah, that's a pretty extreme stance.
I recall reading somewhere recently (in John Dominic Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, I think) that people are normally content to accept their lot in the social order, unless and until the people in the lower classes start losing what little property they have en masse. At this point a tolerance threshold is crossed. Radical-revolutionary movements tend to arise only during these times, and most often when people in the lower classes have articulate sympathizers in the middle or upper classes who have access to media that will allow their message to spread.
What characterizes such a movement is a strong egalitarian spirit and a message of social cooperation.
Such movements often fail because, on one level, wealthy people have police and military on their side, and on another level, because cultures cause social stratification to ossify like a hard shell to protect them from revolutionary memes. Unless the revolution succeeds at causing more than just a few superficial changes, revolutionaries tend to be re-assimilated (often in an environment of strong forgiveness and gregariousness -- another memetic survival mechanism).
Crossan believes that early Christianity was a revolutionary movement of this sort, and ideas that have been expressed by other writers like Robert Funk and Elaine Pagels make sense in this context -- that Christianity began as a refusal to participate in what was seen as a morally bankrupt and exploitative establishment operating at all levels of society. It was thus a rebellion against the Roman imperial regime, conservative attitudes in Stoicism and Judaism which taught that it is good for us to accept our lot in life and be quiet about it, and King Herod and the Sanhedrin which were widely seen as puppets of Rome. Refusal to offer sacrifices to the genius of the Emperor like good little imperial subjects (the primary crime for which Christians were executed) was more about refusing to be complicit in the evil establishment than it was about religious belief.
If Christianity was originally a revolutionary movement, it was eventually co-opted and became itself part of the establishment. This process was complete with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Something very similar happened after the French Revolution, and after the institution of soviet socialism in Russia. Once the revolutionaries take over, they have inevitably become simply a new kind of establishment, one that perpetuates the old patterns which the revolution opposed.
I've been intentionally using the word "establishment" here because on my mind is the memetic revolt of the 1960's. When one is a memetic outlaw, it is not difficult to see the ways in which even those institutions which can nominally claim to be non-participants in dehumanization (directly) perpetuate the mindset and culture that fosters it.
Refusing to participate in the social establishment, however, involves a great deal of personal sacrifice -- which may offer another level of explanation as to why radicals often get re-assimilated. It is very hard for most of us to go without creature comforts when we see everyone around us partaking of them so "easily."
Never mind that partaking of creature comforts means participating in a social machine that stresses us greatly. We might chomp at the bit when we become conscious of the stresses of "modern life," but we do so willingly.
Is there a happy medium? I'd like to think I've found one. People look at me like I'm crazy when I say that I've never owned or wanted a cell phone. The more scarce payphones become, though, I may eventually have to give in. Heck, I gave in and bought a CD player earlier this year.