The American Voter: US Political Culture Explored

I worked really hard on this post and wondered if I would finish it by the US presidential elections of 2012. Luckily for me it is done well before. So here it is: some reflections on the American voter, backed with numbers and fancy sources. This post is not so much on ordeal, rather it functions as a set of ideas that frame the upcoming elections. Feel free to feel inspired and please share any thoughts! :p

Political culture is hard to define, yet it offers an attractive explanation for national differences concerning political behavior such as voting. 'The French are such', 'Americans do not think that way', etc. I am confident you have heard some like those before. There are indeed a lot of differences, but they are in my opinion not given. First of all political culture is dynamic: it can change over time (see the graph below). This is evident from the declining trust in political institutions with Americans. Second, the creation of and changes in political culture are the result of historical development. The trust is influenced by education levels, economic climate and central figures with their vigor or scandal.

Now how unique is the American political culture? Ronald Inglehart, famous amongst political scientists, was a driving force behind thinking about post-materialism: a value pattern focussing on self-realization relative to self-preservation. By adding traditionalism/secularism as a second dimension, Inglehart identified different cultures. He found an Anglo-Saxon value pattern which scores very high on self-realization and moderate on the second dimension. This is expressed in various features of American political culture: the perceived exceptionalism, the belief in popular judgement and the typical conception of freedom. All these elements are rooted in the history of the American state and society: fleeing religious or political persecution, resistance against the English crown, the autonomy of the states, etc.

(It needs to be said that the dominant political culture in the United States is perhaps more of an imposed value pattern rooted in the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant inheritance. Values differ along various lines, of which ethnicity might well be one. In how far the political culture is shared by say Afro-Americans or Latinos is hard to say. Even more difficult is it to draw conclusions as to how 'American' American political culture is.)

'American' political culture: a combination of influences or
the dominance of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant values?

The above should enable us to situate the American political culture and place it in its historical context. On to the voter now, as the upcoming election is the essence of this article. United States politics is largely spared from the increasing fragmentation that has Europe in its grip. Even in the UK they need to form coalitions now, despite the majoritarian mode of voting. This does however not mean that voting behavior didn't change in the States. Like everywhere in the West, identification of the voters with a single party has been diminishing. The electorate is increasingly motivated by what is called 'retrospective voting': casting your ballot based on specific issues, the image of parties/leaders and the economic climate.

Studies from the sixties up till now show that only up to a fifth of the American population is motivated by ideological reasons when casting the vote; about 40% defines politics in terms of group interests (classes, ethnicity, etc.) and 25% rewards or punishes the establishment based on the general tendency of the economy and society as a whole. The others are, sadly, apathetic: they don't give a ----. Furthermore, an overwhelming eight out of ten voters show no temporal stability in their ideological preferences. However in times of crisis and change the electorate becomes more ideological in its thought than its leaders, pushing for extremes. If these results don't seem to tell you anything, read this paragraph over once again whilst thinking about Obama's success in 2008. Now repeat that exercise with the possible Republican nominees for this year in mind.

Sources:

Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D.E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.

Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2010). Elections and voters. In Comparative government and politics: An introduction (pp. 179-202). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Hague, R. & Harrop, M. (2010). Political culture. In Comparative government and politics: An introduction (pp. 121-137). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and social change in 43 countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1999). Postmodernization erodes respect for authority, but increases support for democracy. In P. Norris (Ed.), Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance (pp. 359-392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Putnam, R. (2002). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sears, D.O. & Funk, C.L. (1990). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes, Advances in experimental social psychology, 24, pp. 1-91.

What lies beneath: Implicit attitudes and emancipation

In the previous post I addressed the issue of traditional gender roles. Inspired by a publication of the Belgian Institute for the Equality of Woman and Man, I argued that gender roles are constraining to the personal freedom. Here I want to illustrate this point more thoroughly: Gender roles are a mostly social phenomenon, while it is often portrayed as a natural order. This makes that any deviant behavior is considered abnormal, even when superficially tolerated. There always exists implicit psychological pressure to adjust to the norm, regardless of whether explicit social pressure accompanies it. The psychological bias is deeply ingrained within our minds, as I will show. I can however not do this without first mentioning the illicit nature of this pressure and thus of the constraints. We are not sufficiently aware of how indoctrinated we truly are. And, as stated in the previous post, it is in this subtlety that lies the real danger.

On to the proof now, as big declarations about brainwashing make me sound more like a lunatic than I am comfortable with. A key notion in need of understanding is that the human brain is the ultimate instrument of deceit: we succeed to fool ourselves with the most powerful illusions time and time again. People can say that they oppose traditional gender roles, even believe that they do, while subconsciously they have a positive attitude toward them. As long is this conflict does not surface the person in question doesn't notice. A quick example: people can speak noble of tolerance toward homosexuality until their son 'needs to say something'. Same so with multiculturalism and the daughter introducing her new boyfriend Ali.

That people are not aware of implicit attitudes is widely accepted in social psychology. An instrument has been designed to measure such attitudes, the implicit association test (IAT). The test was created by Harvard psychologists in 1998 and caused a real revolt in methodology. I suggest not to find out how it works untill you have taken one yourself. It is a solid instrument though and some stunning results have been discovered using it:

The above image illustrates the preference of whites over blacks (left) and the attitude toward traditional gender roles (right). Both measured once by self-observation trough a list of questions (explicit) and once using IAT (implicit). Apparently women are not as emancipated as they themselves claim to be. Sure they are free, they have made their own choices, etc. Subconsciously they are still compelled to follow the gender roles though. Socialization at its best here. I included the example of blacks and whites in the United States because it shows that even blacks have a more positive attitude toward whites than toward their in-group. Seemingly the black community is based on a contrast with whites, a socially produced (!) contrast that places blacks at the bottom end of the comparison. A contrasts blacks too agree upon, albeit without being aware of it.

IAT research strengthens my view that there is a merit in stressing the harm done by the less visible or even invisible dynamics. We must acknowledge that the continuous portrayal of socially produced inequality as natural blocks the way to true emancipation. We must expose the triggers of mental oppression and fight them openly. To end this post I wish to thank J.J. Ekins for his comments on the previous post. They were a genuine stimulus for me to build upon. To all other readers: feel free to engage, to formulate your own thoughts, etc. A little polemic makes my blog more than an exercise in writing.

Gender equality in Belgium: The IGVM report

A few days ago the Belgian Institute For the Equality of Woman and Man (IGVM) published its second report on gender statistics. The report is an instrument that lists numerous indicators of inequality between genders. The first gender statistics report was published in 2006. Since that time a lot of progress has been made in my little country. Especially at the indicators of education and academic careers the emancipation is really visible. A lot of problems still remain though. The hardest conclusion to digest - also the one the press covered most intensely - is that for every houseman there still are 32 housewives. Classic gender roles are indeed more firmly embedded in our open societies than you might imagine. The group of men who are participating in the household is growing, albeit at a slow rate. In the end the combination of a working job with tasks around the household still falls mainly on women. Housemen are a marginal group both within the population of men and the population of house cats. This is a trend that persists even in younger generations.

In Belgium we have a great system of time credit formulas: social security arrangements that allow working people to do less hours or even take a few months off to raise the children, care for an ill family member, etc. It is a sad reflection though that mainly women make use of these formulas. I understand that an instinct for caring might be more characteristic of woman, but not to such statistic extremes. There is no denying that a cultural pattern is at work here. And this is a real pity since the IGVM explicitly states in its report that "a more equal distribution of (caring) tasks within the household is a necessary condition for greater equality in other domains" (IGVM, 2012a).

To conclude I wish to point out that the inequality evident from the numbers has two main reasons. One is the ongoing enforcement of gender stereotypes onto children. Examples are all too evident: girls between 12 and 18 engage significantly more in household activities than boys of the same age, sports are still considered a boy's thing while we buy girls a doll for their birthday, etc. The IGVM report confirms the role of such practices which are to me no less than indoctrinating, limiting the free choice of children. I dare to say indoctrinating because how else would you call the natural representation of a constructed social order? The second problem links up to this in a direct fashion: most people see no problem. Most Belgian citizens do not recognize gender roles as a severe limitation to either freedom or emancipation. Gender roles may  not be as rigid as they once where, the danger lies exactly in their subtlety. What remains slumbering under the surface is hard to contest, but it can spread its poison nonetheless.

Sources:

IGVM (2012a). Press release 'Females and males in Belgium: Equal in 2012?' (Dutch). Consulted on February 22, 2012 (http://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/binaries/Persbericht%2021feb2012_tcm336-163732.pdf).

IGVM (2012b). Females and males in Belgium. Gender statistics and indicators (Dutch). Consulted on February 22, 2012 (http://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/binaries/GenderStat_N_Hfdst1-8_tcm336-161101.pdf).

Policy approaches on abusive substances

This post is going to be a real practical one: there isn't a single adult out there who isn't involved. I am going to talk about what policy society ought to pursue when facing abusive substances. The trigger to write this was a family discussion on the legalization of soft drugs. The post will however encompass a wider variety of abusive substances. Including tobacco and - the emotionally even more sensitive - alcohol. Feel free to comment on the reasoning below or share your own views with us!

Before going to dictate the state what laws it should adopt I have to say a word or two on social control of abusive substance usage in general. What a person ingests, inhales or injects is often portrayed as a private matter. Users claim the right to abuse their own body. Yet reality shows that personal abuse is not at all a personal issue. Users create costs for others, directly trough exposure and indirectly by the impact on health care costs and economic productivity. A drunk is not a valuable asset to society, to state it bluntly. But the costs to society don't stop at this one generation. The current image and status of usage influences future usage too. I am sensitive for the idea that 'it is still my body' but there is no good in denying several millennia of social evolution. You do live with other people and that should count for something.

So what strategies are available to our respective governments? A first extreme is to come down hard on usage. But prohibition will only shift the demand to a black market. This causes society to miss possible revenue from taxes and having a harder time reaching out to users. Criminalizing by law also causes prices to mount (due to a less accessible supply) and triggers a rise in criminal activity. At the other end of the prohibition-tolerance spectrum we find complete legalization of whatever you feel like getting high on today. As stated above that would bring social costs. It also lowers the threshold to even more wicked substances. In my eyes such a policy gives the completely wrong signal by freeing the personal needs from all social boundaries.

Tackling the image of alcohol and other
abusive substances might be the way.

It should be clear by now that I am not in for freeing the egotist genie from its social constraints. But just as legalization, prohibition ignores social reality. That is why I want social control to be a force for the better without being all totalitarian/bitch-like. So what does an effective middle road approach look like? One element is taxation. The main idea behind a surplus tax for abusive substances is that it should discourage usage. It also raises money to recover some of the social costs. At once it becomes clear that taxation is an incomplete instrument if no directives for spending the tax money are laid out. The argument that cigarettes are a milk cow for the state is too often misused, but this is a legitimate concern. After all, the burden of such taxes tend to fall on the more vulnerable groups within a society. The idea of good practice directives should be extended to the suppliers of such products. Labeling needs to provide clear information, certain limits are imposed, etc. The European Union is in fact working on a proposal for the sale of tobacco products: the goal is to let them all come in dull-looking packages and put them somewhere out of sight.

I think it ideal to exercise strong pressure on the image of abusive substances. All by all easy to get, but hard to engage into the activity morally. A moral criminalization so to say. This guilt-approach makes people think about their behavior and, in time, change will occur. From this point of view Europe is on the right track concerning tobacco. Not so much for soft drugs though and not at all for alcohol. (Of note: I don't use any of the aforementioned substances, nor any that could at this time be reasonably considered abusive. Without a doubt this reflects in my views, though I am confident that it provides me a unique position to see things too.)

"We, The People"

My activity is on a downward slope, so it seems. My paper has me really occupied so all I can present you for now is this exciting piece of text on language and populism. It looks dull though, no links or color images involved. I promise more eye candy in the next one. Cross my heart and hope to write more soon.

See if you recognize the following reasoning: "Intellectuals look down on the common man and are estranged from reality as it is experienced by the people. They use a language infused with technobabble that conceals reality and thus gives a distorted view." Sounds familiar? It is called a populist discourse which aggressively downplays the role of theory and language. A defensive reflex against theory can be found anywhere in the political spectrum: populism is a matter of left and right, of progressive and conservative. Yet it is naive and above all it is dangerous too. By bashing intellectuals and glorifying everyday speech, populists endanger actual emancipation.

"Society is an amalgam of groups constructed along fluid identities."

First of all, the populist critique against class, gender, race, etc. can be turned against the catch-all categories like 'common man' or 'the people'. These are ideological constructs themselves and there is no reason to assume a priori that they more accurately describe reality! Indeed the populist discourse is dangerous because whoever claims 'the common man' claims a majority. This constructed majority is based on a patchwork of stereotypes: the common man is a caucasian male with limited schooling who works hard, pays his taxes, loves his family, watches popular media and thinks that all politicians are crooks. This cliché can be expanded in any direction at will to gain the favor of other identities. Quite a few things are ignored by populists which become obvious when we introduce a wider geographical area or certain historical developments into our analysis: we have high schooling degrees, deprivation is largest with immigrants/non-whites, gender is not a given thing, etc. Society is an amalgam of groups constructed along fluid identities. This fluidity should not be mistaken for a common identity or even common interests. The boundaries of classes are vague and sometimes they overlap, but the cores of classes still remain.

Populists reject any such analysis. For them the world is a simple place in which the struggle is one between elites - either misguided or malevolent - and the people. Populism therefore is in general a struggle about discourse; a struggle that encompasses more than just 'the people' versus 'classes'. That the attacks of populists are not justified can be seen in their selectiveness: they oppose theory, abstractions, terminology, etc. only when it concerns social and political phenomena. Never they oppose terms as inflation, appeal, cardiological or fusion-reactor. Why not? Because the associated fields of theory do not pose a threat to them. Nothing more dangerous to a populist than describing social reality. After all, you might get people emancipated...

Overcomplicating things is never a good thing. Explaining social phenomena in a understandable way is a must for the advantaged. The real evil lies however in the opposite of oversimplification. When you keep them stupid, you can keep them down. So do as Bob Marley sang and emancipate yourselves of mental slavery. Dare to deconstruct your language, but always with a constructive attitude.

A Marxist analysis of Political Islam

After the Arab Spring revolts, elections in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco all point toward a victory for Islamist parties. This tendency worries Western observers, who perceive Political Islam as a major uncertainty at best. These recent events, together with insights I received after talking with Muslim friends here Belgium, compelled me to blog on the matter. Is Political Islam a threat or a treat? To whom is it so and why? These are the questions that concern us. Also bear in mind the difference between Islam as such and Political Islam; the latter being an ideological current that seeks to shape society by participating in the political process.

Is Political Islam opposed to imperialism or capitalism?
Can it, as a set of ideas, formulate an answer to them?

Before anything else, Islam is a religion. And as such based on dogma - an absolute and undeniable truth that is given and exists outside of humanity. It also is a mechanism of socialization, replicating cultural patterns (values and attitudes) over generations. Cultural patterns always are historical entities, they are a product of their time. From a Marxist point of view, archaic patterns limit the scope by which people can realize their potential. Traditional Islam thus is a boundary on further emancipation. From this follows that Political Islam as it exists today is fundamentally anti-Western. Speaking in a cultural sense, that is. 'Western values' linked to modernity (freedom of religion, emancipation of women, etc.) are in conflict with the current traditional interpretations given by Political Islam.

The anti-Western attitude is however not a characteristic of Political Islam by definition. Islam can be united with modernity. So in no way am I making the case for Islamophobia or a clash of civilizations. The contradiction is one in the field of ideas, and ideas change along with the circumstances that allows them to exist. The traditional interpretation of Islam that thrives today reflects underlying material realities: Islam can be used as a means of mobilization and propagation in support of or against ruling elites, whether they'd be domestic (Ben Ali, Mubarak) or foreign (Israel, United States). Given the current circumstances, a traditional anti-Western and anti-modern interpretation is most lucrative; it is also the way of the least resistance.

Is there really a clash of civilizations à la Huntington?
Or is it actually just a clash of state/class interests?

Political Islam is thus a tool to real interests; as an ideology in itself it does not seek to alter material conditions. That Political Islam is conceptually poor can be seen in what it articulates: serving in a community and taking part in rituals is paramount. Charity toward the poor is encouraged, but the recognition of struggle against one's material conditions as legitimate is missing. Political Islam is an empty box and indeed not 'political' at all. Because Islam offers no adequate framework to criticize material conditions or structures, it is not even anti-imperialist or anti-capitalist. Sure, Islam isn't too keen on rents (making money with money) but this is a mere aspect of financial economics. In no way can Islam be used to address capitalism as a mode of production. The same it goes for the international political organization.

Does this mean that a Muslim can not be against imperialism or capitalism? Of course not, it only means he can not be so on grounds of his religious beliefs. Islam can well be mixed with other views from conservatism, liberalism, etc. But the political aspects of his reasoning would lie outside Islam. The only questions that thus remain are: (1) To what extend can Islam be consistently unified with other (modern) ideologies? (2) Supposed that a modern formulation of Islam would not be meaningless, would it be useful? From my Marxist perspective on religion, the answer is quite clear-cut. I do nonetheless look kindly to efforts linking Islam with modernity.

Any thoughts, questions, or other relevancies? Please do share in the comments section! :p

Rattle those chains!

Western democracies often label themselves as 'free'. But what does it mean to be free? How free are we really? With this post I do not seek to refute the liberties enjoyed by citizens in the West. I simply wish to reflect upon the nature of those liberties; I want to investigate if liberty is synonymous with freedom. In the tradition of some earlier posts I want to promote a view rooted in marxist thought - what follows thus is a marxist conception of freedom.

There are a few difficulties in grasping an abstract philosophical notion like 'freedom'. We need to overcome these before we can judge todays freedom, and point out future directions. The latter should be the ultimate goal of our reflections. Now how to deal with the problems we face? How to know freedom? As always, starting in the field of practice proves to be useful: in the West we are free in a relative fashion, relative to contemporary authoritarian societies and relative to our own past social order. This notion of relative freedom has its (theoretic) opposite in an absolute freedom. I added theoretic between brackets because freedom can never be absolute. Absolute freedom only exists in the realm of fiction, where it is often attributed to divine beings. Mortals however will always be subject to boundaries; as material substance human beings have to abide the rules of physics. Next to the laws of nature, other limitations exist: geographic conditions, material capacities, social structures, etc. Even the expectations themselves can impose boundaries as expectations are formed within a social context - our scope of possibilities can be limited by dominant cultural values.

Mankind is however no passive slave of his conditions; throughout history we gained knowledge over nature and applied tools to overcome our limitations. Agriculture lead to increased carrying capacity of the land, language allowed for better coordination, etc. Sometimes our instruments of liberation imposed new boundaries, as was the case with economic modes of production (feudality, capitalism) or the creation of unity (culture, religion, nationalism). Karl Marx' famous example is the organization of society under the state - a strong mechanism for overcoming our natural condition but a strong boundary on further development as well. In fact, Marx thought it was such a big roadblock that he saw revolutionary overthrow of the state as only possible way forward. A bit radical, but considering the circumstances at his time not a strange conclusion at all.

Our liberal freedom is built upon the unfreedom of others.
Historic ánd continued exploitation make up pour welfare;

Speaking of evolution, we can discern an evolutionary pattern away from the initial 'anarchic' freedom. This natural condition was described by Hobbes as the fight of all against all; Darwin called it the struggle for survival. It is a natural freedom of social boundaries that we luckily left behind us. Ever since civilization came about, history has unfold as a history of emancipation from our boundaries. The modern day western society is quantitatively more free than say China's or Iran's. Qualitatively they are all the same: they are communities build upon tools to lift us out of natural anarchy but impose new limitations. They are filled with tools of oppression (political correctness, gender constructs) and tools of exploitation (a capitalist market economy).

One might argue that western democracies do not pose the same physical obstacles as raised by 'unfree' societies. True, but our liberal freedom - manifested in welfare and security - is based upon the exploitation and unfreedom of others: the bottom billion in the third world, the cheap Chinese workers, etc. Our freedom is stolen freedom and simply shifts the burden. The goal should be to take the next qualitative jump from liberal freedom to actual freedom. We ought to build a fair society in which the explicit goal is true maximum freedom for all, not just limited freedom reserved for some.

Nationalism as an empty box: the Flemish case

Recently, my good friend and blogger Dimitri asked me how he could define ideology. He was tasked with a review of Breytenbach and his literary opposition to the South African Apartheid regime. This compelled me to re-investigate some material I came across last year whilst writing a paper myself. In this post I want to share some insights on nationalist ideologies.

I resent the tendency among nationalists to defend their ideas as a coherent national ideology. There, I said it.

When assessing whether nationalism can be an ideology, one must keep in mind the distinction between two contrasting views on the concept: the scientific and the ideological. Any ideology will claim that it offers a coherent world view rooted in a real basis. All other ideologies are rooted in something else, something 'not real', and thus are false. For nationalists the ultimate foundation is the national character, the 'soul' of a people. To allow this nationalists have to presume a primordial 'nature'. Traditional nationalism considers the qualities that make up this nature to be given and invariable. More sophisticated versions circulate today, but I feel that the discourse of cultural patterns is more of a rhetorical means to block criticism. For it sure is not a genuine element of the theory.

"Rectilinear Flanders - Turn the page in a
pull to the right and you will see the
center color black" - cartoonist GAL
criticizes the impact of the ideology behind
Flemish nationalism. Depicted is De Wever
chairman of the New-Flemish Alliance.

From a sociological point of view, presuming a people with a single nature is too much of an abstraction. Bart De Wever, leader of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA, often recognizes this in debates. What he fails to explain is how nationalism can escape the devastating impact of this conclusion. (It can't). This pattern is typical for modern nationalism: Romantic views of national liberation lack the mobilization potential it had back in the 19th century. And indeed nationalism in itself has become hollow, an empty demand for autonomy that floats in an ideological vacuum. The empty box of nationalism requires to be filled with the conceptual framework of a proper ideology.

In the Flemish case we see that the N-VA draws upon neoconservative ideas on society and mankind. For its economic program it takes on board neoliberal recipes. This makes that the party program - save from the demand of independence in itself - has nothing to do with nationalism. The other Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang, adopts an ideology situated at the far-right. Politicians of these two parties argue that Flemish nationalism provides a case for analyzing practically anything, from the budget to migration policy. But they are wrong, nationalism is not an ideology! Always try to trace the underlying ideology and unmask nationalism for the poor view it is - if it can be called a view at all.

Turning the lens around

Recently I told a good friend of mine about the concept détournement. I was quite amazed that he didn't know it, since it is a valuable contribution to anyone's mindset. Therefore I wish to share it on my blog. Détournement is a French term that translates as 'deflection' or 'distortion'. It was developed as a technique in the 1950s by a group of radical artists and thinkers called the Letterist International. Founder and exponent of this movement was Guy Debord. He described détournement as "using spectacular images and language to disrupt the flow of the spectacle". This sounds more difficult than it actually is, as it comes down to using imagery handed to you by common culture and deflecting its message so that it becomes critical of that culture.

Big corporations and their unethical practices are often the
target of détournement messages. Especially since the most
dominant field for this technique is anti-consumerism.

As an artistic technique, détournement is closely related to other forms of art you might know better. A parody, for instance, takes common imagery and symbols to construct a new message often critical of that which is parodied. Parallels can also be found with Pop Art, which expresses a critical attitude against a high arts-low arts division. To speak of détournement, however, something more is needed: the goal of the trick must be social change. Détournement is rooted in Marxist thought and as such it seeks to alter society for the better. While the filosofical concept might be marginal in terms of popularity, manifestations are nonetheless visible. Just think of so-called culture jamming; groups of activists who create satirical and cynical messages on consumerism and globalization.

For people who like heavy material on détournement and the surrounding structure of theory, I recommend Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle. This work deals with the idea that, in a state of advanced capitalism, mass media and dominant cultural patterns oppress human potential. The eponymous film is enjoyable if you're into Marxist social theory. For all the others I refer to more accessible - less radical - material of people such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein or even Michael Moore. They all make use of détournement or promote similar ideas.

My favorite piece of détournement art by street artist Banksy. If you have no idea what this is about,
check out this picture. It was taken during the Vietnam War, after an American napalm-strike...

The rise of social media: A conservative revolution

The title of this post is inspired by my love for the oxymoron: a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. After all how can a revolution be conservative? Well, consider the latest revolution in the way we communicate. There is the increasing importance of mobile communication, we have a proliferation of social network sites, and let us not forget the blog, of course. When you are just like me skeptic towards this digital (r)evolution people tend to classify you as 'conservative' or 'backwards'. Yet I dare to argue that not the critics but the revolution is conservative. At first this statement might sound silly but allow me to explain.

The communication revolution that brought about chat services and facebook is just a next step ahead on the road to modernization. I wont argue against that. However, it is just a next step down a certain road. It might be modernization, but it is mainly the intensification of an already existing process. Look at it from an historical viewpoint: way back, when man still had an oral culture, few individuals controlled the information stream trough tradition. Over time, various communication revolutions (writing, printing, etc.) have freed the individual from this control. The balance in society shifted from traditional/communal thought to more modern/individual modes of expression. New ways of communicating actually liberated the private sphere from community control and brought about the modern individual. So far so good. But now for more recent changes in our communication: the rise of mass media and, subsequently, of social media. In effect, this evolution is sucking us back into the communal world of before. Television and social network sites seem to stress the dominant value patterns in society. Two mechanisms are at work here: first of all our identity becomes increasingly fragmented. We have become hyper-individuals who associate with numerous groups at a time. This is not bad per se, since I like to see the influence of say religious or ideologic dogma waning. At the same time however this leaves us vulnerable for the second mechanism: the socialization of dominant values.

How contradictory it may seem, growing individualism brought us to a point where people become socially inert. The majority of us no longer questions things in a fundamental way. As a society we do not care for change or justice, we have become indifferent towards our own future. People are more empowered than ever, but at the same time they have lost a critical awareness. Therefore I advocate an alternative use of the tools that currently enslave us to a pensée unique; I want the digitalized media to be used for liberation and true empowerment. The essence of my plea is captured beautifully by this quote from Edward R. Murrow on television:

Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late. [...] if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.

Feel free to replace 'television' with 'twitter' or 'facebook'. I could go on for [p]ages, but this post is getting long and complex enough. If you feel the need to more thorough explanation, I can point to Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. Or you might enjoy the ideas of bright chaps like Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci. Feel free to use the comments section too!