Mass Society and Elite Ideology

[Doobah47]

I'll agree that truth is a functional illusion. Whenever I try to discuss the concept of deviation meaning lie (in language for example) people cite the fact that language is symbolic, but I insist that the point ('truth is ineffable') is more fundamental than symbolism.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I'll agree that truth is a functional illusion. Whenever I try to discuss the concept of deviation meaning lie (in language for example) people cite the fact that language is symbolic, but I insist that the point ('truth is ineffable') is more fundamental than symbolism.

Doobah,

What is more elemental to the truth than sensation/ experience. I agree symbolism comes in much later and is mean't to communicate an experience, truth as sensation, is immediate to the subject.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Very interesting post and among my favorite topics, Pythagorean.

I cannot agree more with your description of society, with an elitist (I call them parasitic) class presiding over a much larger lower class, particularly through fraudulent cultural norms and ideological hegemony.

You do seem to come from a viewpoint of interdependencies as a necessity for society in relating the ruling and subservient classes, which is good. I also agree that hierarchy is not necessarily immoral, and even that individuals need to be aware of themselves.

However, I cannot help but disagree with viewpoint that pervades your entire post, namely that there need be a hierarchal system of rulers. I am an anarchist via Benjamin Tucker and his great influences Max Stirner and PJ Proudhon, and hold that anarchy, and society itself, is only possible between free and equal actors. If there exists an inherent dependency within the proletariat to the elite class, then we do not have society, we have slavery. Because of this, I find your general position of a necessary hierarchy to be self-defeating.

[Solace]

What this whole thread lacks is the concept that people just simply don't care. Call them "sheeple", call them slaves, call them the masses, call them whatever you like, they just don't care. They are content to do what they're told, to take what they're given, so they deserve whatever befalls them. This is entirely evident through Michael Moore's work. He doesn't go so far as to outright say it in Farenheit 911, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines or supposition to conclude that Bush orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers. Moore didn't get shot in the head for bringing this to light, he didn't even get charged or sued. He was by and large ignored by "the elite" cause they knew that people just wouldn't care. If these people don't care about what's happening to them, why should anybody else?

[GoshisDead]

I cannot agree more with your description of society, with an elitist (I call them parasitic) class presiding over a much larger lower class, particularly through fraudulent cultural norms and ideological hegemony.

What exactly makes a cultural norm fraudulent? The "elite" classes didn't create the cutlural norms, They may be arbitrary but what makes them fraudulent? There has never been as far as anyone knows a true anarchist society/culture. It would follow that the idea of anarchy applied to a cultural species is fraudulent.

I am an anarchist via Benjamin Tucker and his great influences Max Stirner and PJ Proudhon, and hold that anarchy, and society itself, is only possible between free and equal actors. If there exists an inherent dependency within the proletariat to the elite class, then we do not have society, we have slavery. Because of this, I find your general position of a necessary hierarchy to be self-defeating.

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

[Didymos Thomas]

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

Perhaps, but let's not be so quick to make that judgment.

Consider your example - 'a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms'. Confucius would have this the other way around - the farmer being the most vital role in society, and therefore, the most highly prized. And think about it, medical care is worthless when you are starving to death.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

What exactly makes a cultural norm fraudulent? The "elite" classes didn't create the cutlural norms, They may be arbitrary but what makes them fraudulent? There has never been as far as anyone knows a true anarchist society/culture. It would follow that the idea of anarchy applied to a cultural species is fraudulent.

We can get into the definition of truth in this but that belongs to the epistemology forum. For this I will operate from a common sense idea of the truth; it isn't well defined but for our purposes it is fair.

Cultural norms are simply ideas and can be false or true just the same. For a couple of prime examples, how about the cultural norms that have pervaded certain societies that women or blacks are inferior. These are false because they are demonstrably wrong (if only because it requires someone to define what it means to be inferior, which will always leave them at a point of circularity or outright contradiction).

As for the parasitic or elite class's role in the dissemination of cultural norms, norms are spread through natural and logical mechanisms, just as genes are. As such, those in power, those in positions of influence, precisely those who have the ability to make another's life more or less enjoyable (or whatever measure drives a person's actions), will be the purveyors of ideas and norms. We can certainly look at role the government, the priest, or the employer has in altering our behaviors and values to its preferences.

I think your last sentence is a non-sequitor, unless you can explain it better that is.

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

I don't consider hierarchy to include variance in talent or obligations caused by free association.

If one person satisfies his desires by agreeing to work for another (and what constitutes coercion between these two is one of the most difficult questions of political economy), I find it hard to call this hierarchy. Even if you do call it hierarchy, it is an entirely meaningless form.

[GoshisDead]

'a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms'. Confucius would have this the other way around - the farmer being the most vital role in society, and therefore, the most highly prized. And think about it, medical care is worthless when you are starving to death.

Indeed this is true, however the china when Confucius was from had a heirarchy where farmers were considered common and healers were elevated. Its a scarcity of resources thing. The healer could farm had s/he the need, but not all farmers could heal.

Cultural norms are simply ideas and can be false or true just the same. For a couple of prime examples, how about the cultural norms that have pervaded certain societies that women or blacks are inferior. These are false because they are demonstrably wrong (if only because it requires someone to define what it means to be inferior, which will always leave them at a point of circularity or outright contradiction).

As for the parasitic or elite class's role in the dissemination of cultural norms, norms are spread through natural and logical mechanisms, just as genes are. As such, those in power, those in positions of influence, precisely those who have the ability to make another's life more or less enjoyable (or whatever measure drives a person's actions), will be the purveyors of ideas and norms. We can certainly look at role the government, the priest, or the employer has in altering our behaviors and values to its preferences.

Again how can a cultural norm be fraudulent? There are no value claims in the norm itself. While agreed about the truth of inferiority comment on the base of demonstrable non-inferiority, the norm itself could not be fraudulent. As you said in the second paragraph they are passed on like genes, or rather cultural memes, they also undergo cultural evolution and are changed, modified, or replaced wholesale with other norms that are just as arbitrary. The value of the norms are not in the norms themselves but in the people, as a people changes so does its culture's norms.

As for the other comment, Heirarchy in politics is simply disproportionate power becoming codified/institutionalized. Take an "egalitarian" society where there is no permenent "Big Man". Heirarchy is materialistically inherent in these structures by virtue of the manipulation of scarce resources. The best hunter, the best gatherer, the best healer are respected more and thusly make a disproportionate number of important group decisions. One would have to change human nature to try and somehow legislate away the respect given them and the heeding of their opinion they expect by virtue of their specialized occupations within the community.

Once again there is no way to avoid a heirarchy in a species that is hard wired for group living.

[Didymos Thomas]

Indeed this is true, however the china when Confucius was from had a heirarchy where farmers were considered common and healers were elevated. Its a scarcity of resources thing. The healer could farm had s/he the need, but not all farmers could heal.

I think you underestimate the skills required for farming, especially in such an early society. No weather forecast, not even an almanac.

Farmers can heal, though not as well as someone trained to heal. And, sure healers could farm, but not as well as someone trained to farm. Both careers required, and still do require, a great deal of knowledge and experience.

Confucius suggested that farmers be at the top of the hierarchy as a food supply is the single most important thing for a society to have.

[GoshisDead]

I understand, and I agree with the sentiment, its simply that its never happened as far as anyone knows.