"Power of Nightmares" (Part 3)

"Power of Nightmares" (Part 2)

"Power of Nightmares" (Part 1)

Truth vs. Deception/Philosophers vs. Politicians

I really like how Ryan once commented in one of the blog that “ignorance to some extent might just be the bliss we need to continue with a purpose.” I do agree that many people do enjoy living an ignorant life because it is a much easier life compared with the assiduous, hard-working life of a philosopher. I do think that in any society, any culture, any country, we all need philosophers, they are WISE, and without them the truth can hardly get revealed. Everyone will question me that, “So if they are so important, why are they not as popular as politicians?” Please don’t feel offended if you are on the politician’s side and observe here that I put politicians on the other side of the equation. I wholeheartedly DO NOT mean that politicians are less wise or ignorant. My point is politicians and philosophers have different responsibilities and missions in this world and it is just a totally challenging work to compare which one is more important. However, I do think we are living in an ignorant world because what we know is limited compared with all the truths out there. Therefore, in order to control that ignorant world, we need politicians, but in order to find out the real truths, we still need philosophers. One of the reasons I took this class was because the last summer, I read The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. The book was very interesting, very realistic. It is based on the fact that men are self-interest and natural venture seeking creatures, they get appealed by mysterious things, and if you can focus on these characteristics of men, you will possess the power to influence, to control, and in general to spread your power on any individual that you desire. Deception seems to be the backbone of all the strategies. At the beginning, it made me question so much whether the book is useful for me and, by any means, moral. Some of the laws sound very wicked and deception-oriented, for example, law 3 states that “conceal your Intentions” by all means or law 10: “Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary.” After finishing the book, I realized that the book is written and its laws were designed for a certain category of readers. If you are the one who is on the philosopher’s side, you will get quite skeptical towards the content of the book. However, you are politicians; the book is a true bible that helps you deal with people. It turns me back to the beginning of my stream of thoughts that the truth is still the truth, it is just the matter of time that before it can get discovered; however, ignorant men do not care much about the truth, they are self-oriented, self-interest; therefore, politicians, holding the control responsibility, have to have a different medicine to deal with these patients, deception is just one.

Lies, lies, lies...or not?

The main focus in our discussion on Hannah Arendt was her seemingly racist views. We read “The Human Condition” to gain a better understanding of the vita activa which we then looked at in its relation to racism in Dr. Johnson’s paper “A barely conscience reaction: Arendt, South Africa, and Colonial Hearts of Darkness.” But I’d like to go way back to our first reading by Arendt, “Truth and Politics.”

In our discussion of “Truth and Politics” we asked whether truth-tellers can exist in politics to which there was a consensus of no: politicians have to lie in order to appeal to the public. But what exactly is lying? Is it as simple as being untruthful or are there degrees to which one can manipulate the truth before it’s actually considered lying? Is there a difference or should there be? This seems to be a very gray area, a faintly drawn line in the sand that is often crossed.

For example, the issue of negative campaigning was brought up in the presidential debate Wednesday to which both candidates acknowledged that campaigning has been tough. Both McCain and Obama have issued negative ads aimed toward the other but that’s nothing new in politics; it seems to be a good way of attracting attention. But by being negative have the candidates crossed the line between manipulating facts and lying? One of McCain’s ads criticizes Obama’s plan for sex education saying that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners. However, the ad is full of quotes taken out of context to make this claim appear to be what Obama proposes. On the flip side, there are Obama ads that speak out of context in regards to McCain’s views on energy, immigration, and stem cell research. Do we consider these misused quotes to be lies or manipulation? If the ads are not truthful then they are lying; but if the information in the ads is truthful, only presented in a way that is untruthful, is that merely manipulation?

And how does this negative untruthful campaigning affect the American people? So much is taken at face value in today’s society that many who see these ads don’t make an effort to check the facts. They simply accept the message as truth whether it is or not. What does this say about Americans? Are we naïve or so lazy that we blindly believe what we hear without discovering for ourselves the validity of such ads? By not fact-checking are we admitting that the truth doesn’t actually matter? I find it scary to think Americans would rather believe manipulative ads because it gives them one more reason to dislike a candidate than acknowledge there is more to the issue.

Politics would be radically different if instead of having negative ads that often misrepresent their opponents politicians stated only the truth about their views and opinions as well as those of their opponent. It seems that entirely truthful campaigns would be most beneficial to the American people since the majority lack the impetus to discover truth for themselves. So why is negative campaigning used? What is so terrible about telling the truth? I think it is because negative ads stir up drama. They anger people and turn campaigns into he-said she-said games with no progress on actual issues. But that makes life interesting and gives people something to follow. If Americans want and respond to untruthful drama then what’s to stop the media from giving them just that?

Foucault

Foucault, in his own verbose and difficult way, deconstructs everything that we have attempted to grasp in the class. He “emancipates the analysis” power, in relation to sovereignty and its basic elements of subject, unity, and law into what he calls operators of domination. He wishes for us to extract operators of domination from relations of powers, since power functions in networks, and cannot be possessed. We must then begin with the relationship of power before we analyze the subject, because the subject is only created by power, according to Foucault. Foucault explains his analysis of power to be in concrete terms, in which we must reject the juridical view of sovereignty. However, to theoretically counter his elaborate analysis of power, I would like to introduce to the theory of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor is a theory that states that when given multiple definitions, the simplest one is the best. While I can accept Foucault’s attempt to reanalyze power, I feel that most people would be quite content with the idea of power as exerted through sovereignty, like in the first book that we read. I assume that the general population does not often think of power the way Foucault does, as a flowing network in which power is not possessed. I think the general population is content with the idea that power can be possessed, like physical strength. I think the common misconception of Foucaultian power materializes when he says that warlike society was replaced by a State with military functions. The State is an entity, which common can be seen as a possessor of power (i.e. a military), but this trap that Foucault wishes for everyone to avoid. Complicating the matter was the beginning of the historico-political discourse that linked war to the institution of power.

Foucault’s argument is very accurate in his own system that he has created, but he himself admits that knowledge (and truth, to some extent), in relation to the histrico-political discourse of war, is based on perspective. This is one aspect that I can particularly agree with. This idea was championed by Frederic Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche, truth is never universal. Foucaualt draws on this in one of his other works, La Volonte de savoir, when he states “knowledge is always a certain strategic relation in which man finds himself placed (xx).” In Foucault’s historico-political discourse of war, truth functions as a weapon, because its discourse can be manipulated in order to fit the situation.

The Nature of Stereotypes

I recently finished reading The Nature of Monsters by Clare Clark, an intriguing novel where the lines between “normal” and “inhuman” are explored. The story is set in 1718 London, where modest apothecary and scientist Grayson Black is conducting some very unusual experiments. Born with a disfiguring birthmark after his mother witnessed a fire, Black is obsessed with “maternal impression,” the idea that a mother can mark her unborn child. He therefore invites Eliza, a pregnant sixteen-year-old, into his home, and attempts to disfigure the fetus by traumatizing the mother. As the story develops, Grayson Black proves himself to be a monster—perhaps not in appearance, but certainly in nature.

Obviously, this is just fiction, but a good story always has a little truth in it. Black, after years of being labeled a “monster” because of his appearance, becomes one in truth. Which raised the question for me: do people mold themselves to fit society’s expectations? For example, do blondes sometimes purposely act like the stereotypical “dumb blonde” because it’s what is anticipated? The same goes for “fiery redheads” and “dependable brunettes.” Or is society simply programmed to notice the people who fit these stereotypes rather than those who defy them: e.g. the even-tempered redhead, brilliant blonde, and vivacious brunette. No one wants to be stupid, over-emotional, or boring, yet it seems strange how many people “fit” their labels.

I think the same applies to more serious typecasts. If someone can’t speak or read clearly, they must be stupid; obese people are lazy and gluttonous; all African Americans speak in Ebonics. When a person encounters this sort of negative attitude constantly, unless they have very high self-esteem, they might adopt some of these traits, or simply believe they have them, out of pure hopelessness. A girl with a speech impediment, having been told she’s an idiot for the hundredth time, may start to believe it. The overweight little boy might stop attempting to lose weight after enough wise cracks from his thin older brother.

Society’s views and expectations have an effect on how people present themselves. Modern American culture is one full of categories, and almost everyone feels the need to fit in somewhere. We want to fall into a category, even if it isn’t necessarily accurate or flattering, for the sake of having a niche.