Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Conspiracy, underhand politics, coup d' etat, 70's flavour

11:24 / 28.08.04

Not sure where this should go.

Why, in a time when media manipulation is so apparent, when people seem aware that governments lie, that deals are struck in an under-handed manner and that double-speak is alive and well, do we seem to be, as a mass, docile in our acceptance of it?

13:32 / 28.08.04

Guy DeBord's Society of the Spectacle (full text online here) might go some way to providing a theoretical framework/vocabulary to discussing this.

Jenna Elfman's Hollywood Haus
(prev. West Baltimore Hausing Project)

20:57 / 30.08.04

do we seem to be, as a mass, docile in our acceptance of it?

Debord aside, I'm not sure that that is actually the case. There is a passage in "Hegemony or Survival" that points out that protest against the Vietnam War was only really mobilised in any significant numbers well into the war, after large numbers of troops had been committed and mind-mangling quantities dropped on Vietnam. By constrast, protest against the war in Iraq was quick, widespread and may yet have far-reaching impacts for the countries involved.

So, asking why do we seem to be, as a mass, docile in our acceptance of it seems to be connected to assuming that we *are* as a mass thus docile, which may not be the case. I'm not entirely sure that it is. One might say that the information to which some audiences (specifically the US population) have access is more limited in some ways, most obviously in the dominance of Fox TV, but I don't think that's a complete picture...

Benny, could you give a clearer picture of how you perceive this docility is expressed?

17:09 / 31.08.04

I would add that in a sense people express their disbelief/distrust in the world of political discourse and politics by refusing to engage with it, apathy might be too pejorative a word – perhaps disengagement, disbelief or even refusal might be better ie. one criticism that’s consistently levelled at Blair about the consequences of his actions re. Iraq, is it’s effect on voter turnout. One might also look at the haemorrhaging of Labour Party membership, for example...

18:08 / 31.08.04

It's more of a "Amusing Ourselves to Death" feeling about the protests and knowledge of under-handed practices that permiates from conversations and newsreporting, rather than a gruffy sense that we are docile, per say. The fact that doumentation of ill-practice has so easily slipped into high profile entertainment (books like No Logo and Fast Food Nation, and Michael Moore - love him or hate him - is a success as a film maker, but how many people walk away changed compared to how many people walk away talking about the subject matter before getting on with their lifes as they were). Also there was a real sadness about the march against the war in London, where large numbers of people I spoke with were either complaining about 'damned students protesting about what they don't know about' and 'well I just came along to see what it would be like'. There was one moment where the protest obviously became a bit too much of a genuine protest for the police's liking, and they moved in swifly hearding large groups of people away from the US embassey.

Sorry if not so clear, I'm still doing some reading around this idea, and so far everything seems to come across as though we are being herded about, told that bad things are happening, and given only enough space to demonstate our displeasue, but not enough freedom to actually do anything active about it (the war still happened).

Also as for voting apathy, do we think that not voting as a protest (and a right) is effective, or is spoiling ballots the only way to show this? Is there a correct way to spoil a ballot as protest and not as just anarchic spoiling?