What would a theory of America look like that featured stories like this one? It would start by calling out our telltale assumption that all political systems must possess some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of those over whom they rule. It would then note that our own system attains its legitimacy by asserting a series of simple belief statements, such as “America is a democracy,” “We are all equal before the law,” and “In a free market everyone is rewarded according to his or her merits.” Next, the theorists would observe how our politics, conducted in this fairy tale universe, is largely a matter of trying to convince everyone to believe that these statements are true.
Still, our new theory would hardly have touched the real question, which is: How in the world do Americans manage to believe such propositions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Do Americans believe such propositions? Obviously we must, or else why would they be so effective? But as anyone who has spent any time at working-class bars or diners or church picnics can testify, almost no one in America really does believe “We are all equal before the law” or “America is a democracy.” Instead, the controlling conviction is this: most Americans are utterly convinced most other Americans believe such things. Most Americans, that is, think most other Americans are profoundly stupid.
The ideology works by turning the cynical superiority of the huckster, who believes that the common run of humanity is composed primarily of hapless suckers, into a tool of social control. “Hey, I can see through it all,” we say. “The game is rigged. But let me tell you: most people are really that naive. They actually believe this shit.”…
But the joke is on the huckster. No one believes the buncombe. The only people being hoodwinked are those who imagine anyone else could be so naive.
Buncombe
David Graeber | Contributing Editor
7 comments:
"at working-class bars or diners or church picnics"
Diverse people are going to be in these places with diverse opinions and I think people who dont always get their way often think things like "we dont have a democracy" or "we are not equal before the law" , "its a conspiracy", "its all corrupt", "the game is rigged", etc... or things like this as like "sour grapes" or something.
Its a bit 'immature'...
We have to be able to compromise; learn that we dont always get OUR way on things... and get back to work and though continue to advocate and test our opinions.
Seems like this ability is lacking in general these days.
I think 'stupidity' is indeed involved in our current socio-economic situation but not as David describes here.
rsp,
We all like to think we're smarter than the average bear. And we're very good at adapting to circumstances. But we're not very good at choosing our decision makers. And we allow them to be corrupted by the "elite" amongst us. Anyone really qualified to lead us politically does not have the political skills to put up with the BS it takes to do the job. Quite a paradox. Anyone who wants to be a politician should immediately be disqualified from being one.-Billy Connolly, scottish comedian
Chewitup,
From your brief comment it sounds like you think we all know what our decision makers should do after we elect them.
I think the problem is that "the things we all know our decision makers should do" are not really the things that need to be done. I think that's the real problem.
Good comment, Matt Franko. I think Graeber is a jerk. He says people are stupid? I say it takes one to know one.
Art I think David represents the case for the occupy kids...
There is no doubt that those kids are getting screwed the most in all of this... I cannot put into words how screwed these kids are getting imo... its f-ing horrible...
HUGE student debt and when they get out: NO JOBS for what they trained for... yet the collections agents for the govt loans are probably blowing up their phones...
And a lot of these disenfranchised are artistic/creative types which although we all enjoy all of that kind of stuff the most, this is the area that gets cut first when we "run out of money" and these kids cant get employed in what their purpose is, etc...
So there is a disenfranchisement that imo Graeber ends up representing for them in venues like in this article here...
We have to get this monetary system ignorance overturned or we will eventually lose many of these kids that Graeber imo represents....
rsp.
Graeber is NOT saying people are stupid. He is saying that this is a false perception that's getting the way of action. Just about everyone gets it but most assume that because the show goes on that no one else but they do. So they blame all the stupid people for the persistence of the status quo. I think that many young people are under this illusion, for instance, and so they don't bother voting or taking part in the politics process other than bitching about being screwed.
What Graeber is implying is to realize that (almost) everyone one does get it, and if everyone everyone or at least a lot of people realize this, then we will see more mass protests and political action against the big rip-off.
Tom,
Did you ever read Harry Franfurt's "On Bullshit"?
Philosophical approach to the subject.
Good point, Chewitup. IIRC, he makes the point that most people distinguish between BS and lying. They expect BS from advertisers, politicians, and fishermen. Those whose interests conflict with the truth strictly speaking tend to they stretch things, knowingly or unknowingly. In politics, it's called spin. The job of trial lawyers is to make the worse case appear the better, not by being untruthful but presenting the case in the best light possible for one's client.
People are more or less OK with that in that they discount it, sort of canceling it out. But what people perceive as conscious and intentional lying is considered a moral flaw and it taken seriously.
Frankfurt would like to see a stricter standard adhered to conventionally. He wrote a sequel called On Truth, in which he emphasizes the need to hold strictly to the truth in all cases to optimize one's personal life and life in society. That is also the teaching of perennial wisdom, where it is not a matter of just telling the truth but living it. Those who don't are hypocrites.
A lie where it is difficult to ascertain the facts is often accepted as true, especially when it comes from a credible source. Take Colin Powell's testimony about Iraq's nuclear program, for example. Even Powell didn't realize it was untrue until later.
Variations are the noble lie is a technique described by Plato, and the Big Lie was invented by Hitler to blame the Jews for Germany's WWI defeat. later pick up by Goebbles wrt the British. Then there is the "little white lie" that is commonly used for social convenience.
So there is a whole range here. Just about everyone recognizes BS, which Graeber calls buncombe. But entire nations and cultures can be taken in a real lie cleverly told and strongly and persistently messaged. It can be difficult or impossible for many if not most partisans to accept even when the lie is exposed.
On analysis, the situation is more complex than Graeber sets forth in "Buncombe." But I think he is correct in holding that most people see through the BS. But there are lies that they don't see though to.
There are many things that may qualify for being the noble lie, as Samuelson allied to about the idea of the need to balance the budget, or the Big Lie that was the propaganda campaign leading up to the the Iraq War.
Post a Comment