(This is a deep subject, and I don’t have time. I had hoped to retire by now
(65), but certain events on the planet dictate that I not abandon the post. So, this-all is just from what hours
are left to me (and what time is left to me), what-between a full-time job, and
now-necessary Eldergent naps.)
Anyhow: A
persistent undercurrent of the Ferguson events, events which by no means
(contrary to some hopes and expectations) have yet burned themselves out (for
they are fed by deeper fires than mere politics -- deeper even than race) is a battle between:
In the blue trunks (at least, as perceived by the red trunks): a collective Superego;
and in the red
trunks : a collective Id.
(And yes, yes, truly to make the case, would require more
research and analysis than I can offer; sed
-- eppur’ si muove, so throwing this out there, food for thought.)
What is largely missing at street-level is the referee, a responsible adult Ego.
Thus, consider merely the aspect of Anonymity.
Fact: An
officer, name not yet revealed, in the context of a physical confrontation, shoots
a teen, evoking outrage from the teen’s cohort.
Fact: As a
result of this, death-threats are directed to-whom-it-may-concern. Whoever he may be, he and his
family are now in danger of their lives.
Fact:
Accordingly (here simply being responsible, the Ego in control) the
authorities decline to reveal his identity as yet.
Fact: This refusal
causes further outrage among the subalterns.
Fact: Despite
all the certainties on each side, the facts of the confrontation remain
obscure. The officer might
have committed an indictable crime; he might not; he might even have been doing a dangerous job courageously. We still don’t know.
At this point, a certain band of self-righteous activists
endeavor to smash this outrageous anonymity and ferret out the identity of the officer. Self-sure that they have found it
(“Mr. A”), they broadcast this around;
Mr. A is now in danger for his life.
Only, it turns out that, so far from being the officer in
question, Mr. A is not even a police officer to begin with. The vigilantes just screwed the pooch.
Irony of ironies:
The group that perpetrated this call themselves …. Anonymous.
Sequelae: They
do not apologize, nor reveal their
identities. Nobody learns anything
from this. Indeed, the Id never
listens; the Id never learns.
For a further example of our split selves collectively battling their own id, try this:
http://worldofdrjustice.blogspot.com/2012/12/word-of-day-pre-commitment-latest-update.html
~
[Update 5 October 2014] An incident yesterday evening in
Saint Louis sharpened the sense of underclass resentment at symbols of high culture
rather than pragmatic pushback against institutions of coercion: Ferguson protestors interrupted a concert
at Symphony Hall.
This reminded me of a tactic espoused by community organizer
Saul Alinsky:
“I suggested that we might buy one
hundred seats for one of Rochester's symphony concerts. We would select a
concert in which the music would be relatively quiet. The hundred blacks who
would be given tickets would first be treated to a three-hour pre-concert
dinner in the community, in which they would be fed nothing but baked beans,
and lots of them; them the people would go to the symphony hall--with obvious
consequences.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Reveille for
Radicals (1946)
At the time I read this (ca. 1971), I was living in Berkeley,
and hanging out with radicals myself. But I remember feeling queasy at the
self-congratulatory tone of this passage, in the context of the book. That is not organizing the
working-class for its world-historical mission; rather it is simply stirring up the Id-pot, bringing toxins
to the bubbling surface.
Saul Alinsky, summoning
up
what ‘twere best left
at the bottom of the pot
|
For another cautionary tale about summoning the forces of
darkness, consider this:
~
Another caveat.
At the symphony intervention, the protestors trotted out the
golden oldie “Which Side Are You On”.
Fair enough, only: Before you go down that road, best to
check the balance of forces.
If, by means of repeated provocations, you force people to choose sides,
you might find that you are badly outnumbered.
It is just that with-us-or-against-us strategy that is so
worrisome about ISIL. Like
Dubya after 9/11, they are pugnaciously forcing people to sign up with one side
or the other: and by the very
psychodynamics of that motion, will cause the sides further to diverge.
In the case of the takfiris, if they “love death more than
you do life” (as they boast), and figure that a billion Muslims onboard is pretty
good odds, plus they’re looking forward to the End Times in any event, that strategy could even make
sense. Armageddon mon amour! More constructive projects require more nuanced tactics.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment