Welcome to the blog for Wake Forest University's Anthropological Theory class of Fall 2013. This blog will be creative, fun, serious, thoughtful, sensitive, and nuanced! Its goal is to change both the way we think about and mobilize theory and the way we think about the social world. Happy blogging and reading, and don't be afraid to get a little THEORY IN YOUR FACE!
Monday, September 16, 2013
Suggestion for blog contributors!
Responding to this essay (from a New York Times blog) from a Marxian or Durkheimian point of view would make an excellent blog entry!
In any event, read it and let me know what you think.
“A society lacking in unity based upon the commitment of men's wills to a common objective is nothing more than a pile of sand that the least jolt or the slightest puff will suffice to scatter.” (Alan 136). Without a powerful adhesive—a social glue, so to speak—a society’s collective consciousness gradually unravels, until nothing is left but disconnected, individual strands. For millennia, Western society’s predominant method of adhesion has been religious traditionalism. This phenomenon has weathered all manner of test, keeping groups united in the face of everything from tyrannical persecution to widespread famine and natural disaster. Interestingly enough, the adhesive of religiosity is not merely peeling away through the passage of time. Instead, this now ancient system of social coherence is being stripped away by a force more formidable than any dictator or wildfire—the internet. In its purest form, the internet is nothing more than an informational hub, the likes of which transcends age, sex, geographical barrier, and any other mental or physical roadblocks that has at one time or another impeded the spread of a world religion. It is unbridled in its potential, and stands on the cusp of assuming its role as modern society’s major adhesive.
Skeptical? As you should be! The claim I make is not meant for idle cocktail gossip, and demands both extensive analysis and critique. To begin, look no further than Peter Ludlow’s The Banality of Systematic Evil—a recent article published by The New York Times that addresses the perplexing generational gap in response to the hacktavist activites of figures like Edward Snowden. A stark divide has formed between mainstream media outlets—almost all of which call for Snowden’s condemnation after his leaking of the NSA’s surveillance program—and independent youth. In the former camp resides John Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, who argued that Snowden has committed “the worst form of treason.” John Bolton is 64. David Brooks, who in a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, argued: “For society to function well there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things.” David Brooks is 52. Conversely, a recent Time magazine poll conducted on the Internet revealed that 70% of 18-34 year olds believe Snowden’s actions were neither nefarious nor arrogant, and that he merely “did a good thing.” Assuming this trend extends to other similarly constructed online polls, it would seem as if the internet has ushered in a redefinition of what constitutes moral justification—a system that is not necessarily age specific so much as it is internet specific.
A society with groups that adhere to mutually exclusive constructions of good and evil is bound for inevitable conflict, and there exists no doubt in my mind that the hypothetical capture and conviction of Edward Snowden will be met with intense objection from younger age groups—likely culminating in internet organized protests. With the advent of hacktivism, we are witnessing firsthand a radical restructuring of social normality, all thanks to the upstart adhesive that is the World Wide Web.
Works Cited
Kenneth Allan; Kenneth D. Allan (2 November 2005). Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. Pine Forge Press. p. 136
Very provocative and thoughtful post! Your first quote is from Durkheim . . . but by attributing it to Allan you miss an opportunity to more overtly connect with the themes and authors of our course. Keep up the good work, making sure to make your connections explicit.
“Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other- bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx, Engels, 20). This statement by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was made in 1888 in Bourgeois and Proletarians but seems eerily applicable to the current state of the world, specifically of the United States. We hear over and over that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, and a great number of people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the intertwining of the corporate and governmental institutions. History has shown that such rising unrest among the masses and their anger at those in power creates a situation ripe for revolution. Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Aaron Swartz, Jeremy Hammond and Chelsea Manning are catalysts. Their actions represent the beliefs of a developing class consciousness. The increasing separation between the rich and the poor cause a desire for justice from the lower classes and fear from the upper classes. Based on the predictions by Marx and Engels, there will be an unavoidable uprising in the near future causing a dramatic shift in government, economics, and society in the United States.
According to Marxian theory, the driving force of history is the struggle between producers and exploiters. In a modern application of this model, the exploiters would be those with power in the government, and also in most cases, those with great corporate power. The producers would be the rest of the American People. Marx would argue that if the gap between these two groups of people continues to get larger, the more unrest will be felt by the masses. They will begin to realize that they are being taken advantage of and believe that their rights as citizens of the United States are being taken away. Such sentiments make a society ripe for revolution. When large numbers of people begin to feel that the risk of rebellion is worth losing everything they have left, revolution is in the near future. It has been “argued that it was sometimes necessary to break the rules that required obedience to the system in order to avoid systemic evil.” (Ludlow) The people we refer to as “whistleblowers” are simply those who have felt that justice and honesty in the face of a corrupt ruling class is worth their reputation, freedom, and even lives. They are they types of people that initiate rebellion and act upon the growing class consciousness.
As the masses grow larger and more dissatisfied with the state of the country, the upper classes begin to feel uneasy. Marx states, “but not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons- the modern working class- the proletarians.” (Marx, Engels, 23)By wielding their power and distinguishing themselves as economically superior to the lower classes, they are creating their own enemies, and therefore setting up their own demise. They created the last recession, which made even more people feel like victims to those in economic power. In the United States today, the fear of the upper class is expressed through government secrets, wars, and now most famously, the NSA. The American government is spying on its own people. If that does not scream fear, nothing does. The ruling class is recognizing that they are fewer in numbers and that the masses are unhappy. According to a Marxian view of this situation, the growing distrust between classes will lead to conflict and revolution. The upper class is the creator of those who will ultimately destroy them. Marx would understand that the growing number of whistleblowers is a sign that change is upon us.
Erickson, Paul A., and Liam D. Murphy. Readings for A History of Anthropological Theory. University of Toronto Press incorporated, 2013.
Very thoughtful post. I have mixed reactions to it. On the one hand, I'm not sure I agree that the US government (especially as represented by the NSA) is afraid of the American public. Leakers (a small group) and foreigners seem more the targets. On the other hand, I am intrigued by your idea that Snowden et al. represent a deeper undercurrent of popular dissatisfaction and latent revolutionary sentiment! Time will tell . . .
“A society lacking in unity based upon the commitment of men's wills to a common objective is nothing more than a pile of sand that the least jolt or the slightest puff will suffice to scatter.” (Alan 136). Without a powerful adhesive—a social glue, so to speak—a society’s collective consciousness gradually unravels, until nothing is left but disconnected, individual strands. For millennia, Western society’s predominant method of adhesion has been religious traditionalism. This phenomenon has weathered all manner of test, keeping groups united in the face of everything from tyrannical persecution to widespread famine and natural disaster. Interestingly enough, the adhesive of religiosity is not merely peeling away through the passage of time. Instead, this now ancient system of social coherence is being stripped away by a force more formidable than any dictator or wildfire—the internet. In its purest form, the internet is nothing more than an informational hub, the likes of which transcends age, sex, geographical barrier, and any other mental or physical roadblocks that has at one time or another impeded the spread of a world religion. It is unbridled in its potential, and stands on the cusp of assuming its role as modern society’s major adhesive.
ReplyDeleteSkeptical? As you should be! The claim I make is not meant for idle cocktail gossip, and demands both extensive analysis and critique. To begin, look no further than Peter Ludlow’s The Banality of Systematic Evil—a recent article published by The New York Times that addresses the perplexing generational gap in response to the hacktavist activites of figures like Edward Snowden. A stark divide has formed between mainstream media outlets—almost all of which call for Snowden’s condemnation after his leaking of the NSA’s surveillance program—and independent youth. In the former camp resides John Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, who argued that Snowden has committed “the worst form of treason.” John Bolton is 64. David Brooks, who in a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, argued: “For society to function well there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures. By deciding to unilaterally leak secret N.S.A. documents, Snowden has betrayed all of these things.” David Brooks is 52. Conversely, a recent Time magazine poll conducted on the Internet revealed that 70% of 18-34 year olds believe Snowden’s actions were neither nefarious nor arrogant, and that he merely “did a good thing.” Assuming this trend extends to other similarly constructed online polls, it would seem as if the internet has ushered in a redefinition of what constitutes moral justification—a system that is not necessarily age specific so much as it is internet specific.
A society with groups that adhere to mutually exclusive constructions of good and evil is bound for inevitable conflict, and there exists no doubt in my mind that the hypothetical capture and conviction of Edward Snowden will be met with intense objection from younger age groups—likely culminating in internet organized protests. With the advent of hacktivism, we are witnessing firsthand a radical restructuring of social normality, all thanks to the upstart adhesive that is the World Wide Web.
Works Cited
Kenneth Allan; Kenneth D. Allan (2 November 2005). Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. Pine Forge Press. p. 136
Very provocative and thoughtful post! Your first quote is from Durkheim . . . but by attributing it to Allan you miss an opportunity to more overtly connect with the themes and authors of our course. Keep up the good work, making sure to make your connections explicit.
ReplyDeleteA Marxian View on Whistleblowers
ReplyDelete“Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other- bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx, Engels, 20). This statement by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was made in 1888 in Bourgeois and Proletarians but seems eerily applicable to the current state of the world, specifically of the United States. We hear over and over that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, and a great number of people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the intertwining of the corporate and governmental institutions. History has shown that such rising unrest among the masses and their anger at those in power creates a situation ripe for revolution. Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Aaron Swartz, Jeremy Hammond and Chelsea Manning are catalysts. Their actions represent the beliefs of a developing class consciousness. The increasing separation between the rich and the poor cause a desire for justice from the lower classes and fear from the upper classes. Based on the predictions by Marx and Engels, there will be an unavoidable uprising in the near future causing a dramatic shift in government, economics, and society in the United States.
According to Marxian theory, the driving force of history is the struggle between producers and exploiters. In a modern application of this model, the exploiters would be those with power in the government, and also in most cases, those with great corporate power. The producers would be the rest of the American People. Marx would argue that if the gap between these two groups of people continues to get larger, the more unrest will be felt by the masses. They will begin to realize that they are being taken advantage of and believe that their rights as citizens of the United States are being taken away. Such sentiments make a society ripe for revolution. When large numbers of people begin to feel that the risk of rebellion is worth losing everything they have left, revolution is in the near future. It has been “argued that it was sometimes necessary to break the rules that required obedience to the system in order to avoid systemic evil.” (Ludlow) The people we refer to as “whistleblowers” are simply those who have felt that justice and honesty in the face of a corrupt ruling class is worth their reputation, freedom, and even lives. They are they types of people that initiate rebellion and act upon the growing class consciousness.
As the masses grow larger and more dissatisfied with the state of the country, the upper classes begin to feel uneasy. Marx states, “but not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons- the modern working class- the proletarians.” (Marx, Engels, 23)By wielding their power and distinguishing themselves as economically superior to the lower classes, they are creating their own enemies, and therefore setting up their own demise. They created the last recession, which made even more people feel like victims to those in economic power. In the United States today, the fear of the upper class is expressed through government secrets, wars, and now most famously, the NSA. The American government is spying on its own people. If that does not scream fear, nothing does. The ruling class is recognizing that they are fewer in numbers and that the masses are unhappy. According to a Marxian view of this situation, the growing distrust between classes will lead to conflict and revolution. The upper class is the creator of those who will ultimately destroy them. Marx would understand that the growing number of whistleblowers is a sign that change is upon us.
Erickson, Paul A., and Liam D. Murphy. Readings for A History of Anthropological Theory. University of Toronto Press incorporated, 2013.
Very thoughtful post. I have mixed reactions to it. On the one hand, I'm not sure I agree that the US government (especially as represented by the NSA) is afraid of the American public. Leakers (a small group) and foreigners seem more the targets. On the other hand, I am intrigued by your idea that Snowden et al. represent a deeper undercurrent of popular dissatisfaction and latent revolutionary sentiment! Time will tell . . .
Delete