It is common to hear people say, "why is everything made so political today?" Some things are simply common sense, self-evident. If there is conformity and consensus, if a view or practice is widespread or normal, then this must mean the widespread view is not political and couldn't possibly be biased. The widespread view is seen as neutral, as just the way it is, as the simple facts of the matter. That is, it is not up for dispute. Like a fish in water, the water is not noticed by the fish swimming in it. So, it is only those who do not go along with the popular view who are "political".
"Political" has a negative connotation. It is someone who dissents from the prevailing opinion, which is understood as not being an opinion at all. To say that someone is making something "political" is to accuse them of creating a conflict by denying what is considered an indisputable natural fact that ought not to be up for debate. It is the accusation that someone has crossed a line and is thinking of things that are not worthy of consideration. Because they have broken a taboo, they must even be a bit mad or nutty. Already, a lot of judgements have been made pretty quickly. There are non-political and political issues, thinking about how or where this line is drawn is useless, healthy and unhealthy ideas, there's politics as a realm of arbitrary fantasy and common sense.
Even if one finds that the analysis someone deemed "political" makes is overall true, one is still immunized against it: "yeah, I agree with a lot of what you say, however I just don't know about all this political stuff." What is the assumption? Everyone knows certain political critics have a hard time of it: whether it's facing a blacklist, or they're beat, pepper sprayed or shot in the street, thrown in jail or maybe just tolerated and told "that's just your subjective opinion." Political people rock the boat, they are negative and destructive, and this can make things like finding work or school very hard. So it must be more advantageous not to become too interested in politics, nor to become too invested in having strong convictions unless it is loyalty to one's own country and people. Those, on the other hand, who are a-political, who lack strong convictions are positive. They offer constructive criticism and praise, and they therefore get along. They are "team players". They are objective, unbiased and neutral.
The figure of the politician has an equally bad and good reputation. Everyone loves "good politicians" and hates "bad politicians". It is common to hear those who hate politics praise this or that politician as an outsider, as being different. How is that so?
Already, it's noticeable that a collective, an in-group and out-group is presupposed from the start. Who is a friend, and who is an enemy can be debated and politics consists in nothing but that, but to ask why this friend/enemy distinction goes unquestioned is considered stupid. THAT is nothing less than communism, the poe-in-the-sky idea of abolishing classes and nation-states. To common sense, it is like asking why dogs chase cats or why thunder follows lightning. It is enough to say, "people are just like that. It's human nature." You cant argue against the facts because they are simply a given. Everything we experience with our senses tells us this is just the way it is.
How these senses (this naively accepting attitude that takes its immediate sensual experience as the end all be all) and mores have come to be shaped through practical activity, through the historical, political and economic relations of society into this theoretical standpoint, into this theoretical orientation towards the nation as the highest good-- that's not clear or available to this attitude.
So, it is not considered "political" that the world is filled with friends and enemies. Both personally, but also when it comes to national collectives or cultures. There is simply an "us" and a "them". "We" are Americans, and "they" are Germans, Iranians, Somalians, Greek or Jews. To investigate history for this kind of view, furnishes nothing but the further proof of differences, mere accidents, contingencies. Proof of mainly the antagonisms inherent "man".
One starts with an obvious observation that every child knows: don't you have friends and some people you don't like?!
Already, it is ignored that this is something organized by the school itself (it is not just school, obviously). It is not just a matter of realizing some people like chocolate milk and others don't; that some like wearing blue t shirts and others orange; that some people prefer jump rope and others coloring. The lesson in school culminates in the conclusion that any interest is a conflict in principle, that it lies in man himself.
Teachers everyday are tasked with forming this personality within the students and encourage the students themselves to develop discriminatory attitudes about themselves and their fellow classroom denizens: "pick a friend to read with! Who do you have something in common with? What do you like about this or that student in the room? How does a friend act and how does a bully (enemy) act? How do we treat friends and how do we treat bullies? How does a good friend act?"
The first several years of schooling (and home life) consists of this sort of moral formation within the students. The student is to learn how to behave, how to follow instructions, what values are good and which are bad, and how to interact with others, along with some basic reading, writing and arithmetic, and so on. The student learns what it means to be a citizen of their nation, to which it is beat into their head that they belong to and must show loyalty to and pride in. The aim is to create functional students who will eventually find their role within society as engaged, responsible citizens.
Students are taught to form cliques, to look on some students with jealousy, envy, admiration and lust; and to look at others as what not to emulate: as idiots, losers, pitiable freaks, weirdos, bullies, or troublemakers. At the same time, as much as cliques are encouraged, they are also discouraged to the extent that they become dysfunctional; that is, to the extent they interrupt the teachers lessons or the learning of other students. The losers certainly must be made to feel ashamed of their bad performances, but not so much that they become a school shooter or snap and punch other students in the face. Likewise, the winners should be proud of their achievements as math whizzes, sensitive artists, or star athletes, but not so much that they become bullies. Alongside a certain level of homogeneity in behavior, heterogeneity is also considered a value because it leads to dynamism and innovation. So tolerance is also a value school teaches: it is important to include the misfits every once in awhile, to be polite, to not mock people for acceptable differences, but to celebrate everyone who belongs to the nation as a welcome contribution to national prosperity.
The lesson: Everyone is a unique individual-- some are rich, others poor; some have red hair, others blonde; some brown skin, others pink; some worship Jesus, others Yahweh or Allah. Some speak differently. Students are taught society is colorful medley of differing classes, religions, genders, races, cultures, values, and personalities. The message is that everyone, regardless of their differences, has a home and proper place in this society. Society is like a well-oiled machine or an organic whole where each member contributes to a common good known as "the nation". In this society, all are to be treated equally regardless of their differences. Society is presented as an opportunity for people to express their individuality and to pursue their passions freely, and as long as they work hard, help others, have self-esteem and esteem others, you will be rewarded with a good life. It all depends on you and the choices you make. This idealistic appraisal of capitalist society is one of the main messages of schooling.
Those who demonstrate the demanded obedience are given good marks and praise. They are moved to the top of the class and granted privileges, awards, and special honors. They are ranked and measured according to grades on everything from how well they draw, whether they follow instructions to write their name at the top of a paper, to how well they recite the alphabet or multiplication tables to how well they can balance on a wooden beam or play happy birthday on a recorder. The rewards can be as simple as helping a teacher fold chairs or erasing a chalk board, extra recess, picking prizes from a hat or being allowed to roam the hallways with a friend. Those who fail to follow instructions are punished by withholding things the student finds motivating. E.g. free social time to talk with other students or to play, access to topics considered a privilege. Misbehaving students have theirs desks moved to the front or back of the room or out in the hallways, they are told that if they would like to talk with their friends their must write 400 times "I will not misbehave by talking out of turn". As they get older, in school detention and suspension serves to inform the student that if they continue the unwanted behaviors unto their adult life, they will end up in jail.
This sorting causes some to denounce teachers and school as unfair, to express their uniqueness in other ways, or to double down on their competitiveness
Everyone knows all of this from first hand experience because they themselves have gone through this competition, this process of becoming a free individual, of moral formation. What is not so obvious is that society was not always organized this way. Of course, this might seem obvious and anyone who thinks it over would surely have to admit it as trivial. But it's as obvious as it is rarely mentioned or talked about. At most, the average textbook might spend a few paragraphs on the topic, unless one wants to specialized. You can go research the history of pedagogy on your own time at University, but why would you? That's useless for making money.
Starting in the 19th century, public schooling became a demand of various movements and quickly came to be seen as a necessity for capitalist society. Movements as diverse as progressive socialists to conservatives and fascists, Christians and social reformers and on and on, all came to agree that modern society as such regardless of how it is organized cannot exist without an educational system of some kind that imparts basic knowledge and morality to children. It was widespread to believe that poverty was because of a lack of education. With public education, poverty would be solved!
So, in school, students are taught to look at individuals as friends or enemies, as a friendly competition between people of the same national collective who despite their differences share the same values and are therefore a community of purpose. But it is not just this. Students are also taught to think as nationalists or patriots. There are friends and enemies collectively.
Schools starting as young as 5 years old have students practice safety drills. Alongside fire and tornado drills, students are also forced to practice terrorism safety protocols, or previously nuclear safety drills. Everyone knows that if a nuclear bomb is dropped, hiding under a school desk does nothing. And yet this "drill" was carried out monthly for years on end. Why? It is to teach students that it is natural to fear other national collectives as enemies, and to mobilize as one in defense. The students are to think and act as one. The Soviets are evil, the Muslims are terrorists. They aren't like us, but want to kill us, so we must stick together and take steps to defend ourselves. These sort of superfluous and comical drills probably also put the parents at ease: the educators these are not terrorists! Thank God!
Who counts as a friend or enemy is an ever changing cast and the relationships among the characters are constantly changing. The Taliban is today freedom fighters, tomorrow tyrants and enemies of humanity. France is a beautiful ally of freedom today, tomorrow smelly cowards responsible for the reign of terror and they have no right to "French fries". The Germans were valuable immigrants to the country, then evil Nazis, but now again a productive ally in the fight against the former Red Menace Russia who are still hellbent on world Domination. But who knows? Tomorrow they might be on the shit list again.
Why is this idea of nations as natural competitors or allies not considered a political issue? Because it is treated as an anthropological fact that does not need explanation, but is something of an explanation in and of itself. In school, on tv documentaries, in books, the field of history furnishes nothing but examples of civilizations, kingdoms, governments, nations, races at war. Retroactively these events are to demonstrate the commonality and differences of the world's peoples or nations. Students are taught songs and poems commemorating this or that battle; they are quizzed on important dates and major conflicts. They are taught to see themselves as a collective and others as foreign collectives. History is taught as this clash of civilizations. Hitler, in his infamous book, lamented that history was taught as a dry recollection of facts and figures, but he had one wonderful teacher who made it come alive because he taught the future patriot that true history is about peoples. Even the little man can take part in this grandiose cosmic narrative by doing his part for the country. This kind of enthusiasm for history as a biased take for the nation is at home in democracy today and you can hear the same kind of sentiment from people who would take offense at being told they share something in common with a fascist.
The history of the concept of history itself is not something up for discussion in school. It is not often talked about in the wider media or public or primary schools how initially states and governments paid to have scrolls and chronicles written of the family genealogies of princes and kings, the major and minor battles, the territories and treaties decided upon. Odes to this or that heroic general who fought valiantly for his king. Original history consisted mainly of this kind of chronicling of banal facts with a few homages paid to the greatness of the rulers and all the blessings the Gods bestowed on them. But, over time, this kind of chronicling of "his-story" underwent a metamorphosis.
As Bourgeois society developed in the womb of feudal society, as world trade and exploration took off, as the search for gold, spices, slaves, et al, as commerce began to come into contact with the edges of the world as it was known to Europeans; as they no longer exclusively dealt with people of the same tongues derived from a common root, as Europeans came into contact with people whose existence had remained mainly unknown to them, as discoveries due to advances on sea navigation and topological drawing, as feudal estates formed into unions of landowners and the modern Bourgeois nation state started to form-- all of this created a crisis in the old ways of thinking. A political-economic need for justifying and explaining the new systems of extraction and exploitation arose.
History now had to account for something larger than this or that city-state, Kingdom, or principality or mere empire within Europe. Now it had to account for the world as a whole, had to offer an explanation of this new understanding of the world where the old narrow boundaries of Greek and Roman Paganism and Christian cosmology no longer made sense, but had begun to be called into question by the discovery of the "new world". Of course, the Ancient Greeks knew lands beyond Babylon, Persia and Ancient Asyria existed. They knew kingdoms in what is today China and Africa existed, but steady interaction and contact was limited. The average person rarely left their village, and if they did, it was by horse back to the next village. The political, economic and scientific need to create a classification of "man" divided into distinct racial civilizations had not occured in this society. It sufficed to say "man" is Greek or Roman or Christian, and the rest are barbarians and heathens. This too would suffice in an updated or mutated form.
But the discovery of the new world, of New trade routes to America, China and Africa could not be accounted for with the old Biblical histories and narrow view that Europe was center of the world.
Movements to form modern Bourgeois nations, to free the Bourgeois and merchant classes from the fetters of feudal obligations began to arise. With this, the idea that history was not just a story about this or that prince, but a story about Europe or "humanity" as a whole, civilizations, nations, clashing cultures as a world system became a political need. The need to scientifically justify the extraction of resources and the extermination and enslavement of various "peoples" became necessary. It was no longer enough to think of people as vassals, serfs, knights, princes of this or that grand duchy or duke, but the conceive of Europeans as being a certain kind of people who although they had their differences shared a general set of languages, a common blood, a common religion, a common history. The political nerd to justify an explicit racial slavery arose.
In short, the world entered a stage of social contact and integration that had not existed in ancient and early feudal times. A new age of nationalism had entered the stage, and the stage itself, the common conception of what the world was had expanded. New abstractions and conceptual schemes were needed. The need for history conceived as a clash of civilizations and nations and the need for a worldview, for a scientific conception of this new diversity, a new anthropology became necessary for this new kind of commerce and competition to take place as a steady basis of society.
The point is not to give a detailed and exhaustive account of this history of the concept of history and the new stages of philosophical and scientific abstraction that came to be the concept of a worldview, but to simply show the inadequacy of the common everyday view that passes for sound common sense.
With all that has been said here, it is clear enough that what passes itself off as a realistic view, as a-political, as neutral, as natural -- the view looked at in the beginning of this essay -- is anything but.
Comments
Post a Comment