There’s nothing particularly new in Martin Gurri’s breakdown at City Journal of the reasons that the protests of the last several months in many cities in the U. S. and, indeed, some in Europe as well have been as violent as they have but his presentation of them is organized reasonably well. In addition it ties in nicely with some recurrent themes around here so, naturally, it caught my eye. The first reason he identifies is visual imagery:
Today, we swim in an ocean of information that carries us, willing or not, toward particular destinations. George Floyd died before a battery of cell-phone cameras. One horrific video went massively viral: without this direct visual experience, it is unlikely that such a remote event could have been transformed into a global cause. We watch Floyd die with our own eyes and share in the anger and disgust of the crowd. Sheltered in our homes, far from the strife in Minneapolis, we have been swept along to certain political conclusions.
In a real sense, the digital environment represents the triumph of the image over the printed word. Because it provides the illusion of immediacy, the visual is viscerally persuasive: not surprisingly, the web-savvy public has learned to deploy images to powerful political effect.
I found the second reason he points out insightful:
The second piece of the puzzle concerns the mind-set of the protesters. To understand this, we must first grasp that the public is many, not one. Digital herding on subject matter is matched, when it comes to political opinion, by a fracturing of the public into raging war-bands. Protesters today might be anarchists, Black Lives Matter enthusiasts, Bernie Sanders–style progressives, identitarians of contradictory kinds, old-fashioned liberals, or vaguely idealistic twentysomethings. Their visions of the future diverge wildly, but they are united and mobilized by a shared loathing of the established order. They stand ferociously against. They see the present as a nightmare of injustice. That, incidentally, can be true for both the Right and the Left: the Right glorifying America’s past as the greatness from which we have fallen, the Left rejecting that past as a fallen state that pollutes the present.
Note, in particular, this point:
The protests I have studied have had speed and agility but little depth. The same slogans appear around the world: “I can’t breathe,†“Silence is violence,†“Black Lives Matter.†Beyond the slogans, we hear the same calls for generalities like “racial equity†or “social justice.†Beyond that, there’s nothing—no agreed-upon proposals to achieve these ideals, no organization, no leadership, no coherent ideology. Any hint of a positive program would likely shatter the movement into its component war-bands, so revolt has come to mean an exercise in pure negation, in the repudiation of the status quo without an alternative in sight. At this point, the question of nihilism becomes impossible to avoid.
The third contributing factor to the violence of the protests is the titanic incompetence of elected officials:
The last piece of the puzzle is the behavior of elected officials. I have written of a crisis of authority: this was a collapse in the self-confidence of our ruling elites. It started at the top. President Trump alternated between bluster about shooting looters and bizarre photo ops. The president has been roundly criticized for his actions, but every other elite player in this drama behaved as egregiously. While Minneapolis burned, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota rambled on about how the people of his state were “second in happiness behind Hawaii.†Jacob Frey, mayor of Minneapolis, claimed involvement in the riots by “white supremacists, members of organized crime,†and “possibly even foreign actors,†raising the specter of Russian president Vladimir Putin walking the mean streets of his city. Frey sobbed as he knelt by Floyd’s casket. The governor of Georgia burst into tears while discussing the damage to Atlanta. It was a display of infantile panic by the people who should have been the adults in the room.
To those observations I should add one of my own. I don’t think the protests could have been turned to violence with such alacrity without social media. The method of presentation (visual imagery, video) and the organizational medium are not synonymous. Social media allowed individuals predisposed to violence to collaborate, urge each other on, plan, and prepare.
There is a connecting thread that links his three explanations: visualcy. The printed word mobilizes the intellect; visual images work on the emotions. In a literate society reason tempers outbursts, is a medium for persuasion, and lends itself to solving problems. A pre-literate or, like our own, a post-literate society is more agonistic. Rather than competence, leaders produce showy displays of emotion.
None of these factors is likely to abate soon. Fasten your seatbelts, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
I strongly agree on social media and visualcy. It was one thing to read about unarmed people being killed by the police. It was another to see it. Social media brings out the worst in people. The world would be a lot better place w/o Twitter. I also think that he is correct about the identity of those protesting. A lot are people just taking advantage of the chaos. There is a lack of coherent planning for a response beyond the protests.
I recently saw a lecture by historian Niall Ferguson which is somewhat of a counter-argument about literacy vs visualcy.
https://youtu.be/07KKYostAJ0?t=1691
The links at the relevant part of the lecture (although I encourage watching the whole lecture).
This argument is what is perceived as literate society where reason tempers outbursts is the result of 500 years of adaptation to the printing press. The invention of the printing press and mass literacy initially spawned 130 years of religious war from the Reformation.
Is it the nature of the medium, or the disruption from rapid change that is the root of what we are seeing.
“George Floyd died before a battery of cell-phone cameras. One horrific video went massively viral: without this direct visual experience, it is unlikely that such a remote event could have been transformed into a global cause.”
That’s fine, but all it says is that visualcy makes for better propaganda. We can all agree that Floyd was unjustly treated. But we don’t learn that he was in fact not a Saint, had an ugly past and was under the influence of drugs. There is no context. Has anyone noticed common themes in the visuals of police “brutality?” Under the influence of drugs. Histories with the police, known to the police. And of course the most important: resisting arrest.
I actually found his second point particularly uninsightful. That the common thread is being “against” is obvious; and more obvious is the lack of any coherent legislative or public debate proposal. “Burn it down” doesn’t quite cover it. Further, it rested upon a straw man argument against the right for justification: “…the Right glorifying America’s past as the greatness from which we have fallen…” Glorifying? No. How about acknowledging the empirical success of the system as better than any other, but imperfect in constant need of refinement. The droolers are the critics claiming cultishness.
And as for the failure of public officials. Snicker. And you expected what? Tell me again about public schools, Obama’s Veterans Admin, public health care, the money losing US Postal System or the SC DMV? This is government and your elected officials. Call me suspect, and don’t complain to me.
There has been considerable study of the question. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that literacy promotes cognitive changes that have broad societal implications. Among them are the ability to do abstract reasoning and less agonistic modes of expression. See this early post of mine:
In an oral society you know what you can remember. In our post-literate one you know what you can Google. Oral and post-literate are not identical but have many similarities as should be obvious at this point. For example, part of homeostasis in our present society is the discarding of all memories—histories, monuments, etc.
‘The invention of the printing press and mass literacy initially spawned 130 years of religious war from the Reformation.’
The religious wars were a long time comin’. Look up the suppression of the Lollards in England (who translated from the Vulgate the first English language Bible), the Albigensian Crusades, and the Hussite Wars, all pre-printing press. But I will agree that the dissemination of the printing press and resultant mass literacy turned the conflict between the Church and those who wanted it to reform it (and who ultimately gave up and started their own churches) from occasional outbursts into one long violent eruption mixed with paroxysms of unspeakable hatred and destruction. The Social Media of its day.
‘In an oral society you know what you can remember. In our post-literate one you know what you can Google.’
Without a foundation of understanding and knowledge, facts acquired off the Internet are merely discrete data points bobbing loose in a sea of ignorance. You can’t connect the points without reference points. Even employing coping mechanisms to hide your ignorance won’t work if you don’t acquire those coping mechanisms. All that’s left then is feelz.
The reference points will be provided by “influencers”. That would actually make an interesting research topic—politicians as influencers. I don’t know enough about influencers to make any informed observations about that and I’m disinclined to learn. I don’t think it bodes particularly well for liberal democracy.
This is all troubling, shame we don’t live in a republic. That would be a buffer to cool the public passions.
Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc are today’s medium. Video tape exposed Rodney King. TV exposed Vietnam & Bull Conner. Muckraking exposed the meatpacking industry (The Jungle). Novels exposed the horrors of poverty (Charles Dickens). Printed treatises and essays exposed the English genocide against the Irish (Jonathan Swift), and parchment, nails, and a wooden door exposed the corruption of the Church (Martin Luther).
Everything old is new, again.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s works are especially applicable today. Most of what you think you know about him and his works is almost completely wrong and the opposite of what he wrote. An especially apt aphorism is rarely fully quoted, and therefore rarely understood:
or
His context is the moral framework of Christianity, but it is applicable to any moral framework. In his formulation, today’s protesters have only acknowledged that God is Dead. God was killed twenty to thirty years ago, by his believers, and because the foundation of the moral framework was destroyed, nihilism has taken its place.
If you find today’s protests abhorrent, you are the murderer who made it possible, and if you are a protester, your nihilism will overtake you.
I await the Last Man, for he heralds the coming of the Overman.
“The reference points will be provided by “influencersâ€. That would actually make an interesting research topic—politicians as influencers. ”
I don’t think there is any doubt that politicians are influencers, but it goes well beyond politicians. Social media lets people of dubious provenance and lack of expertise become the ones who influence our culture and politics because they are good looking, wealthy, just write well or are lucky. I will note this was predicted in sci-fi a long time ago. One author to predict it was Orson Scott Card in his Ender’s Game series. Ender and his sister ended up influencing what was the equivalent of social media in their world. They did by strength of intellect and ideas. What Card missed, or it just didnt fit his characters, is that emotional appeals are a much better way to influence populations. Appeals to fear, anger, hatred, jealousy, paranoia, victimization etc are much better at influencing populations.
Steve
Most of today’s atheists are really nihilists. They have denied God, but they have not denied the moral framework built by that God.
An atheist can have a moral framework, but that moral framework must be built from the ground up. Darwin further complicates the task. Because of evolution, there is no “natural law” to use as a basis, and Loche, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. cannot help, and non-euclidean geometry eliminates an easy mathematical basis.
It is not impossible, but it requires more than a declaration that one is an atheist. I know because I was once a rabid atheist, but I was never a nihilist.
Without a foundation, anti-fascism, anti-racism, social justice, etc. are meaningless slogans. The anti-fascist uses fascist methods. The anti-racist practices de facto racism. The social justice warrior lives as an aristocrat. For the nihilist, there is no meaning.
Morality and nihilism cannot exist in the same place. Nihilism has no bounds, and therefore there is no way to contain it. The present nihilistic destruction will not be stopped with future elections, no matter how moral the politician.
Having no other framework, the reimagined system will be the old system with a new coat of paint. Then, the destroyers will marvel at how much different it is, and the cycle will begin, anew.
The Overman will bring about change, but the Overman need not be a person. The Overman can be an idea, a spiritual revival, a scientific discovery, a mathematical equation, or God.
“For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.”
Money
Actually, in the Enders Game universe; it was Enders brother and sister who utilized “social mediaâ€; and they didn’t persuade by the strength of ideas — they used their superhuman intellect to demagogue anonymously.
Appeals to emotions abounds in the written medium too. “95 theses†was done to stir anger and disgust at the corruption of the church; as Luther saw it.
Today; Luthers works seem very intellectual and dry; in his day they were considered so subversive that the Emperor tried to burn his works.
I think the argument about visualcy is strong — it seems related to the famous saying; “the message is the mediumâ€.
But I do appreciate Mr Ferguson’s point that the adoption of new communication technologies is very disruptive to the established order.
I wish more people realized how insightful that comment is. I think it is possible for atheists to formulate such a moral framework without reference to a god or any transcendent power. I also think it is quite rare. What I think is more common for atheists is either to rely on the remaining superstructure of religion for their morality or to be, as you say, nihilists.
I tend to agree with Voltaire (who, sadly, has fallen afoul of cancel culture in France).
” I think it is possible for atheists to formulate such a moral framework without reference to a god or any transcendent power.”
Maybe, but when you look at contemporary faiths they usually end up with fairly similar lists of sins and righteous acts. Lying and fornication are usually bad. Caring for those less fortunate is usually good. Honor your parent, etc. So is this inherent in anything called a religion or do we need God to actually exist? That so much of what counts as morality seems pretty universal means that wither there is no god or that God influences faiths with widely different beliefs. Since belief in God/gods came first and since morality is largely universal I suspect that we would have ended up with similar moral structures absent religions. Never know will we?
Steve
You’re overgeneralizing as well as making a category error.
For example, in Judaism the worst sin is “seething the kid in its mother’s milk”. It’s mentioned in the Hebrew Bible more frequently than anything else. After that it’s polytheism an essential component of Hinduism. Filial piety is more important in Confucianism than in Hinduism. Christian denominations other than Mormonism consider polygamy a grave offense. It is completely acceptable in most other religions. In Confucianism lying is not immoral per se. I could go on.
Most of what you’re listing are part of the superstructure of Christianity.
You are confusing religious beliefs with morality. Every religion has different ways to reach God and certain acts they rate as being worse than others. But you could walk into almost any other contemporaneous culture and know the rules. You dont murder people. You dont rape. Stealing is bad. Lying is bad. Being good to our kids, parents, spouse are good. Morality changes over time, so slavery was OK almost everywhere BC but now it is not.
“For example, in Judaism the worst sin is “seething the kid in its mother’s milkâ€. It’s mentioned in the Hebrew Bible more frequently than anything else.”
Being mentioned more often doesnt make it the worst sin. If you asked 3 rabbis this question you would get 4 answers. Many think that doing evil in the name of God is the worst sin. Idolatry may be the worst for others. There are actually lists made up by rabbis answering this question. I have never seen cooking the kid in its mothers milk on any list. Our lawyer’s wife is a fairly well respected Jewish scholar. I dont think we ever discussed this particular question but will ask her. At our last dinner we discussed the joys of being God’s chosen people. Most people misunderstand this. I think Confusicanism does not make lying an absolute sin, but few religions do. Most accept that sometimes a lie is necessary for a greater good. Taoists might reject that I think (they confuse me a bit).
Steve
“I wish more people realized how insightful that comment is. I think it is possible for atheists to formulate such a moral framework without reference to a god or any transcendent power. I also think it is quite rare. What I think is more common for atheists is either to rely on the remaining superstructure of religion for their morality or to be, as you say, nihilists.”
That’s one of the more fascinating comments I’ve seen in ages, and so it attracts my attention.
I would describe myself as agnostic, as I think it the only intellectually defensible position. But how does that, or atheism, relate to morality? Is it really rare to have moral views in the absence of a “transcendent power?” Really? (Or just alternative views?) Do non-faith based people have to rely on the false crutch of religion for their values or default to nihilism? How so?
This is a serious question.
“much of what counts as morality seems pretty universal”
Might be so in that morality in the family is consistent with preserving one’s bloodline. But as you widen the circle to outsiders who’s bloodline matters little you get Mohammed, Genghis, Saddam or Adolf H. Men of vision, who correctly observe that those not of their tribe are fit to die. Try talking to any of their ilk of the greater good. And don’t pretend these famous examples are unique. They’re as common as murder.
Dietary and cleanliness laws are large part of many religions.
@steve
You are confusing religious beliefs with morality. Every religion has different ways to reach God and certain acts they rate as being worse than others.
Morality determines what is Good and Evil, and the framework is built upon a metaphysical and epistemological basis. Most (all?) religions use some higher being(s) as this basis, but while difficult, it need not be a higher being.
(This applies to science, as well. Your senses are the metaphysical basis, and scientific measuring instruments are the epistemological basis. To go beyond that, you would need to be able to transit the system boundaries.)
You dont murder people. You dont rape. Stealing is bad. Lying is bad.
There is no natural reason to deem murder and rape evil. Scientifically, both of these are good, as are stealing and lying. With Darwin, humans are just another animal species, and the Big Bang removed the appeal to natural law. Physics, biology, and chemistry do not support any classic Natural Laws, and since humans are just another species of animal, humans have the same rights as all animals – survival of the fittest.
Morality changes over time, so slavery was OK almost everywhere BC but now it is not.
Good and Evil are determined by a framework, and this framework must provide some means of determination – a moral or legal yardstick. When the yardstick is removed, good and evil become customs – nice-to-do but not required, and nice-to-do becomes simply a personal preference.
If slavery was once moral, that means it was Good but is now Evil. What caused this transmogrification? What are the constraints that prevent it from changing back? Can those constraints be removed or changed? If they are removed, how will I know?
What constraints are there in the campaign to eradicate evil? What determines what means are justified by what ends? What is Good and Evil?
Today, atheism is fashionable, but when I was an atheist, it was not. At that time, an atheist was worse than a child molester or cannibal. A child molester or cannibal can obtain redemption, but an an atheist must stand on his/her own.
Your objections were the same as back then, but the burden was on the atheist to justify his/her moral system. As an atheist, the justification cannot rely upon anything theistic, directly or indirectly, and intellectual honesty required anything scientific to be all science.
This justified moral framework is what distinguishes the atheist from a nihilist. Without a justified moral framework, Good and Evil are meaningless, and one is left with nothingness. One is simply a nihilist.
(A fully formed argument would take a lot more time than I am willing to give. A fiery redhead still has more work to do saving her world.)
@Drew
Is it really rare to have moral views in the absence of a “transcendent power?â€
This is a serious question.
There is no quick answer. It is like going from Newtonian Physics to String Theory. It takes a lot of work, and the bridge works either way.
(If you are really @Drew, what do Guarneri & Red Barchetta mean?)
” With Darwin, humans are just another animal species, and the Big Bang removed the appeal to natural law. Physics, biology, and chemistry do not support any classic Natural Laws, and since humans are just another species of animal, humans have the same rights as all animals – survival of the fittest.”
But that is not really how we behave. So it might be OK to murder someone in an out group depending upon where you are in history, but by and large murder is seen as wrong. Punishment varied. You might pay weregild. You might be hung or you might go to jail.
“Is it really rare to have moral views in the absence of a “transcendent power?—
My view would be that historically it is pretty rare to not have a belief in a transcendent power. Atheism, on any real scale, is pretty modern. Plenty of examples of individuals who didnt believe in God, but in societies as a whole was rare.
Steve
For me, this is the key bit:
“Beyond the slogans, we hear the same calls for generalities like “racial equity†or “social justice.†Beyond that, there’s nothing—no agreed-upon proposals to achieve these ideals, no organization, no leadership, no coherent ideology. Any hint of a positive program would likely shatter the movement into its component war-bands, so revolt has come to mean an exercise in pure negation, in the repudiation of the status quo without an alternative in sight.”
I’ve often commented that MLK Jr. was one of the greatest strategists of the 20th century. There is no one even remotely close today. I think this lack of leadership and strategy is at least as important a factor as visualcy. Today we are soaked in media which is a poor substitute for the community and organization that is necessary for a successful movement.
On a psychological level, concerned people who want to “do something” turn to social media instead of actual involvement that took place in the past. Companies donate money and promote slogans – the equivalent minimum that is very performative but accomplishes little. These media “actions” and activities satisfy the psychological and emotional need to “do something.” People can fool themselves into thinking they are helping when in reality they aren’t doing anything constructive. Doubly so for the “cops” on social media (https://medium.com/@jesse.singal/planet-of-cops-50889004904d).
By contrast, the successful movements of the past relied on concerned individuals coming together and organizing and acting together in concert.
So I don’t really see these movements going anywhere and bet they will burn-out when the weather gets cold. At best they may have moved the needle/overton window slightly for leftist elites, but it seems the opportunity for real reforms are already wilting and dieing.
And, in another forum, I was reminded today of Joan Didion, particularly this passage:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/12/05/joan-didion-on-morality/
“Of course we would all like to “believe†in something, like to assuage our private guilts in public causes, like to lose our tiresome selves; like, perhaps, to transform the white flag of defeat at home into the brave white banner of battle away from home. And of course it is all right to do that; that is how, immemorially, things have gotten done. But I think it is all right only so long as we do not delude ourselves about what we are doing, and why. It is all right only so long as we remember that all the ad hoc committees, all the picket lines, all the brave signatures in The New York Times, all the tools of agitprop straight across the spectrum, do not confer upon anyone any ipso facto virtue. It is all right only so long as we recognize that the end may or may not be expedient, may or may not be a good idea, but in any case has nothing to do with “morality.†Because when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard in the land, and then is when we are in bad trouble.”
I think it’s been 35 years since I read Slouching Toward Bethlehem.
Tasty –
In the flesh. Guarneri Evos are the name of my stereo speakers in “System A.” They are made by the company Sonus Faber in Italy and now owned by the Fine Sounds group. You can look them up. I use REL subs to fill out the sound.
Red Barchetta is the name of a song by the band Rush.
Dodd Frank audit threats do not allow me to use a real name. Big Brother.
Now, as for Tasty Bits. I seem to recall a Monty Python skit………