Ecology and Tyranny: a Salvationary Partnership

In Collapse, by Jared Diamond, the haunting fate of Easter Island is expounded upon. On this isolated Pacific island, the spiral of power politics and ecological devastation progressed to its logical conclusion. The main cause of the collapse of Easter Island was deforestation, as lumber was a vital resource for survival on Easter. Would provided boats, ropes, and heat and thus fish, cooked food and heat. Trees also served the function of anchoring the soil to the ground and after the loss of this anchor, the Pacific ocean became the main beneficiary of the scanty amount of fertile top-soil on Easter. Lumber also had another value in Easter society, which relates to the well known stone heads which look out into the Ocean. While it has been shown that wooden rollers were not used, other elements in the construction of the monoliths were very lumber intensive. The monoliths served as a prestige project for the various clans which vied for power on Easter. The key question asked by Diamond is "What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last tree think?" Although Easter did make contacts with Europeans at some later date, the period coinciding with the deforestation of Easter precedes European contact by several centuries. In addition, the original migration to Easter was a one off event. No new Polynesian colonists came to Easter, nor was there any trade with any of the other Pacific Islands. Thus, the Easter Islanders knew there was no other source of lumber, even as they felled the few remaining trees on the Island. With that in mind, we can speculate that the elite very likely refused to relinquish power or end their ecologically suicidal building projects, even as the Island was being obviously denuded of its trees. If we accept this picture, it is clear that the elites interest in retaining pre-eminence over rival clans and the individual leaders' desires to remain pre-eminent over their subjects trumped even the drive to survival. If we compare this picture with our own present day situation, we find that there are marked similarities, an entrenched myopic elite more concerned with its own retention of power and prestige than with the survival of the species. My argument goes as follows: dicatatorship is the only solution to the world's environmental problems due to its ability to execute long term plans. A Democracy is fine at dealing with human scale problems, a war, the economy etc. because these kinds of problems can usually be solved/resolved (resolved in the sense that even if the gov't itself does not solve the problem, it will reach its climax and resolution on its own momentum. Take for example, the defeat of the gov't in question or the natural rebound of the economy in the wake of a financial crisis) within a single electoral cycle. A dicatorship on the other hand assumes that it will be in power indefinitely and thus acts in light of the fact that it must not only defend its present and short-term interests but also its long term interests. A tyranny can trample over dissent to force those difficult sacrifices which no rational constituency would submit themselves to, such as a one child policy, or any other loss of freedom/prosperity. The destruction of its own ecology, the metaphoric deforestation of its own isolated island would be an irrational policy for a tyranny if its power was secure. But then again, who said tyrants were rational?

Anarchy and Incarceration

So, to those of you who know me well, I have very recently had first hand experience with the "system". I'm as skeptical as the next person and despite my suspicions surrounding power relationships and hierarchy, I was also unwilling to uncritically accept the position taken by young radicals in regards to anarchy and being progressive in the reductionist, oppositional way. But, having had the experience of actually being in a cell, stripped of dignity and given some time to reflect on this, I have come to the realization that hierarchy is in fact a reality. All the idealistic, starry eyed university radicals and all the bleary eyed, disillusioned ranks of the older generations who have opposed state power were on the money. One realization that dawns on you quite forcefully when in a cell for no reason is that all the human rights, pieces of identification and preconcieved notions you have held about your immunity from arbitrary state violence were ephemeral curtains, brushed aside as easily as my fathers fears about racial profiling. All the high minded disputations on Human rights and freedoms and the state operating in the interests of the citizens are a farce. Even going back to the first Democracy in Athens, one of the first institutions implemented under the new system was the ostracism. This storied Athenian innovation whereby the citizens would vote some unfortunate soul into exile is confirmed by archaeological evidence. What is this practice if not a state sanctioned attack on an individual percieved negatively by the majority of citizens. Racial profiling is a reflection of this ostracism. Security services, composed of citizens from the lower socio-economic echelons victimize individuals based solely on their perception, fostered by some of the baser elements of society. Middle Easterner = Terrorist, an inescapable conclusion if you have been immersed in American hegemonic culture for your entire life. So, anarchism may be on to something, freedom of the masses from the masses. Or are all isms inherently flawed?

Black Mass: so if we can't have a Utopia then...?

Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia sets out to make two major points.  Firstly, that the secular political ideologies which sprung out of the Enlightenment, such as liberalism, capitalism, communism and more recently neo-conservatism are all deeply rooted in Christian notions of history as a narrative process.  In other words, the Judeo-Christian legacy views history as an unfolding story, with a beginning and more importantly, with a definite end point.  Different ideologies have taken this endpoint to be different things, either a bloody final battle between good and evil, or a catastrophe followed by a restoration of harmony or even Communism.   Unlike in other cultures (which are very vaguely defined by Gray) which view history as a cycle which repeats, the Judeo-Christian model is set on the idea of progress and movement towards a final destination.  Secondly, Gray wants us to believe that this is not the case and that history is headed nowhere and that any attempts at creating a Utopia will merely end up in bloodshed.  As a result, he advocates a purely real politik form of small c conservatism, whereby we make changes as they are needed, stay pragmatic and embrace pluralism and religion without enforcing any one creed or ethnic identity.

Zombies and the Coming Ecological/Energy Catastrophe

I’ve just finished listening to the audiobook “World War Z” by Max Brooks.  It is a BOOK recounting the stories of survivors of the Zombie wars, and I mean zombies in the tradition of George Romero.  Now I know what your thinking, a BOOK about Zombies?   How can such a purely visual topic be rendered into literature?  Well, aside from saying that Brooks did a great job, here is my bit of insight into what a book about zombies and our culture’s general fascination with zombies say about us?  Well, it is important to note that the book takes place in the near future.  Additionally, certain elements, such as Cuba becoming a superpower in the post-Zombie world immediately bring to mind doomsday scenarios relating to the looming (real) oil crash and other forms of ecological catastrophe.  From a cultural studies point of view, this made me realize that we as a society can’t get away from the traditional adversarial way of thinking.  A zombie both “humanizes” the enemy in the sense that it represents a concrete manifestation of an enemy capable of posing an existential threat to humanity. In fact, I think this is a signal that mankind at this moment is coming to terms with the existential threat posed by the environment/energy.  By environment, I mean pollution and the depletion of energy resources.  These are not adversarial threats in that there is no definable enemy against which we can fight.  But ironically, the zombie hordes in a sense represent a literal metaphor for the revenge of the dead.  The generations before us, which we can in some ways blame for putting us in our current predicament, by wasting resources and polluting with reckless, abandon are the source of our contemporary ecological problems.  By turning them into zombies, we perhaps are subconsciously acknowledging the role they play in the current ecological crisis.  Man needs an enemy, it is difficult to oppose and/or feel threatened by an enemy that is not easily identifiable, in a sense, an intangible enemy like lack of energy or pollution.  Further, a zombie is very much an “instant gratification” kind of threat.  If it gets you, you will suffer the most agonizing death imaginable, be eaten alive.  Contrasting this horrible fate, the destruction of this enemy is also very visceral, destroying the brain, which is a symbolic destruction of the very identity of the “other”.  (“On Killing” by D. Grossman cites the analysis found in feminist discourse for why porn has an obsession with the “facial”, whereby the male actor symbolically obliterates the identity of the female by obscuring her face, the true locus of human identity)  Clearly, sci-fi always gives us huge insight into where we are as a culture/species at this moment in time.  It seems these are our biggest concerns at the moment, dealing with a threat, which is existential and yet not human (although it may be caused by humans) and with no instant consequences.

Gender and the English Language

Recently, I have learned through my TESL course a great deal more about the English language than I ever knew before, especially the grammar of the language.  As someone who speaks some Farsi, I can appreciate aspects of the English language which give it its unique character.  For example, you cannot give an extended account of a given situation (particularly an interpersonal interaction) without revealing the gender of the persons involved.  In Farsi, we use "u" (say it like "ooh" or the u sound in "to") for the third person singular.  For my fellow grammar illiterates, 3rd person singular is he or she in English.  So, if you tell a story in Farsi, you can obscure the gender of the participants since you can refer to them simply as "u".  Naturally, you might reveal this info at the beginning of the story by saying "some guy..." or "This woman..." but you could also choose to keep it ambiguous by using Farsi equivalents of things like "someone" or "a person" etc.  For fun, try telling someone a story about some strangers (strangers to the listener if not to you) without revealing their gender.  You will find that you have to resort to numerous awkward grammatical structures in order to preserve your screen over the subjects gender.  

I'm sure English isn't the only language which forces the categorization of subjects by gender, but it is certainly an interesting aspect of an otherwise largely gender neutral language.

What does this say about the English character?  

Democracy: the Only Option?

Recently, I have been reading a book called "Iraq: the Borrowed Kettle" by Zizek. If you've never heard of Zizek, go to youtube and search pervert's guide to cinema and you will get a decent sense of what he's about. The main thrust of the book is... well, if you know Zizek, you'll know why that's a difficult question to answer, but to give you some idea, the title is a reference to the classic Freudian joke that goes as follows, someone asks if you broke their kettle and you reply in a panic "a) I never borrowed a kettle from you, b) I returned it to you intact c) it was already broken when I borrowed it." As you can see, the reasoning behind these denials exposes the true fact that you broke the kettle. At one point, Zizek quotes an interesting poem written during the 1954 worker's strike in E. Germany. I quote it here in full

After the uprising of 17th June

The secretary of the Writer's Union

Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinalee (main st. I think)

Stating that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could win it back only

By redoubled efforts.

Would it not be easier

In that case for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

This poem was intended as a sarcastic jab at the supposedly Democratic gov't in E. Germany. But this strikes at an interesting notion, the idea that the government can modify the people's approach to politics. Two such ideas already exist, the concept of the Vanguard party in Leninism, whereby a staunch, communist element of society (eg, urban proletariat) will bring about the initial changes leading to communism, and then remain in the vanguard of society pulling up and educating the other classes (eg, rural workers). Another manifestation of this idea is found on the right, whereby a strongman will remain in power while the country slowly liberalizes its markets and develops its civil society in preparation for the introduction of democracy. Do either of these models really work? In the former case, obviously not. The current state of nations that followed this path adequately demonstrates this, and I have trouble buying the argument that it was only due to Western interference that not a single one of the former Soviet aligned countries remains. If you want to say "Ah! but what about Cuba" my reply will be that, while the country does survive, the Vanguard did a fairly poor job in guiding the people due to the overwhelming disaffection of Cubans with socialism. In the latter case of the regent/dictator, we have also seen some pretty abject failures. Amy Chua points out the dangers of sudden democracy in countries which aren't prepared and don't have the appropriate (in her view) preconditions necessary for democracy. At the same time, I feel compelled to challenge this view, not on evidentiary grounds (of course the events in the Balkans in the 90's and the land seizures by Mugabe were terrible events) but on ideological grounds. Zizek defends populism on the grounds that democracy is made up of its constituents, not of an idealized but non-existent body politic that behaves in ways which we support.

Book Review- The Lost Millenium

The Lost Millennium:Histories timetables under siege by F. Diacu

Could the Peloponnesian Wars have occurred in the 12th century AD?  This and other outlandish claims are given serious credence in this book and investigated in earnest.  Seemingly, that is reason enough to put the book down (this comes up first on page 13) and move on to a more worthwhile read.  But, that would do a disservice to the positive elements of this book.  Basically, the Lost Millennium is a look at the science of chronology, or dating events and putting them in some kind of order.  How do we date events?  Sounds like a simple question, right?  We just look at old sources and calculate the date.  In fact, the techniques used to date events are quite complex.  Sources cause numerous problems, such as dating based on dynasty.  If we can't ascertain the date of the dynasty... and so on.  So, a more concrete tool historians have used have been things like records of eclipses.  Because astronomy is a fairly well developed science, we can determine when eclipses occurred and what kind of eclipses they were (lunar, solar, full or partial).  Then, we merely need to find a reference in the texts which correlates to that kind of eclipse.  For example, the Peloponnesian Wars coincided with a series of eclipses.  Thus, the Peloponnesian Wars have been used as somewhat of a standard by which to date other events.  Some scientists have questioned the dates which the scholarly consensus has arrived at, including heavy weights like Isaac Newton and modern revisionists like Velikovsky and Morozov (one of the main theorists discussed in this book).  The heart of this book is basically a scientists attempt at chronology, without using "unreliable" historical records such as political histories but instead, utilizing "reliable" records such as eclipses and other astronomical phenomena to the exclusion of any other historical sources.  This approach leads to some ridiculous conclusions (above).  In the end, the author himself basically debunks Morozov's theories (although rather gently I felt).  The impression I was left with was that scientists who want to ignore the entire corpus of historical knowledge are just as out of place in history as a historian would be who wanted to ignore the corpus of scientific knowledge.  One thing which I immediately realized was that all the European records could easily be checked by referring to Islamic sources which mention events in Europe.  Because the muslims dated things based on the Hijra, which we can ascertain and kept careful records after that point, due to the ritual importance of the lunar and solar cycle for things like Ramadan and prayer times, their records are rock solid.  Another feature of this book which history buffs will enjoy is its summary of various techniques for dating events.  In addition to the astronomical information, there are brief summaries of carbon dating, dendrochronology (tree ring dating, which is apparently not as great as I thought, for example, trees gaining 5 rings in one year in some cases!) and thermoluminescence.  I found these to be very concise and helpful, not only explaining the actual methods, but also the critiques leveled against them.  A good read and I feel guilty that I got it on sale for a pittance of $2.