Introduction
There has been some significant uproar in America towards the current court system. I am of course referring to the overthrowing of Roe v. Wade. Most of what I have seen are rather strange reactions, e.g.: fear that we are being abused by the court and that is a violation of our rights. Then, they—using those emotions of withdrawn, depression-esque servitude—compel others to follow suit. To them, it is not good enough to start taking action but you must be outraged as well. Couldn’t we have skipped all that heart ache and incorrigibility if we encouraged better outlets for societal and organizational change? How would we feel if we better taught how we could balance charitable social justice with our local civics duties?
Media studies had been brought to my mind recently. Mostly since there’d popped up this quaint, little article about a Noble Prize laureate. She had come out professing her worries and the dangers of media to democracy. All along the same rhetoric as it ever has been. Old American ideals? No way in hell. Let us all gather around to cry and weep and be sorrowful!
Nothing she says is inherently ill or wrong (technically), but she’s nihilistic and a pessimist. Never once acknowledging any good from the social dynamics she analyzes. The media allowed grass roots organizations to grow unlike any other time; this is one (of many) exceptions to their rule. As a matter of course the news chooses to only focus on the violent-gang face of this broader human force.
This all boils down to what we discussed last article; there are organizational methods that can be employed here, especially to dependencies. Particularly, perceived abuse and leadership quality. Let’s dig into those. Shall we?
Morals and Orders
First, we must discuss morality. Generative Anthropology frames morals, actions (or more exactly signs) as either transgressing centers of attention or unifying them. We could say this is similar to the generation of order. That is unity. In Organization we outlined quite a few ways morality can be redistributed under intellectual scrutiny:
If we ignore dogma and talk about how we teach, and then order, we find commonality again. If we assume dependency and its ordering is precisely what any given word and its utterance does to us, then we are just perpetuating old history. What made these traditions innovative was their new naming, their new ordering. Not their dogmatic compliance with older models.
We might be led astray from what really matters, by focusing too much on small items and adhering to ideologues. That is to say, malicious and intentional mis-order is immoral but finding oneself in disorder is not. When leftist talk about the biases, incongruencies of the court with the law of the land—judges abiding personal agendas in exchange for the peoples suffering—they mean this. The right will respond in kind that,
“Shit happens! It’s coincidental! The legal documents themselves only outline what needs to—they have no agenda.”
Really they mean,
“It isn’t malicious. You’re just disorderly.”
Intentional mis-order on the courts part and, then, the right trying to force the left into further compliance is mostly due to the right’s inability. Especially to properly understand the proceedings and unfaithful politics about our collective agencies. It is also prescient of the left to want technocratic governance. Everything must be automated. Life should be governed from conception.
Another concept of Generative Anthropology, relevant here, is Katz’ naming of “firstness”. When we think of history there is always the quality of someone doing it first. It doesn’t mean that it could never be done again, just that someone else likely originated it. If we look and try to think about all of our daily rituals, there is little we truly came up with.
“Yeah dude, I made dental hygiene popular,” everybody give a round of applause for Tom, born in 1998 claiming to have popularized hygienic standards. lol.
Nearly everything we have is inherited, which I would consider the dual side to firstness. This is where order comes in, again. While organizations can implicate conflicting standards and your status’ rankings, morality is still the great unifier. It can dismantle those histories or even embolden them. Like we saw above, thinking about some kid imagining he made flossing popular re-enforces a hierarchy. One where the guy who did proliferate it gets his due desserts (although he likely would’ve refused them anyway). As we discussed earlier (on two lines of rhetoric—left and right), this helps us understand where to direct ourselves next. If we do perceive disorder—whether we see the courts decision as necessarily right or wrong—by thinking through firstness we can find its roots. Formally, this is where we backtrack and embolden degrees of agency.
Who exactly nominated those judges? What have they said in the past on these issues? Are they faithful in their character? What agendas does this promote, and is it selfish or coincidental it happens that way?
If we are to ask even further:
What is the American standard for legal proceedings? How does the federal court differ from states? What could we do to help local agencies accomplish their goals? Does America need to be unified on this issue? We’ve all seen the split polls on abortion, would forcing it either way do us justice? Is this ruling good?
If you can answer those, and I answer mine maybe it becomes easier for us to coexist together and with each other. Especially in this intellectually, monetarily and geographically massive country.
Medias and Institutions
Mimesis, or humans imitating each others desires, is another of our great unifiers. It shows us that we are always creating some new desire (or dependency), while working with old-desires. Accepting this way of thinking shows our intentions cannot be entirely baseless. Shouldn’t we be happy that commonality amongst ourselves is exactly what helps us choose what we desire or what’s best for all of us? Rather than our desire welling from strictly biological, selfish ends?
This type of discourse is of course in a vacuum. One major line of rhetoric we see nowadays is how the herd keeps preferring violence and impulsiveness at the expense of more deep, intellectual speculation. The Collective—which is a far less intimate and robotic way of naming our nation of real peoples—is their scapegoat. The Collective is at once stupid and malicious. In some respects, this is a literal fact. We see it happen time and time again; the abuse of power (in numbers and in faith). In others it is exactly as we outlined. Disorder always brings forward degrees of agency. If someone did do something but not enough, they are dumb. If it seemed like they did nothing good then, of course, they are impulsive, violent and dangerous even.
So how real is it, really, that the Collective is dumb and violent? At a high enough view, doesn’t everything look like disorder? Those that say we are crude, isolate plantigrade mammals do the same. Saying as such to yourself and everyone around is an act to gain power and faith. They don’t trust themselves. If they did they wouldn’t demean you. Our words have power and the capability to teach; strive for that. They and we, shouldn’t feel the need to reduce ourselves to overly predictive rules. We have always been organic creatures, not robots.
To add a second degree of definition to the Collective, there is the mass media. As we stated just now, we can imagine how people feel about it. Yet, there are incredibly numerous forces at play. Commercialization, innovative entrepreneurship, good hard working lower-middle class peoples and much more. There are numerous groups and diversity in world views already at play, how can we say so simply it is all for naught? Sounds like cowardice to me.
Possible Solutions
The problem with any solution is time. As we discussed in the last article here:
Baked into time itself is dependency. To be in time means we’re going to be somewhere new that—while dependent on where we are now—is currently beyond us. It forces us to come to recognition that we, ourselves, might be misplaced.
We oscillate between being in and out of time. Any solution requires incentive that you will be out of time soon, and that you need to get in line. In order. Yet, if that isn’t persuasive enough then we just think to ourselves, “nothing I could do, too little time.” If we want to accomplish anything we need some authority (like that guy who invented flossing— it must be self evident, right?).
If I were a pessimist I might say, “nothing I can provide you will grant you the necessary permits to act on that. That is up to you.” I think that’s a little bull. What would stop me from outlining ways to achieve that, and the timeframes necessary to accomplish that? While I can’t account for your time allowance I can offer some general plans. I’m mostly outlining my reasoning here, again, as I’ve mentioned before. You cannot lead if you cannot teach. If I display what leads me to where I’ve gone, then hopefully those that wish can do so as well.
One:
In terms of the legal system it is striking how little time people dedicate. Especially to local elections and governments. A way to avoid that unnecessary heart-welling from a poor federal decision is to peruse direct, consequential actions. Not just voting but talking to people around you. Finding organizations in need of donations that help lobby for your interests. Another good idea is to study your local think tank ecosystem, who can you donate, if at all to? Can you donate or request contracted time to help them? Mostly what I’m outlining is firstly finding organizations oriented to your goal; then networking. There are little immediate, effective solutions outside of minor charity.
Two:
Participating in rhetoric-focused groups and even founding some is more than helpful enough. These have and continue to occur in politics. It strikes me as weird how easily people set up weekly DnD sessions but can’t afford attending a bi-monthly group meeting. The biggest hurdle is finding people, or networking as I mentioned before. In order to accomplish this you must, A) locate popular areas, B) discern prospective interest beforehand, C) actually ask around, D) begin to organize a local meeting for political like-minded individuals. This can also be done far faster online. They can, on occasion lock you into an echo-chamber, though. One where you are expected to forever talk and then never invest, or do anything substantial. So be aware of that. If you can find a great one, I’ve learned they can be some of the longest lasting friends you have. It is worth a shot for how little time it takes to find them.
Three:
Perhaps least effective, in terms of expansion, you can simply talk about it to others around you. If you find that the people around you already like talking about those things, continue to do so! Don’t be so afraid. They likely are just as worried about saying what they really feel as you are. You might find there’s some creative sparks there. To get off topic a little, this is just a general rule as well. I’ve organized way more and accomplished much more doing this. Barbeques, skating adventures, new sports, et cetera. This is no different than talking shop about politics and local authorities. Don’t think media campaigns and groups are reserved for the wealthy. Having someone who actually knows the area—lives and breaths there!—is far far more effective. Whether you’re capturing votes or interest this is good form.
Conclusion
The problems with any goal in politics amounts to the same organizational difficulties as there have always been. Lack of time, misappropriation of your will, and ultimately the inability to do anything immediate about it. Those that focus on this inability will always try to force you into the same. That is not the way. Consistent, well thought, good action will take you further than eternally saying the same. As the years turn to decades in the blink of an eye (hopefully) you have or will come to appreciate that. Stable, long lasting control is the first step. Especially for the layman with what little time he does have to juggle.
If you are ambitious consider proper organizational channels and the creation or admission into business. It can be straight and narrow, political or media focused but that is the second option to take up. Keep it in mind if you find through the first couple routes you develop a love for it. Those being the creation of working groups consisting of your inner-circle, city locals, and internet friends dedicated to honest action. From there, it might become the portioning of expenses into general investment strategies.
Remember to have love and fun alongside this stern type of work. The more you debase and demean others or yourself, the less you will travel.
God forgive if there are some editing errors. I’m pretty busy, busting my balls. Tried to give a good article, here, in spite. Enjoy how you will, if you do.
Feel free to comment below your reasoning, as well. I will take the poll numbers and the reasons into account, e.g:
Two people argue for Option 2
Option 2 loses to Option 1
No one argued for Option 1
I pick Option 2
So, take that into account. I care more about good faith than if your reasons are “correct”. It doesn’t have to be anything super grandiose, just your thoughts and expectations.
Double feature today: