What if the movie The Matrix is a metaphorically accurate description of our social world? What if what you have been taught is the real world, what you have been taught is human nature, what you think are "common sense" self evident explanations for why the world is the way it is, is not true? What if, by looking across history and across cultures, by comparing hard data to what we "think" is true, we can see that societies come in many different forms, that the behaviors we attribute as part of human nature, or natural, are also similarly culturally diverse, and that our perceptions of the real world do not line up with the data? What if hard data, about income distribution, social class mobility, who has and uses social power, etc. shows us that society is not what we believe it to be? What if?
We have been learning a lot about how critical theorists within political sociology think about power in modern society. Our basic questions have been "Who rules?", "Why does everyone else go along with the ruling?" and "What are the consequences for our thinking of having a ruling class, a Power Elite (ie. G. W Bush and his entourage, or the whole enchilada)?" Critical social theorists look at the data and see a society (US) in which a ruling class has created the most successful, stable, and non-revolutionary society in history (the US and to some extent the rest of Western Capitalist society). Far from there being revolutionary sentiments among the masses or direct coercive control over the masses as Marx predicted, the working classes of this society "go along" for the most part with the status quo in which they have little real power or real wealth. Why do they continue to go along? Why do they not rise up as Marx predicted and demand a more equitable distribution of wealth and power? Why do they continue to live in false consciousness? Why are their sociological imaginations (follow the "next" link at the bottom of the page opened by this link) not actively discovering the social processes and structures that keep them from making any significant progress up the social ladder, even as they believe it possible? Why do we believe in the myth of meritocracy?
Gramsci and Marcuse try to answer this question. Gramsci's answer is hegemony...the development of a ruling set of ideas that makes acceptance of the status quo a "common sense" belief reinforced and replayed over and over again in the cultural practices of a society (like the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation" really?, "with liberty, and equality for all" really?). To Gramsci, the ruling class transforms the cultural practices of the masses into practices that support and reaffirm an ideology that justifies the current power and wealth distribution. Where Marx saw the power of the ruling class lying in political and economic power, Gramsci sees the power of the ruling class lying in the "common sense" cultural practices, the hegemonic ideology of a society.
Marcuse adds to Gramsci by elucidating the intoxicating power of the market commodities of late industrial society. According to Marcuse, those not of the ruling class have their revolutionary tendencies and energies transformed into consumer impulses. The new social order creates false needs which integrate individuals into the existing system of production, consumption, and power relations via mass media, advertising, industrial management, etc. To Marcuse, the modern world is characterized by the invasion of market forces into our everyday lives and even our ideas such that we become preoccupied with consuming, we need to consume, consumption of every aspect of our lives is life itself. Thus revolutionary tendencies become needs to buy and wear a Che' t-shirt and eat Cherry Garcia ice cream. Radicalism becomes co-opted as part of the market.
So far in class we have focused in large part on the US. How we understand power in the US is crucial to understanding how we think about conflict in the world today since few of us have first hand knowledge of the causes and consequences of global conflicts, and therefore the possible ways of framing and understanding global conflict are in large part fed to us by "experts" and politicians, liberal and conservative, who are members of the ruling class, the power elite.
Is this problematic? Is there reason to question or think critically about the way global conflicts are framed for us by the ruling class? Here are some of your options:
1. Benevolent: If you believe that the ruling class is a benevolent force that shepards over all of us, this is not a problem. Just as our parents knew best when we were children, we rightly should deffer to the ruling class because they know best.
2. Just like us: Or if you believe that the ruling class is really just a collection of individuals who are just like average Americans, from similar backgrounds as average Americans, with similar outlooks and concerns as average Americans, and who by their individual achievements and qualities rose through society to their current position of power, then again there is no real problem with leaving the thinking about global conflict to them. They have earned their positions as framers of complex issues for the rest of us.
3. From a different world: Or maybe you think, or for the purposes of this class at least entertain the possibility that the interests of the ruling class are not the same as those of the average American, that the interests of the most powerful and richest among us are not the same as the typical 9 to 5 working American. And maybe you are now or have been thinking that the vast majority of those in the ruling class are from the ruling class by inheritance or luck, not achievement? Maybe you think there is really nothing in the genetics of a Rockefeller or a Kennedy or a Bush that makes them particularly more capable of ruling than you. In fact, maybe you are beginning to think that the lists of personal achievements that each of these folks can demonstrate to us has as much or more to do with the opportunities and advantages that their starting status birth positions in the ruling class afforded them. Ah, but this is radical hogwash. Or is it? You decide.
Read, skim, and explore the following web links.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/who.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Then write a post to your blog that answers the following:
a. What is meant by a "ruling class" or power elite?
b. Who are the ruling class in the US? Which case above (1.benevolent, 2. just like us, or 3. from a different world) seems to best fit the evidence? ie. How do the vast majority of people in the ruling class get to be in the ruling class?
c. What interests might the ruling class have in framing global conflict as it is often framed:
inevitable, a result of human nature and radical crazies, irrational hatred, etc.
d. How much of what you think about the world and about global conflicts is received knowledge, filtered through media, politicians, and other institutional sources?
e. Why does any of this matter to our course goals? Specifically to our ability to make sense of global conflicts and possibilities for peace in the world?
f. What can such an understanding of power contribute to our exploration of global conflicts?
Do not simply restate each question and then give a simple brief answer. This should be a flowing essay response that covers the questions above. Cut and paste where appropriate as long as you provide links to the original text for attribution.
POST BY Wed. 31st of January.
Powered by Zoundry
