|
The Root of Exceptionalism
by Monolycus
(lifted from a comment)
Stanford University’s Philip Zimbardo makes the case that it wasn’t inherent rottenness, but the "Lucifer Effect" which turned all those good, honest, God-fearin’ US soldiers into sadistic, twisted tormentors at Abu Ghraib.
"The Devil made me do it." Yeah. In a Christian theocracy, that
defense will, nauseatingly, go pretty far. At least it’s slightly less
patently disgusting than "These were just frat pranks."
Why doesn’t anyone twig on to the obvious answer that the culture
produces sick, twisted fucks? Oh, yeah… this is an election year and
we don’t won’t want to actually tell anyone that their baby is ugly.
But the apologist Dr. Zimbardo comes tantalizingly close to making a
very genuine observation while pussyfooting around with the trite
rationalizations: "If you give people power without oversight it is a formula for abuse."
Now, where-oh-where can we look for people given "power without
oversight"…? I’m sure the dank, dungeons of Iraq or some other third
world hole will give us all manner of "powerful" and "unsupervised"
folk.
No need to look for that in your own backyard. No need to apply
that formula to the TASER-happy cops on every street corner of the USA or the bullying TSA agents waiting in every airport to flex their authoritive muscles. We should certainly
not apply that maxim to a demonstrably corrupt executive, legislative
and judicial branch of US government who only classify something as
torture if it might be applied to them.
Let’s keep coming up with excuses about how what happened at Abu
Ghraib is exceptional and does not represent who we are. And, you know,
I’m aiming this scattershot at non-US citizens and governments as well.
Western culture produces sickness… maliciousness… inhumanity…
exceptionalism… and all the rest. US citizens are not
psychologically, genetically, culturally or in any quantifiable way
special enough for this to only apply to them. Every new piece of data
which points to the inescapable conclusion that humans are disgusting
causes us to jump through new hoops to point to why it is "those guys"
that are really the disgusting ones… or "that circumstance" that
caused them to be that way.
The root of exceptionalism is that we don’t see any of this as applying to us.
exceptionalism is endemic to the domesticated — hybrid as opposed to natural — human being’s world view. its roots lay in how we explain ourselves in relation to the rest of the world and those on it. achille mbembe inscribes instructive insight into the ramifications of the concept of monotheism in his essay god’s phallus. (italics in the original)
The first is primacy – the fact that the god signifies only himself. Whether it is a matter of his qualities, his power, or his possibilities, he implies no one but himself. From a relational point of view of law and necessity, a god that is One absorbs and subsumes everything. Nothing can be substituted for him. He is his own genesis. Time is his property; rather, he is time; his is what is beyond time. Second the metaphor of monotheism entails the idea of totalization. Every monotheistic system is based on a notion of exclusivity and condensation of sovereignty, in contrast to a plurality of gods, as well as their dispersion into a mulitplicity of forms. The third implication is monopoly. Belief in a single god distinct from the world is possible only if accompanied by suppression of other forms of worship. This radicality is what gives the single god part of his jealous, possessive, wrathful, violent, and unconditional character. It presupposes that the unique god, precisely because unique, is incompatible with worship of other gods.
More exactly, the revelation of the One enters into the history of a particular people favored, and burdened, with a mission that is also unique. It is through the mediation of this particular people that the divinity writes itself into the history of humanity as a whole. Henceforth, this people can no longer be considered simply one of the countless peoples on earth. Thus, in the Old Covenant, Israel’s appropriation of divine election casts Israel in the role of the opponent of idolatry, especially with respect to nations considered pagan. Later, in the Christian interpretation of divine election, the coming of Jesus of Nazareth and his violent death on the cross leads, if not to the abolition, at least to the transcendence of the Old Covenant, and to the appropriation by the Church of the mission of being Yaweh’s chosen people. From that moment on, the establishment of the New Covenant is inseperable from the obligation to convert pagan nations to the “true” god.
The notion of monotheism also implies that of omnipotence. As Feuerback aptly suggests, where there is omnipotence there is also subjectivity that “frees itself from all objective determinations and limitations.” This absence of constraints constitutes the divinity’s power and its supreme essentiality. The power in question resides in the ability to subjectivly posit, and translate into reality, everything representable. Nonetheless, omnipotence and providence are bound together through the idea of salvation. The one god’s omnipotence allows him to produce the world out of nothing. His providence allows him to save the world in exchange for nothing., in a supreme gift of himself, whose sacrificial character ultimately refers to the origins and end of all things.
Finally, the metaphor of monotheism is inseperable from the notion of the ultimate – that is, the first and last principle of things. Speaking of the ultimate is another way of speaking of the truth. In fact, there is no monotheism except in relation to producing a truth that not only determines the foundations and goals of the world but provides the origin of all meaning. ONe can say that monotheism is a special way of formulating knowledge about final ends. The question of how truth and final ends are to be determined is, of course, the very prototype of a political question. By firmly rejecting any notion of the relativity of truth, monotheism postulates the existence of a universe with a single meaning.
mbembe goes on to write
From Christ’s status as head of humanity followed Christianity’s claim to a universal empire. In other words, Christ’s power to rule was inseperable from his right of property, a right of property exercised, naturally, over so-called Christian lands. His sovereignty and his domination extended “from sea to sea as far as the ends of the earth.” From this it followed that the property of the infidels belongs to him, by virtue of the universality of this reign; this conclusion opened the way to assertion of the right of conquest. This is the context in which we must interpret the politics of the crusades.
The whole world being Christ’s dominion, the Church and his princes were responsible for making him known in the world. Within this universal economy, the Church was supposed to function as intermediary.
by the seventeenth century, as the capitalists’ “market economy” usurped the moral/universal economy of the theologians, so saw the marketplace eviscerate the church to claim the mantle as intermediary of the new divine order.
as kevin phillips pointed out in his american theocracy,
The three Protestant “Hebraic analogy” and covenanting cultures — Dutch, British, and then American — just happened to produce the three successive leading world economic powers of the seventeenth through twenty-first centuries.
to facilitate & maintain empire requires & then perpetuates the myth of exceptionalism. would such a project even be possible otherwise?
Posted by: b real | Mar 1 2008 8:25 utc | 25
Zimbardo is not a sharp thinker and his discourse is practically political, that is, stays on a few accepted ‘talking point’ where he mixes ‘conditions’ (what? where? how? instigated by whom, for what purpose?) with mish-mash about individuals etc. If he said similar kinds of things about Nazis people would find it old-hat, or not acceptable, probably even apologist, at the very least not even slightly explanatory or illuminating. (Note: i only read the article posted, but am familiar with his line.)
The very existence of such discourse is itself a sign of exceptionalism, in the sense that a historical shift is operated: the past is one thing, but the present requires a different treatment.
A divide is created, and the present aims and the current rationalizations have to be accepted, or respected, or somehow worked around. To leave psychology, minor BS after all, in the energy field we see spectacular examples: Daniel Yergin (The prize: the epic quest for oil...etc. is a grand book) and Jared Diamond.
Both present interesting, valid analyses of the past, but lose their bearings (to put it very, very, sweetly) when it comes to the present. To my mind, it is *this* that is typically American. Nothing, except popular slogans, rallying cries, vague absorption of some chosen aspects of science, etc. to be swift, cruel, stereotypical, is relevant to today. The ongoing renewal has fascistic tinges, for sure.
The recent US ‘discovery’ of torture (Abu Graib), thus also seems self-absorbed and self-serving. Many Gvmts./ dictators, past and present used, use, torture. That doesn’t mean it should be accepted as a ‘fact of life’, ‘human nature’ or that Americans should not self-flagellate because of it, as they seemingly can’t stop it, or because their culture encourages it, etc. etc. Accepting the Iraq invasion, renditions (which is not just some so-called high-level prisoners flown about in chartered planes) while condemning Lynndie England is a little short in the wider humanitarian stakes.
from anti-war.com, about Iraq, just one ex. Occupation Strangles Farmers
link
Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 1 2008 19:13 utc | 28
|
