Manufacturing passivity and obedience ~ Malinda Words

Noam Chomsky, considered by some as the ‘Father of Modern Linguistics,’ and perhaps better known for being a public intellectual for his relentless activism, wrote and spoke extensively on the pernicious ways in which consent is obtained.

The following is from ‘How the world works,’ made up of edited speeches and interviews with Chomsky, edited by Arthur Nalman:

‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.’

This method seems far more cost-effective than using violence to quell dissent, although it may come to that eventually, i.e. when the ideological state apparatus crumbles. The coercive machinery, typically held in reserve for the most part, is activated when this happens. Until then, this works.

In other words, set a limited spectrum, feed it when necessary with click-bait that amounts to distraction to the point that the more critical issues are left alone, and it’s smooth sailing, relatively, for those in power. The system may be threatened if its foundations are attacked, but if people are persuaded to scratch surfaces, complain that some tiles have come off, the floors are unpolished and the walls unpainted, all is good.

About twenty years ago, Prof Carlo Fonseka laughingly told me, ‘I read your articles for the style, not the content.’ He was alluding to the fact that we were ideologically at odds with each other. So I smiled and pointed out, ‘Uncle, your friends who write content you agree with, they don’t talk about capitalism, about exploitation or class, do they? I do!’

‘And I appreciate it,’ he said.

I suppose his contention about content was a general observation; I don’t critique capitalism or write about class as much as I do about other things.

Chomsky, though, is correct. It’s not that some clever, scheming people sit around a table and brainstorm to come up with ideas that can generate lively debate. Some of it is planned, obviously, but most of it is not. The system will have uneven floors, a broken window or two and paint coming off some wall at any given time. If, on the other hand, it seems perfectly refurbished, it is not difficult to break a window, spill some ink or punch a hole somewhere. Something, anything, that someone will notice and be upset about. That’s a nice recipe for managing dissent.

The system, one could argue, is flawed. The solution then is to play up correctable flaws. People will scream and the particular angst can be duly put to rest. The system needs such flaws at all times because it helps prevent people from detecting the most serious flaws and anomalies, examine them, find underlying reasons and think of ways to deal with them, even consider overhauling the system. That’s scary for those who benefit from the system, typically the rich and powerful.

It is fortuitous that capitalism generates disasters. The increasing incidence of floods, droughts, earth slips etc., are attributable to the dominant paradigm of development and its economic first cousin, capitalism. But no, we are discouraged from linking ‘climate change’ to capitalism or the dominant paradigm of development. If there’s a calamity of any kind, the preference is for all debate to be focused on the location, the victims, the relief efforts.

Of course not all ‘issues’ are attributable to capitalism. You can have someone in power saying something stupid and be assured that public attention will focus on the person. You can have someone complain about someone else building something that is made out to be some kind of environmental crime.

You can have different versions of the infamous ‘Dhammika Paeniya.’ You can have a version of the ‘Kandalama Hotel’ and it could be a chaitya on Bathalegala. You can have environmental issues, gender issues, sexuality issues, ethnic issues and talk about relevant histories day in and day out, but capitalism in any serious way, the system in a serious way, hell no!

It cannot be coincidental that former leftists and revolutionaries embrace issues such as ecology, gender discrimination, sexuality, ethnicity, secularism and others that offer a veneer of liberal respectability, that they also set up NGOs and turn their alleged righteousness into lucrative business models but leave the most abiding and most pernicious anomaly-generator of them all, capitalism, strictly alone.

It is ok to talk of historical homelands and in the same breath scream, ‘history is irrelevant.’ It is important for history to be pooh-poohed because bringing that into the debate would make things uncomfortable for those whose historical claims are toilet wash, but more importantly, when you banish history, you cannot trace process. Capitalism is thus a given, a fact, an incontrovertible truth, something that is and will be and therefore something that does not call for objection. It is a ‘goes without saying’ thing.

And, ladies and gentlemen, as the French sociologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu pointed out, ‘that which goes without saying, comes without saying.’

And that which goes without saying typically falls outside the spectrum of permissible dissent. So it is incumbent on the citizen to examine the parameters of issues, detect the limits, ponder reasons for limitations and step out of that comfort zone designed by the comfortable and comforted. Outside the permitted spectrum is where meaningful ‘aragala’ find their not-so traditional homeland. That's how manufactured passivity and obedience can be bested.

malindadocs@gmail.com

['The Morning Inspection' is the title of a column I wrote for the Daily News from 2009 to 2011, one article a day, Monday through Saturday. This is a new series. Links to previous articles in this new series are given below]

04 July 2023

Manufacturing passivity and obedience

0 comments: