The 21st Century Police State
When one is present in a new environment, one is reminded again of his/her origins. One's own idiosyncratic identity is reinforced and salient in novel surroundings, and one must then purge the etiology of his own beliefs and upbringings.
There is a place, and I shall dub it the "Policed-State" (abbreviated to SP21) for now. Why this label or perhaps epithet? This place has been labelled other unique names, such as the "air-conditioned island", "benign authoritarian" but I think the "policed state" is of the best fit. Because we are dealing with a place, where I belonged, which will evolve sooner or later into the perfect epitome of a rigidly-structured, closely surveillant island that will micro-manage every aspect of its citizens' lives. Note that this is not a extremist view, its one meekly accepted by its own citizens, in fact perfectly acceptable, because there is no other options, no remotely fathomable alternative than to capitulate to the status quo, authority and power just to cage the "chaos" citizens themselves are afraid to risk. The "Policed-State" doesn't care about salvagable options, it doesn't concern itself with petty emotions and humanity, it expects results. Thats how the "Policed-State" runs, and as movie taglines say "Failure is never an option".
What particular characteristics do we expect from a modern "policed-state"? What can PS21 offer to tell us about future, modernity, technology, morals, tradition, culture, humanity and most importantly, social life? A lot because if we expect individual autonomy to be subscribed to the norms of state's institutions, and never anything less or otherwise, we expect the fine mechanics of a well-oiled machine. A perfect machine, one might say, churned by input and output, knowing no other duty. Below are some of the features we should find:
1) Authority is unquestioned, unrepentable, unrefutable and unapologetic. It makes no mistake, because authoritarianism doesn't allow any other form of power, except its own. There will be no discourse or current of power, because it will dissemble any collective effort to modify it. Contrast with the police agency, they also are assigned power to be used, and to overcome any other power that runs counter to it. Neither does the police question its own power, they simply must enforce it.
2) Loss of individual autonomy. When one observes a social group (e.g. a group of friends), one will find shared effort to achieve goals. But there's also one important element for such dynamics to be shared. Individual autonomy is still retained in such projects, and perhaps encouraged because harmonous social groups will attend to the needs of its members and engender a solution accepted by most. A policed social group will elevate a goal to its top priority, while rendering other interests obsolete, possibly crashing with other reasonable expediency. When we expect the police to act, we expect the same cursory vacuity, that loss of autonomy to make decisions not of your own but prescribed by rules (e.g. the law, proper conduct, etc). The "policed-state" would expect its citizens to follow this protocol.
3) Discreet Surveillance. The police do not watch over your every step, move nor breath, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to. In fact, the "policed-state" will never be able to manage such a ambitious tumultous task, but since it can't overtly watch over everyone, it will do so covertly. Readers of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' forget that the individuals in the totalitarian society are aware of their invasion of privacy, but to fund such a flagrant inclement project is impossible without rebukement from the citizens. Thus, surveillance is best met by discreet practices, while clandestine activities are mobile.
4) Potent Indoctrination. This deleterious side-effect produces itself, while not incipient within the process, it systematically presents itself. It is is germane to the process of institutionalization and militates the individuals caught up in it. However, the system is widely cast to every micro-aspect of social life, thus individuals are inevitably annexed into the process. The police and any other orderly organizations can't function without some degree of indoctrination of norms and rules, even if it is a iota of concedence to the dogma.
5) Progress is the top priority. There need not be any explanation, nothing else matters but progress. But progress is confined to specific discourses or fields, and here we meet abysmal goals. Avarice remains the key word to describe such behaviour, while the balderdash of morals and values are wont to their capricious manipulation. Which leaves the last important feature, the crux of the dynamic process:
6) Manufactured Consent.
In the course of time, I will reveal the intricacies of this social-political process. While I understand that I made some prejudgmental statements on my own country, I am not impugning nor vilifying the place. There are trade-offs, and positive outcomes have emerged from such a system. My question is how far do we pay for these benfits, are they unattainable from other forms of action and how much do we wish to give up for the "perfect" parismonious tutelage of a 21st century modernistic home? Because this place is no longer an ostensible stationary, numb and insipid environment, but become the very concotment of a very breathing robotic metaphysical entity that may be virulent in us all.
There is a place, and I shall dub it the "Policed-State" (abbreviated to SP21) for now. Why this label or perhaps epithet? This place has been labelled other unique names, such as the "air-conditioned island", "benign authoritarian" but I think the "policed state" is of the best fit. Because we are dealing with a place, where I belonged, which will evolve sooner or later into the perfect epitome of a rigidly-structured, closely surveillant island that will micro-manage every aspect of its citizens' lives. Note that this is not a extremist view, its one meekly accepted by its own citizens, in fact perfectly acceptable, because there is no other options, no remotely fathomable alternative than to capitulate to the status quo, authority and power just to cage the "chaos" citizens themselves are afraid to risk. The "Policed-State" doesn't care about salvagable options, it doesn't concern itself with petty emotions and humanity, it expects results. Thats how the "Policed-State" runs, and as movie taglines say "Failure is never an option".
What particular characteristics do we expect from a modern "policed-state"? What can PS21 offer to tell us about future, modernity, technology, morals, tradition, culture, humanity and most importantly, social life? A lot because if we expect individual autonomy to be subscribed to the norms of state's institutions, and never anything less or otherwise, we expect the fine mechanics of a well-oiled machine. A perfect machine, one might say, churned by input and output, knowing no other duty. Below are some of the features we should find:
1) Authority is unquestioned, unrepentable, unrefutable and unapologetic. It makes no mistake, because authoritarianism doesn't allow any other form of power, except its own. There will be no discourse or current of power, because it will dissemble any collective effort to modify it. Contrast with the police agency, they also are assigned power to be used, and to overcome any other power that runs counter to it. Neither does the police question its own power, they simply must enforce it.
2) Loss of individual autonomy. When one observes a social group (e.g. a group of friends), one will find shared effort to achieve goals. But there's also one important element for such dynamics to be shared. Individual autonomy is still retained in such projects, and perhaps encouraged because harmonous social groups will attend to the needs of its members and engender a solution accepted by most. A policed social group will elevate a goal to its top priority, while rendering other interests obsolete, possibly crashing with other reasonable expediency. When we expect the police to act, we expect the same cursory vacuity, that loss of autonomy to make decisions not of your own but prescribed by rules (e.g. the law, proper conduct, etc). The "policed-state" would expect its citizens to follow this protocol.
3) Discreet Surveillance. The police do not watch over your every step, move nor breath, but that doesn't mean they aren't able to. In fact, the "policed-state" will never be able to manage such a ambitious tumultous task, but since it can't overtly watch over everyone, it will do so covertly. Readers of George Orwell's 'Big Brother' forget that the individuals in the totalitarian society are aware of their invasion of privacy, but to fund such a flagrant inclement project is impossible without rebukement from the citizens. Thus, surveillance is best met by discreet practices, while clandestine activities are mobile.
4) Potent Indoctrination. This deleterious side-effect produces itself, while not incipient within the process, it systematically presents itself. It is is germane to the process of institutionalization and militates the individuals caught up in it. However, the system is widely cast to every micro-aspect of social life, thus individuals are inevitably annexed into the process. The police and any other orderly organizations can't function without some degree of indoctrination of norms and rules, even if it is a iota of concedence to the dogma.
5) Progress is the top priority. There need not be any explanation, nothing else matters but progress. But progress is confined to specific discourses or fields, and here we meet abysmal goals. Avarice remains the key word to describe such behaviour, while the balderdash of morals and values are wont to their capricious manipulation. Which leaves the last important feature, the crux of the dynamic process:
6) Manufactured Consent.
In the course of time, I will reveal the intricacies of this social-political process. While I understand that I made some prejudgmental statements on my own country, I am not impugning nor vilifying the place. There are trade-offs, and positive outcomes have emerged from such a system. My question is how far do we pay for these benfits, are they unattainable from other forms of action and how much do we wish to give up for the "perfect" parismonious tutelage of a 21st century modernistic home? Because this place is no longer an ostensible stationary, numb and insipid environment, but become the very concotment of a very breathing robotic metaphysical entity that may be virulent in us all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home