"if the social ego also beats death"
To patiently queue at a famous person’s funeral for take a selfie with the widow even more famous and maybe even smiled, one must have crossed the entire cable between the human and the inhuman. And above all you must not have missed the appointment even with an episode of Men and women and of You’ve Got Mail.
One must have lost the sense of modesty, the measure of limits and even of death. One must have internalized the idea that the show must go on, rather that the show is life itself, that we are the actors. And one must be, having lost the sense of the monstrous, completely immersed in the idea that you exist if you show yourself.
The funeral selfie
"It’s television, honey and you can’t help it", one could say paraphrasing Hutcheson – Bogart. In reality, things are more complex. It is a pervasive and effective form of cultural hegemony, not exactly Gramscian. It is based on unawareness, distraction, the ephemeral search for a handful of seconds of celebrity to immortalize with a photo on social media.
The funeral selfie celebrates the union between television and social media: I photograph myself with the incarnation of TV and then spam the image on a shared channel.
Bad television teacher
Behind this gesture is the repudiation of any form of confidentiality, of polite respect. There is the triumph of ostentation, of exposing oneself as a vitalistic form, as a sense of existence. Anyone who thinks that today social control passes through social networks will have to think again: television has not yet given up its dominance in forging minds and indeed has fully accomplished its mission, to make us believe that what happens in there is all true while it is art and fiction.
Selfie with the living at the bedside of the dead
That’s why there were so many waiting their turn, not to greet a dead person, but to take a picture with a living person and embark on the hunt for "the Amen of digital devotion which is the like", as Byung Chul Han writes.
To allow this, the world of television leaves the screens and hands itself over to its own people, lets itself be touched – something inconceivable in a true monarchy, where kings are intangible – lets itself be photographed. In the end, the emotion of the selfie remains emotional capitalism it is just it is just one of the commodities to be paid for with shares.
13 comments:
We've failed to teach an entire generation about dignity and humility. I wonder if these 20-30 year old narcissists are a lost cause?
Only history can say. But IMO, the young are but a reflection of trends adopted by the greater society as a whole.
Standards have fallen and continue to fall. You can't expect the young to adopt high standards if the rewards for doing so work to their detriment, and not their advantage.
You're absolutely right. But why have our standards fallen?
It started in 1964 with some "good intentions" called "affirmative action". It evolved into throwing away SAT and credit scores. The "affirmation" soon extended to women, gays, trans, and now just about everyone but cisgen white males, unless they're espousing some crackpot pagan religious sect.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. We keep moving farther and farther down that road.
Moral hazards are the worst traps to fall into... the tragedy of good intentions.
It's what Berlin termed "the unavoidability of conflicting ends" or, alternatively, the "incommensurability" of values. He once called this "the only truth which I have ever found out for myself... Some of the Great Goods cannot live together.... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." In short, it's what Michael Ignatieff summarized as "the tragic nature of choice".
I don't think of Leftists as "bad people". They simply want "different goods". "Goods" that are incompatible w/mine.
What's good for the goose sometimes becomes gravy for the gander.
Pascal's "Pensees" - The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."43 We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end.
43Saint Augustine, City of God, iv. 27. "As he has ignored the truth which frees, it is right he is mistaken."
Any "standard" that not all people can immediately meet, has become "onerous" (racist sexist Eurocentric white supremacist).
Meta-narratives, not Grand narratives, form the order of the day. Universal "standards" are kaput.
Yes, that all makes sense. In just 20 years I've seen standards change drastically. My kids espouse leftism. They deny history. Sometimes it's too much to believe. Sometimes I feel like this is "what I get" for opting for public school vs homeschool.
I'm sure it's not quite that simple but it feels that way. You can either be an isolationist and homeschool your kids and have strict control over who they spend their time with. Or you can give them more freedom and run the risk of them going against your values. Of course it's no guarantee they will agree with you even with the strictest rules and regulations. I know people in our town whose children still do not have cell phones at the age of 17, and are not allowed to socialize with public School kids. I don't judge these parents, but I do believe that these kids are psychologically stunted and ill prepared for life outside the home. It feels like a no-win situation
I wish I had answers to offer. My kids are all liberal, but they still "get me". They're all in their 30's now, the oldest approaching 40. They all went to public schools, some more liberal than others.
So, they were exposed to liberal values, and my values. At least they now have "models" and "options"... which is all I can hope for. If a time ever comes where liberal values cease to operate effectively for them, they, at least, have a fall-back. They can be self-reliant, if they need be.
So, yes, I think you're doing them justice by not sheltering them and keeping them in a bubble. And btw - I'm 66 and STILL don't have a cell-phone. ;)
I would rather not have a cell phone! Unfortunately it's mandatory for my job. They actually have us download an app to document patient care and do billing!! I cannot imagine how that can be considered HIPPA compliant.
Anyway, thank you for your perspective. Interesting that yours attended liberal schools. Our school system is likely conservative in comparison but school is not where they learn their values. The Internet is. They do hear us talk reasonably about politics, and they listen, so hopefully it's there when they need it. I'll love them regardless. One thing I'm seeing is an over identification with ideology at such an early age. I just wish they would let that crap wait on the back burner.
Ugh sorry FJ. I'm down lately.
No worries. :)
Post a Comment