Perhaps it is pure folly to think otherwise, but its somewhat pathetic that mankind – with our ability to reach for the stars, chart the turbulent seas and imagine worlds unending – can be reduced to the basest form of being when encountering a network of free-standing waist-high structures connected by flimsy strips of cloth. Behold us, we who held our heads high, now shuffling like sheep to the slaughterhouse.
Or perhaps in the spirit of this day of thanks – like turkeys to the chopping block.
The queue (yes, we are being British today) is a stunningly simple tool to control the herd through the concept of group-think. Forced to follow through a one-way procession, our high ideal of individuality sublimates to docility. Wait your turn, no cutting ahead, approach the next available counter when told to; like infants we humbly obey.
Of course, this isn’t always the case – The New York Times delved into the cultural and psychological implications of lines in their September 18th edition – mainland Chinese visitors to Hong Kong Disneyland displayed uncouth line etiquette, while
Oh, the many metaphysical debates that could ensue deserve another post at another time.
But as my associate astutely alluded, chaos is the name of the game – or rather orderly chaos. That’s the paradigm Google is trying to enforce for those of us riding the information superhighway. Whether ranking sites by popularity, bringing the beauty of geography to our screens, or cataloguing literally every written word known to man, the former search engine is quickly embodying the phrase scientia est potentia. And since a day in uncluttered wouldn’t be complete without uncovering some left-field zaniness: voila.
8 comments:
Individuality is not a high ideal. It is the most rudimentary form of sentience.
Ah.
Without getting into a semantics debate, I would posit that the most rudimentary form of sentience is awareness of Self, whereas individuality is the love child of awareness of Self and awareness of Other.
From a multi-cultural perspective, individuality is indeed a high ideal of Western thought - particularly when you introduce the concept of religion - "Me and my god." Contrast that with my biological bretheren, who prefer "Me and you and everybody esle, and our god(s)."
Individualism obfuscates class struggle. It is a notion propounded by the capitalist class and their lackey philosophers.
Intellectuals of the world, unite. You have noting to lose but your muddle-headed ideas.
It seems too much Marx doesn't do the body good..
But he raises a valid point - Maoism succeeds since its easier to deseminate insiduous ideas to peasantry already accustomed to thinking like your neighbour. Maoism fails since its ideas are crackpot.
Oh the tales of ineptitude during The Great Helmsman's reign....
True enough. But we must get past these obsolete misinterpretations of Marx. Forget Mao, read Robin Blackburn. Start here:
http://www.newleftreview.net/History.shtml
The tongue-in-cheek grumbling in the back of my head complains that the extreme form of individualism precludes awareness of the Other. Or perhaps that not giving a shit about the Other renders awareness of it irrelevant. Talk to many continental Europeans (West #1) and you may find that this is how they characterise their so-called "Anglo-Saxon Monster" (West #2).
As for the introduction of religion, I'm afraid you are quite wrong. In the monotheistic "Western" faiths the individual is subsumed in the service of the Deity. It is the Deity which is the "High ideal" - the individual is as best an indulgence. Hence the ease with which corrupt leaders can co-opt this lack of individuality by deliberately confusing the Deity with the Establishment in the eyes of followers of a tarnished faith.
My "High Ideal" is balancing the individual with the sense of duty to the community. But then I always rather liked Keynes.
All this to say thay I consider good queue behaviour to be a criterion of civilisation.
"I found it inquisitive"
Apparently your blog has a mind of its own...
Post a Comment