June 23, 2005
comfort and security 2: control
control: how far will people go to exert control over their own lives? to almost any length. many seemingly pathological, self-destructive behaviors make perfect sense when you consider how important a sense of self-control is to the human brain. Anorexia, drug use, self-injury -- these are all tools used to maintain control over how we feel.
I have been going through an intermission where I have lost control of a number of aspects of my life. Not for very long, or of too many pieces at the same time, but repeatedly, suddenly, in unanticipated bursts. My computer broke, the landlord took away our roof access, I had to take the cart out to Queens to get it re-licensed -- to name the few. Every week has had its little surprises, and it's been a little traumatic around the edges.
If comfort and security are near-term goals of organization, the long-term objective is control.
I hesitate to say "self"-control, because the meaning does not extend very well to groups, nor is it very precise, but some specification is needed. Being controlled is a very different feeling from exerting control over oneself. The matter is further confused by the equation of being controlled with being jerked around in a chaotic fashion. In fact, one might be controlled so subtly one would not even notice...
For a long time, I rejected the notion of "self-control" for this exact reason -- that it seemed in most cases, to be informed by an overriding obedience. The "self" part of it was merely an addendum, to quash your own instinctive rebellion at being controlled. It seemed to be largely an addendum to social control, a handle by which the individual could easily be gripped and moved here or there. At the same time, it limited the notion of control to the self, and deadened social responsiveness. In short, the "control" offered by self-control was always short term and limited, while the "self" streched long. Truly a twilight theory (so it seemed to me).
Besides, I was reading a lot of Deluze, Guatarri, and Negri, who all over-emphasize the amount of social control under capitalism (culminating in Hardt and Negri's summation of the current political order as "the right of the police"). Negri, particularly, seems quite blind to the anarchy of capitalism. The control is miniscule, the anarchy, massive.
Politically, too, this approach is not viable. To push for less control at the lowest levels of society -- typified by Negri's demand for the "social salary" -- while ignoring changes at the highest levels is foolish. They argue that capital will simply be forced to adjust, to change the social organization at the highest level and motivations at the lowest. But the opposite is also possible -- that capital will simply allow crisis to overtake the lowest levels. What happens in this case? The populace will beg for a re-instatement of the old social order, which at least functioned...
What is needed is a new form of social organization, which is to say a new form of control.
Posted by Sam at June 23, 2005 08:25 PM
controlling
here is contrasted with not being controlled
creating a chaos around one self
creating a chaos out of one self...
both can accomplish
a lawless liberty
like the octopus and his ink
a freeing defense
an alternative to secrecy
outside controllers
can be escaped
this way
but not toppled
toppling
actually requires a confrontation
followed by
a struggle against the controllers
Posted by: meat me at June 27, 2005 02:05 PM
" Politically, too,
this approach is not viable.
To push for less control
at the lowest levels
of society
-- typified by Negri's demand
for the "social salary" --
while ignoring changes
at the highest levels
is foolish.
They argue
that capital will simply be forced
to adjust,
to change the social organization
at the highest level
and motivations at the lowest.
But the opposite is also possible
-- that capital will simply allow
crisis to overtake the lowest levels.
What happens in this case?
The populace will beg
for a re-instatement
of the old social order,
which at least functioned..."
indeed the welfare state cycle
of the post war period
shows just this arc back
from license back
to ground zero
this inversion
masquarades
as a" good old days " reversion
since a klass can never really
go backon itself
if it tries a reversal
it either decomposes
or morphs into a new lesser state
Posted by: pink at June 27, 2005 02:15 PM
social dividends ...
the dynamic of exploitation under capitalism will never stand for it
its a sick fantasy
a tooth fairy lie
Posted by: pink ii at June 27, 2005 02:19 PM
control dynamics is pb mind game time
a kind of anti phil
anti nurse ratchet
self-empowerment trip
like mcmurphy went on
navel gazing at one remove
Posted by: meat me at June 27, 2005 02:23 PM
" a handle by which the individual could easily be gripped and moved here or there."
free range egos vs authority
false dialectic
the self is a social product
a complex internally contractictory
social product
in self reflection
the viewer and the viewed require
a faux integraty a working
pseudo autonomous
pretext
for planning actions
where is control in this ?
no where but in mirage
it is not interpersonal
its social
controls ?
no
action field variations
Posted by: Anonymous at June 27, 2005 02:34 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
