Blame…the Middle Class?

“There’s a simple reason that since the 1980s the world has witnessed thousands of suicide bombings: It’s the most efficient form of violence at close range. The spread of this seemingly unstoppable technique has made political violence much more potent by enlisting an unlikely cadre of perpetrators—the middle class.”

Of course, this isn’t the first to accuse the middle class of violence. Many a revolution has been credited to them. The article isn’t really fantastic, either. For something called “Foreign Policy” I expected a lot better.

“Clandestine, confrontation-avoiding violence such as suicide bombing is a fourth pathway around confrontational tension. It succeeds only because the attacker is good at pretending that he or she is not threatening at all. People accustomed to the typical macho forms of violence are not good at this; gang members would make lousy suicide bombers. But mild-mannered middle-class people are ideal for it. Since they are not confrontational by nature, they do not have to control a blustering or threatening demeanor that would warn their victims.” Seriously? Where are we getting these ideas from?  “Self-directed introverts, they do not need to hear cheering as they stalk their prey.” Now, on the Discovery Channel, a very special show on the hunting habits of the middlus classus. “Middle-class culture is especially accommodative, adept at maintaining a smooth surface of conventionality. Whatever our private feelings, we learn not to express them on the job, in social situations, or in public. This is good training for carrying a bomb under one’s clothing until the target is so close that massive damage is certain.” I thought it made people sexually repressed, but that’s just me.

The whole, “it’s always that quiet kid that no one notices in the corner that finally snaps!” point is cute, but really it could have been done better. It’s a weak argument. Plus, their idea of the “middle class” confuses me. “I suggest it is because suicide bombing is the easiest form of violence for conventional middle-class people to carry out, if they decide to commit violence at all.” So what is it that finally makes the “middle class” snap? Is it the same catalyst in every single case? Would an Australian middle-class man in 1950 snap for the same reason as an Afghani middle class woman in 1970? They don’t define the parameters.  They just suppose that this phrase is so descriptive on its own. This chameleon “middle class” is perpetuating the violence. Any statistics? Any proof?

Oh gosh, should we watch the (shrinking) middle class closely now?

There was Godwin’s Law and there were Six Degrees of Seperation…now there’s Wolfe’s Law: It All Leads Back to Terrorism

There. I said it.

Just like with Godwin’s Law, how every conversation eventually brings up Nazis, and with Stanley Milgram’s “small world experiment”, how everyone is generally connected to anyone else by a few small degrees of separation…

Now, now I coin the phrase, after yours truly, Wolfe’s Law: Everything leads to Terrorism in one way or another.

The below example is only one of many. See how many you can come up with!

Spotting Links to Terrorism, Inc.

“As companies expand their global reach, they risk smudging their reputations by linking up with less-than-savory regimes. Even firms with good reputations reach into dark corners.

Take Royal Dutch/Shell. Although highly regarded for its environmental and human rights stances, the oil giant is drilling in Iran. Or consider Swedish carmaker Volvo. Despite its nice-guy image, it has sold trucks to Iraq.

Until Sept. 11, no group formally screened publicly traded companies for their links to terrorism or the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But as the United States has focused on terrorism, so some groups have begun to look at companies linked to it, even peripherally.

Earlier this month, a socially responsible investors group announced it had compiled a list of nearly 300 such firms. The group, the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), along with the Conflict Securities Advisory Group (CSAG), prefers to sell its list to subscribers (at $12,500 a year) rather than make it public. Nevertheless, the statistics it has released make interesting reading.

For example, of the 260 or so firms linked to countries supporting terrorism and developing weapons of mass destruction, a third are European. More than a quarter come from Asia. Only 10 percent are American.”

“No US president has ever died under the same flag that he was born under.”

In your face

I doubt that faces will become obsolete. Unless we have a truly democratic (democratic in a very rigid, almost proto-Fascist sense that democracy only works if everyone is the same)world in which we modify people’s faces to be one of a set five like in that Twilight Zone episode (although it was only women’s faces that were modified). Faces are different, and the bodies associated with the mugshot remain important.

For instance, why do people still go to concerts? We have the music. We don’t have to deal with other people, moshpits, drinking, smoking, pushing, grabbing…it’s also cheaper as certain concerts can cost $100+. We could easily watch a nice recording of them in the studio if we wanted them to dance and entertain us. But no, we go and crowd and push and deal because, as of now, nothing replaces the face, and its body.

Perhaps, that is only because of acclimation. We’re simply not used to a lack of a human being telling us what to do. We need the face and the body. We’ve always had class that way. Tuesday’s class was an interesting sociological exercise in authority. Why was everyone so content that I was “in charge”?

“If we can confidently assert that the face gives rise to meaning, then what is the nature of this meaning? In other words, if faces communicate something, what is it that they communicate?” (“What Can A Face Do?” Richard Rushton, pp220-221)

Was there something on my face? Was there something in my teeth that somehow gained me a modicum of unwanted (yet not wholly unpleasant) power. No one questioned, in fact, people wanted to make sure that I was a TA, or something else official. Yet, even when I explained there is no hierarchy between them and me, people still would address me, look at me, almost for permission to speak, or even listen to my suggestions. No one had to stay in the class, respond to my questions, or even allow me to speak. After all, in a Hobbesian world, something of my pitiful size would be trumped easily. I hold almost no capital (Bourdieu) and thus, should have had no authority. No one gained anything from allowing me to be an authority figure.

“Ultimately, the face is an instrument whose primary purpose is that of communicating; we cannot dissociate the face of the sender from the system of meaning implied by that face’s messages being sent to a receiver.” (Rushton, 221)

How did I manage to communicate power?

As witnessed in the classroom chaos, if my annoying little face didn’t step up, then the screen would have been ignored. People would have left. I doubt many would have logged onto a classroom real-time chatroom. Personally, I need to gesticulate. It adds a lot to my speech. My ability to persuade my audience is also heightened by my facial expressions, tone, volume (close to 80% of speech is body language (which makes sense because if we read a transcript of a speech we wonder how anyone could be excited by the words)).

In a way, it’s not what you say, but how you say it that matters in face-to-face interactions. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we be saying and rating on the actual material? “Don’t rate a book by its cover,” is an applicable cliché. While the saying is meant for us to be more open-minded in our judgments, shouldn’t we scrutinize more? Devil Wears Prada has an attractive cover, but the guts are so useless.

This begs the question; since verbal speech is rated on whim and pathos, then is written speech, in a way, more important? If not important, then simply better because it cannot be swayed by pretty clothes, ugly faces, shrill voices… If written speech is so much cleaner, then why do so many blogs sound like shit?

I asked my IT co-workers if they owned blogs. None of the 8 people I asked did. One of them even said that unlike most of the bloggers out there, he knows he has nothing of worth to say, and would rather stay silent (and in a “morally” higher position). Why then are so many, in his and plenty others’ opinion, stupid? Worthless? Don’t enhance anything?

“So this would be a first meaning: the face is a thing that gives rise to meaning. This is, in short, a conception of the face as an object: the face is an object or instrument that indicates something.” (Rushton, 222)

I really like this quote. I enjoy the idea that something so personal as a face is an object, it’s being used for something, but often it is being used by us without our knowledge. Involuntary emotions, reactions. In the beginning of his article, Rushton

Indeed, I remember a while back I was watching an online video (I can’t find the link right now) which had this person that was an FBI or something fancy expert on faces, lies, etc. She was asked to say which person was the most honest. Turned out, that for her, Giuliani, was the most honest politician because when answering a question, his face would have a reaction first, and then he would respond. It was that honest facial reaction that made him more honest than many other politicians (and thus more trustworthy) because he didn’t think of how to react, but just did. This reminds me of the point that Rushton quoted Zizek’s discussion of Hitchhock’s movie Lifeboat (Rushton, 222).

Oh! I can’t help but think of V for Vendetta where the Chancellor communicated with his henchmen by way of a huge screen that only had his face on it. That face had power. When that electronic face screamed, people squirmed and reacted. So what was more important, the message “You messed up!” or the face screaming it? If the henchmen came into the boardroom and encountered a projected screen (similar to one that the class witnessed on Tuesday), would they respect that authority? Would they squirm anyway? I imagine not. I will attempt to add more to this thought later on.

On another note on the importance of the face…

With breakups becoming more and more common over text messages, post-it notes (Sex and the City), and oldschool phone calls (basically any way to avoid actually being in physical person with the “dumpee”)…the reaction is always indignant…Why didn’t so-and-so say it to my face?! Why is that seen as the more honorable thing to do?

Righteous indignation, I’d say. No one likes someone talking behind their back. It’s always “say it to my face.” But why is that so important? Would that change the message? Doubtful. It might even bring on more tears to see our beloved be hateful, or worse, wear the face of indifference to our suffering. Again, is it the message, or the medium (the face) that is more important?

Drawing upon Bernadette Wegenstein and the cliché of the eyes/face being the window(s) to the soul, then we come back to the idea that how something is said is more important than what is actually said.

“The human face is here to be understood as the absolute breakthrough between individuals… The very opacity of the face constitutes for Lévinas a “window” on the other: everything else can lie, but the face cannot. Individuals, when they encounter each other, cannot but react to that.” (“Getting Under the Skin, or, How Faces Have Become Obsolete” Bernadette Wegenstein. pp.231)

I like the line that gazing upon one another’s faces is a “breakthrough” because that is a violent action. Not that I endorse violence, but that to see, recognize and know one another is a painful thing. I wonder if this has anything to do with my British flatmate telling me that making eye contact with someone on the street is also considered rude. It’s penetrating. You’re looking into someone’s soul and, drawing from what I’ve said about the involuntary honesty written on the face, you’re taking something from them that they have not given permission for. We break through each other’s privacy in order to engage. As Wegenstein says, people “cannot but react to that”.

Back to the breakups and rumors.

Does the dumped person want to see the person’s face in order to penetrate/break through and “look into their soul”? Perhaps not to hurt them, but to find something there. Something that could not be written, literally, into the message? (Literally written, hah! Get it? Text messages are written!) This reminds me of, I believe Zizek, who wrote about believing what one sees, rather than what one hears. Are we hoping to believe the medium more? Why would the face tell us more than the message? We don’t want to believe what we’ve heard/read, so we go looking for truth in the visual. (If I had some more time I would link this to a discussion of the visual to the virtual, and go back to TV, and blogs. How do we believe them? What is more real?)

In the end, it’s too early to discount face-to-face interaction.

I guess it’s important to still keep your skin clear and moisturized.

Gosh, some makeup company should totally pay me for advertising space.