The question has been posed such and so that it now nearly saturates the space-time continuum: "What is the factor or set of conditions most responsible for the persistently marching, generational reproduction of the political economy – its enduring invariance?" Beyond the renewing fetish for those famous last words, political & economy, jammed together or standing alone in the common lexicon, there seems a common practice seen throughout time regarding civilisation, at least the modern variety, and that is the delivery of punishment. It is well enough practiced as to appear biologically instinctive (in fact, most will argue to the point of blows that it is!)
I am not attempting a reductive argument as much as presenting a case for consideration. The addendum, "more-or-less" always seems to apply to our attempts at clear and precise calculations of responsibility. Odds-makers depend on it (the fudge factor of chance or the fuzzy logic of uncertainty) before any wager is placed. Chances are the world is too complex for any other sort of argumentative joke, even if infinite or accelerating complexity is thought the direction of chaos or just an order run amock and in need of some imposed simplification and slowdown, if not a kick in the ass so it will fly straight. It is the complexity of every situation which leads many to advise a lazy fair of doing nothing, as our agency has more-or-less run out of steam (or currency, or oil, not even to speak of breathable air). Well, a fair sounds like an enticing proposition, if it's free and not too borig.
And by punishment, I am not referring to violence per se, which is prevalent enough and quite appropriate on any ground as an altruistic as well as egoistic defense mechanism (should we choose to eliminate sacrifice from the equation – autonomous (unmotivated) violence, "just for the heck of it", appears to only rarely occur despite all the fashion-setting advertisements promoting it), but 'just' or juridical punishment required to maintain any prohibitive or proscriptive law. The common theory is that if not punished, more folks will 'do it' more often. This is not cutting-edge logic but the extension of a superstitious belief in innate untrustworthiness (which, oddly enough, never applies to one's self), and then we are advised: "Control yourself!", an impossible contradiction which would render all police to an extinct breed and end civilisation right there and then. Hence, everyday spectacle must be new and improved so we are all potentially caught unawares, equal under the law.
So justice is not possible without a tit-for-tat sanction, its threat or a moral plea to the prudent public which may apply the evil eye until you've paid your dues and walk the talk. Like any wage, the reward is just the threat of punishment, a "withholding": "Do your chores or there'll be no supper!" Economists measure situations and provide the exchange rate; political justice declares the sentence and applies the ankle weight. All governments endorse checks and balances or weights and measures and then say "It's only fair!" By any sophistry, the pronouncement is a foregone conclusion: that is the protection delivered by law (a legislator's carreer depends on it).
While consequences are to be found at each turn or stoppage in any life, their selection and imposition by the select is totally artificial. There are just too many variables to predict, and poignant moments may arouse one's various feelings in any fashion, but most particularly when unexpected. In other words, all circumstances are mitigating, so rather than the recapitulation of an invariable law of nature, every delivered punishment reflects an act of faith, most commonly directed at 'ignorance' (the "young & uneducated") and error (poor work performance justifying a meritocracy of fashionable techno-fascists). Justice is an economic religion, and organised along the same lines, not even excluding black robes and writ rites adorned by the priesthood. What child would exclaim "It's just not fair!" if s/he didn't already suspect some crookery was the case?
Fairness is not generalised from environmental contingencies until one has experienced the emotionally scalding scold, the swat and unremitting surveillance on a daily basis (the unrelenting, random punishment is even more effective). Otherwise, "fair" is an aesthetic description ranging from favourable mediocrity to smoothly excellent: "The pun was fair but not so as the lady's hair". In the same way, a fair is a favourable feast roughly covering the same range, but interspersed with surprises. "Just" is mediocrity without aesthetic.
If there are any "engrams", they are engrained at the earliest moments, well before any speech is more than experimental babble. For a small child, the opened safety-pin or withheld teat is mightier than the writ opinion & its penciled points. This reverses as one ages. From where else is a trust to emerge? The pun, on the other hand should be something to laugh over, not to instill the pain of perpetual guilt or prolong a reactionary tantrum.
The broader question for outlaws and anarchists should be, "Can a young being in the process of becoming older survive without punishment and its singular or mass distributivity?" But who considers children anyway? Do any architects have any children in mind when they design our living spaces ripe with steak-knives and power sockets? It is a fact, if anything is, that the modern environment is brutal and dangerous for growing people, requiring increased attention (ostensibly a matter of tending or nurture and protection) should their survival be deemed a "good" thing. We may hear "I trust my kid but not the environment" and sense an enlightened consideration. Easier by far to acquire a plastic pen and a firm hand or screeching declaration with sharp edges for the times they escape it, a bed with bars and a padded cell for retirement in preparation for (or completion of) a life of institutionalisation (prison prior to transgression makes, on release, just about any shit look shiny) than pick up our own mess and flush it, which is to say, "make it accesable & safe rather than confined & constrained". Doing little to prevent its rehabilitation and parole, it may not be enough to merely set fire to the schoolhouse.
No comments:
Post a Comment