Recent (late June or early July 2020) interview of Jon Stewart by Noah Trevor, The following is my Facebook post accompanying posting it.
I
find Stewart's comments on the destruction of the statures as a “spasm”
and on the statues a statement of keeping fear in the lives of African
Americans to be spot on. We define terrorism as the wielding of fear in
the extreme form of terror, but when it’s white America, we call the
wielding of fear “heritage.”
But the statement I really find insightful is his comment on the decrease in valuing of work. What I
find interesting in the discussion surrounding corporate tax breaks and trickle-down economics is that the argument in favor of that rests on the assumption of the very things for which that camp criticizes Marx and others. Stewart’s line about devaluing work is very insightful because of what the response from the right will be, which is that the management of economic force done by corporate managers IS work: figuring out ways to systemically manage the systemic forces. But emphasis on the systemic nature of those forces is precisely one of the things for which they will criticize Marx, on some idea that admitting it will somehow heretically deny the human free agency that is the basis of morality, BUT it is precisely the management of those forces for which they will praise and pay a corporate management class.
The comment on “work” is particularly insightful because what we think of as “work” is directly, materially relevant in the subject of Marx. Marx formulated his theories of capital at a particular moment in history ... not just out of nowhere, but because certain recent phenomena primed the situation for somebody to make these types of observations. He developed theories of such system forces particularly after the Industrial Revolution not just because abuses of masses of workers were visible, *but because of what was INvisible*: the hand of the worker. Until this point, our usual experience was that the visible work of that hand is what visibly produces material product, but after that point, we saw that you could set physical forces in motion that operated unseen, behind the scenes, in machines that perpetuate their force and management of it on their own invisibly as long as you feed them fuel, AND actually produce greater quantity. Marx took the next step in asking whether there were psychological and group-psyche forces that operate for the production and conservation of the real, invisible material called “capital” (he doesn’t us the concept of psychology that I know of, but that is basically what is in play ... what is the stock market other than the impact of a global-level psychology on economics? ... and there is very big component of this that, in the gnosticism I speak of next, operates on denying the realities of psychology in favor of a radical “spirituality,” a gnostice spirituality). I think that, when we rely on those forces but then condemn those who call attention to them, we prime the pump for the spasm of Marxism having an appeal.
This next statement may be a bit contentious, but I think the same thing happens in the realm of the psychological: there are people who are VERY good at managing the psychological experience of others and are often praised as being good managers while, at the very same time, those who note and study those forces and their impact on persons and people (if you want to know the difference, there is a great line in Men in Black) are decried by those who are praising their manipulation. And this is the contentious part: I think it happens a great deal in the realm of religion in America. I’ll just leave that at that. I’ll not get heated about it, but I do think that psychological manipulation happens a lot in that realm. And I don’t think it’s only a corporate thing in mega-churches; I think it’s also a cottage industry that goes on in legion one-on-one interactions (to keep with the set of terms I am using here, in pointing out the systemic, I am not denying the occasional: in this realm, psychological manipulation happens on the systemic level in mega-churches and on the occasional level in the legion occurrences of “spiritual mentoring”).
And for the record, I disagree with Marx’s materialism, but back to Stewart’s idea of a spasm and to reiterate by repetition, I think that what makes his materialism so appealing to some (his ability to perceive the invisible forces in the systems of human interaction that operate with a quasi-material force, such that individual virtue and particular acts of choice by individuals are not the only elements in play) is a long history of *neo-gnosticism* in “christianity” in the West (I put it in quotes merely to clarify that what is particularly in view is the element of the religious identity that specifically uses quotes, that obsesses about what it means to apply the term to oneself or one’s group over against others, and in editing academic material, terms are done with quotes [or italics for non-English, which is basically a quote mechanism]), the gnosticism of seeing virtue and individual acts as the only factors (“occasionalism,” versus observations of systemicity) and then praising those who manage lucratively the forces we deny exist, praising them under some vague notion of being “a good manager.” And I think that a history of that materialism *in the name of “virtue”* (Marx isn’t the only materialist in the room, just maybe the only one admitting it) and using gnostic concepts of virtue to beat others down and keep them from having anything materially so that some can have more creates a spasm in which people say, “yeah, Marx was right.” And I will also say that I think that denying the psychological component of these systems is anti-Incarnational; John 1 says the Word became flesh (sarx), not body (soma), and flesh is more a term of the squishiness, really the psychic element of embodied existence; in effect, this neo-gnosticism is neo-Appolinarian in an implicit denial of the soul, a Cartesian dualism in which the “spirit” that makes the acts of will that define morality and “virtue” is all there is, a ghost in the machine of the flesh (and yes, I use “machine” as significant: the treatment of the human person as material machine for production, as a “human resource,” goes hand in hand with this Cartesian dualism that so characterizes much of modern “christian” identity marketing and politics). Unfortunately, all too many in the religious camp will let a doctor convince them of an invisible system in the body that can be impacted by things that are beyond the realm of their choices but will vehemently deny the existence of such systems in the psychological interaction between persons and peoples (although we have seen in the recent “protests” against safety measures that the acceptance of the existence of such invisible-but-real systems is not secure even on the physical level ... and I think really that the gnosticism on the justice level paved the way for the gnosticism on the level of physical health: If I just believe enough, I won’t get the virus).
But the statement I really find insightful is his comment on the decrease in valuing of work. What I
find interesting in the discussion surrounding corporate tax breaks and trickle-down economics is that the argument in favor of that rests on the assumption of the very things for which that camp criticizes Marx and others. Stewart’s line about devaluing work is very insightful because of what the response from the right will be, which is that the management of economic force done by corporate managers IS work: figuring out ways to systemically manage the systemic forces. But emphasis on the systemic nature of those forces is precisely one of the things for which they will criticize Marx, on some idea that admitting it will somehow heretically deny the human free agency that is the basis of morality, BUT it is precisely the management of those forces for which they will praise and pay a corporate management class.
The comment on “work” is particularly insightful because what we think of as “work” is directly, materially relevant in the subject of Marx. Marx formulated his theories of capital at a particular moment in history ... not just out of nowhere, but because certain recent phenomena primed the situation for somebody to make these types of observations. He developed theories of such system forces particularly after the Industrial Revolution not just because abuses of masses of workers were visible, *but because of what was INvisible*: the hand of the worker. Until this point, our usual experience was that the visible work of that hand is what visibly produces material product, but after that point, we saw that you could set physical forces in motion that operated unseen, behind the scenes, in machines that perpetuate their force and management of it on their own invisibly as long as you feed them fuel, AND actually produce greater quantity. Marx took the next step in asking whether there were psychological and group-psyche forces that operate for the production and conservation of the real, invisible material called “capital” (he doesn’t us the concept of psychology that I know of, but that is basically what is in play ... what is the stock market other than the impact of a global-level psychology on economics? ... and there is very big component of this that, in the gnosticism I speak of next, operates on denying the realities of psychology in favor of a radical “spirituality,” a gnostice spirituality). I think that, when we rely on those forces but then condemn those who call attention to them, we prime the pump for the spasm of Marxism having an appeal.
This next statement may be a bit contentious, but I think the same thing happens in the realm of the psychological: there are people who are VERY good at managing the psychological experience of others and are often praised as being good managers while, at the very same time, those who note and study those forces and their impact on persons and people (if you want to know the difference, there is a great line in Men in Black) are decried by those who are praising their manipulation. And this is the contentious part: I think it happens a great deal in the realm of religion in America. I’ll just leave that at that. I’ll not get heated about it, but I do think that psychological manipulation happens a lot in that realm. And I don’t think it’s only a corporate thing in mega-churches; I think it’s also a cottage industry that goes on in legion one-on-one interactions (to keep with the set of terms I am using here, in pointing out the systemic, I am not denying the occasional: in this realm, psychological manipulation happens on the systemic level in mega-churches and on the occasional level in the legion occurrences of “spiritual mentoring”).
And for the record, I disagree with Marx’s materialism, but back to Stewart’s idea of a spasm and to reiterate by repetition, I think that what makes his materialism so appealing to some (his ability to perceive the invisible forces in the systems of human interaction that operate with a quasi-material force, such that individual virtue and particular acts of choice by individuals are not the only elements in play) is a long history of *neo-gnosticism* in “christianity” in the West (I put it in quotes merely to clarify that what is particularly in view is the element of the religious identity that specifically uses quotes, that obsesses about what it means to apply the term to oneself or one’s group over against others, and in editing academic material, terms are done with quotes [or italics for non-English, which is basically a quote mechanism]), the gnosticism of seeing virtue and individual acts as the only factors (“occasionalism,” versus observations of systemicity) and then praising those who manage lucratively the forces we deny exist, praising them under some vague notion of being “a good manager.” And I think that a history of that materialism *in the name of “virtue”* (Marx isn’t the only materialist in the room, just maybe the only one admitting it) and using gnostic concepts of virtue to beat others down and keep them from having anything materially so that some can have more creates a spasm in which people say, “yeah, Marx was right.” And I will also say that I think that denying the psychological component of these systems is anti-Incarnational; John 1 says the Word became flesh (sarx), not body (soma), and flesh is more a term of the squishiness, really the psychic element of embodied existence; in effect, this neo-gnosticism is neo-Appolinarian in an implicit denial of the soul, a Cartesian dualism in which the “spirit” that makes the acts of will that define morality and “virtue” is all there is, a ghost in the machine of the flesh (and yes, I use “machine” as significant: the treatment of the human person as material machine for production, as a “human resource,” goes hand in hand with this Cartesian dualism that so characterizes much of modern “christian” identity marketing and politics). Unfortunately, all too many in the religious camp will let a doctor convince them of an invisible system in the body that can be impacted by things that are beyond the realm of their choices but will vehemently deny the existence of such systems in the psychological interaction between persons and peoples (although we have seen in the recent “protests” against safety measures that the acceptance of the existence of such invisible-but-real systems is not secure even on the physical level ... and I think really that the gnosticism on the justice level paved the way for the gnosticism on the level of physical health: If I just believe enough, I won’t get the virus).
No comments:
Post a Comment