• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Every Move You Make

Surveillance of private calls and emails.  Cameras documenting every move.  No habeas corpus.  Unimpeded entry into personal financial records.  Voting machines changing election outcomes with the flick of a switch.  Protest defined as terrorism. Many people hope that the loss of civil rights Americans have endured since the onslaughts mounted by Bush Administration II is a political reality that can be reversed through electoral will.

Established mechanisms of political power are,  of course,  the immediately available means for attempting change.  Notions of citizens’ rights,  freedom,  and democratic participation are compelling paradigms that have consistently stirred the bravery of U.S. citizens – and yet elder political scientist Sheldon Wolin,  who taught the philosophy of democracy for five decades,  sees the current predicament of corporate-government hegemony as something more endemic.

“Inverted totalitarianism,”  as he calls it in his recent Democracy Incorporated,  “lies in wielding total power without appearing to,  without establishing concentration camps,  or enforcing ideological uniformity,  or forcibly suppressing dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual.”  To Wolin,  such a form of political power makes the United States “the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed.”

Wolin rightfully points out that the origins of U.S. governance were “born with a bias against democracy,”  and yet the system has quickly lunged beyond its less-than-democratic agrarian roots to become a mass urban society that,  with distinct 1984 flavorings,  could be called techno-fascism.  The role of technology is the overlooked piece of the puzzle of the contemporary political conundrum.

What are its mechanisms of control?

The use of telecommunications technologies for surveillance is obvious.  So are willful alteration of computer data for public reportage,  manipulation of television news for opinion-shaping,  and use of microwave-emitting weapons for crowd control.

Less obvious are what could be called “inverted mechanization” whereby citizens blindly accept the march of technological development as an expression of a very inexact,  some would say erroneous,  concept of “progress.”  One mechanism propagating such blindness is the U.S. government’s invisible role as regulatory handmaiden to industry,  offering little-to-no means for citizen determination of what technologies are disseminated;  instead we get whatever GMOs and nuclear plants corporations dish out.  A glaring example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that,  seeking to not repeat the “errors” of the nuclear industry,  offers zero public input as to health or environmental impacts of its antennae,  towers,  and satellites – the result being that the public has not a clue about the very real biological effects of electromagnetic radiation.  Inverted mechanization is thrust forward as well by unequal access to resources:  corporations lavishly crafting public opinion and mounting limitless legal defenses versus citizen groups who may be dying from exposure to a dangerous technology but whose funds trickle in from bake sales.  In his Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-Of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought,  political scientist Langdon Winner points out that,  to boot,  the artifacts themselves have grown to such magnitude and complexity that they define popular conception of necessity.  Witness the “need” to get to distant locales in a few hours or enjoy instantaneous communication.

Even less obvious a mechanism of public control is the technological inversion that results from the fact that,  as filmmaker Godfrey Reggio puts it,  “We don’t use technology,  we live it.”  Like fish in water we cannot consider modern artifacts as separate from ourselves and so cannot admit that they exist.

Social critic Lewis Mumford was among the first to make sense of the systemic nature of technology.  In The Pentagon of Power,  he identified the underlying metaphor of mass civilizations as the megamachine.  The assembly line — of factory,  home,  education,  agriculture,  medicine,  consumerism,  entertainment.  The machine — centralizing decision-making and control.  The mechanical – fragmenting every act until its relationship to the whole is lost;   insisting upon the pre-determined role of each region,  each community,  each individual.

Mumford deftly peels away false hope from a social reality based on principles of centralization,  control,  and efficiency.  In 1962 he peered into the future and saw the pentagon of power incarnate:  “a more voluminous productivity,  augmented by almost omniscient computers and a wider range of antibiotics and inoculations,  with a greater control over our genetic inheritance,  with more complex surgical operations and transplants,  with an extension of automation to every form of human activity.”

Inverted totalitarianism is both inverted and totalitarian because of the power of modern mass technological systems to shape and control social realities,  just as they shape and control individual understandings of those realities.  Its contemporary existence is most definitely the result of the efforts of a group of right-wing fundamentalists who hurled themselves into power through devious means — but today’s desperate social inequities,  dire ecological predicament,  and fascist politic are the offspring of long-evolving technological centralization and control as well.

The challenge is to see the whole and all its parts,  not just the shiny new device that purports to make one’s individual life easier or sexier — which in itself is a contributor to the making of political disengagement.  The whole is a megamachine,  with you and your liquid TV,  Blackberry,  and Prius a necessary cog.

Forging a survivable world is indeed going to take a change of administration — for starters.  The terrifying reality that is mass technological society suggests more:  radical techno-socio-economic re-organization,  and to that end spring visions informed by the indigenous worlds we all hail from,  the regionalism of Mumford’s day,  and today’s bioregionalism.  Or visions of the forced localization that Peak Oil,  economic collapse,  climate change,  and ecological devastation propose.

CHELLIS GLENDINNING is the author of six books,  including Off the Map:  An Expedition Deep into Empire and the Global Economy;  My Name Is Chellis and I’m in Recovery from Western Civilization;  and the forthcoming Luddite.com: A Personal History of Technology.

 

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
Arshad Khan
The Turkish Gambit
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Rare Wildflower vs. Mining Company
Dianne Woodward
Race Against Time (and For Palestinians)
Norman Ball
Wall Street Sees the Light of Domestic Reindustrialization
Ramzy Baroud
The Last Lifeline: The Real Reason Behind Abbas’ Call for Elections
Binoy Kampmark
African Swine Fever Does Its Worst
Nicky Reid
Screwing Over the Kurds: An All-American Pastime
Louis Proyect
“Our Boys”: a Brutally Honest Film About the Consequences of the Occupation
Coco Das
#OUTNOW
Cesar Chelala
Donald Trump vs. William Shakespeare
Ron Jacobs
Calling the Kettle White: Ishmael Reed Unbound
Stephen Cooper
Scientist vs. Cooper: The Interview, Round 3 
Susan Block
How “Hustlers” Hustles Us
Charles R. Larson
Review: Elif Shafak’s “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World”
David Yearsley
Sunset Songs
October 17, 2019
Steve Early
The Irishman Cometh: Teamster History Hits the Big Screen (Again)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail