Barthes

I worry about Barthes' selectively neutral treatment of the myth. In the Blue Blood Cruise, his political statement is poignant. I wonder why value judgments are absent from other mythologies, specifically Wrestling [insert title]? Maybe I'm missing something?

Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'm stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.

When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.

Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]

--

I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the audience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?

Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?

Marcuse

When Marcuse talks about the idea of losing "inner freedom" it reminds me of the oral epic tradition discussed in the first few classes last semester. To Marcuse, loss of the "inner freedom" is devastating. He says, "Today this private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual..." (p. 10). In the Greek oral epic tradition, the memorization and repetition of stories allowed no room for personal reflection or critical thinking. The advent of writing afforded the opportunity to externalize thoughts and reflect upon them. It seems that Marcuse is describing the same lack of reflection and critical thought present in early Greece.

The irony is stunning. Look how far we've come.

Mills

The Power Elite could not be more relevant today. Case in point: evil genius Dick Cheney. He worked through the organizations of Halliburton (among others) and the U.S. Government to influence all three of Mills' spheres: military, political and economic. He decides to go to war (military/political), what corporations get government money to provide services for the war (economic), and how long the war continues(military/political). He is one of "the warlords, the corporation chieftains, the political directorate" (Pg. 9).

Mills' 1956 text caught on. In 1961, Eisenhower's warned (YouTube clip) about the Military Industrial Complex, and in 2004 (just two years before his death) J.K. Galbraith condemned the relationship between the military, economic and political powers specifically in reference to the Iraq war.

In 2007, Todd Boyle argued (YouTube link) that no military industrial complex equals no war. Quite the bold statement. He likens the close-looped system to a "self-licking ice cream cone." [[FYI: If you're not in the mood for a rant, stop at the 8-minute mark.]] Below is a diagram from his anti-war website taking the idea further by integrating all three aspects of Mills' argument: military industrial congressional complex.

So, those are the ways I see Mills' argument playing out in recent large-scale events. If we operate on the definition, "those who are able to realize their will, even if others resist it" (Pg.9) combined with "...although all of us are within history we do not all possess equal powers to make history. To pretend that we do is sociological nonsense and political irresponsibility" (Pg.22), we must include other newly emerging history-makers: terrorists. During our discussion group on Monday, Ruthie mused about this idea in relation to Appadurai's cellular vs. vertebrate system theory, and at first I was not willing liken terrorists to the power elite. After working it through, my position is this: Terrorists do not fit Mills' definition of the power elite, but the do hold the same "finger on trigger" power to make history with which he was decidedly concerned. Appadurai makes a good structural argument for why technology is changing power systems. I am not completely sure what this means. Maybe we are in a new "epoch"?

Some general issues with the text:

• Mills' concept of unintentional elitism. Realizing this is the backbone of his "not a conspiracy theory" tautology, I don't think it's realistic. Being generous, I might agree that most elites are not aware of their elitism, however, there are bad people with bad intentions who use this power for bad things, just like there are good people with good intentions who use the power for good things. Ignoring this fact to eliminate a conspiracy stereotype may be good for selling books, but not so good for legitimate analysis.
  
• Mills doesn't get into the possible conflict between the three institutions (political, military, and economic.) He does mention the intimate and at times inseparable connection of the military and political institutions, but not the economic. This is especially important to explore when our government is handing out billion dollar "bail out" loans to large corporate institutions.
  

Other thoughts:

• "What is lacking is a truly common elite program of recruitment and training" (Pg 295). Currently, I see an easier path for individuals aspiring to jump from non-elite to elite status. I think the above quote compliments this idea. Will develop this idea later.