One of the stranger aspects of my life has been dealing with groups of people, and occasionally individuals, who have presumed that I must be a conservative because of where as I born and the colour of my skin. That I have often been mistaken for a conservative, and that I have generally not realised what was happening until much too late, highlights something about my character and situation.
In retrospect, I see that there is a certain logic in treating whites who must have been born into a colonial country during the colonial era as if they must be conservatives. Although it is an oversimplification, the assumption that a white Zimbabwean must be a conservative is perhaps generally true enough to make it a predictive principle.
Yet, I am not, nor have ever been, a political conservative. I am even less of a cultural conservative than a political one. My cultural training was in line with principles of stoicism and irreverence, in about equal proportions. Although the stoicism might seem to imply a right-wing state of mind, it has no such political homeland. It can just as easily be lobbied against the establishment as for it, or on its behalf. There is no telling, from my character structure, what politics I happen to embrace.
Throughout the years, however, people have assumed that I must be a conservative, and have treated me accordingly. This leads directly to misunderstandings, particularly if I should happen to express any of my intrinsic irreverence for power structures or ways of thinking that do not develop and thus self-transform. I am impatient with everything that stays in the same position. Character-wise, I am no conservative.
To the degree that I have remained lacking in knowledge about politics, and indeed about my own identity as others see it, I have left myself open to being misunderstood in ways that seem to have been quite extreme.
I have not expressly denied that I am a conservative, because I have not understood that this is what was being assumed. For much of my life, I would not have had the terminology, even, to name the error.
My path to understanding conservatism, as well as to understanding many other political movements, has been on the basis of errors that others make about me. My principle of epistemology is as follows: "If you want to know what others are really thinking about you, observe their errors."
There are those who will blame me for their erro. This has happened many times. They will say, "We assumed you to be a conservative, and now you have turned out to be something other than that!" They will say that I have tricked them into believing one thing about me, when I was acting according to a different sort of logic altogether.
In reality, when this happens, I have never had any notion of the direction of their thoughts until they proclaim that they have been deceived. I can't be held responsible for what they had been presuming.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a conservative
Hidden assumptions reveal all
A recent British pop survey had parents conveying what adjectives they thought described boy children and girl children in general. Whilst boys were considered to be playful and enterprising, girl were considered to be "serious" as well as "stroppy" and "argumentative".
Let us think about the contexts in which people are "stroppy" and "argumentative". These responses normally come about when one is denied the right to have one's own views or to follow through on one's own course of action. It is apparent that an estimation of the impact of existing patriarchal social systems on the personality of women is expressed in the adjectives that are applied to girl children in general (rather than to any girl child in particular). This systematisation of thinking about gender in terms of gender stereotyping replicates the systematised nature of material patriarchal systems. (Observe, in terms of gender, the typical structure of a corporation, for instance.)
Is the acquisition of this negative character-set the anticipated destiny of the girl child, in the subconscious minds of British parents? If so, it would seem that these parent's anticipating an inevitable outcome of internal maladjustment in relation to an artificial and externally imposed role of subordination to males.
Since parents were asked to apply these adjectives to boy children and girl children in general, the characteristics of any particular individual were conceptually subordinated to overarching notions about gender. What would be the ramifications for the individual child's development, if the parents really did subscribe to such gender stereotyping?
Inside and outside of the prevalent cultural matrix
Further to this, my earlier post concerning ways of thinking influenced by a capitalist-patriarchal ideological matrix, I wish to add something that is perhaps, at least on the surface of it, on a more personal note.
The point I wish to take up is what I have sensed to be true in terms of the ways of thinking produced by this matrix -- that is, that one has an identity on the basis of self-assertion. A slight variation on this idea is that one has an identity on the basis of asserting one. The first principle implies that one is charged with expressing one's power, and by this means, one obtains others' recognition about who one is. The second principle suggests that there is logically an element of fabrication to the aspect of having an identity within this ideological matrix; that the identity that one expresses may not have existed prior to the act of self-assertion. Rather, it is the act of self-assertion that brings it into being.
These are ways of thinking that I take to be pervasive in terms of how people come to think about the nature of identity within the patriarchal-capitalist matrix. To dissect the logic of this approach even further, it is as if the holder of these ideas about identity desires to leave a visceral impact upon the psyches of other people, which will consolidate and reinforce his sense of being a person of importance. (To be "important", at least to oneself, can be understood as a basic human need. If one is not at least a little bit "important" then one's life is meaningless.)
***
For some reason, perhaps linked to my different mode of upbringing, I have never been convinced by attempts to establish self-identity on the basis of self-assertion. The expectation that one can obtain recognition of one's value, in this way, seems to be based largely on the assumption that human beings respond viscerally to threats, without undertaking to analyse or understand them. This is true only in situations where the one making such a threat has a captive audience -- such as, for instance, in the hierarchy of a corporation, where the one asserting himself is a manager. Within the military, as well, one is trained to respond viscerally to the barking of an order. Yet, to mistake for "human nature" as such the kind of visceral response of those whose training socialised them to accept hierarchy, is an error.
Outside of the context of hierarchal power relationships, (which is to say, in contexts where one has no need to accept them due to contracts and issues of survival), attempts to assert identity on through visceral impact have no place. The logic of power relations that circumscribes "human nature" in one context does not reach into another situation, where such power relationships have been transcended, or were never in place.
In such situations as these in the second instance, where dominance has not been established on the basis of contractural or financial coercion, responses to attempts to obtain recognition via self-assertion will be more more variable. The material conditions that guaranteed a predictable response in the former situation do not pertain to the latter. Rather, argument by assertion makes the patriarch seem ungrounded and unguarded. Should he persist to assert himself in this way nonetheless, he seems to be spinning out of control, into narrower and more intense whirlpools of madness.
In the final analysis, it is the patriarch's crude disregard for the intellect of others than will undo him.
The exaggerated emphasis on ego
Professor Z and I are discussing the kind of cultural matrix wherein the only attitudes that are considered possible are those produced by either ego-inflation or ego-deflation. These states seem to correspond to particular moral positions. The desire to represent leadership might be expressed as ego-inflated posturing, whereas the desire to represent willing servitude or to embrace "reality" might be expressed though ego-deflation. In the first case, one proclaims that one knows exactly who one is, and that this is self-evidently and clearly defined. One expects that others will have no choice but to recognise it, too. In the second case, one does not know who one is, or what one is. One knows that one has certain feelings, but one waits for orders.
Organising or interpreting those feelings, or allowing them to press one towards any goal of one's own is certainly beyond one's capabilities. Whether one accepts the former or the latter attitude is related to "creating a balance" between oneself and one's world. Presumably, one senses the presence of other egos as "forces", and one makes corresponding compromises with oneself, one the basis of one's overall feelings.
Professor Z tells me that this exaggerated ego-emphasised approach to life may not be so quintessentially "Western", as I had suspected, but may perhaps be better understood as the product of a confluence of patriarchal and capitalist forces. Quite probably, one adapts best to late capitalism by assimilating oneself to this ego-oriented way of experiencing the world. At the same time, there may be a more meaningful layer of culture hidden underneath all of this, which the ego-emphasised attitudes tend to obscure somewhat. A genuine "America" and a genuine "Australia" may yet exist, if capitalist and patriarchal attitudes are put aside.
If one considers an ego-emphasized approach to life as a kind of yeasty growth on the surface of more authentic layers of culture, then it becomes clear that the issue at hand is not to be understood so much in appraising the peculiar qualities of any particular culture, but rather in terms of measuring the quantity of this pathological growth that is afflicting it.
What suffers most, within a cultural matrix where an ego-based approach is emphasised, is genuine epistemological enquiry. It is logical and automatic that this should be so, since a limitedly ego-based approach to life does not consider the individual and her needs apart from narrowly, in terms of ego.
A human being intrinsically craves knowledge of his environment, and a sense of identity that is based on something more profound than one's own self-assertion. Yet, even the possibility of having such a need is denied by the overemphasised ego-based philosophy. Rather, undisguised cynicism comes into play: "You just want 'knowledge' so you can have power over others!"
Under such a system of anti-intellectual tyranny, the worst statement you can possibly make is to imply you feel that you are "different" in some way, from those around you. In fact, there is no room for any genuine cultural, intellectual, or experiential differences within the closed system of ego-based philosophising. So such a statement concerning "difference" throws the computer-mind of ego-based assumptions into a state of panic. The potential complexities implied in the use of the term "difference" must immediately be reduced to the product of binary thinking: An assertion of "difference" must be interpreted to imply an assertion that one is either "better" or "worse" than everybody else.
An assertion of "difference" thereby automatically becomes a minor league crime, something that suggests either overweening arrogance, or alternatively, acknowledgement of a failure to match up to others' expectations. To be innocently "different" is viewed as being a road to nowhere, when in fact it could just as easily be a road to somewhere useful -- to discovering the innocent differences that reside in all of us, perhaps.
The narrowly ego-based approach to life is fundamentally and militantly anti-epistemological, however. It doesn't trust individuals to search for, and find, their own answers and meanings. It acts as if such searching is, at best, useless activity. At worst, it is some kind of evil; some expression of a will to sin.
This way in which sin and a search for knowledge are made equivalent, suggests that there is also something deeply Christian about it. After all, Christianity associates the possession of knowledge with the eating of forbidden fruit.
Analysing ego.
All in all, it seems that the cultural and philosophical paradigm by virtue of which I am most misunderstood is ego-oriented psychology. The misunderstanding occurs in the sense that I am presumed to do things, say things and behave in the way I do, in order to get other people to accept me. In terms of this same logic, I am also supposed to say things, do things and behave in certain manners in order to compete with others on a moral level. Therefore, in every sense the meaning of my behavior and actions is presumed to reside in self-advancement.
I shall take care to clarify at this point, less I be misunderstood in an even more drastic way than the initial misunderstandings, that I do not, by any means, eschew self-advancement. I do set out to achieve it, but it is one of my values among many others. It should not be concluded, by any means, that because I eschew ego psychology, I eschew self-advancement. I reject only that ego should be the vehicle in which one advances. I reject this as a particular cultural orientation. As a practical orientation, enabling one to compete on the economic market, I give in only half marks. One can certainly, as it has been proven, compete on the market without the force of ego motivating you. The Japanese economy is evidence enough for this.
Overall, my whole orientation towards the world has been in terms of epistemological enquiry. I will do almost anything to enhance my knowledge, wherever I sense that it is lacking. I will even go so far as to look stupid, to look naive, to present an image of failure. None of this matters very much to me, so long at the ultimate outcome is epistemological gain.
When I first encountered ego-oriented culture, at the age of fifteen, it was so very alien to me that I could make no sense of it at all. I vaguely perceived that there were popularity contests and that these were oriented around fashion sense. I felt nothing positive nor negative about this orientation towards competition through fashion. I only had an extreme feeling that the vitality had gone out of life, that there was no longer anything out there that was particularly challenging or inviting to my own style of character. I had moved from a culture that had made sense to me emotionally, to one that no longer did. To seek to make those whom I couldn't understand like me and approve of me would not have made any sense, either. It wasn't a matter of choice, or of conscious decision not to "play along". It wasn't in me to be able to relate to games that were so purely oriented around ego.
My inability to relate to this game of ego has, more than anything else in life, fueled my epistemological drive up until recently. At times, this drive to know and understand my world has been extremely intense. I've had to try to understand more for my own survival -- because, if I do not understand the "game" and whether it has an justifiable command over me -- then how am I able to survive? At other times, my epistemological quest has been driven by playfulness and stems from relative idleness.
At times, during the happy episodes of my research, I have even forgotten that the dominant culture is so ego-oriented. Then, all of sudden, this will become clear again. Somebody will have totally misread my motivations, and I will have to wash my hands of them. Sometimes it is the abruptness in manner that will tell me I have been misread once again. At other times, it is necessary to wait longer, to hear through the grapevine about occurrences of misreadings. Should misreadings occur at too much frequency, with with too much intensity, it becomes necessary to move away from whatever cultual milieu one may have inadvertently entered, and back into a more intellectually driven environment. There, one can always find companionship, even across cultures.
My approach to life is generally Nietzschean. I take the good with the bad that life dishes out to me, so long as I am not forced to conform to that which is both alien and incomprehensible. I prefer to be alone rather than mingle with the herd, to obtain its approval. When I am misunderstood on this basis, I take that as inevitable. As much as possible, I try to avoid life-disrupting misunderstandings. Where I cannot avoid them, I adapt to them, by removing myself as far as I can from the disruptive situation.
Overall, I prefer to be alone, wherever possible. I like companionship with those who are my spiritual equals. Mike is one of those types. I also like the kinds of cultural experience that are not based on standardising ego psychology as the norm. I find I can harmonise with a typical Japanese personality remarkably easily. The Zimbabwean character structure and the Japanese one are not too far apart.
The USA
I have to confess that it is only lately, and very, very belatedly therefore, that I have come to catch a real glimpse of the elephant roaming my lounge-room -- the one that calls itself USA.
No, I am not talking about Mike, here. I'm considering, rather, how much American cultural attitudes and values have influenced my experience of the Internet. I'm talking about American misogynists mostly, and American feminists, and how they go to war with one another.
Truly, there are some attitudes and ideas that some Americans espouse that I would not have had understanding of (apart from the fact that they seemed vaguely malicious) had I not encountered American feminist sites. On these sites, such attitudes and ideas are treated directly for what they are: Part of American politics, in particular the "culture war" against women, left-wing values and minorities.
Of late, I watch with Mike, the American comedy shows featuring Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. "These are [American] liberals," Mike tells me. By this he means to say that their political position is slightly left and reformist, rather than being intent upon criticising the system as it is.
I find the shouting man and the slick man to be vaguely amusing -- but not for more than a couple of episodes. Really, they are both too intent upon being entertaining and avoiding offended their base, so that their comedy does not seem to represent an entirely different genre from middle school teaching, in my mind.
I'm left with the impression that Americans do not like to eschew the notion of being entertained, in order to deal with any issues seriously and directly. It could be that I am wrong here, and I'm just experiencing the sensation of hating Western concepts of "middle school".
In general, USA culture seems to be very much to the right of Australian political culture. To give you a clue, the boy campaigning very much to the right of Julia Gillard, for the position of Prime Minister, recently, was still to the left of Obama, in terms of his policies. This is according to Mike.
Cultural politics in the USA seems to be very influenced by a religious mindset, even where the views espoused are somewhat secular. For this reason, there can often be a certain amount of moralising and puritan ethics linked to some strands of American feminism. Apart from this puritanical ascetic strand, another aspect of American feminism that I really do not understand is that which goes for an emphasis on feeling. "The patriarchy is trying to make us feel badly about our weight, our figures, and/or our proclivity for shopping. The patriarchy has no right, and ought to butt out of our individual affairs." This American cultural attitude, which defines freedom as being based on rights, is a little hard for me to understand. My own view concerning patriarchy is that if you give it an inch, it will take a mile. So, you just have to keep pushing back against it, pragmatically. Patriarchy is really an evil beast that lurks around the underworld of the cultural unconscious, in order to influence and pervert life on Earth. It really doesn't "think" in terms of rights, as it has no conscience. If it can, it will drag us all down into a pit of eternal sorrowfulness, and wounding.
The USA treatment of patriarchy is often too nice, too polite and formal.
Common Sense
If I were to name the reality that changed for me when I moved from Zimbabwe to become part of Western culture, it was the facet of common sense. When what I did out of common sense was not considered meaningful, or was questioned, I learned that what I had previously taken to be "common sense" was not actually so. It was turning out to be something else entirely. It was becoming its opposite. Anything that I assumed to be "common sense" was most likely to get me into trouble in the new cultural situation. So long as I wasn't relying on my prior cultural conditioning, I could probably say something that was deemed to 'fit in'.
This left me in a peculiar position with regard to "common sense", since this was no longer what it ought to have been for me -- a facilitator of social cohesion and interaction. Rather, every time I relied on "common sense" to get me through a situation, I learned anew, like a canine undergoing classical conditioning with electrical shocks, that any kind of natural thinking wasn't going to be of use to me. On the basis of direct, personal experience, natural (unquestioned, unexamined) thinking had became my nemesis.
It was this situational driven inability to rely on modes of thinking I had previously trusted that finally drove me towards intellectual life. For, an intellectual is, above all, someone who reacts in a highly suspicious way towards whatever others take to be the common sense of the times. Rather, she sees something entirely different going on, underneath, around it, and perhaps even above.
A loss of common sense perspectives on things therefore constituted my "shamanistic" transformation. I began to read social behaviour not in terms of what it was meant to signify, but rather as a complex "meta-text", which had only internally coherent meanings. When other people spoke to me in a way that jarred with my earlier understandings of "common sense", I began to analyse the ways in which their alternative version of "common sense" was constructed. I noticed a certain logic in these ways of representing the world. It was as if the logic was asserting, "This is how a normal Western subject looks at the world." At the same time, since I had not been brought up as a Western subject, I found this internal logic to be far from compelling.
The change from one culture to another, if these cultures are different enough, can produce the effect of shamanic wounding. The person experiencing such wounding feels as if she has lost something that cannot be redeemed. At the same time, this loss is somehow bound up with the capacity to see the world in a richer, more complex way. To lose one's "common sense" about reality is not simply a loss, then. Indeed, what stands to be gained through the loss of "common sense" may be of greater proportion.
