Quantcast
Channel: ΔΉΘΕΝ
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 9990

Political apathy as a symptom

$
0
0

Political apathy as a symptom

Published for the first time in our political journal  Democracy Street, Vol I, p.19-23
Article in Greek  here
Political apathy is a phenomenon that has occupied (and still occupies), many intellectuals and social scientists.'s a pathological symptom of a society that loses creativity and laid the foundations of wear. If we attempt to give a definition of political apathy, we would say that  is the situation where human beings cease to function as active political animals cease to consider themselves  able to take responsibility for decisions that determine their lives, eventually ceases to become exponents of a different social  institution , ignoring any notion of  autonomy [1]. Rather than adopt a passive attitude characterized by mass behavior, compliance, introversion and excessive individualism or, as  Cornelius Castoriadis (2001) says, prefer privatization of freedom.
The phenomenon of political apathy, can not be explained exclusively by the economic and political terms, but has mainly psychological basis. As seen from the very root of the word "apathy" is derived from the privative a-and the essential  passion -passion (passion). The word  passion , from the verb  ail -pascho (suffering), acquires a negative meaning in philosophy, indicating the emotional attachment to an object, since the order of reasoning is lost (and this naturally leads to mental weakness and dependence). Positivist philosophies and religious passions metaphysical thought as defects to be eliminated, to be responsible for ourselves. In contrast, in poetry, literature and art of passion associated with unbridled enthusiasm, persistence to achieve lofty goals, a mood that leads to the overcoming of the self.
Paschein (pain) has a tragic essence and awe the public and respect for the hero who sacrifices and sacrificed in order to achieve his / her goals. There is a selfish goal, as it has a social and cosmic dimension. Therefore, new forms emerge from the dialectic of passion; While destroying the old, creating new values ​​and gives new meaning to the world. The ball, however, where the passion positively emphasize creativity is the realm of politics, policy and the creation of new institutions and not self-interest, geopolitical control, management of resources or financial management. Passion in politics, when expressing the destructiveness associated with the overthrow of incumbent status. Cancels the current structure of society and challenges the dominant force, is in agreement with the work of freedom and lays the foundation of revolutionary consciousness.
The term  policemen Agency - astynomous orgasm (established passions), as expressed by the ancient Athenians - declares the enthusiastic momentum for the establishment of the laws of the city, or simply the passion of citizen participation in public affairs. Nevertheless, the collective "political passion" has expressed only a few moments in history. We see the Athenian  city the 5th century, at the beginning of the French Revolution, in workers' uprisings of 1848, the Paris Commune of 1871, the great strike of 1905 in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1917 Soviet anti-Tsarist Russia (before the Bolshevik take-over), the Spanish Civil War of 1936, May 1968 and of course there are the seeds of many autonomous and antiauthoritarian movements today.
The political representation as a form of servitude
The question that arises is why the passion for politics and social life is still the exception rather than the rule, why people constantly leave the private area, allowing public affairs to be managed by the dealers, "experts" and technocrats ? It makes people not fight for emancipation, when threatened most fundamental and vital interests? Worse applaud and to consent to authoritarian rules imposed on them. What motivates Wilhelm Reich (1983, p.53) to write that "what must be explained is the fact that the man who is hungry steals or the fact that the man who exploits strikes, but because the majority or those hungry do not steal and why the majority of those who are hungry not strike? "This leads to the following conclusion: the main issue is not to give the minds of its citizens social responsibility - this is understandable. The question is what prevents the implementation of this liability. What drives millions of people to believe crazy leaders as the only ones who can solve their problems and overcome the socio-economic crisis?
The French thinker Etienne de la Boetie (1530-1563), one of the first that dealt with this issue in his  speech on Voluntary Servitude (1548) is not able to understand this phenomenon. He strongly and mockingly describes how people allow themselves to be governed by kings and princes, despite their inner desire to reject such submission. It also states that human beings who choose to live in authoritarian structures are neither men - freedom is the natural state of the species - not animals, because even animals when their freedom is limited or when in captive resist so strongly the point of self-harm.
Therefore, the lack of passion for politics or else the perversion of passion in a negative sense as the inability to control ourselves as an unconscious desire to be met at all costs is paramount in all capitalist societies authoritarian. It is powered by them and becomes easily attached to most institutions, expressed through unbridled consumerism, religion (mostly here we see an irrational passion so intense and widespread that it surpasses all forms of creative imagination), compliance of political parties , lifestyle and commercial sports (football, etc). It would be absurd to say that the whole economy and institutions based on what kind of negative passions. The whole process of production with the alienating impact directly consumed by irrational satisfaction of these pseudo-needs. It seems that the passion of economism kills the passion for freedom. There is, therefore, difficult to understand that these passions are cultivated by society inevitably creates and corresponding structures, hierarchy, relationships and competition authority for the sake of which people are forced to sacrifice any notion of political power and autonomy. At the same time, the current statutory authority, taking advantage of the situation grows through education, family, religion and the media, the individual superego , which is the unconscious representations (which is tautological coercion) and is overwhelmingly identified with the capitalist imaginary meanings, to play them at any stage.
Marxists do not pay attention to the sociology of apathy. Never recognized this phenomenon, although there were conditions that allowed them to recognize that the indifference, to some extent, is the result of the alienation that comes from productive relations. Marxists are more concerned about the dominance of the leadership of the party and not to the thoughts and feelings of the masses that will lead more quickly to the revolution. They saw the revolution as a social practice that deterministically will arrive someday. On the other hand, Cornelius Castoriadis - such as Hannah Arendt (1998, p.10) - although he rejects the idea that human nature is something that could easily be defined and described in the sense that it does not change the substance , the mature works believed that people are basically dead, that their natural tendencies tend to passivity and indifference. Obviously the great thinker of autonomy had come to this conclusion in the late '80s after seeing the Occidental world made entirely swamped by consumerism and spectacle rather than seeking social struggles that will not only improve their wages and working conditions, but, above all, will strengthen and expand participation in the reformation of society, which is currently used exclusively by a group of extremely selfish rulers.
Consequently, the issue of political apathy remains open. It should, however, about all who wish to become engaged in this issue of collective and individual empowerment, the concept of social revolution that should no longer be considered as a default glimmer of hope, but an institutional process, as a fact of daily life happens with boundless energy, creativity, imagination and of course the passion for life and freedom.
[1] For the Greek-French thinker Cornelius Castoriadis, autonomy calls for the rejection of any a-priori thinking and constant questioning institutions through the use of logos and imagination. Autonomy has a twofold meaning: it stand for cars, "yourself" and county, "the Law" (Castoriadis 2007, p.94). An autonomous person "is someone who gives their own laws," in contrast to the situation of heteronomy where standards, values ​​and principles recognized as a completely rigid system is often guaranteed "by the institutionalized representation of extrasocial source foundation and warranty law. importance of the autonomy project in re-institutions according to the rules and values ​​that will contribute to economic equality is vital. Excluding institution or self-conscious action - "make the laws, we know" (Castoriadis 1997, p.18) - the operation of a society is not determined by its members.
References
Arendt, H., and Canovan, M., 1998. The human condition. 2nd ed. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Castoriadis, C., and Curtis, DA, 1997. World in fragments: Writings on politics, society, psychoanalysis and the imagination. California:. Stanford University Press
Castoriadis, K., 2007. Details of the thinkable. 2nd ed. California:. University Press Stratford
De La Boetie, E., 2013 (first published 1548). Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. [E-book]. Available at:  University of Adelaide
Reich, W., 1983. The mass psychology of fascism. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Find more information about the first issue of Republic Street  here
through:
http://eagainst.com/articles/political-apathy-symptom/

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 9990

Trending Articles