[LINK] the myth of government censorship

[Sam Hinton]

On 2/4/03 4:38 PM, "Deus Ex Machina" <vicc at cia.com.au> wrote:

> hi
> 
> Sam Hinton [s.hinton at latrobe.edu.au] wrote:
>> Hi Deus, link,
>> 
>> Deus asked:
>>> can you tell exactly who is behind the drive to make people conform? and
>>> conform to what?
>> 
>> I think the point that some modern post-structuralist social theorists make
>> is that the "who" is the system as a whole.  The "what" is the norm or
>> average that the system defines.
> 
> you have to be very careful about the word control, if you control a result
> then you
> have removed all options for any other result.

That's one definition of control, but it's not the one I was using.  Perhaps
I should have been more precise.

Control can also be seen a systemic process that maintains a system's
integrity and may be a good thing (see for example Beniger's "The Control
Revolution").  

For example, control can be seen as the thing that maintains a status quo -
say, a thermostat that maintains the temperature of a room, or homeostatis,
the complex series of chemical interactions in our bodies that keep us
alive.

The word comes from latin, "contra rotulare", meaning "to compare against
the roles", which referred to the way Romans conducted taxation, a very
important part of the system of governance without which there would
probably have been no Roman empire (sure no colosseum, but also no
aqueducts).

To some degree, control can be seen as a necessary life process.  Without
control, there'd be anarchy.  It's the glue that holds society together.
 
> if you believe the government actually decides controls what values it wants
> to see in society
> independent of anyone in society then you are wrong. the government reflects
> society
> and is influenced by society.

Okay, but I don't believe this nor did I say that, and neither do/did
post-structuralist sociologists.  In fact, they argue that someone who is
powerful (eg: Rupert Murdoch, John Howard, the owner of an ISP) is as much a
subject of the system, and the processes of control that are inherent in it,
as are the powerless.

> if corporations could subtly control public opinion then one would expect to
> see easy penetration
> of products and services, but we see no such thing.

Ah, but there's the rub.  It's not a simple unidirectional conspirational
process - it's a dynamic system in which everyone plays a role in a larger
system.  It's not them against us.  It's them against them, us against us,
etc.  The problem is, in this system, some people lose out, and they lose
out _badly_.

> as I see it, the chomskies and other conspiracy theorists look around and see
> something fundamentally
> wrong, they are inherently pessimistic. my experience is that people on boards
> and in position of
> power and respsonsiblity are there to do something they feel is right. they
> are trying to do good.

I think you and I are in agreement that overt government control or
censorship is a furfy.  What I am trying to say is that the way control
works in society is far more subtle.

It would take a complete psychopath to make a decision to run a dangerous
battery plant in Bhopal, knowing that they could kill thousands.  But it
happened... Not because nobody at Union Carbide cared, but because nobody
was actually directly responsible within the company.  No one person made a
decision that kills people - but it does not mean that nobody was killed.

In this respect, we might say that although people on boards are generally
good, they are contributing to the maintenance of a system that has some
very bad outcomes.

> chomsky is the ultimate pessimist he not only sees conspiracy he sees the very
> fact that there are different
> values and beliefs and goals as confirmation of that conspiracy!!! something
> must have planted these different
> views and values into these people because my views are clearly the way
> reality is, says chomsky.

Your reading of Chomsky is an interpretation that differs from my own.  To
me, Chomsky and others who take a critical approach to society recognise
that there are problems with modern society.

I would actually say Chomsky is an optimist, because although he sees
problems with modern society, he feels his critique may lead to a better,
more just, more fair society.  He believes we can be better than we are, and
that we have a responsibility to constantly looking for problems and
patching them up.

Chomsky and many other critical theorists are saying (woith varying degrees
of animosity) "look, this is a problem, and instead of sticking our heads in
the sand and pretending we're the most advanced and perfect civilisation on
the planet, we should work harder to fix these issues".  If we start
thinking we're perfect, we're doomed.

Some critical theorists see these problems as being HUGE, while others see
them as being loose threads in an otherwise pretty well made rug :)  Some
send their message packed with shrapnel and buckshot, others lace the
message with lavender.
 
> case in point.
> what is one of the best know and most valuable brands in the world that
> obviously exerts tremendous influence?
> coke.
> 
> what is one of the most unsuccessful product launches in the entire history
> of marketing? new coke.
> 
> ah says the conspiracist, maybe corporations are sabotaging a good number of
> product
> launches to trick us into beleiving they dont really have control over us!!
> 
> arrghhhh! they are out to get us, they are out to get us!!!

Hehe, how does that Greenday song go?  Paranoia, paranoia everbody's coming
to get me...

I don't think anyone but the most radical left-wing position would argue
this.  Conspiracy theories are the most simplistic and least sophisticated
way of understanding how modern society works.

For me, I'd say Coke is a big company.  Like any company, it's part of a
massive system and it is as much a victim of that system as it is maker of
it.  It has to obey the rules of the system which it helped make.  But it's
the system, and the negative consequences of the system as a whole, that is
the problem.

When we become uncritical of the system, when we "give in" and decide it's
"not perfect, but good enough", then two things happen.  One, we're probably
in a pretty cushy position ourselves where there's nothing to complain about
(why would I rally against a system which keeps me warm, well fed and
happy?).  We simply ignore the nasty outcomes such as sub-Saharan Africa and
claim it's not really our fault anyway because we didn't personally do
anything.

Two, we stop being vigilant, and we become an old, tired society just
waiting for an opportunist like a Stalin or a Hitler to come in and take
advantage of our apathy.  And this is the really worrying thing IMHO.  Ben
Franklin's quip about the price of freedom being eternal vigilance is IMHO a
truism, and it's one we need to take very seriously no matter how advanced,
perfect or rock-solid we *think* our society is.  By the time we wake up and
realise our freedoms have been eroded, it'll be too late to do anything
about it.

Cheers,
Sam