![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Different Strokes for Different Folks
Philip K. Dick’s novel, Flow My Tears the Policeman Said, Jason Taverner is a hugely successful talk show host and celebrity who wakes up one day to find out that noone knows who he is. With his reduction in fame, he finds himself having suddenly to scrape by in the police-state world which controls the under-classes, complete with checkpoints and identification papers. Only problem is, he has no official identity so his problems are doubled.
The novel details something I have been describing elsewhere in the narrative arc associated with the concept of technocracy: that there is a system of control which elevates certain individuals (see my recent podcast) to celebrity status, meanwhile affording them a much greater range of freedoms than ordinary people like you and I are allowed as members of the under-classes. You see this occurring all the time when famous individuals are able to “get away with” more than the rest of us. Different rules apply to them than to us - which Dick’s down-trodden character Taverner discovers all too well.
In reading an interview with media theorist Douglas Rushkoff, he echoes a very similar idea with regards to sports figures, and anchors it a useful historical example:
The Roman games were intended to demonstrate class mobility by showing that slaves could become regular citizens. If a slave really won enough gladiatorial contests, he would be elevated to the status of citizen. What’s happening in sports today is very similar, except it is an inner-city kid who gets out of the ghetto because he has talent, and has chosen to spend his energy on entertaining, rather than mugging us. Successful gladiators were permitted to commit terrible crimes, even rape, without fear of being punished and without damaging their images among the fans. Same way here. No matter how many times a sports hero is arrested, we’ll still forgive him. He has license to do these terrible things so that we can vicariously experience his outrage and pain as well as our own safety and control.
It seems, in some sense, that all celebrities - not just sports stars - fit this same purpose: to demonstrate class mobility. Shows like American Idol teach us that if we adhere to a particular aesthetic (ie, learn how to fill ourselves with someone else’s brand image), then we too can cast off the shackles of the under-class (and increasingly police state) world we live in. I remember watching a documentary on VH1 about Biggie Smalls rise to fame, and this theme featured prominently. As a result, how many young musicians and young artists and creative people out there have had it bred into their bones that if they just work a little harder, they too will become rock stars, living a wild life on the edge… On the edge of what is the question…
- Prev: A Nation of Children
- Next: Didn’t Jack Palance Already Die?
November 12th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
It`s wrong to think of the Nazi Eugenics experiments as having been technocratic in nature or origin.
Technocracy is unrelated to that type of political/ideology.
We advocate egalitarian society. No person has more privilage or consumer advantage.
November 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I’m not talking about “technocracy, inc” the political movement from the 1930’s. I am talking about the technocractic system of humanicultural control, whereby science is used to make decisions about human management issues
November 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Wow, I instantly thought of O.J. Simpson. It’s like he “won” his freedom because of his past achievements on the field. I remember something Norman Mailer wrote about back in the 70’s being at an event, carshow maybe, and how aggressive and committed O.J. was in being a spokesman for GM. He was a good gladiator.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Think of what Diplomatic Immunity is all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity
And then add in a layer of having to make it at least *seem* like these celebrities are beholden to the laws of the country they exist in. And that’s what I am talking about. Someone is giving them this latitude and it isn’t simply that they are wealthy: celebrities are public servants (in so much as corporate interests controlling the public can be thought of as “public”)
November 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
i think it was robert j. ringer who said that there are three types of people in business. those who promise you your share and then take it, those who firmly believe you should get your share and then take it anyway and then there are those who tell you up front they will take your share.
those who call themselves an egalitarian, new type of system of running a society are one of those types……………especially when they say it`s not political in nature. politics deal in class. in the scientific, expert ideology the only class distinction will be; experts/scientists and then everyone else. sounds a lot like politics to me.
skip?
November 12th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
hehe. oh boy.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Honest its not political , and we get rid of the class system. We aren`t in business in the traditional sense.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
HA HA HA HA HA HA. I seriously don’t know how you can keep a straight face while you’re saying that stuff Skip.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
skip. who is this enlightened WE that you are refering to that will break all human attitudes, desires and weaknesses in one fell swoop?
human nature is like gravity. nobody can explain how it works but you can`t bet against it.
……….and i`m not even being cynical here.
i will leave that for the politicians.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
It’s been my experience that attention + girls is the real reason kids become musicians…
November 13th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Good point Jennifer.
alistair we are not at all interested in breaking human attitudes, desires and weaknesses. We specifically point out over and over that we are not at all interested in changing human nature.
When I say we alistair , I just mean mainstream technocracy movement people.
We never moralize and preach at people.
Why .?
It doesn`t work. Instead we want freedom of and from belief. Nothing diabolical there. It`s actually pretty plain in that sense. It is awfully creative though in a larger sense.
We have had and continue to have a huge effect on the cultural template.
Our goal is to take control of the technate that is running now , and replace our political system with a scientifically based system , which is not belief dependent.
Then produce an abundance of goods and services for a less tortured and better educated citizenry. No more money. Lots of creative thinking. Sustainable Abundance. That’s our goal.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Everything you’re saying - everything - is belief-dependent. Why won’t you just admit that! God, it drives me nuts!
November 13th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
You have it wrong Tim , so just relax and don`t be going nuts.
What is belief.? You don`t have to believe in anything.
We don`t care about belief.
We just don`t ask people to believe. All we provide is a good medium for a creative culture. Is that a belief.? I suppose it could be called that.
Its seems just more like an ordinary human right though to me in a good society.
Our most basic idea Tim is that if the basic rules of the game are changed, then the players will act differently. If people are not rewarded for bad behaviour as now then most of that won`t be done.
Sounds simple I know, but it is pretty simple.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Here’s a challenge I’d like to extend to you Skip: see if you can go a week commenting on my website without mentioning Technocracy or what their plans are. In other words, I want to see what Skip Seivert - Technocracy =, because we have given the Skip Seivert + Technocracy a whole lot of airtime and I know there’s a lot more going on with you than that.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Thanks Tim, I will try to lose the technocracy for a while .