And then there is always Guy Debord's "Society of Spectacle." Here's a translation
<http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/>
================
Started reading and this bit, in the first section, leaped out:
12
The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: “What appears is good; what is good appears.” The passive acceptance it demands is already effectively imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing without allowing any reply.
13
The tautological character of the spectacle stems from the fact that its means and ends are identical. It is the sun that never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the globe, endlessly basking in its own glory.
...
For some reason, my employer enjoys debating political odds and ends with me. He tries to place this within the sleep inducing liberal vs. conservative frame but I routinely spoil this easy scripting by pointing out my objections to a vast, Gobi desert sized ( <http://baatar.freeyellow.com/> ) portion of the liberal point of view as expressed by the Dems and others with good intentions but this-far-and-no-farther analyses of modern problems.
One day, while sitting in a shopping mall food court that's one of his favorite haunts (this mall in fact -- <http://www.kingofprussiamall.com/> ) we discussed the "goodness" of George Bush.
"Listen, I know you don't agree with his Iraq policy and other stuff," he said with bits of spinach dangling from his mouth "but you've got to admit he's a sincere, good man."
One of my many bad habits -- perhaps even worse than my tendency to dress up like Napoleon during once-a-year holiday family dinners or my stubborn insistence that US GDP would increase if only squirrels weren't so damned unproductive -- is insisting upon hearing evidence to back up these sorts of claims.
"What evidence do you have, besides televised appearances, that Sub Commander Bush is, as you say, a good cap?"
He paused for a moment to look, with contemplative ease, at a beautiful woman, approx. 45 years old I'd say, passing by our table. I couldn't tell if he was stalling, horny or, the bi-fecta, horningly stalling. "There are so many lovely women" he said dreamingly. I agreed, but pressed him for an answer. We could work on his dating prospects later.
"Well," he said finally "he does come across as sincere and good hearted when he appears on television and I trust the sense I get of the man from his words." Or, in other words, he appears to be good via spectacle, therefore he is.
"No, no that's not it" my employer hard whispered. But of course, since you don't know the man, the only thing you have to go on is television. And television tells you he's a great guy so the actual, real consequences of his decisions, the specific details of his policies hold less weight than the appearance of goodness and sincerity -- a mental artifact of your teevee viewing experience.
My employer disagreed with this but was hard put to work his way out of the 'where's the evidence?' snare.
But I was on the wrong track, for him, the evidence was the spectacle itself. No other data need apply.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Get outta that spaceship and fight like a man!"