Is heroism impossible in these, innovative times? Well, it seems possible, rare, but not rarer than in previous epochs; After all, it turns out that it is obvious that not all were knights and warriors - someone else did everything on the land of the knis or boarded the tavern. But on the other hand, in these times, when the constant appeals to the market needs, promotion and consumption patterns in the formation, it would seem that heroism, solitary act, the act is impossible, pointless and silly - life or health insurance will not cover the possible costs. Our epoch is reigning in lukewarmness. And that is why we see a kind of return of the Hero, and that is why the media are scaring us with "populists" who carry "chaos". Will the hero return and does he have a place to go nowadays?
Of course, I do not consider the so-called populist heroes. However, I note that they specifically said exactly what I have set out: the time is now lukewarm, people are tired, apathetic and want action, wants the reward enemies, something real. The prevailing neoliberal ideology of market satisfaction and consumerism, in principle, can not offer these people. The world has become so comfortable, so clear and supposedly rational that a person is left to his full advantage to adapt to him and to work, buy, and eventually die for his entire life.
Everything Neoliberalism and its apologists can offer to a person who wants Action is self-esteem, waste sorting, volunteering (provided that it will be possible to include an entry on it in his CV), being "concerned about the western one", i.e. Again half life, again lukewarmness. "A worried westerner" is only concerned about the eye, only concerned about how much it does not force him to leave the "comfort zone", although this is what he is telling him to do every day, in truth, usually in such small, precursor ways as the lack of use of a make-up for women or the wearing of a skirt for men. Let's call it "post-heroism". Such "heroism" is a certain passing thing that is accessible to anyone, but at the same time it is only "venerable". Everyone can be a bit hero, be heard all over the world - that's enough for the aforementioned ways, you rarely need to "rinse your hands" - but it will pass and tomorrow your thousand likes will no longer be interesting to anyone. There is no need to remember. Heroism, which has become a mass production commodity, is clearly inflationary.
photo author Mike Wilson
Return of the hero
Two ideologies offer people a realistic narrative that gives them the opportunity to cultivate heroism: Islamism and fascism (in the broad sense). The first offers the fight against "evil", i.e. the "rotten West"; This fight has a clear goal and offers triple satisfaction: the enemies suffer, contribute to the spread of the "good", get a lot of place on Paradise. As noted by journalist Toby Youngas, Islamism offers young people the reality computer game, breathtaking narrative, "Lord of the Rings" saga and "Game of Thrones" version of reality. Right-wing radicals, Alt-Right and identitarai (Eng. K. Identitarians) offers a range of strengths "alternative" - of "patriotism" and "Lithuania for Lithuanians" to the full "tradition", "glorious past" and "return to roots" Pathetic at one end of the spectrum before the struggle for the rights of "white men", "men", "gay moths", "genocide of white people", etc. At the other end.
In essence, both Islamism and the ideology of the right-wing radicals equally strongly condemn the Western decadence and the sensation that is present in the West today. True, the first is condemning, opposing the West to their romantic vision of Islamic civilization, and the second - opposing the supposed decline of the romantic version of the West itself. However, it is important to note that both of these utopias are related to technological progress.
It should be noted that, although highly critical of neoliberalism many different ideologies representatives, but the widely neoliberalism began to curse, especially in Lithuania, in the event of populism for the right (that's left social critic and ecologist George Monbiot of Lithuania against neoliberalism translated and published ... "Pro Patria"). Right as always, unfortunately, perspjovė left and right it is bad language version of neoliberalism, hypocritical and reactionary, spread and become something of the elite have to reckon.
It is important to note that the modern "human mass" of experts managed by the world, which is dominated by changes in the market receptive and constantly ready to re creative and empathetic entities mediocrity and, normal, challenged those who offer again "energize" life, blow his heroism - in general " Masculinity "- the spirit. Their greatest horror is "feminists" and "gay men", sometimes they are added to the "vegans", "cyclists" and "green" ones on request. All those who want to restrict, decontaminate, quarantine Life - do not let them smoke, do not let sexual content hint to a colleague or subordinate, in other words, they do not allow them to act boldly, decisively and spontaneously. Fear, that parenting, sexuality formation and the overall personality development will depend on the EU directives, state intervention and ongoing monitoring, horror, that language will be išskastruota - it will not remain masculine and feminine pronouns, will not remain words that are considered to be racist, sexist, - dominant discourse Those people who crave the return of the Hero.
It is obvious that their worldview is quite controversial: while fully struggling with the standardization and regulation from the outside, but most are trying to install their alternative standardization and regulatory strategies (right wants no "freedom of expression without limits, not to abolish" political correctness "and flip it Islamists complain of intolerance against Muslims, but they themselves want to introduce sharia and seek total control of individuals that they are likely to impose on the whole world by setting up Caliphate). In short, it is easy to see that all the right-wing complaints are, in essence, hypocritical, because instead of "freedom" they, of course, offers a strict control, and often they and their opponents, "politically correct multiculturalist proposed control overlap. The "radicals" of the right radicals "revive" the life itself is capitalism. On the other hand, the rise of spontaneity, as shown by Hannah Arendt, ends in the complete abolition of it in a totalitarian state.
photo author Chris Roe
Legitimate indignation
It's easy to just get into the circle of life-saving narrative of the neo-liberalism itself and seduce with relief: it's clear they are crazy, it's clear they just want to destroy our good, righteous world. We will vote for Hillary Clinton, Emmanuel Macron and for us good, calm ... We will support the EU and NATO. We will kill and persecute, and when necessary we will exchange photos of Facebook profile into the corresponding ones, we will do it and we will feel what is going to be trending at that time, and so on. Such a reaction, passionately promoted by the mainstream media, is completely erroneous. If the new heroism of Islamist and radical right-wingers does not diminish at least some truth (no matter how distorted it is), it would certainly be easily overcome.
As Guy Debord has noted, terrorism goes in a queasy with liberal democracy as its next, in comparison with which it seems "smart choice" (formerly capitalism was the next East block). Now we can add to the terrorism the rise of right radicals. Both of these things uncannily revitalize the underlying liberal democracy, which is a work of the "right mind to the right", but is unable to motivate and enliven the participation of citizens in its work, because it itself abolishes politics. This deep inability is particularly evident from the dangers of attention to "motivation", "positive thinking" - all of this is intended to disguise the essential Inability. The beekeeping system that defeated when the story ended (Fukuyama) is constantly suffering from anemia. In the absence of any real alternative to capitalism and liberal democracy (in the broadest sense), it is obsessed with the grotesque alternatives provided by terrorism and radical Right, which makes them "wise".
It works, true, only until a certain moment, when the total dissatisfaction with the status quo outweighs the "common sense". Then people start to vote "no way." And then sociologists, political scientists, economists, psychologists are attacking us to explain why this is happening. Their interpretation, in principle, is based on the assumption that, as Margaret Thatcher said, "There is no alternative." Since "such a life" that neoliberalism does not want to continue to live, as inevitability (capitalism is naturalized), its enemies, "enemies of the open society", it is simply "on the wrong side of history" and therefore condemned. This is a very erroneous approach; besides, he relies on everything he wants for heroism and rejects; They are rejecting this meaninglessness by choosing grotesque alternatives.
photo author Tim Gouw
What is the policy?
As Arendt remarked, in the modern age in the sphere of active life, the action, which is the basis of politics, was finally underestimated and dominated by labor. The latter is endless and reproduces natural cycles; it has moved from the private sphere to the public, and this is precisely what led to a huge increase in capitalism. However, it seriously damaged the policy. According to Arendt, from the policy of Greek cities-states, we are moving to a "society" dominated by conformism and normalization-the "quality control" of the "human mass".
The main point of Arendt's observation, my head, is that behavior began to dominate instead of an action whose consequences are unpredictable and irreversible. People were not alienated by themselves, as Karl Marx claimed, but with the world, the public sphere shrunk, injuring the private sphere, and we still have a "socialization" that threatens to completely eliminate the remnants of publicity. It is the "behavior" that relies on statistics, economics and political science. The whole media is full of people talking about the conditioned animals needed for care. What's more, this rise in behavior makes people feel frustrated and wanting something radical and simple - Make America Great Again.
The "enemies of the open society" are unknowingly eager to escape the "behavior", want to sacrifice for the ultimate goal. They want Action. And the Donald Trump, Marinne Le Pen, ISIS represents the action for them, young and unsatisfied with the meaninglessness and precision of life. Reality becomes so unbearable (unbearable by its statistical attractiveness - life is improving ...) that they fall into the wild fantasy of war, the Conflict of Civilizations, which makes the heart beat faster ... This is a way to squander the implied necessity of the triumph.
photo author Murray Campbell
Waiting for the heroine
Of course, these fantasies are based on the long-known postulates of the "Western Sunset" (Spengler) - the Islamists have the opportunity to "wind up" the West, the radical right-wingers have the opportunity to "purify" and "return to the beginning" - the same idea of "blood and soil" Their supporters necessarily construct their identity in connection with them, claim victimization, conspire everything everywhere, demand complete, reckless sacrifice, criticizing prevailing indifference, impersonation, corruption, and for his own purposes, a certain utopia.
It is worth recalling Jean-Paul Sartre's short story "Governor childhood" from the set of "The Wall". There is masterpiece of the portrait of the young right-wing radical. The future fascist starts melancholic contemplation childhood, adolescence interested in psychoanalysis, smoke hashish with suspicious characters, and, finally, gives himself for some pusamžiam "poet" ... After that, he "susipranta and begin to approach the" normality ", which he represents classmate, taking the young man suddenly teach about "root" with a deficiency to be a source of problems. The hero is slowly entering the fascist organization and its activities within the apogee potentially kill azijietį, which gave the communist newspaper ... It is true that in the end the young man still more clearly aware of their bourgeois mission he led his father's factory. Throughout history, from the early childhood, character shows quite stunning selfishness and cold-blooded split. It helps him to always treat everything practically and use people.
Sartre in this work illustrates a typical case of how people, from their idiosyncrasies and totally private confusion, gravitate toward totalitarian, all-embracing ideologies that require obedience and offering - this picture is very similar to Arendt's conclusions in the book The Origins of Totalitarianism. It is noteworthy that her statement that the supporters of totalitarian movements quickly move away from the organizing organization has no stable principles, is confirmed in Sartre's story. The history of many of us, known to many, who have been devastated in recent years by many, is very similar to what Sartre described. If the time and place of any small or addict thief grasped skillful propagandist, he will be able to suggest that the disaster to blame the Jews and Westerners, and your sins (which still blame her) to redeem soever he may be the only way - part of their mission.
Clearly, you do not need to overdo the explanations and take human actions to be regarded as the sole and necessarily result of social engineering. In this case, we will re-emerge in the "behavioral" rocks when a certain group is a "group of risks" and "self-evident" that the individuals assigned to it behave in one way or another ... There is, as Peter Sloterdijk says, the cynical temptation to explain the behavior of fanatics by household reasons - Come on, homophobic Catholics fight for family values secretly goes to gay clubs, the Islamists were pushed back by white girls, alt-Right boobs are either clowned gay or impotent, hence hate women, or at work blackened by them, etc. However, it is always worth remembering the dark opposition of the opponents of the history of the past: the unbelief of the Soviet era was considered a "schizophrenia", the Nazis fought "asocial behavior" ... The desire to escalate the behavior of fanatics or to link it with pathology leads to the fact that they are completely innocent.
However, in the whole, the return of heroism is most desirable by those who themselves are beggars. They want to indulge, to serve and to dissolve, undone Movement, the organization, the group - which explains and sects success, recruitment is far from being stupid, or the poorest and those who do not see life sense and would not abstract obey (the laws of morality, religious precepts) But to bow down to authority. Simone de Beauvoir wrote that blind obedience is a way for a person to "radically change". The liberal world leaves too much abstract freedom for such people, so they choose to give in to a movement or secular government based on specific prohibitions. They want to be not heroes, but to contribute to the genius of Vadas, to touch upon her heroism.
photo author Danielle Macinnes
Any Hero?
The biggest problem with this radicals' desire is that it is not so easy to dismiss it - neoliberalism has obvious weaknesses, mass immigration poses a lot of problems, and the West has made horrific things in the Middle East. If we reject the naming of mistakes and give our hands to criticism, the problem will not go away and will persecute us further. At the same time, it is necessary to protect the position of critics from those who want to invade them. If the Left is to identify with the elite, the status quo byrant, it remains to be deleted. The truths and pariahs proudly lie in the wrong lips and fall on the same left.
Finally, the problem with the radicals is not that they want to return the Diddy, which we do not need, and that their Hero is false, hypocritical; The problem is that, as Marx said, for the first time, history is a tragedy, and a second time as a faraway. Here too: the real heroism of the action, the political age was tragic in the Greek sense, and now the Islamists and the right radicals are giving us a dying (but bloody) pharaoh. Looking at it at a glance, it is clear that this is not a return to the beginning: Slavig Zizek accurately noticed that ISIS is a "postmodern" organization; The obscenity of the right-wing radicals is oddly matched with their "morality" and "values" propagated by them. I have already mentioned that this idealization of the past is inseparable from technological advancement. The idea of heroism is simply used to unite the masses under its own flag and to get rid of their submissive obedience. The hero here is a phantom that completely denies himself. The terrorist Islamist is a mortal - that's exactly what. He is not even able to fight, but to destroy it, ending up.
However, given that many people are particularly dissatisfied with the status quo - one due to poverty and exclusion (this is especially true for the Islamic audience), others - because of the policy of "non-political", supposed Western recession - these alternatives with their respective Great Heroes are able to challenge the elite . Perhaps you need to, as Toby Young has been considering, bring enlightenment values in an attractive, updated format so that young people would admire them no less than Jihad and Roths (others like that) ... This desire is based on complete misunderstanding because it does not take Arendt's interest Described in the policy and in the public domain. There was no room for action; Enlightenment values are inseparable from the "progress" and the triumph that is needed to make "progress" possible.
The work, in contrast to what we did, can not be heroic - authentic, true, tangible achievements are impossible here, because everything is constantly flowing, the configurations of power relations are constantly changing, therefore yesterday the heroism is already unemployed, so heroism is possible the same way, As far as the battle of cannon fights is concerned, it is hardly possible to create an alternative ideal, which would not be just another example of couching. It would only be an Establishment attempt to justify itself. Moreover, it is not seen that in the past, nobody demanded heroism from anything else except the elite (aristocracy). Now some kind of heroism is required of all, but this is a absurd and controversial requirement. Heroism tells us not to be a part of the mass, and that is what we are now expected to do to mass. Therefore, only the "hero of consumption" is possible.
There needs to be a much deeper review of what is an act, politics and being as an actor based on both individualism (which is absent from local radical concepts) and the perception that politics propagates, as Witold Gombrowiczius says, in the interministerial sphere. Therefore, we must reject short-term decisions, hasty conclusions and look further, historically, not to give up on the relevance to sincerity, which now entice us and deprive us of the opportunity to be sober about the situation.
Source: Robertas Krisikaitis
