People are idea-driven creatures; our actions are as influenced by the ideas we hold as our opinions. Uniquely among living creatures, we can share ideas and that storehouse of ideas provides the structure within we individuals operate as cohesive social groups, or cultures.
N.Z. Bear has talked about memes as they apply to the Middle East; Ill take a stronger case, and argue that while history is largely about material conflicts over resources and power; it is always framed in ideas and concepts.
Would Hitlers ascent been possible without the legitimacy offered by the (slapdash, haphazard) philosophical arguments he made?? Without the roots in Schiller and even Hegel?? He had to appeal to his audience, and he did it in the form of ideas, metaphors, and memes. He had to persuade, and convince.
Its much easier to persuade and convince if no one can challenge your arguments; it is much easier to persuade and convince in a world where soundbites and film clips are the equivalents of investigation and evidence.
Terminus argues that Jenin is a bad example, because it is a political, not a historical, issue. Excuse me? Isnt that exactly what Im talking about? I think Jenin is a perfect example. Leaders make political arguments, and as above these must be tested somehow; Ill suggest that political arguments testable by fact are better than those which have not or can not be tested. And, in Jenin, the PAs position, sadly echoed by the NGOs, was to stand up and shout to the world that Israel had done certain things
which, had they been done, would have meant one thing. They appear not to have been done, which means another.
But in a world where competing narratives are ultimately equally valid
in Stanley Fishs world
Israeli soldiers might as well have dragged women and children from their homes and shot them. Because that is the Palestinian truth. And no fact-checking or investigation could materially change that. Does this matter? Of course. It matters to the men and women who, living in that narrative, decide to put on explosive belts and walk onto Israeli busses.
And, ultimately, it is promoted and fed by a corrupt elite who manipulate the narrative
and for whom the malleability of fact becomes the fuel for their political power.
Why did the Germans willingly follow Hitler? Because they believed in him. Because no one tested his narrative.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
Those of us who get a little illicit _thrill_ from discovering something that “makes” us re-evaluate our beliefs tend to think that ‘everyone’ is ‘like us’ in this way. However, some recent threads on this blog suggest that people can be pertty invulnerable to considering new facts and interpretations in a way that opens them to changing their minds. It can be a trait of leftists, rightists, Islamists, Christians, pacifists. Whatever. Of course, almost nobody thinks of themselves as being in this class. And perhaps that relates to a failing of postmodernism as a philosophy. Like some other belief systems, it provides a mechanism (obscure, illogical thought) that promotes self-justification. Sigh, this comment reads like a ‘troll’. I can’t log on enough to respond in the prompt and polite way that this blog deserves. So maybe P.M. adherents could just take it as a signifier of the degree of alienation that this construct engenders in a thoughtful mainstream fellow-citizen.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
On the Hitler thing, if Hegel and Nietzsche had been unavailable, Hitler would have used whatever else was at hand. Hegel, Fish, or even Thomas Jefferson, Hitler would have corrupted, distorted, and utilized whatever he thought would work. That’s why I simply don’t buy this link between postmodernism and totalitarianism. Basically, you do a great job arguing that ideas matter. They do, and I never said otherwise. But, respectfully, I think you’ve fallen far short of demonstrating any kind of tangible link. And to clarify: I said Jenin was a bad example because we were talking, at that time, about history. Jenin is far too recent to be approachable from a historical perspective.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
Well, it was difficult to test Hitler’s narrative when the SA was so ready to courteously point out the flaws in your argument. There was little chance for serious debate in the political arena. Further, Hitler told the German people comfortable things – they weren’t really defeated, the Jews stabbed them in the back, the Zionists and their puppets the Bolsheviks wanted to weaken Germany, and so on.He gave them reasons to avoid confronting their own mistakes and weaknesses. Most people weren’t interested in testing that narrative. He showed them an almost magical future they could have if they only accepted their latent potential as a master race. Childish when put that way, but it was comforting and a source of strength. Hitler gave the German people a great, wonderful shared secret.Further, many of the elites in Germany were willing to go along with Hitler because he offered them what they wanted as well. Many of them thought Hitler would be easily manipulated, or easily dumped when he became a liability.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
Uh, Fred……you’re not suggesting that I believe that, do you??…just checking…A.L.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
I am mightily impressed with all my liberal pals who feel the Israelis are terrible and the Palestinians are just guys and gilrs who have a bad deal because of a superior army…gosh, does that mean that the many Palestinians I see daily with automatics are getting money and arms from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sadui Arabia…and is this the group that is so much better to identify with than the oppressive Israelis,a group invaded at least three times with the intent to destroy them? Pehaps the Left can bring Truth, Liberty, Democracy and Socialism to these poor countries.