William Howard 2
Well-known member
A recent discussion caught my interest on Libcom.org, a Marxist and Anarchist resource, about communication. These guys are amazing. They are the only ones I can tell that is doing a serious examination of there style of writing and outreach, and how effective (or not) it is. They are trying to figure out how to get the message across to people who aren't familiar with the theoretical "academic" Marxism and motivate others to action. This had me seriously reconsider my own approach and the implications of all there conclusions. The URL to the specific conversation can be found here: http://libcom.org/blog/capital-cant-be-reasoned-importance-affective-politics-19092013
So what does that have to do with mythology? Unlike the Marxists my focus is ancient philosophy, so I understood that this gap between us and our audience goes way further back then they realized. The systematic breakdown of "trying to get others to listen to us" is the art of persuasion developed by the Sophists of Greece, who wrote volumes on the subject.
This had me consider a contemporary element of the Greeks, the Myth. In a sadly overlooked passage, Plato writes in his Republic about how myths have a profound and deep allegorical meaning. However, he warns that this deep meaning should not be taught to children because they would not understand it. But, he wrote, that this method of simplifying information will keep children engaged enough until the "theoretical" allegorical meaning is dripped in.
I think we can draw some ideas from this. I mean, who hates mythology? We still talk about it. It's cool. It has swords and monsters. It has Supermen and hot chicks. This is the ancient solution to what the Marxists were saying about making theoretical things "interesting" to people who don't know about it - we give it a story, a narrative that will get people "hooked". It could explain why grossly simple solutions that the conservative right presents are so appealing to people ("the immigrants are to blame", "the lazy poor are ruining us", ect.). It frames an existence far removed from any tangible facts grounded on reality, whereas the "articulate" left focuses on a technical working of politics, but at the expense of alienating those not already convinced or well versed.
I think a second point is that mythology has this ambiguity to it. Someone mentioned "we only care about things that have to do with us". What myths do is allow the audience to draw there own conclusions in a way that lets them take cognitive "ownership" of it and apply it to their own unique circumstance. Naturally, one would think this ambiguity would conflict with the effectiveness of spreading a specific message, which was at the heart of a specific quibble between Aristotle and Plato. But I think what's key is to have its meaning "dripped" in overtime by the authors who create or know the myths (but that's another story). Everyone has at least known someone in poverty, or someone who immigrated to a country. Scapegoating allows the population to project there own problems and life anxiety unto the victims in much the same way we project ourselves as a character in a (mythological) story (or kick our dog for something bad at work?). It strips theory out of the picture and makes the narrative more personal, more immediate, more "relatable", all because of its clever use of ambiguity.
Something I've been stuck trying to understand is this idea of a "noble lie". I was reading through another post of a Marxist analyst who questioned the famous "99 and 1 percent" slogan as being not factually based, but, he concluded, that yes it serves a practical end of mobilizing people and as a general "tool" for understanding of current crisis of inequality. Nitpicking for him would not have helped the Occupy movement. His "noble lie" was presenting not entirely factual information as truth, using the narrative to accomplish "noble" ends ("the Occupy movement is better off with it then without" I think was his words.)
This is where I think we have to question it's ethics. If we are creating Myths, in much the same way as the conservative right, then how are we any different? Do the "ends justify the means" of playing on peoples emotions? I was shocked to see no one really question this.
I think this brings even another problem - is it right to prioritize the audience over the message? At what point is that message lost, much like the meaning behind the Greek Myths? In a attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice, could the greatest alienation happen, that of Truth itself?
So what does that have to do with mythology? Unlike the Marxists my focus is ancient philosophy, so I understood that this gap between us and our audience goes way further back then they realized. The systematic breakdown of "trying to get others to listen to us" is the art of persuasion developed by the Sophists of Greece, who wrote volumes on the subject.
This had me consider a contemporary element of the Greeks, the Myth. In a sadly overlooked passage, Plato writes in his Republic about how myths have a profound and deep allegorical meaning. However, he warns that this deep meaning should not be taught to children because they would not understand it. But, he wrote, that this method of simplifying information will keep children engaged enough until the "theoretical" allegorical meaning is dripped in.
I think we can draw some ideas from this. I mean, who hates mythology? We still talk about it. It's cool. It has swords and monsters. It has Supermen and hot chicks. This is the ancient solution to what the Marxists were saying about making theoretical things "interesting" to people who don't know about it - we give it a story, a narrative that will get people "hooked". It could explain why grossly simple solutions that the conservative right presents are so appealing to people ("the immigrants are to blame", "the lazy poor are ruining us", ect.). It frames an existence far removed from any tangible facts grounded on reality, whereas the "articulate" left focuses on a technical working of politics, but at the expense of alienating those not already convinced or well versed.
I think a second point is that mythology has this ambiguity to it. Someone mentioned "we only care about things that have to do with us". What myths do is allow the audience to draw there own conclusions in a way that lets them take cognitive "ownership" of it and apply it to their own unique circumstance. Naturally, one would think this ambiguity would conflict with the effectiveness of spreading a specific message, which was at the heart of a specific quibble between Aristotle and Plato. But I think what's key is to have its meaning "dripped" in overtime by the authors who create or know the myths (but that's another story). Everyone has at least known someone in poverty, or someone who immigrated to a country. Scapegoating allows the population to project there own problems and life anxiety unto the victims in much the same way we project ourselves as a character in a (mythological) story (or kick our dog for something bad at work?). It strips theory out of the picture and makes the narrative more personal, more immediate, more "relatable", all because of its clever use of ambiguity.
Something I've been stuck trying to understand is this idea of a "noble lie". I was reading through another post of a Marxist analyst who questioned the famous "99 and 1 percent" slogan as being not factually based, but, he concluded, that yes it serves a practical end of mobilizing people and as a general "tool" for understanding of current crisis of inequality. Nitpicking for him would not have helped the Occupy movement. His "noble lie" was presenting not entirely factual information as truth, using the narrative to accomplish "noble" ends ("the Occupy movement is better off with it then without" I think was his words.)
This is where I think we have to question it's ethics. If we are creating Myths, in much the same way as the conservative right, then how are we any different? Do the "ends justify the means" of playing on peoples emotions? I was shocked to see no one really question this.
I think this brings even another problem - is it right to prioritize the audience over the message? At what point is that message lost, much like the meaning behind the Greek Myths? In a attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice, could the greatest alienation happen, that of Truth itself?
