Thoughts on Mein Kampf and Simmels Law

"Simmels Law" (formulated by sociologist George Simmel) argues that a groupes inner cohesion or solidarity is dependent on external pressures. If, for example, a new law was created that prohibited fat people from walking the streets after a certain hour at night, we would quickly see a solidaric interest group for fat people emerging. People that find themselves in the same place and situation are often drawn together. Having to make war against people who are either relatives, businesspartners or groupmembers (e.g., the fat solidarity group) would be seen as a conflict of loyalty and hence a situation where it would be hard to make war. This conflict of loyality as seen within a country or state was something that Adolf Hitler in his text Mein Kampf seeked to avoid when he wrote: The true national leaders effectivness consists in the ability of preventing the division of interest among the people, and to always direct its peoples attention towards one single enemy.

If you do the opposit of Mein Kampfs teachings(sic!) you'll get what the Romans found as an effective method of weaking their enemies. Their expression divide et impera (divide and conquer) is a good formulation for this line of thought.

Colonial powers have used the same strategy in their attempts to control people. Supporting ideologies of ethnic division has been an effective means for colonial administrators to weaken a country. If you weaken loyalties between groupes they are more likely to disagree and hence be less effective in gathering against you.

Questions concerning ethnicity, identity and the cultural divide are all elements of the political rethorics related to hegemony in terms of class dominance (refering to Antonio Gramsci). If we look at Simmels claim of external pressures contributing to the emergence of a group it becomes apparent how class groups are formed - the same line of work, salary, consumption behaviour etc.

When treating ethnicity we find a losely and fluid mode of identification that has been replacing our views on class differences. It is now common to use ´ethnic conflicts´ as an explanation for domestic war or crisis - without really understanding the social and political reality of the country or territory under question.

'Cultural terrorism' is found in the attemps of labeling a person by his/her ethnicity wether in media or whatever. Minority members in a country are usually refered to as 'unique' or 'exotic' and thus are separated from the rest. It is interesting to see how this "relativistic" view may have an adverse effect. Creating boundaries for a citizens place in society depending on these criterias may have an weakening effect, but it is seen as correct in so far as it is culturally relativistic. An opposit atempt may be seen in nationalism (the modern states ideology). It is based on its peoples shared values, mainly with referens to symbols and practices that unite its people.

It is interesting to see that there is some kind of an "off and on" switch for the state in terms of creating participation. If it wants to weaken a country and abuse its resources (e.g., colonialist fashion) it may switch off its sense of membership - people are separated, excluded and identified by ethnic or particular elements. In contrast, if the state wants to unite its members it may do so with the help of nationalism, where people are united around symbols and rituals that are fabricated and artificial.

We saw how Adolf Hitler united Germany with his dramatic speaches. I would argue that we see the opposite today - how boundaries are set up within the country, and between its members.

A possible solution? See things as they are. If the truth lies in class conflicts and social and political inequalities dont misslabel them as ethnic conflicts or lack of nationalism. See them as they are and hence treat them as such.

My race began as the sea began,
with no nouns, and with no horizon,
with pebbles under my tongue,
with a different fix on the stars.

I began with no memory,
I began with no future,
but I looked for that moment
when the mind was halfed by a horizon.

- Derek Walcott,
Nobel Prize winner in literature 1992

Lived Any Good Movies Lately?

Ahh the unbleamished orchestration from a truly derranged cantor directing our senses into the vortex that is storytelling. That is how I experience a good movie. The best ones often being good horror movies that really creep under your skin.

I dont watch b-movies, pulp fictions, or drool over star trek episodes. Even if there may be interesting ones out there what fascinates me are the really good horror movies.

I guess you have seen Omen, The Exorcist and even The Thing. Those movies are really good and they still lack more than half of all the special effects that most movies of today contain.

One movie that I have been asking if people have seen is In The Mouth of Madness directed by John Carpenter. Not a single person has said yes! Of course, there are many many movies I myself havent seen - but c'mon this one is really scary!

Combine Sam Neil, the lead actor of the Omen movies (forget the 4th movie, it sucked), and John Carpenter the director of The Thing and what do you get - a kick ass scary movie!

There are TWO movies that I have seen on the cinema that literary scared the shit out of people 1.) The Exorcist (unedited) and 2.) In the Mouth of Madness. In my eyes that earns them alot of respect from my part.

I will never forget how these three big guys that looked like gang members in the row behind me were screaming like hell when Regan comes down the steps contorted and bleeding out her mouth just after some terrible news has stricken her mother.

In the Mouth of Madness contains one scen that is soooo awsome!

But I wont tell you, just see the damn movie! Preferably byyourself, late at night in a completly darkened room, while drunk people are still wandering outside not finding the place where they live.

There's Nothing New About The News

This fall I've been attending a course in journalism and anthropology. Its been mainly on Fridays with some other days now and then for writing and discussion. What strikes me is the utter nonsense that has prevailed during some seminars. We are only 4 (maybe 5) out of 30 students who have a background in either anthropology or political science, the majority are either freshmen or journalist/media students.

The course has been extremely interesting, with fresh and current issues, interesting for both anthropologists and journalists. What should amount to interesting discussions has instead led either into egocentrical accounts of "what this or that student did when he/she wrote an article about 'bla bla' " or extremely superficial conclusions simply re-affirming what I've always dreaded about journalism, that theres nothing new about it.

As an anthropologist I've learned that one should attempt to take into account every aspect of human life, from language to politics to economics to whatever. I have been trained to observe, record, describe, and if possible, to explain human behaviour.

To observe, record, and describe and even explain human behaviour is all part of what a journalist does too. But where lies the difference?

As an anthropologist I look at the processes and causes of sociocultural phenomena, which translates into taking notion of the cultural values system. Since members of every culture share a particular world view and a particular ethos (a normative sense for how members should behave and how the world should operate) it should be extremely important to stand back and look at these value systems when treating an issue.

But no. Journalists are often found evaluating things exactly as any other member of their culture, or even worse in an ethnocentric manner.

In modern industrialized societies (like USA) a powerful means of excerting control is through mass media. It is a tool and should as such be dealt with and scrutinized.

What surprised me were some of the comments from students in this course that openly advocated for misinforming responders, falsifying names, and fanatic focus on creating resonance among readers. Resonance is important, but it shouldnt interfere with the search for truth, as to say.

During this semester I have looked at two perfect examples of this problem, the genocide in Rwanda and the New Orleans catastrophe (after hurricane Katrina). What became evident was the huge importance of mass media in creating a response to these issues. How media used symbols and rituals found in their own culture to create resonance was sometimes splendidly obvious. The patriotic, the harsh, the melodramatic...undertones for how USA should respond, is just an example of this.

As an anthropologist who is keen to see a more multifaceted news account I have become more interested in what the reporter is not saying.

With or Without Us

There is no room for sporradic viewing of the TV series Lost. Either your a dedicated follower or your simply not with us. We, the ones that sooner or later succumbed into theory concoction, sleepless nights, day dreamings, and late night roaming on the internet for the latest episode.

In my case, I was fighting against it. I had stumbled upon one or two episodes that were not the first one. In this particlular case I could sense that I was going to be hooked, which meant see it all or nothing.

There are so many theories and speculations about what will happen next. Sometimes when they flashback on one of the characters lifestories I want to shout out and tell them to go to hell! Just show me whats happening on the Island(?), in the present. Of course, Mr Ecco's story could be very interesting.

But this is no spoiler post. Ill just hush hush.