unknown

Number crunching language into
God-talk, like any simple truth warped
into fallacy by perverted tongues...
I'd cut mine out if I thought it could make this more clear.
We are but celestial condensation and vibrations.
We are parts of a whole.
We are all that I am; and
We are that "I am;"
and I am a system within a system within a system...
Contemplate meaning...

a poem...after a month or more of not writing...

dedicated to the others of you, out there.

Listen, dear brothers, we are
a strange bald ape,
not much more than a
babbling boney lung fish,
living in a mud-brick world of
make believe and cognitive echoes,
the result of an even number
and a spiral
and a vicarious fetish for
binary pairs.

Witness, sisters, that we do not beat the sword
and shape the plow because
community was ransacked like the fall of
Troy,
by trickery,
and forged into harsh societal constructs.

But this age was foretold
and retold.

Muffled prophets cry out and tell of a time,
when we will no longer say to each other, "know..."
I say the time has come when we must know
that the manufactured hydrogen flash
is a sickening sight,
no less so than the burnt shadows of civilized life.

In a previous century, three shouted various
perverted truths from the region
West of the Elbe; but all we heard was the promise
of Dear Brother Adam, crying out from the depths
of the white noise wilderness of insomnia,
"Show me a 'cure' for the evils of modernity
and I'll sell it to you for $19.95
on early morning TV."

Living life in the rear-view, and thus, not seeing
the high beams, ahead...

Charge forth, post-postmodern fighters,
into the 21st Century with eyes looking through that novel glass.

A Linguistic "Discovery"

Ne ( ni) - third person, singular, asexual human pronoun

Singular..................Plural
it, he, she, ne............they
it, him, her, nir.........them
its, his, hers, nes........their

Today, my friend Amy Roberson and I were discussing the need for an asexual pronoun for the third person singular. We settled on "ne." Our reasoning and discussion, to an extent, are as follows...

Linguistic change occurs within a community when a reality is no longer adequately expressed by the lexicon. Numerous instances of this exist in the English language, from irregulars to borrowed words.

Though langue is, in fact, a property of the total speech community, I suggest that change occurs on the level of parole. Thus, linguistic change occurs as an isolated incident (possibly even by a single individual) and spreads to through larger community. One can see this trend within an isolated speech community with the language variation of slang. It has been my experience that, taking a school to be a small isolated speech community, slang usually begins with a small group then spreads following the trends of fashion, meaning that social elites are act as catalyst for change in the system. For slang, the reality void which is filled is often social differentiation by age, class, or other distinguishing lines.

If one examines our high-speed connected culture, one can see that language variation occurs in an extremely rapid manner. To see an example of this, just chizzle Snoop Dizzle fo' shizzle, nizzle. Though this occurs, much of the linguistic change has been predominated by slang, which follows the life span of fads and other trends associated with fashion. I believe that, for the most part, people, especially those in academia, espouse the old linguists' assertion that one cannot actively change the system. Thus, in dealing with the increased reality that professionals are no longer strictly men, academia has substituted "she" for "he."

As I have just hinted to, there exists a conceptual inadequacy in our modern lexicon. Though this problem is not new, the fact that labeling the world through a male-bias has an impact psychologically and sociologically is receiving more attention as the years progress. As I have just typed, most "progressive" professors substitute the female third person singular for the male. Though this appears to be a good faith effort, it maintains gendered differentiation where there should be none; this, realistically there is no real chance that the male dominance would be reversed in the near future, not without very drastic, outlandish, occurrences. Another solution is the use of the word "one," which does have its place, but makes for rather wordy writing, as well. Thus, if true equality is desired, an asexual pronoun must be used to support this conceptually.

The first possible solution would be to use the one already in existence: "it." The problem is rather obvious, "it" relates to objects, not humans (though this could be considered pretensious on our part...). In looking at the use of "one," the problems are easily observed. The first problem is the lack of intimacy between the speaker and the subject, one tends to feel, as a reader, as though one is being lectured to. Another problem is found in the lack of efficiency that "one" allows. However, if a writer were to use a different pronoun, ne would find that nes writing can avoid these problems.

I could go into how Amy and I came up with it, but that doesn't really matter. We got a laugh and gave ourselves pats on the back (very tongue-in-cheek like). The point is to use it (I'm referring to "ne," of course), since a word has no value outside of the lexical system. Thus, if some one agrees with us, ne should start using "ne" and impress nes friends. You can use it, too! And maybe then you go up to your favorite progressive pal and tell nir about "ne." Then all of us can start using it!

In this first week of Advent...

As Bush stands waiting to light the national Christmas tree, I say to those who are not Christian, "remember." For those that are Christian, I say, "remember." Luther was the first to incorporate the tradition of the Yule log into the Christmas tradition, which itself rose from Christians in Rome seeking a day to celebrate the birth of Christ. The symbols relate to the old tradition of celebrations during winter's cold. This nation was founded by Deists.

Trace the history of all symbols, so that their meaning is not forgotten. As McLuhan suggests, the medium (both context and content) is the meaning.

War and Democracy

Better late than never...

Comments for Armistice Day:
The Conflict between War Rhetoric and Democracy
An Uneasy "Quiet on the Western Front"
On November 11th, 1918, an armistice was declared, ending the first "war to end all wars." The true result of this ceasefire was felt twenty years later with the outbreak of a second "great" war. In the aftermath of WWII, global economic and political power shifts have ushered in the most violent period in modern global history as independence movements and subsequent civil wars broke out in Africa and Asia, in reaction to the collapse of the last of the European empires. In the nuclear post-war years, two new super-powers came to dominate global politics, the United States and the Soviet Union, thus, the Cold War began. In the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere, violence erupted as the US, fearing the spread of Soviet influence, continued to make its influence felt in Central and South America. Violence also continued in Eastern Europe and Soviet Eurasia, escalating with the collapse of the USSR. The "fall of communism" again created a new power shift internationally, allowing the US to rise to a position of singular dominance, at least in terms of state-to-state interaction.

Through the post-Cold War decades, violence has increased in the territories of US interest and influence, especially those in the Middle East. Turmoil continues today in regions throughout the world as people continue to deal with the fall-out of the post-European colonial era; specifically, in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, as young nations are forced to cope with the implanted concept of "nation-state" and compete on an increasingly global market. Though there has been opposition against the US by nations, as seen with China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, the majority of violent conflict has come from extremists in the Muslim community in the Middle East.

With the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, self-declared Jihadists, as symbolized by Osama bin Laden, have undeniably declared war on the US. Perhaps ironically, this is just as they had done decades before against the Soviets, then with US support. In reaction to the attacks, the US has declared a "War on Terror."

"And Orwell’s hell, a terror era comin’ through…"
It is often commented by many on the "left," some times with a painfully forced grin, that "George Orwell’s 1984 is not a handbook." This is because of the eerie similarities, and the possibility of increased similarity, that now exist two decades after Orwell’s predicted date. In this period of war, liberty and democracy are being restricted within the US, as the nation, paradoxically, claims to be fighting to bring those very ideals to people who have lived under ages of oppression.

Though it would make for an interesting essay full of inflammatory rhetoric, I am not intending to point out in specific terms which of our liberties have been restricted. Instead, I will argue that the ideology of war necessarily restricts democracy. My examples will focus primarily on WWII, the Cold War, and this new "War on Terror," which I will argue is fundamentally different from previous wars. In my assessment, I will try to avoid grotesque biases.

For the sake of this essay, I will overlook much of the effects of statehood on democracy. Also, I will not make any explicit arguments regarding the differences between radical and elitist democracy, this will be saved for another essay. Therefore, I will assume that the United States represents a democracy, in the fact that its representative political form functions. However, the brand of democracy of the US, that of second-party representation, does predispose it to restrictions of democracy. These vulnerabilities are an important part of my argument; therefore it is necessary to begin by briefly describing the current US political form and its origin through history.

"Land of the Free…"
As with all things in culture, a historical perspective is necessary to understand the current form of politics in the United States. The US independence movement occurred during the same period that capitalism was becoming a major economic ideology; and the influences it had on the US, moving towards and after its revolution, are undeniable. One of the major qualms cited by colonialists against the British Parliament and Monarchy was that of "taxation without representation." Other European Enlightenment concepts had major impacts on the shape of the rebellion and its future governing body; these were the ideals of democracy, liberty, and equality. As a result, a core right of citizenship was the right to vote. However, citizenship was initially restricted, in that the right of suffrage was limited to white landowning males.

Over the next two centuries, the right of suffrage and citizenship was expanded with the enactment of the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. By the end of the 1960’s, the right to vote in free elections was expanded to all citizens of the age of 18, with the exception of convicted felons. In spite of this widely available ability to participate in the US political process, there still exists British cultural residue in the form of socio-economic stratification and its close link to political power. Though the right to vote is open to all, political office, especially in federal positions, is effectively limited to those of high economic status due to the fact that campaigns cost money. Thus, political elites are often financial elites, and the populace, at large, exercises its political power by voting for an elite candidate, who seeks votes by enticement.

In the middle of the 20th century, much intellectual work was done in support of democratic elitism, from the standpoint that it defends liberty. Notably, in his 1959 work, Lipset finds a trend within the working class of a higher disposition towards authoritarianism and restriction of liberty, especially as the authoritarian groups make use of emotionally charged rhetoric. Additionally, a link was found between age and this disposition.

At approximately the same time, studies were also conducted showing a link between economic and educational status and, in 1965, the federal Public Education Act was passed. The hope of this act was to grant opportunities to all US youth by developing them as a highly skilled workforce, allowing the US to maintain competitiveness in the global market economy. It was also in the 1960’s that voting taxes were abolished and the voting age was lowered to 18 years of age, in reaction to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement (24th and 26th Amendments).

Besides granting political power through suffrage rights, the US political system protects the populace by setting limitations on the government’s power. In terms of defending civil liberties, the US Constitution explicitly outlines freedoms of the people in the Bill of Rights. In this group of amendments, the government is very specific in the freedoms it grants for two major reasons. First, by making these freedoms known to all, the people are safe from wrongful infringement by the state. Secondly, by being specific, the state instills order, as opposed to the vague anarchic concept of freedom espoused by open self-determination. Additional Constitutional protections of democracy are the "separation of power" and the system of "checks and balances." By dividing power of action and approval between different federal branches, the US federal system avoids the possibility of totalitarianism by preventing any one branch from individual determination of policy.

In general, democracy is considered government "of the people," or in other words, a political arrangement that maintains the responsiveness of the state to its people, so long as the people participate in the process. Therefore, to the extent that it functions, the US can be considered a democratic state, in that its people are represented through their vote and limits are placed on the state, concerning legitimate use of its power.

In spite of this political structure, examples of undemocratic behavior have been exhibited by the US, in times of crisis. Specifically, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the McCarthyist period, and the recent use of Guantanamo Bay for the imprisonment of US citizens and other global citizens, under the authority granted by the USA PATRIOT Act, are striking examples of the usurping or restriction of civil liberties. Further, the Bush Administration’s declaration of "with us or against us" is the sanctioned restriction of citizens’ right to free speech and public discourse, protected by the Constitution.

Such actions create schism which increases the risk of further abandonment of democratic principles. Though this is so, these actions were taken with the permission of the public, whether by second-party congressional representation or outright popular support. How does this happen? What is the relationship between national crises, specifically war, and democracy?

The Fiddle and the Drum
In order to speak of war and war propaganda, the central concept of the "enemy identity" must be explored first. It can be argued that an enemy is any individual or group whose actions conflict with one’s own actions, or those of one’s social group. This conflict can be one of direct opposition or of competition. For the sake of this argument, my focus is on inter-social enemies, as articulated on the international level.

In 1999, Meyer and Murray published their findings regarding the fall of the Soviet Union and the transference of distrust and hostility onto a new "enemy." They hypothesize that the enemy identity is a necessary concept, psychologically, and that, therefore, the loss of an enemy forces one to find, or create, another. Continuing, they suggest that there are two major interpretations of the concept of enemy and its necessity. As has been stated, they hold to the psychological perspective which suggests that an enemy is needed to displace one’s own negative traits of fear and hostility. The alternative viewpoint, promoted by Chomsky and others, is that enemies serve the political purpose of mobilizing the populace in support of some specific state agenda, which tends to remain tacit.

Though the Meyer-Murray study did not prove anything conclusive, it did make interesting suggestions, specifically that there is a trend between the intensity of hostility and its continuation. Also, the limitations of the study helped to point out other aspects of the enemy identity that they were not able to test. For example, they admit that "[their] analysis assumes that the target for transference would be a country, but it is conceivable that the target is a more free-floating threat such as the fear of terrorism." They also accept that, since the time frame of their investigation (1988-1992) saw no direct threat against the US, "it is possible that the psychological dynamics that lead to transference might involve more interactions with actual conditions in the international environment to spark the phenomena" (no emphasis added). I, on the other hand, am able to write from a historical standpoint which can explore both of these variables.

I intend to argue that the enemy identity is both psychological, to the extent that its effects are on the individual, and political. I will further argue that it is as a state construction that the enemy identity is given true value. Finally, I will argue that the manner in which it is constructed is undemocratic.

As I have defined it, the concept of enemy is necessarily a social construction. While I do agree that there are psychological aspects of the enemy identity, both as scapegoat and cognitive short cut (Meyer-Murray), I suggest that the individual’s freedom to grant it these values is limited. If one were held in total isolation from others, how could one project one’s faults on a group, or even another individual? Further, how could one develop the enemy identity as a part of an explanation of social dynamics? Finally, it is not the individual, but the state that grants the enemy identity its true value, simply because states, not individuals, wage war. This can be seen even with dictators, such as Hitler and Napoleon, since their power to wage war depends on their ability to mobilize the state and its military.

Due to their dependency on restricted acceptance, in the form of citizenship, I propose that territorial states are predisposed to projecting the enemy identity on other states. This trend can be seen through out the historical evolution of the state, from ancient city-states to modern nation-states. For states with expansionist economies, the definition of citizenship is based heavily on clearly defined competitor states. When a state reaches a position of singular power, citizenship becomes broad and heterogeneous, paradoxically making the need for the enemy identity even more intense. An additional complication arises when the state has a standing professional military. This can be seen in the growth of the Roman Empire, from the small city-state to the great territorial state. At the same time, since its definition of citizenship becomes less strictly defined, the definition of "enemy of the state" becomes more ambiguous. This situation creates instability within the state. I posit that this progression towards instability occurs even if territorial control is not directly imposed by an occupying force. This trend can be seen in the development of the US, through the 20th century.

The American Century
For the sake of brevity, I will suggest that through the 19th century, US expansionism was balanced by other global and hemispheric powers. This can be seen in its western expansion and resultant wars with Mexico and Native Americans. With the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, the US declared that its influence over the western hemisphere was not to be challenged by European powers. The Spanish-American War further solidified US dominance over the western hemisphere. However, hemispheric influence was still balanced by the fact that the European powers maintained other global influence. Though the US became a recognized global power during WWI, it quickly returned to its isolationist tradition afterwards. The event that catapulted the US onto a truly global stage was WWII.

It is easy to see that Japan was considered an eminent threat towards national security with the attack on Pearl Harbor. For Germany, the relations between the US and the other Allies made the Nazis an eminent threat, as well. Thus, these nations were readily accepted as enemies and the US went to war with popular support. In the aftermath of the war, the US and Stalinist Soviet Russia emerged as the two remaining global powers. This was largely due to the fact that these two nations suffered the least amount of damage to their economic industrial infrastructure-the US because it was separated by an ocean on either side from the conflict and the Soviets because they were able to rebound and skewed international perception. Though the two nations were "uneasy bed partners," the Soviets were not considered an eminent threat, initially, after the end of the war.

With the sudden eruption of communist revolts in Latin America, the rise of Maoist China, and the misperception of Soviet power resulting in the nuclear arms race, the Soviets became the mortal enemy of the US. For decades after, both nations impressed upon other nations their hegemony to either undermine the influence of the other or to bolster their own control. Eventually, the Soviets over-stretched themselves and internal pressures as well as the cost of a long expensive bloody war with rebels in Afghanistan caused total collapse of the USSR in 1989.

Logically speaking, as Meyer and Murray posit, China should have been the new "red" enemy. Like the Soviets, China was a nuclear military power and had a similar communist government. Further, through the 90’s the US, whether unilaterally or in the service of the UN or NATO, had a trend of military and economic interventions based on humanitarian reasons. As more attention was being paid to China by humanitarians, there developed a growing trend of popular opposition in the US. This was seen especially in the increase in popular support for Tibet and challenges against Chinese human rights practices. In spite of popular opposition based on humanitarian principles and the trend of intervention officially based on humanitarian principles, there was no real conflict with China. Though they did grow strained towards the end of the decade due to relatively minor incidents, the overall trend of US-China relations actually improved, especially in terms of trade. This holds with a second trend in international affairs of increased economic globalization, which explains the reemergence of an old enemy.

The fact that January 1, 1994 saw both the ratification of NAFTA and the rise of the Zapatistas peasant revolt is not a coincidence. The late 90’s were characterized by two opposing forms of globalization, that of industrial-elitist globalization, embodied by the WTO, and peasant/people’s globalization, which included widely varying groups with tactics ranging from nonviolence to terrorist attacks. US reaction to this opposition also varied, ranging from ignoring the conflict to legal action to retaliatory military action. Though the US was a major actor, most opposition was expressed against specific NGO’s, such as the World Bank and the IMF, and multi-national corporations, such as McDonald’s and Nike. Because the threat was not felt directly in the opinion of the public, it was seen as mostly a conflict between the "left" and the "right." Administrative change and the tragic events of September 11, 2001 changed this view, in many ways.

Fairly immediately, the Bush administration abandoned the open policy of tolerance for a defensive "with us or against us." Public outcry led to the declaration of a "War on Terror." It is three years into this war and the risks are becoming more and more apparent. Because of this administration’s strong adherence to war ideology, as seen in the president’s self-declared, ala Karl Rove, status as a "war time president," and its willingness to exert force, often usurping the public’s right to power by direct action or by indirectly over-stepping bounds, it can be said that the current trend in US politics is that the people are held responsive to the state. This is undemocratic; however, it is not entirely surprising, when one considers previous wars against major national enemies and the propaganda used to build public support.

As can be seen in the media, the current phase of the War on Terror is one of intervention in the Middle East. This intervention is with the consent of Congress, and thus the nation. The current use of military force for the War on Terror is in "Operation Iraqi Freedom," with the objectives of removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and replacing it with a democratic government. This comes after a 2001 campaign in Afghanistan, which left a pro-American interim government, which still remains in power, after the national elections in October of this year. Though the original objective of capturing Osama bin Laden has not been fulfilled, the growth and trade of opium has reemerged, and it remains to be seen how responsive the new Afghani government will be to the public, the US declared victory in this campaign. In Iraq, violent conflict between Coalition forces and insurgents continues, even though a victory was officially declared in May of 2003.

The Eagle, the Hammer and the Scythe, the Crescent and the Star
If one examines the relationships between the US and Russia and the Arab world, one can find very specific similarities. I propose that these similarities are the very reasons that "middle eastern terrorism," not China, replaced Soviet Russia as the current major national enemy of the US. Additionally, in order to understand how these three cultures conflict one needs a totalistic view of their interaction. The source of conflict goes far beyond simple competition for economic resources to a long history of competition for hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula and surrounding territories. For the US, the beginnings of this conflict were the result of post-WWII power transference from Europe to the US and also, by extension, have their roots in the failed Roman conquest of the region. For Russia, the interaction was the result of Cold War expansion, but also has its roots in Turkish, Ottoman, and Mongol occupation of the region.

If one examines the interaction of allies and contrasts it with the interaction between enemy one would find that clear communication is a central requirement for positive cultural exchange. It could be argued that there is communication required to promote the enemy relationship, as well. This difference is often the result of cultural difference, specifically and most apparent is that of linguistic mutual unintelligibility between languages. Between Russia, Arabia, and the US, there are three distinct linguistic families, those of Slavic, Semitic, and Germanic (with historical Romantic influences). Interestingly enough, the Slavic, Germanic, and Romance languages are all spawn of Indo-European. China and the US are also separated linguistically, however. Therefore, linguistic separation does not fully explain the conflict between cultures. If one takes into consideration the overall history of cultural contact between groups, one can find a more complete explanation of the conflict. As previously stated, I suggest that the most current source of conflict between these three groups is the result of previous European relations. In order to accept this possibility, one must assume that, due to historical ties between the US and the European powers, the US inherited the European global role in the wake of the Second World War.

One perspective that can shed light on the European-Russian conflict is the geopolitical perspective. In his book The American Century, Donald White discusses the influence of this ideology on the events leading up to and resulting from WWII. Essentially, geopolitics looks at geographic control, and subsequent control of resources, as a strategic advantage, allowing for the growth of a state. Because further explanation of this theory and power politics goes beyond the scope of this essay, I will suggest simply that geographic control is an essential part of state growth. This can be observed in the tendency toward expansion and incorporation of hinterlands as a state grows, also leading to an increase in economic and political control over a region. For Europe and Russia, state conflict, as was discussed earlier, is the result of the contest for the areas of the Elbe River valley and the fertile lands to the west. In my interpretation, the strategic value of these lands is the same reason why much of the land was former Roman territory. Additionally, this territory grew in economic strength during the Industrial Revolution because of the wealth of available resources. Thus, control of Europe allows a state access to great expanses of agricultural territory and resources necessary for strong industry, as well as access to major trade routes.

Before WWII, Russian control had been contained at the Elbe. In their attempts for expansion, Nazi Germany sought control of the entire European peninsula and to prevent conflict with its potential competitors (Russia and the US). Initially, Germany had a treaty with Russia and the US had taken a stance of neutrality. After Hitler broke his treaty with Stalin, once the balance of military power became more balanced, the war between Russia and Germany became a competition for conquest. At the close of the war, Soviet forces pushed west to reclaim land lost to the Nazis and made efforts to further expand. This western expansion was seen as a threat by Europeans and the US and efforts were made to contain the expansion, ultimately resulting in the Iron Curtain and the splitting of Germany and Berlin into an east and west. As the US and the Soviets came to be, for all intents and purposes, sole competitors, the conflict between these two states grew to dangerously absurd proportions. The Cuban Missile Crisis best embodies this absurdity. This crisis also showed that, due to the fact that the result could be the annihilation of humanity and most of the life on earth, when truly put to the test, neither side truly wished for direct conflict. This can be seen in increased focus on second-party control and competition for territory in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East in the wake of resolving the crisis-which, as a side note, essentially ignored Cuba and Castro, with the exception of the US declaring that it would not invade Cuba again, even though it maintain military control of territory on the island.

In terms of economic growth, control of the Arabian Peninsula, especially the Persian Gulf, was a central cause of Russian and US contention for this region. Though this is only speculation on my part, I would posit that from Greek conquest to British and French control "Western" interest in this region has always be economic, at their core (whether seeking to eliminate competition or to take control of trade routes). From the perspective of industrial geopolitics, the Arabian Peninsula possesses two strategically valuable qualities, oil and access to the Indian Ocean. The values of both of these traits are somewhat self-explanatory, oil is the lifeblood of industry and a global power must have quick access to any part of the world. In light of technical changes since WWII-those of ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and other technologies-it is hard not to argue that the geographical importance of the region has more to do with its petroleum resources than any other reason. With this in mind, it is easily understood that hegemonic control of the region is economically profitable, from the standpoint of invading forces. Since the thwarted Roman attempts to conquer the territory, the people of the Arabian Peninsula and the surrounding Persian Gulf areas have had a long tradition of opposing foreign rule. In all of these conflicts, their struggle has been for autonomy. This is not intended to look with naïve optimism at the results nor is it my intent to support the tyrants which have manipulated and profited from this tendency. However, I believe that it is this history of open opposition to imposed hegemony of foreign powers which is perceived by the US as the greatest threat of this region, especially when taking into account US dependence on petroleum. Bin Laden has been quite clear on this concept, saying that their opposition is against what they perceive (justifiably so) as US imperialism, pointing to the fact that other democracies such as Sweden have not been targeted.

From the standpoint that the US holds a singular position in the global power structure, it is not other states but terrorists which pose the largest threat, since they are not easily definable entities with organized bureaucrats and diplomats who can sit and talk things over. Terrorists threaten the central notion of the state, that of legitimate monopoly on violence. Taking into account the threat perceived by the US and the ignorance which both cultures have of each other, due to linguistic separation and the widespread lack of effort toward understanding, it is understandable that the replacement enemy is "Islamic terrorism." This highlights the first major difference between wars the US has fought in the past and the "War on Terror," this war, at least in its current form, is a cultural clash with no clearly defined enemy state.

"Haven’t you heard? It’s a battle of words…"
It can be said, with justification, that war propaganda is simplistic in nature and designed to make emotional, rather than intellectual, arguments. These two characteristics make for a more effective means of mobilizing the populace than complex economic or political strategic arguments based on data and building premises. Often, the propaganda, whether rhetoric or images, seeks to quickly and easily identify the enemy; this establishes an "Us/Them" mentality. Thus, distinguishing features, such as nationality and ethnicity, are exaggerated to caricature proportions. In addition to this, vilification is used, so that popular disdain for the enemy is increased. This process essentially dehumanizes the enemy. With the use of slogan-like rhetoric and heavy repetition, the image of the enemy as threatening monsters becomes ingrained in the public psyche. By doing so, the state overcomes the natural tendency of humans towards cooperative action and justifies the use of violence, because the enemy is no longer seen as actually human. With the use of information technology, the process of spreading these images through the public occurs almost effortlessly.

In his 1996 article, Russell explores the interesting link between technologies of war and of pest control and its subsequent link in the metaphors and characterizations in WWII propaganda. He concludes that by the end of WWII, humanity is faced with the uncharted territory of having the ability to not only annihilate many natural pests, such as mosquitoes and lice, but also to annihilate national pests, and by extension, its self. Essentially, our technology has caught up with our rhetoric. This strange dilemma is exemplified most clearly by the end of the Pacific Theater. In Japan, traditional senses of honor were used to develop an overall policy of non-surrender. In the US, propaganda established the policy of total victory. Unfortunately for thousands of Japanese civilians, the US had developed the technology to support its total victory ideal and ultimately used the first and second nuclear weapons ever used in a war.

Understanding this reality of possible annihilation, two propaganda campaigns were needed during the Cold War. One was the standard vilification and promotion of patriotism. The second campaign addressed the reality of nuclear war, or more accurately, concealed the true reality of a nuclear war. I also suggest that there were three phases of these campaigns which can be divided as the "Red Scare" phase, the post-60’s Anti-war Movement phase, and the Reagan phase. This can be seen in the medium of cinema, which presents both public and private interpretations and reaction to propaganda, with the differences seen in the films of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Dr Strangelove (1964), Apocalypse Now (1979), Wargames (1983), Rock IV (1985), and finally, Iron Eagle (1986). The era began with the belief in the "duck and cover" method and bomb shelters to "insure survival" of a nuclear war and the promotion of the arms race, and ended with public support for disarming.

In looking at the internal conflict of the US during the Cold War, I infer that the turmoil of the 60’s led to an increase in social awareness. This awareness continued to grow through the following decades and caused a curtailing of the powers of the state. This can be seen in the increase of political and social tolerance, beginning from the McCarthyist 50’s. Thus, the US was able to survive the years of social unrest and address problems because the government returned to a responsive position; contrast this with Soviet stagnation, corruption, and ultimate collapse. I believe that this trend explains the relatively stable years after the fall of communism. In the latter decades of the Cold War, social "wars" were declared on problems such as poverty, drug abuse, pollution, disease, and in defense of human rights. This shift represents a shift in the public and political arenas, the state became more socially aware as the public became more socially aware. Though this is true, the state sought to maintain some of its previous power at the same time through the continuation of war ideology. This trend can be seen in the rhetoric of the late 80’s regarding terrorism as a growing threat and the policy of intervention discussed earlier. A clear example of this is seen in US intervention in Latin America, especially Columbia.

The War Declared and the War Fought
In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, the US declared a "War on Terror." This war is especially dangerous to democracy because of its inherent ambiguity. Not only is the enemy an open concept, the length of the war is indefinite, possibly unending. When this is coupled with the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike and strict "With or against us" ideology, it is clear that the state, especially the executive branch, takes a position of self-determination, with respect to policy and action.

In forming a nation-state, the public abdicates its right to legitimate violence, granting the state a monopoly on the use of force. The use of force which is not state sanctioned is called terrorism. Because terrorists pose a threat to the state’s power and authority, they are considered "enemies of the state." In dealing with these enemies, the US has a policy of non-negotiation, both at home and abroad, due to the understood lack of legitimacy. Thus, in one such conflict, there is no possibility of compromise or treaty. There is no end for a war on terrorism, since the only possible end is total victory, which is impossible by the very definition of terrorism.

The danger of defining the enemy of a war as being "terrorists" or "terrorism", instead of an opposing state, is the redundant nature of terminology. Instead of being explicit in defining the enemy group, the declaration of the terrorist as the enemy is essentially a mathematic identity-the enemy of the state is an enemy of the state. Since, as I argued earlier, the enemy is a state construction, this grants undemocratic power to the state and opens two possible risks. At home, the enemy could be defined as any political opposition. Abroad, it opens possibility of never-ending war, by allowing the state to label any group "terrorist" and declare one war after another. The risk of such power and abuse of such power is exemplified by the current war in Iraq. Essentially, the state is granted the use of national resources, most notably those involved with military power, to pursue its own agenda.

I do not presume that their intention was malicious, however, in promoting their war ideology and spreading its supporting propaganda, the Bush Administration exploited specific vulnerabilities of the US public. I think that it is a fair assessment to state that the culture of the US is a society of capitalism and consumerism. Though these terms imply a specific economic arrangement, they also suggest underlying trends and characteristics, specifically of a strong emphasis on efficiency and mass homogeneity. These characteristics can be seen articulated by the institutions of mass media and commercialism. The transference of commodities, including ideas, is carried out by enticing the public to consume through advertisement. Because efficiency determines whether the "sale" is successful or not, advertisement does not generally aim at allowing the consumer to make a fully informed, though-out decision, since this process takes time. Advertisement, therefore, seeks to promote quick decision making by emphasizing emotionality. As its form suggests, war propaganda is a type of advertisement, specifically promoting the product of war.

The Bush Administration has run a very successful ad-campaign, and continues to do so, today. They have used very specific rhetoric and have utilized media outlets in very intentional ways, with the end effect of spreading their product (that of war propaganda) and preventing or stifling competition. At the center of this success is the rhetoric which opened the ability to manipulate the further spreading of their ideology. From the very first address and press conference on the 11th, the Administration’s rhetoric has had an emphasis on emotional content, over intellectual content. This was done by utilizing the tragic imagery of the terrorist attacks and by employing the terms "patriotism," "freedom," "liberty," and "democracy" calculatedly. More over, it has been designed to create distinct identification of friend and foe, as has been discussed earlier. Finally, opposition has been suppressed in two major ways: first, by employing the previously mentioned terms which are synonymous with loyalty to the US, most would-be opponents have been dissuaded from speaking out, for fear of appearing "unpatriotic;" secondly, any other internal opposition has been essentially discredited by employing the left/right distinction and claiming that those on the left are "out of touch with the mainstream America," a claim which does have some basis in reality. Through strategic application of this rhetoric, the Bush Administration has been able to influence the actions of the press, of the other federal branches, and of the public at large.

For obvious reasons, Rupert Murdoch’s Clear Channel twenty-four hour network, Fox News, will be excluded from my assessment. For the other news networks, I am not excusing their lack of effort to reveal all sides of the story. I beg to differ with those labeling mainstream news networks as having a "liberal bias," I tend to agree with comedian/social commentator Jon Stewart, when he said in a 2004 CSPAN interview that the media has a "lazy bias." From the very beginning, the media, for the most part, failed to hold the federal government accountable for the security failures that led to the attacks of September 11th. This failure can be seen in the fact that, still, no official has publicly admitted responsibility, nor has any public official lost office because of failure to perform their job of protecting the US public. In fact, it can be seen that those who have lost positions of authority have done so because conflicts of policy more than any other reason. Further failure of the media to perform its role in a democratic society is exemplified by the fact that President Bush was reelected in 2004, in spite of having broken the over two centuries of US tradition of no war without justification. This is a criticism of the news networks themselves, not of the journalists who were not given the opportunity to report their findings. Though print media, in the form of newspapers and online sources, has tended to be more critical, the unfortunate truth is that the television is the dominant media outlet in the US.

That being said, the Bush Administration has developed their propaganda campaign in such a way to utilize the media. In addition the pressure to assimilate discussed earlier, this administration has maintained continuity in their message. If one were to observe the various Secretaries and members of staff during press conferences, press coverage of presidential appearances, and presidential addresses, one would notice similar rhetoric, even identical terms and phrases, used by the members of this administration. This trend allows for the maximum exposure of the Bush Administration’s ideology. This is not a new trend, previous administrations also maintained homogeneity of rhetoric and ideology; however when coupled with the members’ refusal to allow legitimate questioning by the press (as seen in press conferences with Sec. Rumsfeld) and the use of rhetoric described earlier, the Bush Administration has indirectly usurped the 1st Amendment right to a free press. Though, as I suggested in the previous paragraph, the fault does not rest solely on the presidency.

By the fact that Congress is the direct representation of the US public in the federal government, its vulnerabilities are exemplary of those of the public. Because of the system of checks and balances, these vulnerabilities have opened the Judicial Branch to manipulation, as well. More so than the press, which is ideally an objective critic, Congress was susceptible to the streamlining of support and suppression of opposition. Primarily, this risk comes from the two-party system which, in itself, does much to silence legitimate political opposition to the mainstream by preventing a dissenting opinion from having national vocalization. I would suggest that this lack of voice arises from a failure of organization on the part of the dissenters; however that is another essay topic. Secondly, as public officials, I would suggest that Congresspersons have increased pressure toward public displays of nationalism and loyalty; these are expressed through their vote in various bills. Thus, the Bush Administration was able to capitalize on an overall Republican Congressional majority and their use of rhetoric to further promote their agenda.

The clearest example of the manipulation of Congress yielding judicial effects, and subsequently effects on the rights of citizens, is the USA PATRIOT Act. Overlooking the events which led to certain amendments to the bill being passed by a Congress that was not given adequate time to debate and deliberate, the dilemma of a Congressperson is apparent in the very title of the act. It is obvious that it would look unfavorable to vote against an act that declares itself as "patriotic," especially when the public was being told that its purpose is to aid in the fight of terrorism and the insurance of their security. Another example of manipulation is the appointment and approval of members of the Judicial Branch, leading to further expression of partisanship, for example, the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney General and the controversy regarding various "litmus tests" for Supreme Court Justices. Also, the streamline of support in Congress for the presidency led to granting President Bush the power to use force in Iraq, thereby establishing the dangerous precedent of Preemptive Strike.

In all of this, the Bush Administration has manipulated the public, so that we have willingly abdicated our right to a government that is held accountable to us. We have chosen, admittedly uninformed, to accept what we have been sold, as can be seen in an election won by the "moral vote," as opposed to assessments of and accountability for the performance of the Bush Administration. This is not to say that all US citizens have bought in, the 2004 election proves just the opposite. There exists very bitter division, even if superficial, within the US, today. However, this level of schism hinders open debate, a very necessary part of any healthy democratic society.

If the US government were really in favor of democracy, it would be promoting democracy by example and granting moral support of popular movements conducive to democratic regimes. A state cannot in itself, however, be a democratic entity; only a society can, because democracy is a cultural product. Thus, the US needs a cultural shift, if it is truly devoted to the ideals of democracy, liberty, and lasting peace.

An Eye for an Eye Leaves the Whole World Blind
War, by its very nature, is a destructive dividing force. The only way to overcome its effects is to increase human interaction and interconnectedness. If we, as a global community, refuse to accept the enemy-identity, choosing instead to see each other as merely brothers and sisters with opposing viewpoints, as Gandhi has suggested, we can come together in the true spirit of democracy and open debate in order to embrace our differences and resolve our conflicts. This is within our abilities as a species.

a theory of ethics

I stumbled upon a disk that had some papers from my freshman year. I was fairly stoked because I thought I had lost them...especially one paper in particular, my term paper for my intro to ethics class. I haven't done much editing, other than to re-add some points that were lost because of constraints on length and to fix some grammatical mistakes that resulted from the fact that I was still working out kinks in the theory up until 5am the morning it was due. Other than that, it's the same essay as the one I turned in.

The prompt for the essay was to argue for or against capital punishment using Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or a third theory.

An Theory of Ethics
There is no action more controversial than the act of taking another's life. When death is legitimized as a form of punishment, the controversy of the act increases, as our established ethical blacks and whites turn gray. Therefore, people look towards the philosophies behind their government in hopes of resolving this controversy. Two such theories are John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's Kantianism. Though these theories have validity, they also lack in a way which leaves one uneasy. I will suggest a third theory, that all human life in relationship to Truth-which shall be defined-is valuable and should be treated as such, thus capital punishment should be rejected. Before doing this, it is profitable to first describe and dispel these two other theories.

In essays originally published for Frazier Magazine, Mill outlines his theory of Utilitarianism. This theory follows simple logic, yielding a fairly viable conclusion. As a right-act theory, the focus of utilitarianism is happiness, which is held as the only thing that is good in its self. Mill suggests that all other good things are good only in relation to happiness. Following the simple logic of opposites, Mill suggests that pain, the opposite of happiness, is bad. Mill goes on to suggest that there are two different divisions of happiness, that of the body, and the mind. Mill holds the pleasures of the mind, such as knowledge and justice, as more valuable than those of the body. This is the utilitarian theory of value, in brief. Mill continues by proposing that one should perform an action, only if it is the best option, among a group of choices. This is logical, since it would be absurd to choose anything which is not the best, given opportunity. Mill goes on to define what the "best" action is. Based on his system of value, Mill states that one's best option is that act which will promote the most happiness, or the least pain, universally. From this, one could conceivably support, or reject, capital punishment, making the decision conditional and based solely on whether it is the best option (Mill).

With this, Mill's theory touches on a very valid point. In looking at society, it would appear that the goal is the promotion of the greatest total happiness, assuming that these things tend to promote the survival of the species. Though this is valid, utilitarianism seems to offer no way to reach this. In fact, Mill refers his readers to the established ethical codes of Christianity and Stoicism. This is in itself a great weakness, since any ethical philosophy which is not actively applicable is effectively impotent, since their purpose is to shed light on central epistemological questions relating to right living. Another point of weakness is found when utilitarian thought is applied for the assessment of capital punishment; specifically, in that the life of a person hangs on the whims of his death promoting overall happiness (Mill).

The result of such a subjective view perverting justice can be seen in the acquittal of OJ Simpson. In spite of evidence proving his guilt, he was found "not guilty." This was largely due to fears that racial tensions would lead to wide-spread violence (in the wake of the 1992 riots). Even more horrifying is the lynch-mentality, in which an innocent person may be killed, simply to appease the masses. Beyond these examples, there are conceivable instances in which a utilitarian will contradict itself by condoning and punishing the same act. One possible scenario could be the assassination of a tyrant. Though the act could promote universal happiness by preventing widespread pain and suffering, international laws (which are established to promote universal happiness) condemn it. And so, a utilitarian judge may believe that the act is worthy of praise, but would be forced into contradiction, because of the duty to up-hold the law. And so, Mill's theory could ultimately come down to the discretion of a single person. Therefore, though Utilitarianism provides a means to decipher if capital punishment is the best option (promotes the most happiness), the circumstances are contrary to themes of justice. Thus, right and wrong must be based on something other than happiness.

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets about developing his theory of right action. Kantianism is focused on the motives of the actor. Kant first suggests that the only thing which is good absolutely is a good will. In Kant's theory, happiness can be seen as bad, if it is not obtained by one with a good will. From here, Kant goes on to define what a "good will" is. He first states that rationality is good will's a priori, or the purpose of rationality is to bring about a good will. Kant supports his claim by suggesting that logic, or rationality, is ill-suited for providing happiness or the satisfaction of desires because rationality regularly conflicts with these things. Because defining good will was so complicated, Kant illustrates how one with a good will would act, instead. Thus he introduces duty, which are those actions commanded by universal law, which are any actions that all should perform consistently. One with a good will performs one's duties, because universal law dictates that one should perform one's duties, because they are one's duties. Kant finally centers in on his theory of right action, which holds that right acts are those which one would have as universal laws and those which treat other rational beings with respect, which recognize the will of others as worthy of consideration, before acting. In other words, other rational beings are treated as more than merely means to ends (Kant). Thus, according to Kantianism, capital punishment is right, if it is one's duty, performed by one with a good will, and not using others as simply a means to an ends.

As with utilitarianism, Kantianism makes many valuable philosophical contributions, such as, the concept of taking one's motives into consideration when assessing the rightness of an act, beyond just its results. Another valuable contribution is the appreciation of rationality, by holding it as the root of good acts. Unfortunately, as with utilitarianism, the theory has weaknesses; specifically, allowing capital punishment to be conditional. It is difficult to establish norms for the use of execution, since these can lead to logical fallacies and lead to using the prisoner as merely a means to an end. Also, as with utilitarianism, Kantian thought can allow that an innocent person could be put to death. In looking at organized government, it is conceivable that, with small enough numbers, the legislation passed could truly represent the will of the people. This small Kantian group of people may find it advantageous that death is the punishment for all infractions, since any infraction of the set laws is a threat to the group and thus a failure each member into consideration as an end. Thus, after being tried by a jury of one's peers and being found guilty, this person would have indirectly willed their execution. They would do so, even if innocent, because not doing so would be contrary to duty since refusal to follow a rule cannot be accepted as a universal law. This opens the risk of treating themselves as mere means, and potentially others. As a government grows in size and complexity, it soon becomes an entity with its own will, essentially; this is because direct democracy becomes grossly inefficient with large populations. And so, legislation becomes less the will of the people and more of the government. Thus, it becomes more difficult to believe that the penal system of a state actually treats the populace as more than merely means to its own survival.

In looking at these two theories, it appears that, if the two could be combined with others to form a "grand unified theory," both motives and consequences would be taken into account in determining the rightness of an act. My personal beliefs-which are Kantianism extended, if you will, in light of modern understanding of human existence, through the cognitive sciences, and combined with the Gandhian theory of Satyagraha-ultimately reject capital punishment.
First, in order to have ethics, there must be a right and wrong. I believe that there must be an absolute truth (referred to here on out as Truth), which exists independent of its full realization. Without such a truth, all ethics would be relative and void of any real value. Thus, Truth is the standard by which things are determined to be good or not-Truth is what is good, while falsehoods are bad.

It can be concluded that there are two parts to the human being, a sensual part and a spiritual part. This can be supported by Socratic logic-one thing cannot be in opposition with itself, at the same time in regards to the same thing. The senses are essentially animalistic and motivated by physical stimuli. Also, due to the physical confinement to one space-time position, the sensual human is most closely linked to falsehoods, since its truth is subject to perception. On the other hand, the spirit is motivated by logic. By logic, I mean applied ideas, which are organized information, which is revealed truths, which all are part of and originate from Truth. Thus, the spirit is more closely related to Truth, since information spans time and space, only ending when proven false.

This is seen in the evolution of information-all cerebral thought can be traced back to information stored in DNA, which can be further traced to atomic information, and so on. Because information dies when proven false (one cannot believe that the earth is flat, one it has been proven to be round), an evolutionary process occurs. This allows for available information to approach Truth, as time progresses. Once Truth is realized, the process stops. However, because humans are sensual, as well as spiritual, this process can be impeded. This is since perception, by way of active and passive concealing of truths, can allow falsehoods to survive. This occurs most often when a falsehood is profitable, from an animalistic standpoint. The most prominent of these falsehoods are the related concepts of control, ownership, and elitism. These concepts, and the actions which they inspire, can arguably be called the source of all suffering in the world.

Since control and elitism are derived from the misconception of ownership, this must be shown to be false first, and then the relationships between the others can be illuminated. The world is divided into objects and thoughts, just as the human is divided into two parts. Dispelling the ownership of thoughts is perhaps the easier of the two. One cannot claim their thoughts as their own, since original thought does not exist. This is because information does not spontaneously generate, thus in every idea, there are traces of previous ideas-Newton did not create gravity, he discovered it, meaning that it and all of the mathematical theory relating to it existed before he put them into concrete terms understandable and applied by other physicists.

Dispelling the ownership of objects is harder, only in the fact that it is so deeply rooted within the human animal's psyche that rejecting it is a major undertaking. Two concepts work to dispel physical ownership. First, the most obvious, when a person dies, they lose all of their possessions, thereby shortening the period of ownership of an object to a time-frame which is quite insignificant, as compared to the actual existence of the object. One can think of inheritance, in that since the relative cannot maintain ownership of it postmortem, they must give it to their progeny. The second is perhaps less obvious; in order to be able to declare an object as one's own, others must accept this. If personal ownership is not widely accepted, the "ownership" is essentially void. For example, one could go into a public park and declare the land to be of their private ownership and thus off-limits to the public; if people continued to go to the park, in spite of the declared ownership, the declaration is worthless. Therefore, simply put, ownership is a falsehood saved from extinction by our animalistic instincts towards acquiring materials for survival. Its function could easily be replaced by granting all humans the right to the materials needed to survive, based on the right of survival.

To continue, I suggest that control is linked most directly to ownership. Control is derived from the want to gain ownership of objects, and the fear at the loss of ownership. Thus, control is any means by which one tries to maintain ownership of objects or thoughts. Where as all control is violent, the most drastic shows of control are those which involve the use of actual physical force to protect, or take, the ownership of something. Since ownership has been shown to be false, it follows that control cannot truly exist. Common experience supports this conclusion; numerous examples exist to show that things occur in life over which we have no control. What we as humans have is the ability to shape our future, to make decisions which cause other things to transpire; however, this ability does not insure that what we've planned will happen.

Finally, both of the previous concepts are essential for elitism. Elitism has control as a core belief, manner of act, and result. This is due to the fact that ownership is the basis for value within an elitist group, whether it is economic elitism, with material ownership as the basis, or social elitism, which holds that the ownership is among the members of the group, in a sense, of each other, while excluding those which they do not own and do not own them; or, intellectual elitists, who hold the ownership of thoughts as their basis for value. Another example of an elitist group is organized government.

Though created by the consent of the people, governments are elitist by nature. The object which it sees itself in ownership of is the populace. Since the purpose of a government is to maintain social order, governments impose various forms of social control: statutory, economic, educational, and various others. Of these, control maintained by the law is the most forceful and imposing. This is due to the existence of a penal code. Of the penalties imposed by the state, the death penalty is the most deplorable. Its very existence is based on numerous gross fallacies.
In order to be able to be justified in taking a life, one must have ownership of a life. As has been shown, ownership is absurd. Given the assumption that a government exists to serve the will of the people, it does not follow for it to have such control over the populace. Even in establishing laws, the people are held accountable to each other, not the government. Thus, I believe that capital punishment is wrong. This logic can be extended to all forms of control.

And so, once the concepts of control and ownership and elitism dispelled, it is seen that all are equal. This equality can be shown through the evolution of information. If one were to look at another and think of their very existence, one would find that this person is special. All people are the culmination of all information in existence before and during their life time. It could be argued that human life, being the singular history from an infinite set of possibilities, cannot be climactic, since it is a climax, in itself. This track of thought could be expanded to include all things in existence; however obvious absurdities arise from this, i.e. equating a human with a bolder. Therefore, as Kant presented for his theory, I suggest that there is an informational hierarchy, if you will, which places humans at the top and thus to be held accountable for our actions, since in our experience we are the only creatures with cognition. This is because we are the only information which can actively shape other information, recognize the existence of other information, and realize our own existence. A person, by being a climax in the evolution of information, is special; however, this is not a singular, exclusive uniqueness, since all humans are similarly and equally special. And so, equality is a truth which forms a fraction of the Truth, which should be the motivation of one's acts. Thus, in order to perform right actions, one should act in a way which holds all people as equal. This is the duty of all people, duty being those actions determined by Truth to be right acts. This manner of action will allow, by way of informational evolution, for a nonviolent order to establish itself, meaning one free from the imposing of control on others. Thus, this will create widespread contentment, thereby fulfilling the goal of society.

This all may seem quite far-fetched, because it runs contrary to our animalistic nature, which is, arguably, the part with which we are most experienced. Perhaps the strongest objection would come from a utilitarian, since their theory is most closely related to the sensual human, and therefore, easiest to accept without contemplation. A utilitarian, may object that government-social control by consent-was brought about to promote general happiness. Following Plato's logic, a utilitarian could argue that before government, all were allowed to pursue selfish goals, which led to an overall pain and unhappiness. Thus, people agreed to establish restrictions that were to be implemented by a higher force, in order to promote overall happiness. The result was government, which had statutes and penalties for breaking these laws. One may conclude that the statutes and their penalties were established to ensure the survival of this order, especially the penalty of death. Thus, since penalties and other forms of control are essential to the survival of this order, which promotes the happiness of all in the society, control is not only necessary, but is right.

This is a very valid objection; most people tend not to consider their spiritual side, in everyday life. The thought of eliminating control and punishment conjures frightening images in many people's mind, especially when one considers how animals behave and the degrading image of humans doing likewise. Humans, because of our contradictory nature, tend not to trust ourselves, and thus, not trust others. For us, it is safe, and therefore appealing, to have restrictions imposed upon each other, rather than allowing for our inherent goodness to shape how we act and react. To this, I would respond that it is the very same animalistic urges which spawned the need for a legal system as those that maintain it. It is by the widespread suppression of Truth which holds us to the society in which we live. If, however, those truths which we have discovered regarding humans and our behaviors, capabilities, and relationships were to be revealed to the masses, this belief, this fear of one's fellow human, would not, could not exist. Thus, by dispelling myths and ever searching for Truth, we can establish a true utopia, in which all are content and free.

I recognize that there are many holes in this theory, many questions left unasked and unanswered, many weaknesses left unchallenged, among other flaws. With this paper, especially, considering the amount of editing to try and fit specifications-meaning the removal of a lot of material-and the fact that I was exploring this theory, which is new to me in that I have found no primary sources outlining such a theory, it is inevitable for there to be these flaws.

Works Cited
Fairfield, Austin. Meeting. UNC-Chapel Hill. 6 May 2003

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With, On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. 3rd ed. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979.

Plato. Plato: Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube, C.D.C. Reeves. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992. 33-38

Turow, Scott. "To Kill or Not to Kill." The New Yorker. 6 Jan. 2003. 1 May 2003.
.

For difficult times...

Society is a system with regular rules of function, including rules governing change.
Understanding the system grants the ability to actively influence culture, to find balance.
Until the sky lights up in the finality of nuclear radiance, it is not too late for reform.
I am not alone in this thinking.

These beliefs give me hope.

Peace, friends.

sports...

Good God...of course, I give professional sports some credit and look...I've never been one to watch those "The World's most extreme assinine examples of stupidity, drunkenness and violence," but turning on Sports Center this morning, it was hard to avoid it...No, it wasn't footage of angry Premier League fans rioting in Liverpool... It was a bitch-ass weak fowl and an equally bitchy retaliation and too many testosdrones, good and drunk, thinking that they're billy-bad-ass, ruining a lot of people's night in Detroit. And this is why I'm not a basketball fan...well, NBA fan, to be more precise (as a side note, the Tar Heels, though getting off to a rough start, look like they could be real contenders, this year)...But then it occurred to me, while watching The War Room(1993) on IFC, and thinking back to the past couple of years of campaigning (ie cattle herding), there's a bigger cultural problem that links the two...I'd dare say that it's a problem for all humans: the human herding instinct (both being the herd and the herders). It conflicts totally with our capacity for intelligence. I believe that the conflict between these contradictory tendencies toward following and leading is the conflict. When all humans learn that they can walk with their heads raised, make eye-contact with each other, speak with confidence, and learn to deal directly with each other, then there will be peace.

I've been working on an essay about war propaganda and democracy, I meant to post it for Armistice Day, but should have it posted by Wednesday at the latest...it's kind of hard to meet deadlines when they don't really exist...Also, I plan on having one written within two weeks, criticizing democractic elitism...

A World Gone Mad

Quite honestly, I'm confused. With the world spinning harder and faster toward escalation in international conflict, even the possibility of outright nuclear war, why is it that we are being bombarded by so many distractions? TV actors posing as journalists, FCC prudes, gamers going to war, commercials gallor, and all the while real problems exist globally...beyond the one that God's gift W is creating...but I'll mention some of those, too...

Last night, on the Daily Show, besides an interview with Woody Harrelson that fell apart, Jon Stewart took a shot at CNN actor playing journalist (also know as an "anchorman") Rick Sanchez. Stewart played a clip of a recent Sanchez's interview with Titanic researcher Ballard and, overcoming the painful urge to say, "So fucking what, it sank...it is a ship wreck at the bottom of the Atlantic. We learned from their mistake; now, quit gawking..." (at least that's what I would say), focused on the "grilling" he gave Ballard. (Really, he was just making an ass of himself by asking questions which everyone knew.) Stewart's response to the clip was "Yes, that's Rick Sanchez, asking the tough questions that the Taft Administration doesn't have the balls to ask..." (Stewart's emphasis) Apparently, Sanchez didn't get the point. Instead of admitting that he was covering a soft story that had little to no relevance to modernity, especially considering global current events, today on CNN, Sanchez instead took the criticism as an honor, like Ashton Kutcher had just "punk'd" him. He said that being criticized by Jon Stewart is becoming a "status symbol" in their field. This isn't that surprising considering the reaction that Stewart got when he was trying to explain to other CNN hosts that he should not be held to the same professional standards as a self-declared "real" journalist because, simply put, the show that airs before his is "puppets making prank phone calls." Unfortunately, Sanchez must have missed Jon on CSPAN's American Perspectives.

Not all distractions are bad distractions. Sports, for example, have the phenomenal capacity to unite people in healthy, good-spirited competition and camaraderie, at their best. Yes, professional sports have TONS of ethical issues to work out, namely players getting paid as much (if not more) than doctors (not to mention way more than teachers) while other people work and still starve, questions about what are legitimate technological alterations to the human body (ie use of drugs), and other such questions. This year, since I'm unable to watch my Philadelphia Flyers play like champs until play-offs come and they turn into a bunch of bums, since players like Mr Hockey, who'll play for the love of the game and a sweater, no longer exist, I've relied more heavily than past years on the NFL, and thus the Eagles. Now, as distractions, TO's antics aren't that big of a deal. Thus far, he's backed it up on the field, giving a good balance to McNab. Unfortunately, however, in the wake of "Nipple Gate" and the reelection of President Bush based on the "moral" vote, Monday's game between an electric Eagels and an unusually lack-luster Cowboys was overshadowed by a pre-game skit. Instead of talking about the 14 second scramble play that ended with a 60yrd completion to Mitchell and the 49-21 shallacking of Parcell's Cowboys (how often do the Cowboys get nearly 50 points scored on them? or a Parcell team, for that matter?), it was the pregame ABC skit with Owens and Desperate Housewives star Sheridan. Strange how that show, which has high ratings and even more suggestive material is still on the air...but obviously football, in all its beer-loving glory, is a family sport, even though MNF games don't end until after midnight... Another strange fact, with all this morality floating about, how is it that music videos directed at black youth have the most sexual content, even though the black community has the misfortune of having the highest infection rate for HIV? Some things seem just off....

Some distractions...well, the word "evil" shouldn't be thrown around litely, but... It feels like the people who work in advertisement watched Bladerunner and Max Headroom and other such post-apocalyptic entertainment (specifically those creepy scenes with all the televisions blaring commercials 24 hours a day) and said, "hmmm....that'$ brilliant!" First, in response to "Christmas" commercials starting earlier and earlier, is it really that necessary? Capitalists have already staked a claim on the Friday after Thanksgiving...now, it's called "Black Friday." There's a reason for that; the first shopping day when everyone crams into the stores so that parents and grandparents can duke it out to be the ones leaving the store with the new action figure or video game (and if you're wondering what to get your proud little soldier, look no further than dear-old modern day Kipling, former insurance salesman Tom Clancy and his Ghost Recon2; or if you like adding in moral ambiguity and conflict between loyalty to state and humanity, you may want to check out Shellshock Nam 67). Of course in order to leave the store with a clear conscience, you'll have to nevermind that the others leave with black eyes and the sad understanding that they will return home, not only defeated and bruised and battered, but to a home filled with little savages waiting to roast them over an open fire until they're deliciously meat falling off the bone done, and their bones will be saved and used to prepare a lovely stock to be used for the stew made with the left-overs... It's a great American tradition. But that's not enough for the Money Machine...nope, they need them to be whipped into a real frenzy... Hopped-up on all sorts of crazy pills...And thanks to the acid-freaks turned capitalists at ETrade (well, really the poor bastards who were too young to be hippies who decided to become yuppies, unless of course they're converted hippies, captured and tortured by the capitalists until they squealed and pledged allegiance to the dollar), jack and jill American can afford to spend and spend and spend on delightful trinkets to give vicariously to the baby Jesus, through their children...and if they happen to not have a job and are at risk of being over-run by angry Huns, that's okay, because money does grow on trees and all they have to do is access lendingtree.com and shake and promise to be indentured servants to some 9-5 for the remainder of their adult lives, before they again wear diapers and are left, ignored by resentful children whose only inheritance is debt. But with a new television that has the "picture quality of movie theater film," they can always just change the channel to wife-swappers and other mind-numbing crap. Joy to the world, it's getting to that wonderful time of year when all the ghouls and goblins put away their costumes in exchange for ones of piety. Happy Chrismahanukwanzika...

And speaking of piety... we all may need some religion, considering some of the changes in government and elsewhere...So, our celebrity-lust has granted us with more personal information about Condi Rice's anatomy than I'd care to know...though I bet she was hot in those ice skating outfits...brrrr...the CIA's cleaning house and Specter gets back on board...so good Christian friends rejoice...and onward Christian soldiers to reclaim the Holy Land's oil...in Christ's name, of course...nevermind the oxymoronic nature of that thought...And just think, if we amend the constitution for the presinator, we'll be able to have a president that's a professional at script reading. (In all seriousness, I'd be for the amendment, if our border policy was also changed and if wide-sweeping campaign finance reform made it so that average US citizens could run for office. More democracy takes power away from the Executive Branch.) Just imagine the joy that Karl Rove would feel if he was given that gift for the Winter Solstice Celebration.

And in international news, the international community overlooks the death of half a million people to pat each other on the back because the Sudanese government and rebel forces have promised to end fighting by January...nope, no more death and degredation there...And what's to be said about the mess of Iraq? What can't be said about the mess in Iraq? Security? Nope. Human rights being protected? Eh... An end to the senseless death of human beings? Surely not... Free and fair elections by the January deadline? Of course they were joking when they said January of 2005... But troops have control of the insurgence in Falluja, where civilians come out waving white flags so that they're not shot...let freedom ring. Meanwhile in Iran, uncertainty could leave one guessing what time the retired "Doomsday Clock" would show. Israel claims that Iran is steady at work building the bomb and is a threat to their national security, claims which do have some international credibility. The Israelis have been pushing for UN actions against Iran, saying that the international community has a two year grace period before the situation becomes irrevicable. The US and the EU are calling on Iran to stop all of its enrichment activities. Given the fact that no action has been taken against North Korea, as of yet, it remains to be seen how effective any threats will be. Granted, there is the chance that Iran could be developing civilian power plants, a possibility which South Africa and Brazil have tried to support. Though, in spite of this possibility, Israel does have a history of attacking nuclear sites, and given the fact that the preemptive precedence has been set and Israel is a suspected nuclear power, there'll be more speculation to come...

At least Kashmir is quiet, for now... And, what ever happened to North Korea?

APEC is meeting in Chile and complaints are being made about the weak US dollar, and yet still, there is anger at the imperialistic tendencies of a sole super-power... If I could speak to the entire world, well, specifically those people involved with nation-states, I'd tell them to quit attacking the US for being a super-power, and then expect the US to fix all of the world's problems... Simple solution, quit supporting archaic power-structures and start working together as a unified global community. (And it really is simple, it just has to be done. Now it will take hard work and dilegence, but it can be done. Just stop having wars, damnit.)

And beyond these absurd problems which we have created, there is still starvation, disease, and poverty; but these, aparently, matter not.

I guess hiding out in a hidden mountain ranch safely sedated and writing weak Hollywood name-dropping "commentary" doesn't sound like that bad of idea...at least it's better than being a ex-pat hiding out with your girlfriend on the Riviera...muhalo

other unfortunate victims of rhetoric

Before continuing, I admit that I am not a theologian...

The Lord's Prayer

Our Father,
Who art in Heaven,
Hollowed be Thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day
Our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those
Who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power and the glory,
Forever and ever,
Amen.

By Christian tradition, this is the prayer taught by Jesus to his disciples when they asked him how to pray. Prayer serves a similar function to meditation, in that it helps to focus the mind on specific thoughts. This prayer helps to center one's thoughts on humble submission and faith in God as a provider. Also, the prayer trains the mind on ordered society, which includes central the theme of forgiveness. When put in the context of Jesus' overall message to love God and to love your neighbors and his nonviolent methodology, it becomes hard not to be somewhat offended by "prayer-ins" outside of Sen. Specter's office.

Also, ignoring the fact that its date has roots in Roman paganism, how is the commercialization of Christmas not a form of perpetuation of Capitalistic pagan idolatry? Granted, this assessment requires a more anthropological interpretation of religion... but Bush is indeed a God-granted gift to an undeserving pagan-nation, who will lead us out of immorality with his God-fearing truthfulness and his honor... just overlook the pagan practises of some of his social clubs, it's just play....

the fire spreads...

REM Document
Welcome To The Occupation

Hang your collar up inside
Hang your dollar on me
Listen to the water still
Listen to the cause where you are
Fed and educated,
Primitive and wild
Welcome to the occupation

Here we stand and here we fight
All your fallen heroes
Held and dyed and skinned alive
Listen to the Congress fire
Offering the educated
primitive and loyal
Welcome to the occupation

Hang your collar up inside
Hang your freedom higher
Listen to the buyer still
Listen to the Congress
Where we propagate confusion
Primitive and wild
Fire on the hemisphere below

Sugar cane and coffee cup
Copper, steel and cattle
An annotated history
The forest for the fire
Where we open up the floodgates
Freedom reigns supreme
Fire on the hemisphere below

Listen to me

a perfect example of what we're dealing with...

Today, at the stadium in Charlotte, there were ceremonies for Veterans' Day, complete with true military pomp and circumstance, meaning a fly-by. The 11 o'clock news on WCNC, a local news channel, reported that people were calling into the station concerned about the jets flying over their neighborhoods. I couldn't help but laugh at how absurd it sounded, granted I was born on an Air Force base, but still...

This is what fear looks like.

Fear makes one believe that hiding under one's school desk, after the "flash!" of a nuclear explosion, will keep one safe.

-----------
also, check out a perfect circle's new release "emotive"
I think it's an interesting listen, especially if you have the originals in your head while listening... Particularly, those songs of the 60's...we're definitely in a different age. Not to mention that the artwork is absolutely brilliant.
(yes, I think this review is self evident, if you buy a copy of the cd...or better, get a friend to burn a copy and scan the images...or just go to their website http://www.aperfectcircle.com/)

oh I'm stuck in the wake of the american century, with the post postmodern blues, again...

On the New Era of the Post-postmodern
Or On the Desperate Need for Synthesis in Thought

A decade has passed since the postmodern was brought to a close in January 1994, with the emergence of new styles for “free trade” organizations and agreements. The global power structure had become essentially unipolar. Though much work and thought have been done in that time, I believe that the US election of 2004, in light of the Bush administration’s ideology, has heightened the need for new ways of thinking, and thus, new ways of action. This holds especially true amongst those of us who oppose the neo-con global model.

I propose that there are certain fundamental assumptions that are needed in this new thought. First, as the physical sciences have shown, the universe is a closed system. Applied to the more confined scope of this new search of collective synthesis and understanding, it can be assumed that the earth, for all intents and purposes, is a closed system. Further, it must be accepted that humans are in fact animals; and are therefore, subject to similar environmental pressures, and the limits of a finite lifespan. Finally, it can be assumed that, as a species, our culture has allowed for our survival and evolution.

In the science of the human social system, study has been focused in three primary fields, those of Anthropology, Political Science, and Economics--anthropology should be thought of as the study of the species itself, including everything from cognitive science to archeology. Each field has revealed great quantities of information, however, I suggest that understanding has remained limited. Should we wish to obtain true understanding of the human system in total, we need true fusion of thought within these fields, as well as the addition of the earth sciences. Specifically, geography, geology, and ecology are needed to develop a complete model of the human system and its place in the larger earth system. In addition to these sciences, I believe that ethics and other philosophic thought are needed to provide focus for this totalistic study of humans.

With beneficial competition and communication amongst thinkers, collective understanding is possible. Furthermore, this understanding may lead to innovative conceptions of balance and new methods to reach it.

an essay on structuralism...could probably use some work, but hey, rome wasn't built in a day, it was the result of centuries of cultural development

An Attempt to Refine Structural Anthropology
From the seasons to the DNA double-helix to binary code, order surrounds, shapes, and is designed by humans. The exploration of this phenomenon in its various formal explorations provides the very foundation of mathematics, philosophy, religion, and science. The existence of order is the central of all thought, even if it is a construction of the human brain. This is due to the fact that the very act of defining something as a "concept" and the object of a process called "thinking" is an act of ordering. Its existence is the central intuition that causes us to question and to look for it in all things. Order expressed in culture is the central assumption that allows social scientists to study social phenomena.

At the turn of the twentieth century, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim suggested that phenomena occurring in society can be classed as "social facts" and thus the objects of truly scientific investigation. One such "fait social" was language. From this concept, Ferdinand de Saussure developed his "linguistics of language" (Matthews 12) and gave rise to structuralist thought.

Though he did not use the term, Saussure is credited as the principle founder of Structural Linguistics. Saussure’s theories were applied, adjusted, and adapted by others to the diverse investigations of "the life of signs within society," or semiology (Saussure 16). This led to wide and varying interpretations of structuralism. In spite of this, Structuralists share many central themes. The primary focus of a structural analysis is "on gain(ing) insight into [the] systematic and structural character of" the symbolic social phenomena (Matthews 3). This is done by first separating the social side of the system from the individual execution through expression because the system exists solely through collective use. For Saussure, in linguistics, these parts are labeled "langue" (language), for the social, and "parole" (speech), for the individual (Saussure 9).

Because a change to one element of a system yields a new system, "the study of systems must…be separated strictly from that of historical relations between systems" (Matthews 10). In other words, one must take a synchronic view for the study and description of a language. Additionally, however, an historical examination is needed to understand what the observations reveal about the underlying structure of the system. And so, a diachronic study of the system is needed, once the synchronic study is completed, in order to avoid the "mistake of the comparative philologists" (Saussure 3).

Finally, because their intention is an objective description of systems, structuralists seek to establish structure by classifying elements. This taxonomy is developed through the employment of a value system which is based on opposing distinctive features. No unit has an existence independent of the relations between it and other units. Thus, "in…system(s) there are only differences, with no positive terms" (Matthews 23).

Anthropology is one of the social sciences concerned with semiological systems. Though the employment of the structural method could grant many revelations, most structural works are Claude Lévi-Strauss’, or studies of his work. This is due to problems with methodology, terminology, and the fact that many "would-be students of structural anthropology have given up too easily and too soon" (Decker 537). In this essay I intend to apply structuralist theory, with some adjustments, to define the method of structural analysis of a culture in anthropology. Though I will try to avoid them, the reader must take a stance of skepticism against the possible biases of my interpretation of structural analysis.

For anthropologists, culture is the social fact under investigation. Because language is one facet of culture, many of the same techniques can be applied to the study of both. For example, Bloomfield’s fundamental assumptions, with some adjustment, may be accepted by anthropologists as well (Matthews 23). First, it can be assumed that there exists a communicative link between actions and meaning. Second, this link is logical and regular according to utility, meaning that certain actions are better at conveying certain meanings. Third, within a society, meaningful acts are similarly performed by its members. It can also be assumed that culture’s purpose is to promote solidarity within a society. Thus, culture is a collective system by which meaning is expressed through various acts. It now becomes necessary to define more precisely the elements of the system and where exploration should be focused.

Not all actions are significant; however, all actions can be significant. Sometimes a cough is just a cough; other times it’s a gesture of disdain for cigarette smoking. The process of filtering will be detailed later in the paper; however, significant acts will be classified as "behaviors." Essentially, behaviors can be equated to Saussure’s "parole." Unlike parole, however, behaviors are also the cultural sign because they are the medium by which meaning is expressed. Also, there is a distinction between culture, Saussure’s "langage," and a single culture, parallel to "langue." Culture, therefore, is the faculty of having a culture, which is the system realized by a specific group of individuals, and behaviors are significant acts, preformed by individuals.

Just as langue is the true object of linguistic investigation, an anthropologist focuses on a specific synchronic state of a culture and describes the observable social phenomena (behaviors). The aim of such an investigation is to discover the underlying "social structure." After the structure is found, the anthropologist can begin to analyze the system in order to find the embedded laws which cause the observed phenomena (Lévi-Strauss).

Of his investigations into social structures, Lévi-Strauss is best known for his work on kinship systems and mythology. He recognizes that meaning is expressed in kinship. He writes that "like phonemes, kinship terms are elements of meaning; like phonemes, they acquire meaning only if they are integrated into systems." Further, he specifies that, "kinship systems…are built by the mind on the level of unconscious thought." He also recognizes that the meaning of kinship terms is not expressed simply in the "nomenclature." Recognizing that kinship terms also require specific actions and attitudes, Lévi-Strauss suggests that kinship is the result of two systems, a "system of terminology," which is the vocabulary and a "system of attitudes," which is the psychological and social prescriptions of the particular society. Though intuitive, the actual application of this value system seems too subjective, in my opinion. For his extensive study of myth, Lévi-Strauss applies paradigmatic observations to show that myths can be classified into categories. Specifically, he shows that myths can be classified by which societal conflicts they are intended to resolve. He then presents what dialectic processes might occur to resolve these "internal contradictions," for example, the shepherd motif used by authors to represent their noble patrons (Decker 528). Finally, he also suggests that any meaning which can be found in the symbolism of a myth actually exists in the myth. Again, though intuitive, Lévi-Strauss does not give any specific method for proving which meaning interpreted is the actual meaning of the myth. Thus, "while he aims at a science of meaning, he is forced…to discovery by insightful guess and check" (Decker 515). Science, however, requires a certain sense of objective "self-awareness," meaning that the experimenter must be removable, without changing the experiment, or its results. For scientific investigation, clear definitions of the object and the specific methodology are paramount.

"No [one] is an island unto [oneself]." "Nothing social occurs within a vacuum." These idioms express the common knowledge that humans are connected to each other beyond the accident of birth. Not only are people connected biologically, humans have developed the faculty for transmitting abstract information between each other to perform cooperative action. As cognitive science is showing, I believe that this faculty is characteristic of our species and is found in the human brain. Furthermore, because no two individuals are exactly the same-because two objects cannot consist of the same matter, in the same space, at the same time-this opens any generalization to exceptions. That being said, society is not encompassed by a single individual. Society is a collection of individuals existing cooperatively. Their culture, as I defined it earlier, allows for this cooperation. Thus, culture and society exist as a dialectic pair: a society maintains a culture, a culture maintains a society. In order to observe culture itself, it must be assumed that the particular organization of a society is the result of its particular culture. This is why the observation of behavior reveals the underlying social structure.

In culture, behaviors are the smallest unit of expressed meaning, similar to the morpheme in language. A behavior is any conventionalized cultural sign that pairs an action "image" with a mental "concept" (Saussure). The action is performed by the "presenter," while the concept is transmitted to the "interpreter." Like the morpheme, behavior has distinctive features which exist as opposition between behaviors in the culture system. Before continuing, I suggest that onomatopoeia is not a true linguistic sign, which is the morpheme; rather it is the vocal form of imitation, which is a behavior (conventionalized, specifically by the culture’s phonetic system). This allows behaviors to be distinguished by how motivated, or arbitrary, they are. Behaviors can also be contrasted by the association between the performers. Associations can be set into taxonomy by familiarity, sex, and generation-the identities of gender, and the relationships of kinship, friend, and enemy are all combinations of prescribed behaviors. Finally, the setting in which the behavior takes place is a distinctive feature. Numerous examples exist to show that certain actions are prescribed, or "culturally accepted," in specific places, at specific times-again, the meaning of private or public settings, as well as others, is found in the associated behaviors.

There are other features of a behavior which are interesting to note and can lead to valuable insights, most notably the actual form of the action and the cognitive/emotional states of the performers. The observable forms of behaviors are detected by the senses. Though it would appear that the actual form of the behavior would be the most significant distinctive feature, one finds that its significance is dependent on the other features. Take, for example, different forms of salutations: saying "hello," shaking hands, hugging, waving, and kissing. Thus, a salutation can be seen, heard, or felt. Immediately, it can be observed that setting is a distinguishing feature between the use of speech and gestures from the rest: there is more distance between the performers. It can also be conceived that at various times, or with various relations, the use of physical contact is different. With regard to the performers’ cognitive or emotional states, it would appear that this can change the interpretation of an act. However, these states are realized after extended observation of behaviors, since it is not possible for direct observation of these mental states.

Within culture, behaviors can be combined to express larger semantic values. These combinations are called "institutions." As with sentences in language, institutions have internal structure, or syntax (Chomsky and Bar-Hillel). If one accepts the assumption that culture aided the survival of the human species through its promotion of cooperation, one can see that the cultural syntax of institutions follows the notion of "form follows function." Likewise, if the semantics of culture is based on the simple truth formula of "the species survives," and the natural and social environments put certain stresses on a society which lead to "internal contradictions" or conflict, one can see that institutions are subject to rules of "formation" and "transformation" as a reaction to conflict (Lévi-Strauss). In other words, culture is a self-regulating system which seeks active balance through use of institutions in order to insure its basic truth formula. Unlike language, in which the sentence is not included as an element, only its syntax, institutions are social forms and are included as an element of culture, and because institutions create social balance and are social creations, they are the source of cultural inertia (Saussure). In a synchronic observation, institutions are an important object to note. The specific rules of its formation, however, are found only in diachronic analysis, which will be discussed later in the essay.

As elements in the culture, institutions can be categorized much like behaviors. Perhaps the most obvious of the distinguishing characteristics is the organizational form of the institution. This can be found by determining the scope of the institution, as in how many people it is applied to (large group/small group/individual), what specific features link its individuals (sex/ethnicity/age/etc), and how constructed the institution is, or its level prescription (constructed/partially constructed/"natural"). Gender identity, for example, is an organizational institution which applies to the entire culture and links individuals by their sex, and due to the fact that biological differences do exist, it is only partially constructed by a culture. The other distinctive feature of institutions is the type of production which it facilitates. This feature is most closely linked to its purpose, i.e. the need that it fills in a society. Production can be tangible, like hunting, or intangible, like language or cohesion. Language shows that institutions are combinations of these two distinctive features. Language also reveals that, through its application to almost all human behavior, institutions can be combinations of several institutions, for example, the family institution. Thus, in the syntax of institutions, the utility of the truth formula lends itself to a combinational property. This same property occurs within languages, as seen in embedded sentences.

Though institutions help to insure social stability and cohesion, variation does occur within a culture. When this disturbance maintains mutual intelligibility with the culture at large, it is called a "subculture." This can be compared to a dialect in language. Due to culture’s tendency to resist change and the connection of people through proximity, distance and time are necessary to cause subcultures to become new cultures, mutually unintelligible with their source culture. This process can be seen in the varying cultures which have spawned as a result of British colonization.

With these definitions related to social phenomena (behaviors), it is now possible to return to the concept of social structure, the object which the anthropologist hopes to discover and understand. Lévi-Strauss writes that "the term ‘social structure’ refers to a group of problems" which are very broad and that even its definition is "so imprecise that it is hardly possible for a paper strictly limited in size to meet them fully." He continues by writing that social structure is not the legitimate object of any scientific study, but that "the main interest of social structure studies seems to be that they give the anthropologist hope" to be able to "borrow methods and types of solutions from disciplines which have gone far ahead" of anthropology in studying the phenomena, such as linguistics. Though this may be true, it is only because the total integration of the human sciences has not yet occurred. Furthermore, just as the systems which make up human beings and their social systems are complex and the result of collective existence, a true anthropology must be a collective scientific endeavor, ranging from bio-chemistry to the study of art. No individual can hope to fully understand the totality of human existence through one’s own discovery; however, cooperation may lead to collective understanding.

In order to complete the list of terminology and to proceed to describe the process of structural analysis in anthropology, the term "social structure" must be fully defined. Lévi-Strauss wrote that "the term ‘social structure’ has nothing to do with empirical reality but with models which are built up after it," and that "social structures cannot be reduced to the ensemble of the social relations to be described in a given society." He defines "social relations" as "the raw materials out of which the models making up social structure are built." When he outlines the requirements for a model to be the social structure, he seems to contradict himself by writing that the "model should be constituted so as to make immediately intelligible all the observed facts" which must be the social relations. I suggest that his set of requirements for models, which he claims "is not an anthropological question, but one that belongs to the methodology of science in general," is correct, but that his distinction and definition of "social structure" are not.

Instead of accepting that social structure is a "kind of model," I propose that the structure actually exists, and that the model is exactly that, a model of the structure. Returning to a fundamental assumption about culture as a system, it is necessary that it have a form, or structure. The question then becomes, "How does it come to exist?" In order to answer this, social structure must be redefined to be the conventionalized relations within a society which are given semantic value through their behavioral realization. Taking the institution of family as an example, the structure of relations exists because specific conventionalized behavior has been prescribed which gives the relationships meaning. For example, the conventional behaviors of affection between parents and offspring and the difference between these behaviors because of gender gives meaning to the relations of mother/father and son/daughter. These prescribed behaviors, combined with others, give rise to gender identity as a part of the total social structure. The brief description of the structure is the model of the structure.

Lévi-Strauss suggests that models of a culture can be further distinguished as "conscious" or "unconscious." I, however, suggest that the terms "abstract" and "realized" better illustrate the distinction. This distinction is much like the distinction between institutions as constructed or natural. For the anthropologist, the study of a culture’s abstract model of itself is invaluable because "even if biased or erroneous, the very bias and type of error are a part of the facts under study and probably rank among the most significant ones" (Lévi-Strauss).

As Saussure has shown, and Lévi-Strauss confirmed, the structuralist method has two parts. The first is synchronic observation and description of observable phenomena and construction of a model of the underlying structure. In order to do so, one must filter out unnecessary data. Because all actions can potentially be behaviors, the process is somewhat tedious. However, it can be represented by asking, "When is red, simply red?" and answering "It’s when it can be blue." In other words, through paradigmatic substitutions, one can create taxonomy of behaviors, valued as described earlier, and discover larger institutions. The final product should be a model of the society defined by its relations as expressed through its behaviors. With care, this model should be an objective realized model of the culture. Before continuing, it should be noted that this process does allow for interpretation, on the anthropologist’s part, and thus, several models could be developed from the same data. The question arises regarding which model is the best. The answer is the one that is "most true;" however, this is not fully realized until after the second part of the process (Lévi-Strauss).

This second part is the diachronic experimentation that leads to the actual analysis of a culture. Experimentation is the "set of procedures aiming at ascertaining how a given model will react when subjected to change and at comparing models" of a single culture or different cultures (Lévi-Strauss). The purpose of this "set of procedure" is to discover the panchronic laws which govern the structure. By comparing two synchronic states of a culture, one can find some of these laws. This can be compared to finding the trajectory equation by plotting specific points of a projectile’s position. In order to find the best fitting "equation," synchronic states must be in close proximity to each other, chronologically speaking. If, for example, one wished to compare the culture of the US, as British colonies, to its present state, one would need to compare every intermediate state as well. In other words, history, the dynamic evolution of a culture, can reveal simple laws affecting cultural change. Comparing the realized model of the observer to the abstract model of the society is equivalent to comparing the trajectory of a plotted formula to the experimented path. In the case of physics, forces such as friction can be discovered; for the analysis of a culture, the internal contradictions and conflicts can be revealed. By performing these two diachronic comparisons for several synchronic states of a single culture, general panchronic laws for the development of that culture can be found. By applying the method to several cultures and comparing results, general truths relating to culture can be discovered. If the total process (observation and experimentation) was repeated on two cultures which are in contact, rules regarding the interaction of cultures can be discovered.

After this method is repeated, a structural model including all of the processes of formation and transformation through time, may be discovered. Thus, a truly conscious model of one’s culture could be developed, so that internal and external conflict is solved by the careful and intentional application of institutions. This process, however, can be applied only to our own culture because "our own society is the only one that we can transform and yet not destroy, since the changes we should introduce would come from within" (Lévi-Strauss).

My conclusion is that there is order in culture. I believe that culture functions as a collective system of communicative meaning within a society and that there is a structure which is revealed through observation. Further, I purpose that fully understanding this structure requires one to see the structure as dynamic, due to the action of some underlying forces. This intuition of underlying structure is a central concept in any structural approach. Originally, I had hoped to actually perform a structural analysis of the institution of public education in the United States. I had hoped to describe what forces and processes shape its structure and what specific role it plays in the US culture and society; however, I found that existing structural method in anthropology lacked structure of its own and that, in order to do an analysis, the method had to be elucidated first. Unfortunately, this paper is limited and the application this method would not only require several pages beyond the set limits, but I found that it would require extensive fieldwork and research, beyond what I had already completed. This calls to question the actual utility of the method, since it is rather demanding. My opinion is that certain adjustments may be necessitated by actual application in the field; however, I have striven to present the method in a logically sound manner, since above all other things, scientific method is based on logic.






Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. "Logical Syntax and Semantics." Language 30.2 (1954): 230-237. jstor.org
Chomsky, Noam. "Logical Syntax and Semantics: Their Linguistic Relevance." Language 31.1 (1955): 36-45. jstor.org
Decker, Henry W., and David Kronenfeld. "Structuralism." Annual Review of Anthropology. 8 (1979): 503-541. jstor.org
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. "Ch II, XII, XV, XVI." Structural Anthropology. New York: Penguin, 1968. Marxists.org. 20 October 2004. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/levistra.htm.
Matthews, Peter. A Short History of Structural Linguistics. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001
Melchert, Craig. "Structuralism." Linguistics 83. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Jan.-May 2004.
Rossi, Ino. "The Unconscious in the Anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss." American Anthropologist. 75.1 (1973): 20-48. jstor.org
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. R. Harris. London: Duckworth, 1983.