Of Power, Incarceration and Revolution (Part I)
Finaliser | 12.08.2009 23:19 | Analysis
Incarceration being the domain of dogma is based upon false presumptions of capitalist power. The cunning revolutionist will attack it with stealth from the sanctity of the social power base.
Incarceration is the domain of the idealist; idealism being but a stones throw from dogma. Dogma is the enemy of democracy, the antithesis of ‘free will’ (whatever that may be). For, without any notion of freedom we will be constantly in a state of flux between, on the one hand, autocratic behaviour and, on the other hand, revolution. Somewhere along this continuum lies the steady state so disapproved of by ‘the authorities’: a peaceful co-habitation of all creatures upon this wonderful planet. A state of utopia where each man, woman, child, animal – all species – are able to live out their lives without interference by the state. This is anarchy as we will touch upon in this book. This is peace and this is sustainability. This is the way forward for all of us on this planet. Not a planet delineated along historical lines of geo-political, state-based boundaries but a planet truly free; truly one.
There may be, however, times when an individual needs to be removed from society. For instance, if they are infected with a deadly disease, then they should be quarantined. For, if the disease was to spread then there is a possibility that the whole of society could become ill. However, upon taking this course of action, the team responsible for making this decision, i.e. if harm may come to the greater good, should invest wisdom in reaching their decision.
The problem is that if a decision is made in haste and without a multidisciplinary perspective coming to bear upon the situation then natural human biases – those preconditions which we all harbour – will affect the soundness of the decision. In other words we cannot allow a single individual – in a democratic society – to remove the freedom of another single individual. This is the bona fide error of current judicial systems. Granted a jury usually decides the fate of an individual on a consensus bases but ultimately it is the judge – the single individual – who decides the ‘sentence’ of another individual. However, this elaborate judicial process is not always carried out according to true democratic principles. One only has to think of the current terrorist laws which allow individuals to be detained for extended periods of time without proper reference to a true, i.e. jury-based, process.
The same accusation can also be levelled at the UK mental health system. One individual, an “approved social worker” (approved by whom?) decides the fate of another and not, necessarily, with knowledge of the ‘patients’ history. The ‘patient’ may have been disoriented due to the a priori process instigated by ‘officers of the law’, for instance. These people themselves have no knowledge of that individual as, due to the increased fragmentation of knowledge and power within ‘modern’ society, structures are inadequate in terms of fluid communications. The solution, therefore, is to apply the notion of ‘joined up thinking’ as multidisciplinary teams reach conclusions by consensus along the lines of established methods proffered in truly democratic courts of law. Anything else is ultimately unlawful, particularly in terms of human rights! No one person should decide the fate of another in a free society.
Bourdieu noted that there are three kinds of capital (the basis of power): social, cultural and economic. It does seem, that when the chips are down, economic capital becomes devalued hence social and cultural capital take on a greater meaning. This can leave those with only economic capital feeling as ‘outsiders’ much to their annoyance. Thus social – almost the opposite of economic capital in a capitalist society (for this system fosters greed and individualism) – becomes a far stronger form of power. Throw in a soupçon of cultural capital and the individual with such resources ‘in the bank’ assumes more power than those with economic capital alone. Hence, the budding revolutionary will attempt to alienate those with economic capital so that they begin to diminish the social capital. The problem in a meritocracy though, if it can be perceived as such, is that cultural capital cannot be taken away from an individual. Therefore, those with great economic capital and cultural capital could effectively be ‘at war’ with those with great social and cultural capital. The solution for the revolutionary is to attack the economic/cultural capitalists from the bastions of the social capitalists thus drawing upon strength in numbers – something which the former will be increasingly lacking die to the aforementioned greed/individualistic stance of this ‘class’. From this power base the revolutionary can then plan his or her campaign in peace, take their time and pursue a simple but worthy lifestyle safe in the knowledge that the social capitalists will provide a safety net should there be need for retreat.
There may be, however, times when an individual needs to be removed from society. For instance, if they are infected with a deadly disease, then they should be quarantined. For, if the disease was to spread then there is a possibility that the whole of society could become ill. However, upon taking this course of action, the team responsible for making this decision, i.e. if harm may come to the greater good, should invest wisdom in reaching their decision.
The problem is that if a decision is made in haste and without a multidisciplinary perspective coming to bear upon the situation then natural human biases – those preconditions which we all harbour – will affect the soundness of the decision. In other words we cannot allow a single individual – in a democratic society – to remove the freedom of another single individual. This is the bona fide error of current judicial systems. Granted a jury usually decides the fate of an individual on a consensus bases but ultimately it is the judge – the single individual – who decides the ‘sentence’ of another individual. However, this elaborate judicial process is not always carried out according to true democratic principles. One only has to think of the current terrorist laws which allow individuals to be detained for extended periods of time without proper reference to a true, i.e. jury-based, process.
The same accusation can also be levelled at the UK mental health system. One individual, an “approved social worker” (approved by whom?) decides the fate of another and not, necessarily, with knowledge of the ‘patients’ history. The ‘patient’ may have been disoriented due to the a priori process instigated by ‘officers of the law’, for instance. These people themselves have no knowledge of that individual as, due to the increased fragmentation of knowledge and power within ‘modern’ society, structures are inadequate in terms of fluid communications. The solution, therefore, is to apply the notion of ‘joined up thinking’ as multidisciplinary teams reach conclusions by consensus along the lines of established methods proffered in truly democratic courts of law. Anything else is ultimately unlawful, particularly in terms of human rights! No one person should decide the fate of another in a free society.
Bourdieu noted that there are three kinds of capital (the basis of power): social, cultural and economic. It does seem, that when the chips are down, economic capital becomes devalued hence social and cultural capital take on a greater meaning. This can leave those with only economic capital feeling as ‘outsiders’ much to their annoyance. Thus social – almost the opposite of economic capital in a capitalist society (for this system fosters greed and individualism) – becomes a far stronger form of power. Throw in a soupçon of cultural capital and the individual with such resources ‘in the bank’ assumes more power than those with economic capital alone. Hence, the budding revolutionary will attempt to alienate those with economic capital so that they begin to diminish the social capital. The problem in a meritocracy though, if it can be perceived as such, is that cultural capital cannot be taken away from an individual. Therefore, those with great economic capital and cultural capital could effectively be ‘at war’ with those with great social and cultural capital. The solution for the revolutionary is to attack the economic/cultural capitalists from the bastions of the social capitalists thus drawing upon strength in numbers – something which the former will be increasingly lacking die to the aforementioned greed/individualistic stance of this ‘class’. From this power base the revolutionary can then plan his or her campaign in peace, take their time and pursue a simple but worthy lifestyle safe in the knowledge that the social capitalists will provide a safety net should there be need for retreat.
Finaliser