Some people, that claim that they want to change the world for better, seem to be obsessed with what they call “structures of power”, or “systems of power”. The reasoning seems to be that, if there are injustices, it is because people on top, who have more power, are unfair with the people in the bottom, who have less power. Then, for some people, even ugly violence could be justifiable to “shift this balance”.
Well, “Power” is not a fiction, it exists, and looking at all the suffering in the world, you can come to the conclusion that the people who have a lot of power are not being nice. But to me, it seems that the trick here is in the definition of “structure” or “system”.
In your mind, you can put together absolutely everything that exist in a society, or in the whole world, from ice cream parlors to wall street and to prisons, and say it is all one big “system”. It’s ironnical and inexplicable that a lot of people who see things this way don’t consider the Academia as part of the “big system”, but let’s continue.
When you want to change a system, I think you should stop to think if you want to change just the demography of who is closer to the top and who is not, or do you want to change the “modus operandi” of that system. Or do you think that changing the first will automatically change the second?
So, what would be the modus operandi of the system we are in? I think we could say there is economical power and political power, and they mingle. But I am sure that we are not going anywhere if we don’t also consider greed, envy, cowardice, lust for a comfortable position and things like that. Because human lust is precisely what makes a lot of people in position of power use their position for evil.
They want to guarantee their position. Even if someone new appears and seem to be more productive, or more talented, or more generous, they want to stay on top. And they use their resources for that. And they will use other people’s oportunism, careerism and cowardice.
This, obviously, is older than “burgeousie”, or the modern industry. Power is one of the oldest issues in Civilization. Any enterprise needs some kind of leadership. We can’t buy Eden’s innocence back. If we destroyed all the guns and all the money and dressed in white robes with flowers, we would have to watch each other every second, lest someone “reinvent” those things and become a new demigod.
So the ideal situation would be that people in power don’t use that power to anything that is not related to the job the world needs him to do, and don’t consider the power itself more important than honesty and generosity.
Now that is something hard for humanity to achieve, isn’t it? And why? Because of our lust for power, that is related to our frustrations and our fears. But if we believe that mankind can be better than it is, the best thing that the society can do is to guarantee some flexibility in power. That is, that it never becomes impossible that people in power ever lose their position.
Even with all the bad things that greed brought to our society, I am glad that I can freely talk to someone I love about my hopes and even my crazy dreams, in a nice ice cream parlor. It is better to live in a society where power is, at least, defiable. Undefiable power is the ultimate dream of the worst people, or can you deny that?
Now back to that “some people” I spoke about in the begining of this chapter, the people who want “shifts in the balance of power” at any cost, I ask: Should we welcome systems where the power is much less defiable, and will become even less defiable every day, because people of your favourite “color” are on top?
That, of course, brings us to the topic of “representation”. I do think it is a good thing that we have people of all backgrounds in all fields of human activity. I definitely do, but I have good and bad news. The good news: If you divide humanity by ethnicity – or by sexual definitions, by the way – you will not find one single group where you can buy absolutely everybody’s principle for money or other selfish advantages. Now the bad news: you will also not find one single group where you can’t buy nobody.
This sounds sad, but it sets us free to look at our neighbours and consider not only their cultural backgrounds – which are important – but also their singularities. It’s a richer world.
And this, of course, have a lot to do with modern education. Because kids are being taught that the racial problems of the past – like slavery, which is a fact and must be remembered – put the kids themselves in separate groups according to their race. If you have an ancestor who was a murderer, what can you do? If you become the best you that you can be, isn’t that enough? To some modern teachers, it isn’t.
If one individual, who has ancestors that have done something bad, had the power to totally end the world’s injustice all by himself, he should definitely do that. But the fact is that noboy, absolutely nobody, has this power. Especially kids.
So what happens in the end? Some people will be put in eternal debt. But who is going to be the creditor? The poor black boy? Well, he can have a little bit of the fleeting adrenaline of revenge, but for most, it will be all. If he wants to collect some dough from this kind of education, he will have to play the game according to someone else’s rule and be aproved by a long line of teachers, in the old funnel style, till he gets to the top. Kind of get to the top.
In other words, what would give more freedom and power to oppressed groups: to be able to find their allies for themselves, looking in the eyes and talking to other individuals, so they can find partners for creative ideas, or to be convinced that only within their ethnic group there can be any answer, and so they should wait for the “representants” that will be chosen by the Academia and the Big Press, or the Industry of Entertainment?
Of course these modern teachers have an exit to offer to “privileged” kids: subscribe to an over intellectual world view before they can even understand it. And here is the irony: the opressed will be forced to do that too, otherwise they can be called “traitors”.
So, what exactly is being changed and into what? Everywhere, including the Academia, “being friend to the right people” will continue to be a rule hard to defy. Possible – at least until now – but hard.
And all this loss in flexibility of power comes with what reward? A “shift in the balance of power”? Every “successful” dictator looked down to the “shifts in the balance of power” bellow him and laughed.
It makes absolutely no sense to tell anybody that they should fight for anything other than their most beautiful dreams of freedom and peace. And for beautiful ice cream parlors, which you seem to like too.
Yes, you can stimulate the people you say you love to hate their neighbours while your comfort seem to be far more guaranteed than theirs – even if they “win” for you, whatever that means – but I challenge you to “shift” this:
Nothing tends to change with less flexibility.
