Myths and mistranslations:
Jung in his Man and His Symbols argues that man rationally misinterpret symbols. His sexualised misconstruing is even more apparent today. It is less the sign and more the signifier. This is ironically the unfortunate reality of today’s drama. There are two things to take away: one is the relative necessity of religious ideals in symbolic over dogmatic. The second is the use of symbols to masquerade falsities.
I happened to be scrolling through YouTube and a bunch of creators were posting videos of gym creep accusations. While there is a problem of creeps (though personally, it doesn’t make these men necessarily evil. Maybe they’re horny and giving in to that urge, find the girl extremely sexy in her tight leggings, or some neurological issue). There is also an overstatement of the issue when it is not true. Recently Joey Swoll, a prominent influencer commented on these videos debunking their legitimacy. One girl who accused a man of being a creep eventually apologised though with no actual attempt at compensation or restitution. The question though is less the creepiness and more the automatic accusation that has been ingrained in the psyche. If a man looks your way he is creeping. Admittedly, it is possible that they are faking and just trying get likes by playing the victim but let us give the benefit of the doubt.
Male glancing is instantly concluded as creepiness. This grand narrative has been being pushed forward. It emerged as a defence manoeuvre in the wake of the metoo movement. Women were being harassed now let’s get it on tape and expose them. With greater awareness and sympathy justice can be dealt. The problem is it takes a total one eighty. Caricatures are created to save face. To compensate for the wrongdoings of the past. Since people weren’t accountable in the past, we must ensure they will today. The sign is immediately portrayed with little context. If a few people get innocently caught in the cross fire so be it. If people’s reputation is destroyed in the process its worthwhile for the greater good. In the long run this will have a grander affect. This philosophy is dangerous and disastrous. It is playing the long game. It is also okay with a few bad apples though is an understatement. The outpouring of the sign turns this into a lot of bad apples. Quantifiably we’re talking about hundreds of people, that is not a small sample.
Yet, the greatest issue is how it plays in the psyche. Automatically, with a swift glance alarm bells go off. Creep alert sirens the neural pathways. It frightens but is merely a ghost in disguise. It creates an accusation with little basis and no context. He is looking in my direction it must be with malice. It begins to underestimate the reality of the situation. It turns every scenario into a daring episode. Overcompensating with falsities. The narrative becomes if a man looks in your direction he must be a creep. This logic is absolutely flawed and yet people respond in the affirmative. These girls posting their workout videos (ironically in their sexy tight clothing for the whole world to see) make a fuss and their commenters defend them with little investigation. It becomes a given. The sign of a man looking is creeper. The signifier emboldens the narrative in believing that this is the way the world is. Any man who glances in the vicinity is deemed a creep. Engraving in stone as an ontological truth. Psychologically, it manifests as intuitive. He is staring even if he is really looking past you or merely looking up. It is an exaggeration built on stereotypical victimisation.
This current frame is perpetuating much of the metoo ideals. The scare is how it does not care to bulldoze the innocent. Take the case of rape. The slogan believe every women is dubious. Women lie and cheat. Angry at an ex boyfriend they can make up a story and they have. The multitude of stories of men wrongfully convicted on ideological bigotry is astounding. The justice system failed them. Even after finding out the lie they still refused to acknowledge or compensate the victim. It is his fault for being a man. He is paying for humanity’s crimes. The grand narrative that emerges in its ontological truth is women are always right. It begins to erode any sense of fairness and verification to the narrative. Stories are irrelevant as long as the boy cried wolf. If the excuse is utilised the rationale is ignored and the accused immobilised. This has already spread into other categories of female automatic correctness against men. Failing to acknowledge the possibility of lying or misunderstanding is truly problematic.
Stepping away from the feminist route whereby men are accosted, this grand narrativising is also prevalent in racist propaganda as well. Many have taken to twitter to express their utter disgust at the existence of men. They are considered evil. The same goes for white people who are all apparently racist. Many black people will defend their own bigotry at best as discriminatory but never rascist. Only white people can be racist. Due to their horrid past (American slavery was not that old compared to the other countries). Intentionally ignoring the thousands of years of slavery by people of all cultures and skin colour. Beyond the historicity, it is claimed that for being white one is racist. Their existence is lynched with original sin. They go beyond nurture and strike their nature as the cause of blatant inferiority. The race-baiting push in schools and media only inflames the idea. They are pulling us back into a black-white world. Instead of looking past colour to integrate by merit, colour is pushed to the forefront. Culminating into ad hominem narcissistic idiocy.
Thinking about the classification of bigots turns to islamic terrorists. Not every Muslim is a terrorist nor is every gazan or afghan. Dehumanising them at terrorists eases the conquest. If they are all evil then they deserve to die. Less horror on the conscious. It produces a more comforting perception of reality. Protecting the innocent from the dangerous terrorists. Fuelling the citizenry to champion the state’s cause in democratising the world or protecting their interests. Yet, this creates a neurological phenomena which pins all Arabs as terrorists. If they are killed in the cross fires then there is one less terrorist. It ironically entirely muddles the idea that persistent bombing haunted the innocent victims who then turned to terrorism as a last resort for their safety. They saw their role as resistant fighters to defend against the tormenting invaders. The aggressor is only a peace seeker despite the collateral damage. The psyche calms the nerves reminding the mission and the adversary’s moot identity.
Lyotard’s attempt to deconstruct meta-narratives has only be revamped with new ones. While socialism was evil and capitalism was good now it is the inverse. Switching extremes is never the solution. It seems more of punching down and seeking revenge than trying to move forward. Stabbing those who admit to their past faults and are trying to change. Calling innocent people out for one’s own gain is selfish and malicious. Most people are good and wish to live their lives. Not everyone is perfect but most are minding their own business. Attempting to capture or paint an illusion is morbidly blasphemous. The signifiers may actually be doing this in good faith. Falling into the grand narrative, they believe they are being targeted. They are sucked into a phobic box. Yet it is the grand characterisation that is false. The blanket statement is almost never true. It only hurts innocents in the process and that if captures the villainous is a tragedy that cannot be upheld. While the signifier is free the accused is lumped with the actual bad and destroys their credibility.
Signalling the core of the oppressed in these situations moves for overcompensation. Hurt by certain groups generates animosity towards the entire group. For Jews, where all Germans Nazis? Did they hate Jews because they refused to help? Many didn’t help because they feared for their lives. The SS would have butchered them if they saved Jews. Fearing for the family’s safety they yielded their assistance. Damning a group for a few’s actions is lethargic and demonic. The ratio of oppressor to his group is so low. It is embarrassing. Actions of the few do not vindicate the many. There are always a few bad apples in every group. Yet it is even more important to dig deeper to why they did what they did. Where does this oppressing derive? Why do most people not do it, yet a few do? The psychotic originality in hurting others is a specified account that must include details. Stop gaslighting the public with shameful attempts for retribution under a false guise. Dissect the situation before accusing malice.
No comments:
Post a Comment