“READ MY LIPS”

The political system itself has Individualism[i] as a fundamental foundation and driving force. It’s a silent/hidden but all pervading set of values that have been with us as an undercurrent. Nevertheless it is everywhere in popular culture, in mass media, in all manner of messages that we subliminally are exposed to on a daily basis.

The culture of individualism has propelled Naturalism in Arts[ii] (in the arts context it’s essentially a concern with form/style) to the forefront of both politics and media. In a way, they are a match made in heaven. Naturalism simplifies the language by which politics is translated to the public. It is basic, highly emotional, mostly devoid of fact or reason, and essentially binary in its approach – perfect for mass media consumption. When Bush junior went on TV announcing “either you’re with us or against us”, he was using it to maximum effect in a language and rationale that had impact and was easy to understand (for himself included). It’s the tabloid language with predicted cause/effect and us V other. We only have to look at the UK news landscape to see that this is – and has been – in full swing for years now.

This affects culture in its wider sense. When we look at papers like The Sun or The Daily Mail, we see the very same device being used over and over again. Reality becomes a voyeuristic spectacle, communication becomes a tragic parody, truth becomes the real casualty, and all of us, sooner or later will suffer, in our daily life, in our communities and in the country as a whole.

“the use of naturalism in its content increases exposure and therefore income”

The reason for media outlets and papers to do this is manifold of course. Besides the political control they exercise, it’s also the attention they get from hits, viewers and readers that will give them the highest income through advertising. While this means of income is commonplace, the use of arts naturalism in its content increases exposure and therefore income. This logic is not looking at a society as communities of citizens but rather as individual consumers. This emphasis has set the scene for where we are now, for this has become the fertile ground of populism.

 

OMO TREATMENT

We are all “consumers” of course, but the emphasis on people as consumers – as opposed to citizens – has neglected every other aspect of one’s existence and purpose[iii]. So much so that people became consumers of politics[iv]. This alongside the language of advertising, creating desire – equally made of sound bites – has cemented the ground for a logic where populism thrives: short messages; simple logic; instantaneous gratification.

This relationship to politics from citizens to consumers represents a huge shift in the cultural landscape. One is more collective, multilayered, multidimensional, It’s a continuous process and has a critical outlook while the other is rather more individual, superficial, one dimensional, rash impulsive, precipitated, short on fuse and short on process, but high on expectation. They operate in diametrically opposite time scales.

The consumer of politics (as opposed to citizen) has a relationship with politics in the same way that they have with consumer goods. 

The consumer of politics (as opposed to citizen) has a relationship with politics in the same way that they have with consumer goods. This relationship amounts to the same degree as buying a custard pie in a coffee shop. While the relation of consumer > custard pie is for the most part balanced, the other, consumer > politics is noticeable for its superficiality and by leaving them exempt of any responsibility in the process whilst more open to manipulation.

Nevertheless, it has the ability of making people think they are in control of a process when in fact they are not. They become fair game in the public discourse. The idea of one becoming consumer of politics is consistent with an exacerbation of Individualism. It leaves these consumers isolated with ownership of nothing, and prey to wider policies they are not aware of.

This is in harmony with neo-liberal market economics. It’s no accident that the UK is one the richest countries in the world and yet poverty and food banks have become a feature across the land.

One recurrent manifestation of this is the vox pops often shown on tv where people say “we voted for Brexit; just get on with it’, but are unable to articulate anything else. On a tv news programme a market stall holder selling one single article was saying just that. When asked about what would happen to his business, selling a variety of Greek olives, he became suddenly perplexed looking at his olives, as if until then he was unable to make any correlation between the two. This scene has been repeated over and over again, with other people.

Populism too dilutes the complexity but reaches out for the human prejudices. It knows the majority of its audience enough to use the same devices as the tabloid press. It focus on people grievances (often neglected by main stream politics) and channels their frustrations with easy, simple sound bites playing on their fears, by antagonizing their prejudices and exploiting their resentment. It is almost as if it gives them what they want – it gives them, as consumers of politics, the Omo treatment: Adds Brightness to Whiteness.

Added to the current technology environment, where we all became publishers, this logic becomes more widespread, further entrenched, vitriolic and threatening.

 

YOU HAVE TO BE IN IT

So what can be done? How can campaigns be effective, have success and effect change. There’s no single answer. At one end there’s the rich data and machine learning that informs a strategy, and on the other there’s door-to-door canvassing. Between these two polar opposites, there are a myriad of ways to drive a campaign into the public domain.

One thing that the Brexit referendum tells us is to rethink again how to go about it. Brexit in a way is in a league of its own given the issue, the specific historical circumstances and its wider context. However, the main campaign centre rationalized it in ways that were contra to conventional wisdom. Its approach had both the benefits of digital data and far more conventional approaches. At its heart, tailor made simple messages and slogans captured the public imagination. In other words, its success was not based on one-size fits all, but rather on a wealth of approaches often tailored to a very specific target audience. It brought promise, belief and empowerment to an otherwise neglected landscape. Despite the ethical questions one may raise in terms of its messages, we have to recognise and learn from this experience.

Extremists do pretty much the same: they work on their message for its audience, and use a variety of means of dissemination. We only need to look at history to see that they embrace new media (Nazis and ‘Triumph of the Will”).

They understand their audience and exploit their fears, prejudices and desires. We know this is the case, but how come individuals become extremist? How come you are not one? No one becomes an extremist overnight. It is a process and this process involves a search for answers – mostly found online.

“No one becomes an extremist overnight. It is a process and this process involves a search for answers”

In order to be part of that conversation, we need to understand these people too; in essence we need to know what makes them tick and the mechanisms by which they became extremist. And use these as a Trojan horse, to be part of that conversation, wherever they take place.

 

IT’S A NON LINEAR WORLD

This is the logic but the actual implementation is far more complex. We know that the 15-second sound bite is all people will hear. Aggravated by the sense of living in a post-truth world, where truth is no longer the pillar of belief and rational debate, but rather as to what it is that one wants to believe irrespective of being truthful or not.

The implementation is likely to be made up of several approaches, all working in the same direction. It’s not just about advocacy v public engagement. It is everything, from data and machine learning to sound bites, from actual action by the real politic to local communities. It involves the re-appropriation of the conversation to bring it to meaningful debate, which has been hijacked by a concerted effort across the West. It may involve using the narrative and tech devices they use (and their potential audience understand) and bring the conversation back from grip of extremist views.

It’s no use to simply bombard people with facts – as facts have no feelings 

It’s is also a matter of making the wider concepts easier to grasp. It’s no use to simply bombard people with facts – as facts have no feelings – as they’re often useless for people who feel victimised and (are) disenfranchised by a system that ignores them (you only have to ask the question to yourself, were you in their predicament).

People are more likely to care about the story of someone they identify with (next of kin, next door neighbor – relevant to me, people like me) than anything else. And caring is the key to action and shaping history. Communicating through well told relevant stories motivates one to action and to seek a clearer perception of the facts.

There’s no single narrative, neither is this rational versus emotional: it is both. This re-appropriation of the debate is not just necessary, it is urgent and it needs every path and avenue to reach out and bring about positive change.

But even so the key to bring people back from the brink, is one and one alone: and that is Hope, for without it there’s little else to inspire action and change. It’s time to make Chapter 21 (the deleted chapter in A Clockwork Orange) part of the narrative.

It’s time for Political Pixel to go guerrilla.

 

 

---

[i] We are unique as individuals and to be celebrated but the term is used here in the context of Conservative and neo-liberalism politics as it has become the dominant underlying current. An exacerbation of Individualism means that one is only moved by self-interest.

In Wikipedia on Neoliberalism (referring to Chile but it could be the UK): “ In 1978, policies that would reduce the role of the state and infuse competition and individualism into areas such as labor relations, pensions, health and education were introduced.^[6] These policies resulted in widening inequality as they negatively impacted the wages, benefits and working conditions of Chile’s working class”

Wikipedia on Individualism : Competitive individualism: It is a form of individualism that arises from competitive systems. The function of the system is to maintain an inequality in the society and fields of human engagement. This pins the ups and downs of a person’s life onto themselves by not acknowledging a range of factors like influence of socioeconomic class, race, gender, etc. It supports the privilege theories that affirms position of certain individuals higher in the hierarchy of ranks at the expense of others.

[ii] Naturalism – a strand of Realism. (Not to be confused with Naturalism in a science-based worldview).

The term is used here in the context of Arts and specifically to representation. The easiest way to describe it is the uses of heighten emotion. In TV that is the extreme close up for the dropping tear of the soap’s character to elicit an emotional response.

All links below refer to Naturalism in the Arts:

From Wikipedia: In the 19th century “Naturalism” or the “Naturalist school” was somewhat artificially erected as a term representing a breakaway sub-movement of Realism, that attempted (not wholly successfully) to distinguish itself from its parent by its avoidance of politics and social issues, and liked to proclaim a quasi-scientific basis, playing on the sense of “naturalist” as a student of Natural history, as the biological sciences were then generally known.

In What is the Difference Between Naturalism and Realism?The difference between Realism and Naturalism in (say) painting, is twofold. First, realism tends to be concerned with content rather than method. That is to say, it focuses on the issue of “who” or “what” is being painted, rather than “how” it is painted. Typically, realist artists depict common people going about their ordinary lives, rather than grand individuals performing some kind of heroic or noble act. In contrast, naturalism is all about “how” a subject is painted, rather than “who” or “what” it is

in Differences Between Realism and Naturalism: “Realism sought to be a faithful representation of life, while naturalism was more like a “chronicle of despair.” In a way, naturalism proceeded from realism, and can be seen as an exaggerated form of realism; it shows humans as being determined by environment, heredity, and social conditions beyond their control, and thus rather helpless to escape their circumstances”

NATURALISM IN ART AND LITERATURE: “Norris’s characters were flawed, often overwrought, brutes whose nature was determined by genetic and environmental factors. Their pursuit of money underscored uncontrollable drives; naturalism was now focusing on obsessive traits”

Realism and Naturalism Theatre Conventions: “realistic plays often see the protagonist (main character) rise up against the odds to assert him/herself against an injustice of some kin Versus  (in Naturalism) characters in naturalistic plays are considered victims of their own circumstance and this is why they behave in certain ways (they are seen as helpless products of their environment)

What’s the Difference Between Realism & Naturalism?

[iii] When a University canteen becomes a restaurant despite no obvious difference, you know that a change in perception is afoot.

[iv] Consumer of politics, not to be confused with Consumer Politics, which has to do with demanding better standards from commercial entities and uses to the power of the purse to achieve change,Consumer Politics has everything to do with citizenship while Consumer of politics does not.