Enlightenment v.2.0
Modern society seems to have lost its taste for consensus, its appreciation of shared values. If a couple of decades ago there was a drive for democracy in what we today call the "young democracies", and a craving for a market economy and a modern civilizational choice, now that's all mostly gone. But a similar process is going on in the older and more advanced democracies as well (Germany, France, to name but a few). People are losing their trust in the traditional parties too easily, as the mainstream parties are looking increasingly similar to each other, sharing the same cold pragmatism and the same goals, methods and rhetoric.
The mainstream media are losing their appeal as well, having worked along the lines of the idea of the "useful consensus" for decades. More and more analysts are ringing the alarm: the Western society is in crisis, there's a real struggle, people are confused and too susceptible to radicalization. This can be particularly clearly seen in the media, who've been going through a transformation. The media democracy that we're so used to, where the big mainstream media had a central role, is now gradually becoming a democracy of indignation dwelling in the hidden digital space of blogging, social media, and encouraged by invisible semi-anonymity. The traditional centers of power and the media monopolies are losing ground. Now anyone can say anything, and demand that it be viewed with the same validity as any other assertion. And then we end up with everyone being outraged with everyone else, and about anything they could think of.
This also fully applies to the schizophrenic, hysteric world of internet conspiracy theorists. It's a fact that the Internet has provided the perfect ground for the thriving of an infinite number of crazy theories, and an alarming number of people, after getting exposed to that stuff, get caught into its webs, and take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. That's a natural reaction to the long dominance of the mainstream media and the established political narrative - now people want and love to diverge from consensus in politics and the media, often just for the sake of it, for the sake of saying "No, I have a brain, and I can use it on my own". Even if that means ironically falling prey to another sort of manipulation.
Never in history have people had such immediate and easy access to so much information. And never have so many people had the opportunity to say whatever they're thinking, or whatever they consider to be true. Today, practically anyone has all the tools for making up their own reality within a hand's reach - to the point of being able to shake up the very foundations of established authority with ease. And that may be good news, because this way there's little room left for dictators and despots, and even less for complacency among the political elites. In the meantime though, it has never been so difficult to get a clear picture of the world, amidst the whirlpool of self-contradictory information. Every person could find arguments in favor of their own "truth", as long as they have access and enough time to look for them. There are all sorts of rumors and insinuations, and yes, conspiracy theories too, in the world-wide web. We've reached a point where it all looks as if there's a new cultural battle going on all around the place.
So is this the beginning of some sort of Counter-Enlightenment age? Are the hordes of disillusioned, angry, radicalized sectarians in the Internet capable of erasing the achievements of Enlightenment? Is that cultural battle affecting people's growing distrust in the state, the rebellion against the elites? Or it's just that the time has come that all classical authorities (church, state, parties, media) are no longer able to convince people in their usefulness? They sure are no longer keeping people's trust just by virtue of their position. In other words, this could actually be an Enlightenment v.2.0, if we look at it from a positive angle.
While most conspiracy theories do sound preposterous and even comical, there's a reason that they exist. For those who believe that the whole world order is constructed by powerful Jewish families controlling the puppet governments, that the number of Holocaust victims has been wildly exaggerated, that the commercial airplanes in the sky are brainwashing people into obedience with their "chemtrails", there's a reason for all this craziness.
There are entire book industries revolving around those beliefs, they vomit vast amounts of books yearly, and they rely on maintaining this sensation of anxiety and distrust among their public, and exploiting people's proneness to healthy skepticism and distrust in the traditional authorities, and driving it to extremes. And their business is thriving. There are all sorts of stories in their portfolio: from the standard Illuminati stories, to ones about aliens, or purporting to give recipes for cancer treatment with vitamins. I recently came across a title on the bookshelves claiming to know the "truth" about the Charlie Hebdo attack, asserting that it was the beginning of a new totalitarian Europe, i.e. a false-flag operation. Many of these titles are published explicitly to provoke the "powers that be" in the big book publishing business. Or with the purpose of "teaching the controversy", and fostering discussion just for the sake of it. But mostly, to make money.
On the other hand, a well-planned, well-measured, aggressive position of confrontation with the elites and the established institutions, may have nothing to do with pluralism or encouraging various opinions. It may well be aiming to replace one dogma with another. It's notable that the elites are often attacked in the Internet without supporting evidence, just with allegation and insinuation, often with lies, fraud, manipulation, and of course, claims of conspiracy. Thus, a notion is gaining momentum that the whole societal consensus is actually a lie, with which the elites are keeping the "sheeple" in subordination. Against the "wide coalition" of the politicians, gradually a new, arrogant "coalition of the Nay-sayers" is taking shape. And it's already hijacking large portions of the political discourse, and proposing various radical alternatives that aim to distract the public from the rational solutions. Because, you know, radicalism must be the only way to restore the lost freedom and sovereignty of the individual in politics, right?
In the meantime, the mass consumer of information is conveniently being offered simple and black-and-white explanations, ones that he's been missing for ages under the relentless avalanche of contradictory information. The situation in the Middle East, for instance, is a result of centuries of complex historical developments, religious and ethnic particularities, the influence of a number of external factors, and a myriad of economic processes. But the mass info consumer would hardly make an effort to understand all that, so they often gladly swallow whatever neatly packaged simple explanations they're being served: either it all boils down to oil and money, or those who've led occupation wars in said region are entirely to blame, or the big arms producers constantly looking for new markets, etc. In the end, it's all about "the Jews" again, or the CIA, or worse, the shape-shifting lizardoid Andromedan Illuminati; and of course Europe is just an obedient US puppet. Or something.
The conspiracy theories are misleading mostly with the impossibility to be refuted. The conspiracy theorists reject the entire official information stream, but they don't doubt the veracity of their own mind-droppings and pseudo-informations even for a second. It's patently clear to them that there's no way to prove the existence of a particular conspiracy plot - which, paradoxically, is used by them as an argument to prove how elaborate said plot is.
The problem is, if there's no longer a common truth that's shared by everyone, if each individual has their own individual truth, then one of the foundations of society is under threat: trust. And this affects the entire society. Now that many people are fed up with the public consensus and their boredom is manifested in various distractions like the above-mentioned, and an escape into imaginary parallel realities, that must ring a bell that democracy is in deep crisis. Besides, democracy is now developing into a whole new direction. Whereas it used to be about the clash of social classes, ideologies and political parties, now it has become vertical - the political elite has fortified themselves above, and the distrusting folk has entrenched themselves below, and are slinging mud upwards in desperation. If there used to be a time when people were genuinely proud (or ashamed) of "their" representative in Paris, London, DC or Brussels, now the prevalent feeling is that of suspicion that said MP mostly gives a damn about their own well-being, not that of their constituents. And this situation is not going to change any time soon.
Take Germany for a more particular example. The evidence for what I've said above is mounting. In the last months, the leader of the most powerful country in Europe has seemed to be content with the fact she was being wiretapped by a key ally; her government was first formulating demands for Greece, and in the next moment quitting same demands, much to the anger of their constituents; there's currently a broad ruling coalition not sharing any particular principle or program, only existing for stability's sake, and practically embodying exactly the notion of a collusion among the "big" against the "small".
And the danger comes not so much from the distrust and outright hatred that's running right through the middle of society. The real danger emerges at the moment when the conspiracy theorists decide that all this is warranting the use of violence, and when they start "opening people's eyes" with "other means". The various pseudo-prophets who constantly blabber about a media plot against the people are living in the parallel reality of their own internet forums and blogs, finding constant validation from each other and mutually amplifying the signal, and are convinced that we're now in a war situation which makes the variety of alternative solutions no longer necessary or desirable - and some of them figure it's time to enforce their particular "individual truth" through force. That's basically what drives suicide bombers and terrorists, and the Islamic State, and Anders Breivik, and all similar ideological fanatics.
Berthold Brecht once suggested something that sounded absurd. He proposed that the radio should not only broadcast stuff for listeners, but it should also receive their messages. Today this idea is practically reality. The modern media is a two-way street, which seems like the main prerequisite for an Enlightenment v.2.0. Because that's exactly what Enlightenment is about: putting authority to doubt, using one's own brain. Modernity may've finally arrived, and it's transforming politics. And if the politicians refuse or are unable to adjust to that new reality, they're doomed to oblivion. And they better be prepared to step up to the challenge, otherwise the power vacuum that they'd leave could be filled with stuff that's really toxic.
Don't get me wrong. Society, even modern society, will always seek authorities to look up to. It's just that the old ones are no longer enjoying the trust of their constituents the way they used to. People are craving to have the truth - the real truth. But in the process of looking for it, they often fall prey to the conspiracy theorists, who offer an easily digestible, fascinating, non-boring, simple explanation to otherwise complex phenomena. And thus, mainstream politics is quickly losing its credibility, and the media is sinking even faster. And they both have to blame themselves and no one else for that, because they've failed to divorce themselves from their old habits: maintaining a one-way communication with their base. Whether the old-fashioned folks among us like it or not, the old ideologies have been replaced with pragmatism in politics. Today, most mainstream parties exhibit similar traits, share similar principles and programs, they see societal development in a similar way. But many people are craving for a real political clash, they want to see a fight, they expect that the parties would position themselves in diametrically opposite directions, even if one or more of those positions is too idealistic. People want real alternatives to be picking up from. Not a cabal of like-minded fat-cats who only care about the preservation of the status quo.
So what could be done at this point? Well, politics is a funny beast - it tends to self-regulate one way or another. It's now teaming with alternative ideologies, some too radical, others just re-fashioned versions of older ones. We will have pluralism, and differing opinions, even if some turn out to be just crazy and maybe even dangerous. As for the media, the journalists will be viewing their own work with increasing criticism, and they will learn to differentiate between information and opinion, between fact and context. And finally, both politicians and the media will learn to trust people's ability to make their own assessment, and they will learn to trust this new emerging bottoms-up Enlightenment v.2.0. If they don't do it on their own, they'll be forced to.
The mainstream media are losing their appeal as well, having worked along the lines of the idea of the "useful consensus" for decades. More and more analysts are ringing the alarm: the Western society is in crisis, there's a real struggle, people are confused and too susceptible to radicalization. This can be particularly clearly seen in the media, who've been going through a transformation. The media democracy that we're so used to, where the big mainstream media had a central role, is now gradually becoming a democracy of indignation dwelling in the hidden digital space of blogging, social media, and encouraged by invisible semi-anonymity. The traditional centers of power and the media monopolies are losing ground. Now anyone can say anything, and demand that it be viewed with the same validity as any other assertion. And then we end up with everyone being outraged with everyone else, and about anything they could think of.
This also fully applies to the schizophrenic, hysteric world of internet conspiracy theorists. It's a fact that the Internet has provided the perfect ground for the thriving of an infinite number of crazy theories, and an alarming number of people, after getting exposed to that stuff, get caught into its webs, and take the bait, hook, line, and sinker. That's a natural reaction to the long dominance of the mainstream media and the established political narrative - now people want and love to diverge from consensus in politics and the media, often just for the sake of it, for the sake of saying "No, I have a brain, and I can use it on my own". Even if that means ironically falling prey to another sort of manipulation.
Never in history have people had such immediate and easy access to so much information. And never have so many people had the opportunity to say whatever they're thinking, or whatever they consider to be true. Today, practically anyone has all the tools for making up their own reality within a hand's reach - to the point of being able to shake up the very foundations of established authority with ease. And that may be good news, because this way there's little room left for dictators and despots, and even less for complacency among the political elites. In the meantime though, it has never been so difficult to get a clear picture of the world, amidst the whirlpool of self-contradictory information. Every person could find arguments in favor of their own "truth", as long as they have access and enough time to look for them. There are all sorts of rumors and insinuations, and yes, conspiracy theories too, in the world-wide web. We've reached a point where it all looks as if there's a new cultural battle going on all around the place.
So is this the beginning of some sort of Counter-Enlightenment age? Are the hordes of disillusioned, angry, radicalized sectarians in the Internet capable of erasing the achievements of Enlightenment? Is that cultural battle affecting people's growing distrust in the state, the rebellion against the elites? Or it's just that the time has come that all classical authorities (church, state, parties, media) are no longer able to convince people in their usefulness? They sure are no longer keeping people's trust just by virtue of their position. In other words, this could actually be an Enlightenment v.2.0, if we look at it from a positive angle.
While most conspiracy theories do sound preposterous and even comical, there's a reason that they exist. For those who believe that the whole world order is constructed by powerful Jewish families controlling the puppet governments, that the number of Holocaust victims has been wildly exaggerated, that the commercial airplanes in the sky are brainwashing people into obedience with their "chemtrails", there's a reason for all this craziness.
There are entire book industries revolving around those beliefs, they vomit vast amounts of books yearly, and they rely on maintaining this sensation of anxiety and distrust among their public, and exploiting people's proneness to healthy skepticism and distrust in the traditional authorities, and driving it to extremes. And their business is thriving. There are all sorts of stories in their portfolio: from the standard Illuminati stories, to ones about aliens, or purporting to give recipes for cancer treatment with vitamins. I recently came across a title on the bookshelves claiming to know the "truth" about the Charlie Hebdo attack, asserting that it was the beginning of a new totalitarian Europe, i.e. a false-flag operation. Many of these titles are published explicitly to provoke the "powers that be" in the big book publishing business. Or with the purpose of "teaching the controversy", and fostering discussion just for the sake of it. But mostly, to make money.
On the other hand, a well-planned, well-measured, aggressive position of confrontation with the elites and the established institutions, may have nothing to do with pluralism or encouraging various opinions. It may well be aiming to replace one dogma with another. It's notable that the elites are often attacked in the Internet without supporting evidence, just with allegation and insinuation, often with lies, fraud, manipulation, and of course, claims of conspiracy. Thus, a notion is gaining momentum that the whole societal consensus is actually a lie, with which the elites are keeping the "sheeple" in subordination. Against the "wide coalition" of the politicians, gradually a new, arrogant "coalition of the Nay-sayers" is taking shape. And it's already hijacking large portions of the political discourse, and proposing various radical alternatives that aim to distract the public from the rational solutions. Because, you know, radicalism must be the only way to restore the lost freedom and sovereignty of the individual in politics, right?
In the meantime, the mass consumer of information is conveniently being offered simple and black-and-white explanations, ones that he's been missing for ages under the relentless avalanche of contradictory information. The situation in the Middle East, for instance, is a result of centuries of complex historical developments, religious and ethnic particularities, the influence of a number of external factors, and a myriad of economic processes. But the mass info consumer would hardly make an effort to understand all that, so they often gladly swallow whatever neatly packaged simple explanations they're being served: either it all boils down to oil and money, or those who've led occupation wars in said region are entirely to blame, or the big arms producers constantly looking for new markets, etc. In the end, it's all about "the Jews" again, or the CIA, or worse, the shape-shifting lizardoid Andromedan Illuminati; and of course Europe is just an obedient US puppet. Or something.
The conspiracy theories are misleading mostly with the impossibility to be refuted. The conspiracy theorists reject the entire official information stream, but they don't doubt the veracity of their own mind-droppings and pseudo-informations even for a second. It's patently clear to them that there's no way to prove the existence of a particular conspiracy plot - which, paradoxically, is used by them as an argument to prove how elaborate said plot is.
The problem is, if there's no longer a common truth that's shared by everyone, if each individual has their own individual truth, then one of the foundations of society is under threat: trust. And this affects the entire society. Now that many people are fed up with the public consensus and their boredom is manifested in various distractions like the above-mentioned, and an escape into imaginary parallel realities, that must ring a bell that democracy is in deep crisis. Besides, democracy is now developing into a whole new direction. Whereas it used to be about the clash of social classes, ideologies and political parties, now it has become vertical - the political elite has fortified themselves above, and the distrusting folk has entrenched themselves below, and are slinging mud upwards in desperation. If there used to be a time when people were genuinely proud (or ashamed) of "their" representative in Paris, London, DC or Brussels, now the prevalent feeling is that of suspicion that said MP mostly gives a damn about their own well-being, not that of their constituents. And this situation is not going to change any time soon.
Take Germany for a more particular example. The evidence for what I've said above is mounting. In the last months, the leader of the most powerful country in Europe has seemed to be content with the fact she was being wiretapped by a key ally; her government was first formulating demands for Greece, and in the next moment quitting same demands, much to the anger of their constituents; there's currently a broad ruling coalition not sharing any particular principle or program, only existing for stability's sake, and practically embodying exactly the notion of a collusion among the "big" against the "small".
And the danger comes not so much from the distrust and outright hatred that's running right through the middle of society. The real danger emerges at the moment when the conspiracy theorists decide that all this is warranting the use of violence, and when they start "opening people's eyes" with "other means". The various pseudo-prophets who constantly blabber about a media plot against the people are living in the parallel reality of their own internet forums and blogs, finding constant validation from each other and mutually amplifying the signal, and are convinced that we're now in a war situation which makes the variety of alternative solutions no longer necessary or desirable - and some of them figure it's time to enforce their particular "individual truth" through force. That's basically what drives suicide bombers and terrorists, and the Islamic State, and Anders Breivik, and all similar ideological fanatics.
Berthold Brecht once suggested something that sounded absurd. He proposed that the radio should not only broadcast stuff for listeners, but it should also receive their messages. Today this idea is practically reality. The modern media is a two-way street, which seems like the main prerequisite for an Enlightenment v.2.0. Because that's exactly what Enlightenment is about: putting authority to doubt, using one's own brain. Modernity may've finally arrived, and it's transforming politics. And if the politicians refuse or are unable to adjust to that new reality, they're doomed to oblivion. And they better be prepared to step up to the challenge, otherwise the power vacuum that they'd leave could be filled with stuff that's really toxic.
Don't get me wrong. Society, even modern society, will always seek authorities to look up to. It's just that the old ones are no longer enjoying the trust of their constituents the way they used to. People are craving to have the truth - the real truth. But in the process of looking for it, they often fall prey to the conspiracy theorists, who offer an easily digestible, fascinating, non-boring, simple explanation to otherwise complex phenomena. And thus, mainstream politics is quickly losing its credibility, and the media is sinking even faster. And they both have to blame themselves and no one else for that, because they've failed to divorce themselves from their old habits: maintaining a one-way communication with their base. Whether the old-fashioned folks among us like it or not, the old ideologies have been replaced with pragmatism in politics. Today, most mainstream parties exhibit similar traits, share similar principles and programs, they see societal development in a similar way. But many people are craving for a real political clash, they want to see a fight, they expect that the parties would position themselves in diametrically opposite directions, even if one or more of those positions is too idealistic. People want real alternatives to be picking up from. Not a cabal of like-minded fat-cats who only care about the preservation of the status quo.
So what could be done at this point? Well, politics is a funny beast - it tends to self-regulate one way or another. It's now teaming with alternative ideologies, some too radical, others just re-fashioned versions of older ones. We will have pluralism, and differing opinions, even if some turn out to be just crazy and maybe even dangerous. As for the media, the journalists will be viewing their own work with increasing criticism, and they will learn to differentiate between information and opinion, between fact and context. And finally, both politicians and the media will learn to trust people's ability to make their own assessment, and they will learn to trust this new emerging bottoms-up Enlightenment v.2.0. If they don't do it on their own, they'll be forced to.