What does it take to be a total rebel today? What most outrages people? What most goes against the orthodoxy? What would the most extreme counterculture be like?
The Most Rebellious World View
- Thread starter Norsemaiden
- Start date
A loner who buys nothing, does not watch T.V. or listen to radio, owns no computer, has no email or cell phone, and does not work in the traditional sense.
Good answer, but I don't think that would really outrage people, but rather such a person would tend to be ignored unless they drew attention to themselves in some way.
Indeed. Astute point. A loner with all those things, who appears in the streets and public spaces of whatever city or suburb, and attempts discourse with anyone who passes by. In short, a modern cynic free from the trappings of modern society.
And lets also remember, if said loner ever comes into contact with society without seeking out these public spaces like a cynic, he will be considered dangerous.
SatanicBunny
The Dark Herald
I think, that in the western civilization a person with no posessions what so ever would outrage people quite a bit. I mean, materia has become the symbol of immortality and happiness: The one who has most stuff is regarded as the most fortunate and therefore he/she is admired and encouraged to buy more stuff in order to become more popular and happy.
And the thing that would probably annoy people the most would be a person that doesn't own anything and doesn't belong to any religious group. People somehow seem to accept this modest way of life if your religion demands it. But if you were just a normal person with almost no property at all and you would still keep living "normally" (not in any closed community) it could be considered as a true rebellion towards the modern society.
Yes I agree that if the person in question was some kind of extreme Christian or Buddhist it would be less rebellious for them to have this anti-materialist outlook.
Two people who are the ultimate rebels by the above definition then would be the unabomber Ted Kaczynski and the Finnish ecophilosopher Pentti Linkola.
But they do have minimal posessions.
Then again, there are no laws against living a non-materialistic lifestyle and hardly owning anything.
It is one way of being rebellious, but even politicians like Al Gore might have kind words to say about someone who lives such an eco-friendly lifestyle just so long as they don't have politically incorrect ideas. You have to add the politically incorrect stance to make it more rebellious still - Linkola's advocation of genocide for example (not that it is illegal for him to say it). He advocates this to reduce world overpopulation.
It is one way of being rebellious, but even politicians like Al Gore might have kind words to say about someone who lives such an eco-friendly lifestyle just so long as they don't have politically incorrect ideas. You have to add the politically incorrect stance to make it more rebellious still - Linkola's advocation of genocide for example (not that it is illegal for him to say it). He advocates this to reduce world overpopulation.
In several decades ago the rebellious counter culture advocated equal rights, women being encouraged to behave alike to men, the abolition of national boundaries, global unity and love between races, the legalisation and promotion of homosexuality, encouraging abortion and anti-marriage - tolerance of all except the "intolerant".
In the present day, these things are the status quo. To stand against any of these things is very controversial and unacceptable now.
In the present day, these things are the status quo. To stand against any of these things is very controversial and unacceptable now.
Surely it must be the greater "intolerance" Norsemaiden mentions. Though Speed's description of the anti-materialist cenobite would be a strange, even distessing creature to many today, nothing elicits the universal disapprobation today that any meaningful dissent from the accepted orthodoxy on all things "PC" does.
In various parts of the West, such 'dangerous' assertions may just be criminal as well. "Intolerance" is indeed the witchcraft of our day...and woe unto those who dabble in the craft. You just may burn at the proverbial stake for your social-heresy.
In various parts of the West, such 'dangerous' assertions may just be criminal as well. "Intolerance" is indeed the witchcraft of our day...and woe unto those who dabble in the craft. You just may burn at the proverbial stake for your social-heresy.
Kurt Cobain was really out of touch with the world when he came out with this mindblowing piece of ignorance:
My generation's apathy. I'm disgusted with it. I'm disgusted with my own apathy too, for being spineless and not always standing up against racism, sexism and all those other -isms the counterculture has been whinning about for years.
The fact is the counterculture then, as now, is the opposite. Cobain was effectively disgusted with himself for not doing more to tell the rebels to conform!
Mostly though, people say and do non-PC things quite by accident and because they haven't fully absorbed the fact that free speech is actually a myth (although not as much in the US as in Europe).
We had a huge international scandal in Britain over a pathetic reality show called "Big Brother" recently. Most of you know what this show is about. This time it was "Celebrity Big Brother" with some largely unknown "celebrities" sharing a house and having their actions broadcast to the nation on tv.
Normally, anything goes in "Big Brother" and the media delights in showing the public the transexuals/transvestites pouting and the homosexuals kissing and the nudity and the foul language. But there was something brewing on this occasion.
Together with a bunch of low class sluttish white women, a high-caste Bollywood- star Indian woman was placed there!
Something makes me suspect that this was a set up to produce exactly the scandal that it did!
A few of these "white" women, the ring leader of whom, Jade Goody, is actually mixed race, started to pick on Shilpa Shetty and get bitchy about her. The media outside, and the Indian community immediately started to shout about "racist remarks" and make a huge storm in a teacup.
But "racism" is the last taboo, and these ignorant women did not realise that. It is one taboo that today's society absolutely will not allow to be broken!
This sparked off a flurry of ariticles in all the newspapers and days of headlines on the national news!
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2760/
What is the world coming to when a crappy show like that causes an international incident over some snidey remarks by some white scum?
Of course, the Bollywood star, who had retained her composure and behaved with good manners and self-control throughout, won the competition. Presumably helped by the ethnic nepotism of the people of India voting in her favour!
Last I heard, Jade Goody was a ruined woman and the other women involved were in therepy and had mentally broken down.
But what lesson does the public learn from all this?
If you are White, you too will be financially ruined and socially ostracised if you dare so much as criticise the slightest thing about someone of another race. I wonder if this propaganda might actually have the effect of causing the very resentment it seemed designed to suppress....
Justin S.
Member
Two things:
First, I think Norsemaiden is a bit unfair to Cobain. He grew up in the Northwest U.S. in logging towns full of misogyny, bigotry, anti-intellectualism, etc. So, its not surprising that he had a chip on his shoulder about such things, and the apathy he speaks of is that of the generation that grew up during the Reagan era. I don't think it follows from this that he was some tool of the politically correct movement. He was an insecure, uneducated (but somewhat perceptive), self-loathing person who became a symbol for others' projection of similar feelings, and thus ended the sad, ironic show in a fitting manner.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the intent of this thread is- what is the purpose of working out what is most "diametrically" opposed to general traits of contemporary ideology (if such a literal position could exist)?
Whatever it may be, it certainly isn't anti-materialism. As a person who owns no TV, radio, cell phone, mp3 player/gadgets, is intentionally unemployed, philosophy student, etc., I can tell you that all of this is met with some initial surprise (but only in the sense of how ignorant I am of the wonderful benefits of such things!) followed by complete indifference. Anti-materialism is viewed as an unfortunate imbecility- another social-skill deficiency in the same league as outdated clothing or a bad hair cut. No matter how radical, they cannot grasp the radical-ness, so it falls into whatever category they associate with juvenile ineptitude and "rebellion".
In fact, I don't know if one can ever "shock" the "they", as they refuse to allow an other. No matter if one plays death metal, rejects materialism, flies planes into buildings, it gets categorized and dismissed all the same. This is because the individuals who are only a "they-self" are literally imprisoned in a world of inner-representation. Even if one does something to get a reaction out of them, it is only a display of battles within their own inter-representations. In a sense, a dumb, average person can never be truly shocked, rebelled against, or communicated with (they cannot engage the symbolic), as no real other exists in their world.
First, I think Norsemaiden is a bit unfair to Cobain. He grew up in the Northwest U.S. in logging towns full of misogyny, bigotry, anti-intellectualism, etc. So, its not surprising that he had a chip on his shoulder about such things, and the apathy he speaks of is that of the generation that grew up during the Reagan era. I don't think it follows from this that he was some tool of the politically correct movement. He was an insecure, uneducated (but somewhat perceptive), self-loathing person who became a symbol for others' projection of similar feelings, and thus ended the sad, ironic show in a fitting manner.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the intent of this thread is- what is the purpose of working out what is most "diametrically" opposed to general traits of contemporary ideology (if such a literal position could exist)?
Whatever it may be, it certainly isn't anti-materialism. As a person who owns no TV, radio, cell phone, mp3 player/gadgets, is intentionally unemployed, philosophy student, etc., I can tell you that all of this is met with some initial surprise (but only in the sense of how ignorant I am of the wonderful benefits of such things!) followed by complete indifference. Anti-materialism is viewed as an unfortunate imbecility- another social-skill deficiency in the same league as outdated clothing or a bad hair cut. No matter how radical, they cannot grasp the radical-ness, so it falls into whatever category they associate with juvenile ineptitude and "rebellion".
In fact, I don't know if one can ever "shock" the "they", as they refuse to allow an other. No matter if one plays death metal, rejects materialism, flies planes into buildings, it gets categorized and dismissed all the same. This is because the individuals who are only a "they-self" are literally imprisoned in a world of inner-representation. Even if one does something to get a reaction out of them, it is only a display of battles within their own inter-representations. In a sense, a dumb, average person can never be truly shocked, rebelled against, or communicated with (they cannot engage the symbolic), as no real other exists in their world.
Brilliant points. Ive been reading a great deal of the situationalists lately, and all would echo your thesis or conclusion. The individual can no longer be rebellious, as all is spectacle, illusion, etc; nothing is real, thus such an anti-materialistic stance will produce no dialogue with anyone, and have no impact. It is only when a dialogue is produced, when real (if possible) rebellion will occur.
The perfect example of this is Sep 11. An event where a radical islamist group destroyed the two most symbolic sources of Americanism/Westernism, and how few Americans actually grasped this point. Instead of turning inward, and considering or trying to understand why terrorists would strike these targets; why others were critical of our society and its aims, we, did no such thing! No, we demonized them! A group with support in a region and a religion most Americans are totally and still totally oblivious to were easy to demonize rather than actually becoming conscious of our own society and its effects. My god, we were told the best way to fight terrorists, was not to sacrifice, but to consume! How fitting.
But let us face it: the postmodern world is beyond history, philosophy, art, culture; its the final outcome of classical liberalism and the middle class. It has already started to turn on itself.
The intent of this thread is to provoke thought and your reply is perfect for that. There are some ideas there that will be novel to some of us, and it is important for anyone interested in philosophy to have our perceptions challenged.
What you said about people not feeling any particular shock about meeting someone who shuns the materialist way of life sounds very believable. If they met a cannibal in the middle of a meal they would be more shocked at his lifestyle really. Yet people are perhaps less shocked about such things when they hear them on the news. People get used to seeing spectacle on the tv and it feels unreal. Like planes being flown into buildings.
But I think Jade Goody could have advocated cannibalism and been considered a bit freaky but cool by the media - it wouldn't have been taken as being as bad as her remarks that some people perceived as being far more evil than that.
This all related to morality: how morality can be dictated to people and adopted through the pressure of authority and fear of peer disapproval. Morality is so changable. Also, I find it odd how people can be aggressively conformist and yet be convinced that they are being rebellious. Maybe it is because the new culture is so counter-intuitive that people can't quite believe it. After all, in so many ways it is a reversal of many of the norms that have existed in the past . A really bizarre situation and unnatural.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
Yeah.. According to my friends - I am apparently "deprived" due to the fact that I don't watch tv.
(apologies to Norsemaiden...heading off-topic
)The glorification of selfishness(as well as its natural cousin narcissism) alone on tv is mind-boggling to me. It isn't necessarily rebelllion to be sure, but this pervasive theme of unbridled self-absorption and egotism is certainly a conscious departure from the tv "morality" commonly promoted when I was young. While many of the same overblown ideas regarding egalitarianism and tolerance were present, if far more subtly so, displays or encouragement of naked selfishness were considered bad-form, decadent and even harmful. This is perhaps the one "golden rule" ideal as espoused by various "Faiths' forever, that I can agree with - that there are more important things in this world than you. Of course sensible people can see that without a spiritual epiphany...but that is another issue we have beaten to death elsewhere.
Please forgive a potentially delicate question, but how exactly does one support oneself while remaining "intentionally unemployed?" Presuming one isn't independently wealthy and/or a "man of liesure" this seems like a very difficult existence in this age of sky-high costs of living, etc. I'll confess, it all sounds very romantic - and goodness knows one is missing nothing without tv, radio and what have you...but without a demonstrable means of sustenance, how can one survive - at least for very long?
RiderOfJustice
New Metal Member
Hmm... good question.
Lets see. A person stranded on an empty island living off the land with absolutely no posessions or contact with the world.. by choice.
I laughed when I first read that because it describes me except for the fact that I own a computer.
Norsemaiden said:
I think Orthodoxy itself has become rebellious in many ways because all previous traditions have pretty much been destroyed in the past century or so. Look at Islamic extremists for example, this is a kind of orthodoxy that has become rebellious, or even people who are purists within certain realms of art who do not want it to be commodified. They are forced to try to preserve an underground movement, ortherwise have their work lose all integrity.
Justin S.
Member
Surely, I didn't (and couldn't) mean "without income". Basically, I have low financial needs (split rent/utilities with my woman, etc.) which are met by interest from investments (from previous work, as well as a considerable insurance policy). So, I didn't mean to imply I was making some noble stand against working and thus suffer a pauper's life- basically I can afford not to work, and because I see labor as so central to one's existence, choose to spend the energy/time other ways (such as my studies, my relationships, learning actual skills (woodworking, brewing, etc.).
Similar threads
- Locked
