Freedom predominantly found in mind

Written by Wiley Combs

Tuesday, 10 February 2009 17:59

Dissertations have been written regarding the word “freedom.” It is evidence of its factual inexistence that the term remains an abstract subject of discussion, differentiated in definition as much as you and I differ from one another in basic physiological and psychological composition.

Most modern conceptions, however, find their roots in the Enlightenment. During this historical period, Newtonian science challenged medieval presumptions about the workings of the universe, while philosophical theorists like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau similarly questioned many of the traditionally accepted edicts of authority.

Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” symbolized a radical departure from traditional dialogues due to its direct interaction with the nature of concentrated power. He detailed the general consequences of elitist power structures on their subjects, and his remarks were passionately made upon the right of humans to rationally determine their own destiny. Moreover, “Discourse” argues that revolutions at the hands of dispossessed or oppressed populations are not only justified, but are the most logical example of each person’s struggle for the ever-elusive “freedom”: “uprising that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is as lawful an act as those by which he disposed, the day before, of the lives and goods of his subjects.”

Hundreds of years later, there has been little semantic or historical evidence to progress this theory of “freedom” to any further extent. The current incarnation of the international “nation-state” structure is still deeply rooted in the world of European colonialism, with former colonies competing for the scraps of “developed” nations.

The neocolonial era is embodied in the alteration of culture by the industrial revolution. Technology represented a gateway to power over the people, the scope of which had never before been envisioned by any feudal lord. In the United States, the machinery of civilization and economy became, for the first time, literally its machinery. Throughout the 19th century, advancements and inventions accumulated at an exponential rate, resulting in the reversal of traditional geopolitical polarities of power during World War I and World War II. Coincidentally, World War I also heralded the beginning of a professional field which, to this day, heavily influences the mold of American civilization: “public relations.”

The obvious goal of business is to sell a product; advertising deals directly with the “image” of the product which reaches the public. In many senses, advertising is self-perpetuating, regardless of product: the images used to sell are infinite in variety, whereas the product, in most cases, usually stays the same.

Expanding upon this idea, public relations can be (and is) applied to either a corporate or a governmental model. Business uses PR to sell their wares, but in the case of government, the product being sold is ideology.

“Ideology” is distinctly separate from “policy,” and this should go without saying. It should also be unnecessary to convince anyone that what is sold to us every two or four years is mostly ideology, with a minimal content of policy. This is remarkably similar to the delineation between “image” and “product.”

In this sense, “public relations” shapes public opinion in two major ways: it defines which products we buy, and it determines which politics we believe. This renders us helpless, as the guise of independent thought is subsumed in the concerns of those who can afford to have their voices and opinions expressed. Mass-media demonstrates the inexorable tendency of business and government to adopt communications as the primary means of indoctrination, whether as consumers or the politico.

Last week, I suggested the abandonment of convenient media images. This is critical to developing our own self-awareness beyond the bounds allowed within mainstream culture. A more effective approach would combine the explicit avoidance of mind-warping media outlets with the rejection of the traditional domains of political discussion. We must, like Rousseau, question the most established doctrines of our society in order to better it. If we are looking for salvation from the current (dis)order, we must avoid traditional stereotypes and generalizations about policy.

If, however, we allow ourselves to be inundated with the self-righteous concepts of partisan politics, and become automata with corporate advertising in control, we willingly sacrifice what modicum of “freedom” we had within our own skulls for someone else’s ideas.

Email the This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites