As culture jammers, how can we live in a world that is poisonous to our souls, harmful to our minds and at odds with our ideals? Common sense tells us that we have two options: either imitate or hate the world. But if we remain stuck within this binary opposition, we will lose ourselves. If we imitate the world we sacrifice our core beliefs. If we hate the world we succumb to being reactionary and lose the passion that grounds our affirmation. What then can we do? This is the question that Seneca, the great Stoic philosopher, posed nearly two millennia ago. And his answer speaks to today’s struggle of being culture jammers in a consumerist society.
Roman mass culture was as ruinous to Seneca’s ideals as consumer society is to ours. In a well-known letter to his friend Lucilius, Seneca writes that exposure to crowds and the entertainment they consume ought to be avoided because within the crowd we lose our inner resolve for living a good life. “To consort with the crowd is harmful,” Seneca writes in Letter VII of Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, “[because] there is no person who does not make some vice attractive to us, or stamp it upon us, or taint us unconsciously therewith. Certainly, the greater the mob with which we mingle, the greater the danger.” To prove his point, Seneca tells of his experience watching a midday gladiator show after which he returned home feeling “more greedy, more ambitious, more voluptuous and even more cruel and inhuman” than before.
In our era, Seneca’s observation will often be rejected on the presumption that his critique of mass culture is based on an aristocratic and antidemocratic philosophy. Proponents of this position will argue that Seneca’s dislike of crowds is due only to a prejudice toward common people and that his position is therefore not worthy of consideration. But this argument misses the deep philosophical insight that Seneca proposes: that there is a correlation between the culture that surrounds us and our inner life. If Seneca is correct then the culture jammer has legitimate reason to be concerned about exposure to mind-fucking advertising, violent and pornographic television and deceptive news because these cultural forms are destructive to ourselves. In other words, Seneca’s stoic philosophy provides another way to ground mental environmentalism.
But to culture jammers, it will come as no surprise that the culture we live in has an impact on our mental environment. That is, after all, the starting position for the mental environment movement. The pressing concern is how to resist the dominant culture in such a way that our ideals remain intact and our will to fight stays strong. And it is on this question that Seneca is most articulate. For Seneca, we must be on our guard at all times. He writes: “much harm is done by a single case of indulgence or greed; the familiar friend, if he be luxurious, weakens and softens us imperceptible; the neighbor, if he be rich, rouses our covetousness; the companion, if he be slanderous, rubs off some of his rust upon us, even though we be spotless and sincere. What then do you think the effect will be on character, when the world at large assaults it!” But Seneca refuses to accept the common sense answer that we ought to either imitate or loathe the world.
Instead, Seneca proposes that we develop a parallel culture in which we commune among ourselves to strengthen our opposition to the dominant culture. Seneca’s counsel is simple: “Withdraw into yourself, as far as you can. Associate with those who will make a better person of you. Welcome those whom you yourself can improve.” While this advice seems simple, it is actually the most difficult to accept because it foregoes the principles of mass participation and mass culture that underlie the majority of contemporary politics.
Seneca challenges us to imagine a positive cultural movement that focuses first on building small communities of resistance that are impervious to the influences of mass culture. Seneca encourages us to be like the wise man, who when asked “what was the object of all this study applied to an art that would reach but very few” replied, “I am content with few, content with one, content with none at all.”
Micah White is a Contributing Editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He is writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org
28, 2009
10:27 am
Link
In response to the rape question, or a knife attack - actually I would imagine that most victims who actually survive, do NOT put up a fight. What they might be doing instead is to get through it, and get past it, escaping when best they can, until some such time as they once again feel safe and able to recover, release the hurt, and renew their vitality. To suggest that the victims of nazi Germany were somehow capable - given all the circumstances - of fighting back, is really quite an affront, because no doubt many did try to take up arms, before being solidly dealt with.
In that spirit, if I've been arrested while on a protest, I might advise myself to keep quiet and composed until my policy enforcement officer captors become bored, before challenging the arrest in the relative safety of a court if appropriate, but most importantly I get back to talking and hugging with my fellow activists as quickly as possible.
However, we mustn't confuse 'violence' (against other humans), which I would not encourage, with 'direct action', which I do encourage, such as when disabling the corporate machinery.
Of course, the ideal situation to be in is to have a 'gentle giant' defense, where we could crush the invading marauders (as they truly are) if we wanted to, but instead we behave with benevolence and show a 'new way' of being. I sense that happening once money has lost it's power, and the security guards, police and bouncers realise where they are valued most - i.e. with 'us'.
Yes, for now we maintain vigilant awareness, nurture insight, love and humour and continue to develop ourselves, in -readiness- for the collapse of the old, as we take the increasing opportunities for the emergence (or escape) of the truly new. All of the time, those who feel most 'free', will be 'snapping' at the heels of the unwieldly beast that has been smothering most of us up until now. Laughing together at the dying throes of the 'monster' will play a big part in keeping us sane I think.
Peace!
— Shamanic22, 2009
01:45 am
Link
This new web "design" sucks ass. This isn't new, fresh, or simplistic. It's hard to read. The lines of text drag on so far to the other side of the screen that's it's annoying to go back and try to find the next line. You might say: "Well, resize your window." That still looks bad.
It just makes you want to puke. Is the text offset from the left by 10 points or something?
On the main page, the tiny thumbnail to the previous article is closer to the title of the next article. It's fucked up and jarring. And the thumbnails look awful. It tells shit all what the article is about.
But sadly, this design best represents the Adbusters philosophy. No branding. Just "natural", rather than organized. Because organized by humans is bad. What a toilet bowl.
Even this comment I'm posting is good news for Adbusters. They're just happy to get attention. This negative comment I'm posting is probably more interesting than the article. This comment doesn't hurt them. This actually helps.
— Anonymous27, 2009
07:37 am
Link
I was the guy who made the rude comment above. I apologize. If there's something particular I don't like about Adbusters, I should just comment on that rather than being insulting.
— Anonymous22, 2009
09:40 am
Link
which web browser are you using?
— Anonymous20, 2009
06:22 pm
Link
Thought provoking article. However, I hesitate to label people as either good or evil. In each one of us there is "good" and "bad" and if we are to hide our goodness and turn inwards, then we run the risk of allowing negativity to prevail. Jesus walked with all, yet he was able to do it and still preserve his inner goodness. Buddha had to come to enlightenment on his own, but he didn't have to remain alone. We must find what's good in all of us and, in mass, bring it out!
— Anonymous19, 2009
06:01 pm
Link
I always hate to bring up Nazi Germany as a counter-example, so I'll use the violent takeover of the land from the indigenous people of America by Europeans. As we know, at times this was a bloody conflict, and the victor of the war is still standing. Would you have recommended this advice five hundred years ago to the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas?
We live in a world that is being destroyed by industrial abuse of the environment, where widespread corporate and government has become commonplace. Maybe we'd all be happier associating peacefully with cliques of like-minded people, where we could enjoy their company and engage in conversation to pass the time. We could share our favorite books (on paper, of course, nothing electronic!) and lament the inevitable ongoing changes which soon may make any form of protest or change impossible. Of course it would make us feel good, but nothing would get accomplished.
When threatened with violence, whether it is physical, economic, environmental or mental, one may wish to consider the following quote of Tecumseh: "Will we let ourselves be destroyed in our turn without a struggle, give up our homes, our country bequeathed to us by the Great Spirit, the graves of our dead and everything that is dear to us? I know you will cry with me, NEVER! NEVER!"
— Huey14, 2009
01:00 pm
Link
right on point.
— mitch19, 2009
03:56 pm
Link
In a symphony.
In the light
of a symphony
there's a charming
intention, and
also that fortune;
there's a little
desire and the
sound of a
beautiful noise....
Francesco Sinibaldi
— Francesco Sinibaldi19, 2009
11:00 am
Link
feel, observe, be aware,be vigilant, be true to yourself, be honest, be sincere,serve others, yourself.....in other words.... love....this is it
— N.M.19, 2009
12:06 am
Link
This is a very legitimate concern and it is good to see adbusters addressing it.
— Anonymous18, 2009
01:05 pm
Link
I go with Voltaire who wrote, "cultivate your own garden."
— Anonymous18, 2009
12:53 pm
Link
Micah,
Excellent and thought provoking article. “Withdraw into yourself, as far as you can. Associate with those who will make a better person of you. Welcome those whom you yourself can improve.” My hope is that there will be more and more of those willing whom we Adbusters can improve.....
Again, good article....
— Lloyd Pitcher18, 2009
01:07 am
Link
Would be cool to see sociological profile of an average Adbaster subscriber. How healthy he is?
— DimitriAuThe ammoniums questioner would be like 1. Do you have a job? .2 Do you enjoy your job? 3. Do you have chronically diseases or conditions? 4. Do you take any medications or drugs? 5. Do you have regular sex partner? 6. Do you have friends? 7. How often are you in contact with your family members?
17, 2009
09:37 pm
Link
Is it possible that violence is becoming the only answer? Tolerating something never got anything changed, not the civil rights movement, not slavery and certainly not consumerism it would seem. We are outnumbered daily by the folks willing to spend spend spend and support business which is only out to make money and not there for the common good of man (and woman)
— Justin Brill24, 2009
09:30 am
Link
The problem is that once you allow violence into the system you then run into 2 major problems:
1. You attract people to your system who have no interest in the core tenets but only want to be part of the violence.
2. You allow agencies (government, police, army whatever) to label you as radicalised and dangerous. This effectively criminalises your system.
— hem19, 2009
04:42 pm
Link
The civil rights, abolition, and anti-consumerist movements have each contained both violent and peaceful factions. While those who resort to violence occasionally change the systems against which they struggle, that change rarely is the sort they intend: no one has ever filled the vacuum they've created by violent means. Always, those who do not fear nor perpetrate violence create lasting positive examples and reflect the wisdom of being in, and not of, a culture.
— Peter Jurmu19, 2009
05:34 pm
Link
So when a woman is being raped, she shouldn't fight back as that would "always... perpetuate violence"?
The abolitionist movement, at least in the United States, was absolutely settled by violence. Should the abolitionists have held hands and sung songs? The civil rights movement ended due to the threat of widespread violence. The anti-consumerist movement hasn't led to any widespread or meaningful social change, as of yet.
Should the indigenous people of the Americas have eschewed violence as European invaders literally raped and pillaged over thirty million square kilometers? Would it not have created a "lasting positive example" if the Jews of Nazi-era Germany had uniformly responded violently against what was happening? During the centuries of Crusades in Middle Europe, would it have been better had the attacked Jews, Muslims, and Pagans thrown their hands up and not responded in-kind to ultra-orthodox Christian violence?
Violence is rarely the answer, but a more nuanced viewpoint towards the utility of violence can't hurt either.
— Huey17, 2009
08:34 pm
Link
yeah, this is interesting...
but, have we started to do anything about that hipster problem?
— Anonymous18, 2009
02:05 pm
Link
All the hipsters entered this fold: http://it-est-futurum.blogspot.com/
— Alaric17, 2009
05:58 pm
Link
good stuff. however, even in the creation and participation of a smaller community, invulnerable to the effects of mob culture, one is still subjecting themselves to the plain and subtle influence of others. and within the smaller community it would be naive to think that perfection of thought or action could be achieved.
obviously, to hate or to enroll in the mass culture are both unproductive personally and socially. monasticism may guard you as an individual, but abandons any social responsibility. appeasement, vice-versa.
it seems to me that the only option one is left with is to engage in constant growth in knowledge, character and observation. engaging in all sources of information, but training one's self to be vigilantly aware of the message and its effect.
this is an answer without a clear end, but it allows us to be wrong while being constantly progressive. if we close our ears to mass influence completely we proudly proclaim that we have come to a final conclusion on society. then, we no longer continue to evaluate it. and the reasons we decided to turn our backs, legitimate as they may have been, fade further into the past and then, blur in our minds. this could lead to unthinking fanaticism.
or even worse, stagnancy.
i am certainly for the establishment of a 'positive cultural movement,' but without positive cultural individuals, it becomes merely reaction, the equal and opposite swing of a pendulum, reliant on the weight of the negative culture which spawned it.
consistent growth and steadfast awareness seem to be the only real defenses against the culture seepage. agreezszs?
anyways, thanks for making me think.
— ryan.