Babel Q6: Current resonances

NeilNjae

A small group of super-rich people, organising the world for their benefit. All gains being captured by them, with everyone else getting nothing. Increasing gaps between rich and poor. Deliberate use of hedonistic tools to keep the masses passive.

What does this book say about the world we live in now? Is it a call to arms to address current systems of oppression? Does it argue for reparations to address historical harms of imperialism?

RichardAbbott

Haha I should have read this before rabbiting on about Extinction Rebellion in the last starter!

The connection which (I think) you are making with big tech and social media is not one that had occurred to me, but it's an interesting one... though I don't know that I am persuaded by the analogy. The 19th century problem of colonialism and oppression was driven by individuals seeking their own fame, glory and wealth. Much of current online abuse is, I think, driven by groups on the basis of belief or ideology, justifying actions to themselves to target (eg) abortion or immunisation clinics, particular library books, individuals with specific lifestyle choices or behaviour patterns, or indeed authors who write particular books (the romance genre is allegedly especially vulnerable to "policing" by self-appointed groups).

So it seems to me that the old forms of oppression were more easily linked to individuals, whereas modern ones hide more behind systems and groups.

Apocryphal

I would say it's not really about 'the world we live in now' as it is about 'the world we've always lived in, and likely always will.' There always have been (and always will be, unless maybe we reach post-scarcity) people who are more powerful and/or rich who will jockey to stay in that class. And that system will continue to work as it has until now, so long as the people with less still feel like they are getting ahead of their past, and still feel like they could change class if they really want to. This is why freeing slaves made sense to those wealthy people who argued for it. Interestingly, I don't think there were any people in the 'upper class' here who were making a similar argument, were there? There was a little bit of the 'lower class' arguing about loss-benefit depending on the method of struggle, thought.

Apocryphal

I thought this bit from that last chapter, p.535 in my book, was probably the crux of the whole thing:

The bars were singing, shaking, trying, he thought, to express some unutterable truth about themselves, which was that translation was impossible, that the realm of pure meaning they captured and manifested would and could not ever be known, that the enterprise of this tower had been impossible from the inception.
For how could there ever be an Adamic language? The thought now made him laugh. There was no innate, perfectly comprehensible language; there was no candidate, not English, not French, that could bully and absorb enough to become one. Language was just a difference. A thousand different ways of seeing, of moving through the world. No; a thousand worlds within one. And translation - a necessary endeavour, however futile, to move between them.

In the above, I think you could substitute 'culture' for language, and 'politics' for translation, and probably get the gist of her message.

RichardAbbott

@Apocryphal said:
Interestingly, I don't think there were any people in the 'upper class' here who were making a similar argument, were there? There was a little bit of the 'lower class' arguing about loss-benefit depending on the method of struggle, thought.

I agree - surely in an alternate England (or wherever) of that era there would have been wealthy individuals or groups arguing for emancipation of various kinds - our Europe in the C19th was a right furore of groups of all kinds wanting change either by evolution or revolution. But here The Establishment seems very mono-opinionated with no real internal differences.

NeilNjae

@RichardAbbott said:
Haha I should have read this before rabbiting on about Extinction Rebellion in the last starter!

The connection which (I think) you are making with big tech and social media is not one that had occurred to me, but it's an interesting one... though I don't know that I am persuaded by the analogy. The 19th century problem of colonialism and oppression was driven by individuals seeking their own fame, glory and wealth. Much of current online abuse is, I think, driven by groups on the basis of belief or ideology, justifying actions to themselves to target (eg) abortion or immunisation clinics, particular library books, individuals with specific lifestyle choices or behaviour patterns, or indeed authors who write particular books (the romance genre is allegedly especially vulnerable to "policing" by self-appointed groups).

So it seems to me that the old forms of oppression were more easily linked to individuals, whereas modern ones hide more behind systems and groups.

I was thinking of the more systemic views of oppression and power capture. There are now billioinaires, and more of them, and that class is gaining more power. The rise of hate groups is something that's useful to the elites, and probably cultivated by them: after all, if we're hating each other, we can't unify against the billionaires. And look at the repeated attempts at starting a "culture war" by the Conservative party in the UK and the Republicans in the US. (I know nothing about Canadian politics, I'm afraid, but I'd be surprised if there aren't similar elements.)

Apocryphal

Canadian Conservative PM Stephen Harper started a ‘hotline’ for the reporting of ‘barbaric cultural practices’ so we’re not immune. (I was meant to prevent the shame killing of women, but huge slippery slope there.) And the conservatives continue to denigrate ‘eastern elites’, whoever they are, and ‘woke’ people (they prefer sleepy constituents).

BarnerCobblewood

@Apocryphal said:
... prefer sleepy constituents.

Made me laugh.