Truth and Power
The struggle for social control through economic and political manipulation has been a problem that all great civilizations have had to deal with. To gain a level of control sometimes the legitimacy of some regulations or policies have to exaggerated a little bit by those in power for the “benefit” of society. This is where the true conflict lies. The conflict lies in the bending of the truth for economic and political stability. “There is a battle for truth or at least around truth.”(Foucault)Â it describes that our society is not in search of “truths” that are accepted or discovered as factual, rather that we are looking for truth that makes us feel safer in the reality we live in. Those that wish to have power or already are in control on some level find a way to gain our trust or further our trust by veiling our vision of societies current state. These “leaders,” and I use the term loosely, feed on our accessibility to be convinced that the decisions they make are in truth what are best for the vast majority. Shouldn’t we question more often than not the possibility that not all people in power know what is truly best for a society. For example there once was a guy name Adolph who decided that if the world was entirely composed of an Arian race and void of all lesser peoples that the world would be better off. This is just another case where one view of a “Truth” can be blindly followed because of the persuasive power of individuals with authority. So I guess my question is where is the line drawn between ‘truth’ and ‘power?’
sean wrote:
This is think (as I noted in the post below) – is a really good lens through which to discuss Children of Men. What “truths” are created to underwrite the power of the Warden and Council in this novel?
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 10:42 am ¶
Samantha wrote:
I thought there was an interesting development on our understanding of truth and power in Baudrillard: “…calling them ‘suicidal’ and ‘martyrs’—and adding immediately that martyrdom proves nothing, that it has nothing to do with truth, that it is even (to quote Nietzshe) the enemy number one of truth. Admittedly, their deaths prove nothing, but in a system where truth itself is elusive (or do we claim to possess it?), there is nothing to prove†(24). And then he goes on to say that if the martyrdom of the suicide bombers means nothing, then neither does the martyrdom of the victims, which I thought was a very interesting point. But I think that Baudrillard’s ideas support what John was saying. We don’t want the terrorism to be a truth, because then it wouldn’t be successful, because it wouldn’t prove anything. But if we get to pick what is true and what is not, then it doesn’t really matter.
As for Children of Men, Xan creates the appearance of the truth of “freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom from boredom†(89). When their existence supports this, as the society in the book seems to—everyone seems relatively comfortable, given that the race has no future—it can be accepted as truth, giving Xan control. It seems that terrorism in places where the existence doesn’t support the claimed truths (V for Vendetta), is more effective and symbolic, and therefore, power is less complete.
Posted 18 Nov 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶