3 ms·
As an (European) outsider: Manufacturing consent is a key feature of societies. If societies are not just an accidental aggregation, but do have some actual coh
by masswerk 6y ago
As an (European) outsider: Manufacturing consent is a key feature of societies. If societies are not just an accidental aggregation, but do have some actual cohesion, a core body (canon) of shared believes and opinions is absolutely necessary. If a society fails to manufacture consent as a common point of reference in this core domain, we may even speak of a failed society.
A certain amount of mis- and disinformation, manipulation, falsely raised expectations (e.g., if masks do not stop CV19 dead in the track, it's also not a viable tool of mitigation), etc, is to be expected. A certain amount of dissent is vital to a thriving society, as opposed to a slow descent into dogmatism. A certain amount of dysfunctionality is actually functional to societies. However, if we are losing a common point of reference and the discussion turns from an ever varying problem space towards questioning and problematizing consent per se, society itself is at stake, as partitioning and claims to rightful dominance by one side or the other are inevitable. Dealing with this is not a matter of free speech, even, if suppression of free speech may be empirically observed as an – mostly failed – attempt to address this. It's actually more connected to the question, what speaking freely actually means: Is it to enter into or to contribute to a discussion, or is it a means of claiming dominance? In other words, does the address include those who do not share the specific set of believes and points of reference of the speaker, or does it exclude and/or ignore them, by this turning into an hermetic or even radical argument, meant only to augment the position of the speaker? Is it still pervasive, or has this turned into a hegemonial discourse? If it's the latter, it's not about manufacturing consent anymore, but about establishing a new, biased one, probably by force.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago> However, if we are losing a common point of reference and the discussion turns from an ever varying problem space towards questioning and problematizing consent per se Do you have an actual specific example of this happening? I can't think of a single time I've heard someone say "I refuse to agree with the prevailing consensus simply because" as opposed to "I find the prevailing consensus mistaken in such-and-such ways and so I disagree with it."
- masswerk 6y agoI'd say, about any beginning of a civil war, or the establishment of a totalitarian/autocratic regime is much like this. It may start in problem space, but it soon turns into "this problem is that severe that those in command/the other side is not to be trusted, to an extent where it must be excluded from the discussion". From this point onwards, it's just about collecting power and suppression, as it is about a certain partition being (systematically) excluded from the establishment of the general consensus.
- bjowen 6y agoArguably the positions taken in service of provocation only (owning the libs etc) are a refusal to agree just because - would they qualify?
- uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 6y agoThe "manufactured" in "manufactured consent" always seems to have some reptillian insinuation. Contrastingly, "manufactured furniture" is banal in its meaning. Production is not consumption, and consumption is a vote. Personally I always find their consent priced a little higher than I'm willing to bid.
- ilaksh 6y agoPeople don't realize how intermingled worldviews and groups are. So in a real way, enforcing a worldview is an act of group dominance.
- jrsj 6y agoI don’t think the U.S. has those shared beliefs anymore. We did, but now we’re just a shopping mall built on the grave of a country & the elites that did it have us blaming each other instead of them.