And she suddenly,
facing the ormolu clock and the peacock screen with her eyes upon them as
though they might, with their color and decoration help her, had a revelation —
dim, misty, vague, and lost almost as soon as it was seen — that it wasn’t
really anyone’s fault at all — that it was the system, the place, the tightness
and closeness and helplessness that did for everybody; that nobody could escape
from it, and that the finest saint, the most noble character, would be crushed
and broken in that remorseless mill— “the mills of the gods”? — no, the mills
of a rotten, impoverished, antiquated system....
The subject of Walpole’s novel is a fictional
boarding school presided over by a furtively sadistic headmaster. The school is
the rotten, impoverished, antiquated
system which crushes the spirit of its teaching staff and their families.
It also highlights the vexed question of free will and the
difficulties we so often face in actually exercising our free will to escape from
the system, the place, the tightness and
closeness and helplessness that did for everybody. We have free will, that
much seems obvious, but do we use it as often as we could? No we don’t. That
much seems obvious too.
Yet petty and not so petty forms of oppression are part of life and
always have been. Not only that, but today a major middle class function is to
operate and expand those remorseless mills
on behalf of the governing classes. As it was with Walpole’s fictional
headmaster, oppression is a career often suited to those with middle class
aspirations but no more than an average dose of talent. Sometimes less. Sometimes none at all.
Today oppression offers a far wider career choice than was
the case in Walpole’s day. From the EU to climate change, from petty motoring
offences to over-complex taxation, from recycling to official dietary
harangues, from misgendering to islamophobia, from sustainability to hate
speech, the sheer range of oppressive activity is almost too vast to
comprehend. That too, that vastness is also oppressive. It is not difficult to
see that in the medium to long term, the scale of modern oppression will evolve
into the tightness and closeness and
helplessness that did for everybody.
All these myriad modes of oppression are the result of huge
numbers of middle class people shaping their own careers and the careers of
like-minded professionals. Democracy seems to have no antidote for it. Academics, journalists, politicians, scientists, celebrities
and many more all have a vested interest in furthering oppression and their professional role in those remorseless
mills which are the inevitable outcome of their professional self-interest.
Almost as if the middle classes of the developed world do
not have enough to do. As if modern automation, information systems, monitoring
systems, databases and communication systems have largely finished to job of hollowing
out traditional middle class careers. As if the impact of the electronic age on
traditional employment cannot be offset by new and equally productive forms of
middle class employment.
It is as if a career in oppression is all that is open to
many would-be middle class people. The governing classes of course, they benefit
from oppression as it makes government that much easier and creates a large
class of voters and mainstream pundits who need to keep things that way.
2 comments:
I think this is Weber's prediction. The unintended consequence of increased efficiency in business and government is the "iron cage" of rationality. People try to make things easier for themselves by establishing rules and procedures; which are in turn experienced by others as oppression.
On a personal note, when I look back over my career and recall those who relished the exercise of oppression, I still shudder. There are some situations where people get along nicely by implementing rules and procedures they all agree on and are OK with. The first sign of the idiot or the psychopath was, I recall, a type of obscurantism.
Sam - I didn't encounter many who people relished the exercise of oppression directly, but you make a good point about obscurantism because that certainly facilitated indirect oppression.
Post a Comment