Memes, Anarchy, Fetishism, Rhizomes….and everything…
Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign used “Change” as its central message. This slogan resonated with many who were frustrated with the existing political and economic situation. The idea of change, while powerful and motivating, had both positive and negative outcomes.
On the positive side, the message of change energized a wide range of voters, including young people and minorities, who felt their voices could make a difference. This increased voter turnout and brought new perspectives into the political process. The sense of hope that accompanied the promise of change helped unify people with different backgrounds, fostering a collective belief in a better future. This led to significant policy efforts, like the Affordable Care Act, which aimed to address long-standing issues in healthcare and other areas.
However, the broad and often vague promise of change also set up unrealistic expectations. Many believed it would bring about sweeping reforms in all areas, but the practical realities of governance meant that not all hopes could be fulfilled. This led to disappointment among some supporters. Moreover, the idea of change polarized the political landscape, with opponents viewing the proposed changes as threats to traditional values. This polarization gave rise to strong opposition movements, such as the Tea Party, and contributed to increased political gridlock and more extreme rhetoric.
Obama’s platform of change had a significant impact, both in inspiring and mobilizing voters and in deepening political divisions. The challenges of delivering on such a broad promise in a complex political environment continue to influence American politics today.
No There Will Be Only Aporia, Do Not Search For Happy Endings
Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign centered around the concept of “Change,” a compelling yet ambiguous idea that captured the public’s desire for a new direction after years of political and economic uncertainty. However, this promise of change, like many political promises, operates within a complex landscape of open and closed systems, similar to the distinctions between Frege’s concepts and functions and the deterministic structures found in folk tales.
### Open Systems: Frege, Concepts, and Functions
In Fregean logic, concepts are predicates or properties that are unsaturated — they require an argument to yield a truth value. Functions, on the other hand, are mappings that take arguments (such as objects or concepts) and produce outputs. This framework allows for flexibility and openness, where meanings can adapt to different arguments and contexts. Frege’s distinction between concepts and functions forms the basis for understanding how language operates in open systems, where multiple outcomes are possible depending on the inputs and the interpretations of those inputs.
This open system is analogous to a political environment where change is possible, but the outcomes are not predetermined. Politicians, when promising change, often exploit this flexibility. They present concepts like “freedom,” “justice,” and “security” as functions that can produce positive outcomes, but they rely on the ambiguity of these concepts to appeal to a wide audience. In reality, these concepts remain unsaturated until they are applied to specific arguments — specific policies or actions — which may or may not deliver the promised results. This openness allows for hope and optimism, but it also sets the stage for potential disappointment when the promised changes do not materialize as expected.
### Closed Systems: Folk Tales and Determinism
In contrast, the deterministic structures found in folk tales, as analyzed by Vladimir Propp, present a closed system where the outcome is fixed. Propp’s analysis of folk tales reveals 31 functions and seven character types that consistently lead to the same outcome, regardless of the specific details of the story. These closed systems do not allow for flexibility or alternative outcomes — the narrative is predetermined, and the functions serve only to move the story along to its inevitable conclusion.
Politicians often employ the language and psychology of folk tales, promising change in a way that suggests a straightforward, linear progression from problem to solution. They create narratives that resemble Propp’s closed systems, where the “hero” (the politician) confronts and overcomes the “villain” (the opposing party, policies, or societal issues), leading to a happy ending (the promised change). However, unlike the deterministic world of folk tales, the real world is far more complex and operates within an open system. The transformation politicians promise is not guaranteed, and the “happy ending” is not inevitable.
### The Intersection: Postmodernism and Manipulation
In a postmodern society, where traditional narratives and structures are constantly questioned and deconstructed, the application of folk tale psychology to open systems like politics becomes problematic. Politicians use the simplicity and determinism of folk tale narratives to manipulate public perception, applying these closed-system functions to an inherently open system. This manipulation is not just irresponsible — it borders on the criminal. Politicians know that the lack they promise to fill — whether it’s economic inequality, social justice, or national security — cannot be fully removed in an open, rapidly changing system. Yet, they continue to use these deterministic narratives to gain support, knowing that the promised transformations are unlikely to be fully realized.
The use of these folktale-like narratives in modern political discourse creates a paradox. On one hand, the flexibility of open systems, as described by Frege, allows for the possibility of change and adaptation. On the other hand, the deterministic nature of the narratives politicians use traps these possibilities within a closed system of expectations, leading to inevitable disillusionment when the complex realities of governance do not align with the simplistic promises made during campaigns.
### Conclusion
The intersection of Frege’s open systems and the closed systems of folk tales highlights a critical issue in contemporary politics. Politicians exploit the flexibility of open systems to make grand promises, while simultaneously employing deterministic, folk tale-like narratives to create the illusion of certainty and inevitability. This creates a dangerous disconnect between the promises made and the realities that can be delivered, leading to a cycle of unfulfilled expectations and growing public distrust.
In a postmodern society, where the stability of traditional narratives is increasingly questioned, the continued use of these tactics is not just misleading — it undermines the very foundations of democratic governance. The challenge lies in recognizing the open nature of political systems and resisting the temptation to apply simplistic, deterministic narratives to complex, multifaceted issues. Only then can we move towards a more honest and effective political discourse that acknowledges the uncertainties and possibilities inherent in real-world change.
Frege’s distinction between concepts and functions is highly relevant to the discussion above because it provides a logical framework for understanding how political narratives, especially those involving promises of change, are constructed and interpreted. In the context of political speech, **concepts** can be seen as the ideals or values — such as freedom, justice, and change — that are often used by politicians to appeal to voters. These concepts are unsaturated, meaning they require specific arguments (policies, actions, or decisions) to be applied in order to yield a meaningful outcome or truth value.
Frege’s framework helps explain how political discourse operates within both open and closed systems. In an **open system**, like a democratic society where outcomes are not predetermined, concepts can be applied in various ways, leading to different interpretations and results. For example, the concept of “change” can mean different things depending on the specific policies or actions that are proposed to achieve it. This flexibility allows for a broad appeal, but also creates room for ambiguity and potential disappointment if the promised outcomes do not materialize as expected.
On the other hand, in a **closed system**, like the deterministic narratives found in folk tales, the application of concepts is fixed, leading to a single, inevitable outcome. When politicians use folk tale-like narratives, they create the illusion that the application of certain concepts (like “change”) will lead to a guaranteed positive outcome. However, this is misleading because real-world political systems are open and complex, not closed and deterministic.
Frege’s distinction also sheds light on the manipulation that can occur in political speech. Politicians might use powerful concepts without fully saturating them with concrete arguments, leaving the public to fill in the gaps with their own expectations. This can lead to a disconnection between the promises made (the concepts) and the actual policies implemented (the arguments), resulting in disillusionment when the expected outcomes (the truth values) do not align with reality.
In summary, Frege’s concepts and functions provide a foundational understanding of how political speech can be both powerful and problematic. The use of unsaturated concepts in political narratives allows for broad appeal, but also opens the door to ambiguity and manipulation, particularly when these concepts are applied in ways that do not match the complex realities of open systems. This distinction is crucial for analyzing the effectiveness and integrity of political discourse in modern society.
Frege’s distinction between concepts and functions is crucial in philosophy, where concepts act as unsaturated entities requiring arguments to yield truth values, while functions map these arguments to specific outputs. This foundational idea has significantly influenced modern logic and the philosophy of language, providing a framework for how we categorize and interact with the world within logical systems.
Citation: Philosophy Today. (2022, August 7). The philosophy of Gottlob Frege: Concepts and functions. Medium. http://jeetwincasinos.com/philosophytoday/the-philosophy-of-gottlob-frege-concepts-and-functions-347ccd2756cc
Our current existence can be seen as straddling the boundary between two fundamentally different systems: arboreal (tree-like) systems and rhizomatic (root-like) structures. These concepts, drawn from the philosophical works of Deleuze and Guattari, offer a lens through which to understand the shifting nature of power, governance, and meaning in contemporary society.
### Arboreal Systems vs. Rhizomatic Structures
**Arboreal systems** are hierarchical, with a clear, linear order. They resemble traditional structures of governance and social organization, where power flows from a central authority and meaning is stable and well-defined. These systems are predictable, with established rules and functions that ensure continuity and control. In such systems, political power is concentrated and decisions are made within a framework that presupposes a fixed set of meanings and roles.
**Rhizomatic structures**, in contrast, are non-hierarchical, decentralized, and constantly in flux. Power and meaning are diffused across a network that has no central point of control. These systems are characterized by unpredictability and the potential for constant change. In a rhizomatic world, traditional functions dissolve, and meaning becomes contingent, mutable, and often self-serving. The rhizome spreads horizontally, with no fixed path or predetermined outcome, leading to a form of governance that is as fluid as it is unstable.
### The Dissolution of Meaning
As society transitions from arboreal to rhizomatic systems, we encounter a profound dissolution of meaning. In traditional, arboreal systems, concepts had stable definitions tied to clear functions within the social order. However, in the rhizomatic framework, these concepts become untethered from their original meanings. They are no longer tied to fixed functions but are instead repurposed, reinterpreted, and often distorted to serve immediate, contingent needs.
This dissolution is evident in political speech, particularly during elections, where grand concepts like “freedom,” “justice,” and “change” are frequently invoked. Yet, as Frege’s analysis of arguments, objects, and concepts suggests, when these concepts are displaced or misapplied to contradictory objects, they lose their coherence. Political discourse becomes anarchic — devoid of stable meaning, it becomes a tool for manipulation rather than a medium for genuine communication.
### The Emergence of Anarchy
The erosion of stable meanings and functions leads to a form of anarchy, not in the sense of total chaos, but as an unpredictable, uncontrollable system where power becomes contingent and self-serving. In a rhizomatic structure, where meaning is fluid and authority is decentralized, governance becomes reactive rather than proactive. Decisions are made in response to shifting circumstances, and power is wielded not based on stable principles, but on the ability to navigate and manipulate an ever-changing landscape.
In such an environment, traditional political structures struggle to maintain control. The dissolution of meaning creates a space where power is exercised not through established functions or stable concepts, but through the ability to dominate the narrative, often using symbolic memes or slogans that resonate on an emotional rather than a rational level. This leads to governance that is increasingly unpredictable and self-serving, where the pursuit of power for its own sake becomes the primary goal.
### The Mathematical Analogy: Cocycles and Stability
In mathematical topology, **cocycles** represent functions that describe how different parts of a structure are connected, maintaining a form of coherence across the system. In a stable, arboreal system, these cocycles ensure that all parts of the system function together in a predictable way. However, in a rhizomatic system, where connections are fluid and constantly changing, cocycles break down, leading to a loss of coherence and predictability.
Similarly, in the social and political realm, the dissolution of stable functions and meanings leads to a breakdown of the connections that once held the system together. Power becomes contingent, dependent on the ability to adapt to an unpredictable environment rather than on the adherence to stable principles or functions. This creates a true form of anarchy — an environment where the traditional rules no longer apply, and where the exercise of power is increasingly arbitrary and self-serving.
Our current existence at the boundary between arboreal and rhizomatic systems reflects a profound shift in the nature of governance and meaning. As traditional structures dissolve and meaning becomes increasingly fluid, we find ourselves in a state of anarchy, where power is exercised not through stable functions or principles, but through the ability to navigate and manipulate a constantly shifting landscape. This transition poses significant challenges for governance, as the predictability and stability of arboreal systems give way to the fluidity and unpredictability of rhizomatic structures, leading to a world where power is contingent, self-serving, and ultimately out of control.
Here are the APA references for the works mentioned in the above discussion:
References
- Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). *A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia* (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1980)
- Frege, G. (1960). *The philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege*. Basil Blackwell.
- Frege, G. (1980). *The foundations of arithmetic: A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number*. Northwestern University Press.
- Lacan, J. (2006). *Écrits: The first complete edition in English* (B. Fink, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1966)
- Lacan, J. (1998). *The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis* (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1973)
- Deleuze, G. (1994). *Difference and repetition* (P. Patton, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1968)
