Ruminations 101(4) (The year of Obatala): Looking Back on 2022 in Epigrams and Aphorisms --Part 4, "de Sade's Theater as Performed by the Inmates of the Global Asylum "

Pix Credit here

pix Credit here--Obatala Ceremony

 For the last several years, and with no particular purpose other than a desire to meander through reflection, I have taken the period between Christmas and New Years Eve to produce a s summary of the slice of the year to which I paid attention through epigrams and aphorisms.  It follows an end of year  tradition I started in 2016 (for those see here), 2017 (for these see here), 2018 (for those see here), 2019 (for those see here); 2020 (for those see here); 2022 (for those see here).   

Pix Credit here

At the start of this year I noted, in passing on the Annual Oracle of the Ifa practitioners of Cuba, that this was to be the year of Obatala (The Orishas Speak: The 2022 Letter of the Yoruba Association of Cuba (Letra del Año para el 2022 de la Asociación Yoruba de Cuba) and My Preliminary Interpretation). "This is a year of unsuccessful revolution, of challenges that may not succeed but that may weaken all orders. This is the year of rational irrationality, of creative destruction that is both rational and irrational. It is a year of great passion, if dishonesty, and of violence." (Ibid.). The ruling Orisha of the year was Obatala.  Obatala is the essence of rationality and irrationality.  Obatala represents the highest form of rational creative potential as well as its basest forms of dissipation. Obatala is, in the tradition of the West, the King of Cups in Tarot.  These are to be taken in their semiotic sense--they provide condensed representations of a related cluster of impulses that sometimes manifest.

And 2022 did not disappoint.  It was a year when the firmer the pull toward rationality, toward authoritative structures, toward management and control the more exposed its irrationality and failures. Obatala speaks of the simultaneous apotheosis and  rotting of the ideologies around which rational science is constructed, constrained, instrumentalist, and corrupted. Indeed if 2021 was the year in which what appeared to be new forms of collective management were undertaken (and the rage it was meant to contain), 2022 exposed its corruption--manipulation of social media in the US in the service of elections, abuse of discretion of the sort that exploded even the fig leaf of rule based containment; the corruption of religion by its ministers against its own devout communities. 2022 was the year that just as everything looked like it was going right, it went wrong. And it was a year of violence; of seeking to recreate a 19th century imperial state even as post global empires are forming. It was the year of doing and undoing.

And it is in that spirit, the spirit of 2022, that the epigrams and aphorisms that follow are offered. Each aphorism links to a essay written during the year. The theme of this fourth set is "de Sade's Theater as Performed by the Inmates of the Global Asylum." 2022, perhaps, provides evidence that, indeed, the greatest and most prophetic product of the Enlightenment--for its excesses of good and evil--was indeed the Marquis de Sade. Before my readers get their drawers in a bind--the reference is to the intellectual elements rather than (for the moment) the physical depravities  that are all, in their own ways, children of the Enlightenment; their depraved manifestations, at least when observed from the perspective of ideas.  "“Alfred Hitchcock was also influenced,” des Cars adds. “Once you start looking, you see Sade’s presence throughout popular culture.” (Smithsonian). 

Links to the 2022 Year End Ruminations here:

Part 1, Seeing and Knowing

Part 2, War, huh, yeah; what is it Good For?

Part 3: Words, huh, yeah; what are they good for?

Part 4:"de Sade's Theater as Performed by the Inmates of the Global Asylum"

Part 5: Good intentions gone bad; bad intentions made farce

1. The public intellectual is the great bellows (Latin follis) of collective fires.

Brief Reflections on Berliner Zeitung: Offener Brief fordert von Scholz Stopp der Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine (Berliner Zeitung: "Open letter calls for Scholz to stop arms deliveries to Ukraine"). "The Russo-Ukrainian War has provided a  grand opportunity for the sort of performance--in public--of the intellectual. It is one that has allowed them the appearance of a foray out from their well protected bubbles and into the world of flesh, of blood, of wealth, and of violence.  But it is also one that permits the public intellectual to use these facts as avatars for the purpose of mobilizing public opinion in liberal democratic states and thus insert themselves, from a distance, into the political life of the nation. In this they may seek to mimic the great economic enterprises, the powerful non-governmental organizations, and the state security and propaganda organs of domestic and foreign governments, friendly or otherwise. To that end, German intellectuals, academics and otherwise, sometimes use the mechanism of an "open letter" suitably published in some friendly or strategically interested press organ.  Since the start of the Russo-Ukraine war, this modality of mobilization and narrative making has been used several times . . . Many if these forays into discourse have taken a position that aligns with a position that advocates response of some kind against Russia and to aid Ukraine. It is thus with some interest that it may be work considering the recently posted open letter from a group of intellectuals seeking to mobilize opinion toward a different end--the choking off of the capacity of Ukraine to wage a defensive campaign against the Russian invasion."

2. Sovereignty is a function of security; security is a function of power; power is a function of independence; and independence is the expression of sovereignty.

Indivisible Security and Hierarchies of Sovereign Autonomy; Full text: President Xi's keynote speech, "Joining Hands to Meet Challenges and Cooperation to Create the Future," delivered at the opening ceremony of BFA annual conference 2022 (Official Translation). "There was a small blip in news coverage when "Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday proposed a "global security initiative" that upholds the principle of "indivisible security", a concept also endorsed by Russia, although he gave no details of how it would be implemented. . . Analysts note that this is the first time China has argued for "indivisible security" outside the context of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, with implications on U.S. actions in Asia." (China's Xi proposes 'global security initiative', without giving details). The normative principles now emerging as the framing of Chinese principles of post global empire are certainly important. That these are being refined and projected now in the service of China's Russian first tier dependency within China's own collective security webs, is also noteworthy. But it is much more important for its discursive impact.  By that I mean, that the speech elevated the challenge of the signification of security as a function of sovereignty--or perhaps better put of the signification of sovereignty as product of the aggregated accommodations of security among actors.  What China appears to be proposing is a revolution in the concept of sovereignty--an object that is made concrete only as the expression of a set of mutually necessary accommodations of security among actors.  And yet such a system remains chaotic, in the sense that there is no rationalization of the accommodation nor a central space in which rules of accommodation are generated. There is only action--like the invasion of Russia. And there is only validation through threat or victory in war. And yet there is a center--but it is one constructed from the protection of the integrity of political blocs of states. It might be understood as the first great settlement of post 1945 global ordering divided between two conceptual empires occupying adjoining physical spaces, and their ordering around what remained of ancient states which themselves along with the apex rulers would now all engage in formally horizontal relations through the architecture of the United Nations."

 3. The greatest triumph of convergence is decoupling (découpler).

US-China Decoupling Gathering Strength-- Border Control for Taboo Goods and Re-Directing Global Supply Chains."The decoupling of the two great market drivers of global production is proceeding apace.  It is now well enough advanced that even the relatively official presses in the West are beginning to take notice.  The Wall Street Journal reported (at long last) the slow moving journey of even the stubbornest of the great American drivers of global production (Apple, Inc) that both Xi Jinping and Donald Trump-Joe Biden meant what they said about decoupling and about dual circulation economies. The move is important in two respects.  First with respect to the action by Apple to re-structure its global production to align with markets decoupling; and second focusing on  the decision by the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal to run the story in a prominent place. Strategically, the action and its announcement in press organs also emphasizes a larger policy trajectory to align defense and production objectives along the new borderlands of post-global empire, while retaining  a more well managed connection between them.. . It is important to emphasize that the policies on both ends emphasize DUAL circulation.  Decoupling ought not to be understood as simpleminded detachment. Rather, decoupling might better be conceptualized as a series of concentric trade (and dynamic) rings. At the core of these rings are the great post-global drivers and consumers of production and their 'inner circle' partners. This core of production and consumption (economic but also cultural production) would be insulated from targeted projections of power from outside. Beyond the core there is a strong trade sector (well managed and subject to intensified surveillance) between the cores. These have been organized for public consumption as either a Belt and Road Initiative or an America First/Brussels Effect structure, through which systems of economic reward-dependency may be organized and protected. One does not speak here about territory or direct control, but of management and mutually beneficial relations along chains of production and consumption (nicely captured by the Chinese discursive 'win-win strategy)"

4. In the face of the state, international institutional office holders will do their duty; but not today; and not by these actors.

Brief Thoughts on the Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet after official visit to China (28 May 2022). "If the visit was meant as little more than the theatre of legitimacy, it is not clear who got the better part of the deal.  For Chinese officials, the visit enhanced the narrative of Chinese engagement in the world, and more specifically with international organs, even one with the (bad) habit of being critical.  It also offered the opportunity to educate (though at this level of officialdom the value of education is likely quite attenuated). Additionally it might suggest a special status for China as a global power--China ought not to be subjected to 2nd or 3rd level functionaries but ought to be accommodated by being dealt with only at the highest level of the global institutions for human rights. In return for this it might well have been worth the inconvenience of hosting the OHCHR. For Michelle Bachelet and the OHCHR the visit also offered the opportunity to enhance legitimacy.  But more than that to extend and project a narrative of effective engagement--that the OHCHR and its bureau is worth not just keeping but enhancing.  The OHCHR might also have gambled that such a visit might make it easier for 2nd and 3rd level functionaries to penetrate China and insinuate its narrative into the operation and development of Socialist human rights. nd, indeed, the remarks of the High Commissioner suggested the great difficulties in a context in which the same words are used by both parties with quite distinctive cultural-political referents.  An example from the remarks: "In my discussions with senior officials, the themes of development, peace and security arose in every meeting. Of course, for development, peace and security to be sustainable, it needs to be inclusive and rooted in protection of human rights." (Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ). The semiotic limits, and perhaps the tragedy, of the visit is thus on full display. And that was the point.  The High Commissioner dutifully did her duty--she raised all of the issues on the international human rights wish list (from the perspective of the elite elements of the UN Geneva and NY  staff establishment along with their supporting consultancies in the academy and the NGO worlds). And Chinese officials dutifully listened and then equally dutifully reframed all of those issues from the foundational perspectives of Socialist human rights (development, peace, security).  And so it will go dutifully at periodic intervals going forward.  And yet that is a good thing. It opens even the smallest possibility that at some point both sides will not merely understand each other, but that they may begin to have the conversation that is really necessary--a conversation about first principles of human rights and the means of bridging the gaps between its liberal democratic, developing state, and Marxist-Leninist foundational premises. But not today. And not by these actors."

5. The theatrics of politics is far more valuable than its substance--for the masses.  

Biden signs $1.7 trillion government spending bill into law. Biden signed the bill while vacationing on St. Croix in the US Virgin Islands. The bill was flown to him for signing, the White House said. “The White House received the bill from Congress late afternoon on Wednesday. The bill was delivered to the President for his signature by White House staff on a regularly scheduled commercial flight,” a White House official told pool reporters. It’s at least the second time this year that an important bill has been flown to Biden for his signature. While on a trip to Asia in May, a bill authorizing about $40 billion in aid to Ukraine was carried by a staffer who was already scheduled to travel to the region. Biden signed the bill while overseas.

6. The theatrics of legislation is far more significant than the legislative act itself; one votes optics and interest, not substance.

Members literally don’t have enough time to read some bills before a vote is held. This change would require they do."How fast can you read? Can you read 2,232 pages in only 18 hours? That would be 124 pages per hour for 18 hours without a break and with complete comprehension. If you can’t, then you’re like most members of Congress and nearly every other human being. A new piece of legislation would require members have enough time to actually fully look over the bills they vote on. Last week’s 2,232-page omnibus bill to fund the government was literally impossible to both fully read and comprehend in the limited time between release and vote. The bill, largely written in secret and by congressional leadership, was only publicly released and given to most members about 18 hours before the vote. Even if you could read one page per minute, it would have taken about 37 hours to read the whole thing."  Read the full 4,155-page, $1.7 trillion government funding bill released by Congress". "Congressional negotiators unveiled a mammoth $1.7 trillion funding bill as leaders scramble to quickly sort out government funding for fiscal 2023. The 4,155-page funding package, which lawmakers hope to pass later this week, includes $772.5 billion in nondefense discretionary spending, and $858 billion in defense funding, a figure in line with the dollar level set by the National Defense Authorization Act that passed both chambers earlier this month."