I've encountered a -lot- of people who comment on the funny hats in religion.
Y'know the weird thing? Nobody comments on the fact that hats play a role in -every- religion. They also play huge roles in official government positions.
"Well, yeah," you might say, "they're part of the costume, part of the uniform; it helps define people's expectations of who you are and what you represent."
That's true, of course; that is part of the role of a hat. But see, you're underestimating the cleverness of some people who lived a very long time ago.
Why, pray tell, are non-clergy men traditionally forbidden from wearing hats in religious gatherings - and why are women frequently permitted them? Why are hats traditionally forbidden in schools, government buildings, and the home? Why do clergical hats typically lack a brim?
Do you think your personality is different on a sunny versus a cloudy day? Outdoors, versus indoors?
Hats - brimmed hats in particular - have a -huge- impact on your mood and personality. I don't say this because I've read a study - I don't have to. A hat doesn't just darken your face - it darkens your mood. It makes you less empathetic, less vulnerable, more insular. You know the person who refuses to ever take off their hat? It's because removing it leaves them exposed and vulnerable; it's probably the only thing that lets them comfortably interact in public.
A brimmed hat can easily turn 10-20% of your field of vision into utter darkness. What do you think that does to a police officer wearing a hat?
What do you think it's done to our society that hats have vanished from common dress over the past sixty years?
And trust me, this isn't a unique insight. Social engineering can be as simple as popular figures no longer wearing a hat, setting fashion, and thus social, trends for decades to come.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Obvious Things Part 1: Social Freedoms and Class
This is the first part of a sequence I'll contribute to irregularly, discussing things most people grok without ever actually knowing. Everything I intend to write in this sequence is something which is so obvious we never even notice it - although, trust me, many of our historical elites -have- noticed these things, which has granted them subtle power over our lives we never even notice.
Do you know the difference between our upper classes and our lower classes? It's not, as one might immediately think, power, or money. These things don't change your station in life. Your station in life is determined by one thing and one thing only: The expectations of other people. This is well-understood in the East, and formed the explicit principles by which Imperial China was governed, in the written teachings of Confucius, but here in the West we tend to try to ignore it. We tend to see things like ritual suicide as honorable but ultimately barbaric practices, not seeing the way these practices tie into civilization itself.
Western media has increasingly tended to portray the enforcement of social rules as a bullying behavior, and we have in recent years begun to strongly discourage this enforcement. I'm a staunch individualist - but I'm also a rationalist, and I recognize a self-destructive attitude when I see one. I also recognize a particularly insidious form of social engineering - a re-stratification of society. Because, you see, classes have always, and everywhere, been divided first and foremost by adherence to social law. The upper classes have -far- more expectations heaped upon them; expectations of dress, behavior, accent and verbal tics, dinner manners, how to stand, how to walk, how to address people - the upper classes have etiquette drilled into them from birth. You think this is an accident of fate? More, you think it is an accident of fate that our upper classes are telling the lower classes that none of these things matter?
Clothing, to pick one example, is -always- a uniform. It -always- tells other people who you are. Who do you think gets the job in an interview - the lower-class person who shows up in jeans and a t-shirt because they think the people who insist that a suit and tie are important are just bullies, or the upper-class child who wears a suit and tie because they've been taught the important of a good uniform since birth? It's not money, nor connections, that guide children from birth to remain in the social standing they began it in - it's knowledge, knowledge that is being carefully and deliberately sabotaged by those -claiming- to be standing up for the disadvantaged even as they make their disadvantage permanent.
The upper classes don't have more freedom - this is an illusion. They have far, far less freedom, because while their station in life theoretically grants them greater privilege, they only enjoy that privilege so long as they do not actually exercise it. Quite a lot like money, actually - the rich man is only rich so long as he doesn't spend his money, after all.
Li is the path to power. Appear the fool, and be treated as one. Appear to be a person to be taken seriously, however, and you will be.
Not that I advise anyone to pursue this course, any more than I would advise others to become misers so that they might become rich, and for precisely the same reasons. However, while I would not advise miserliness, I -would- advise careful consideration of purchases and the establishment of a financial reserve - and likewise I would advise the careful evaluation of social expectations.
Bullies, as anybody who tries to teach social rules is now being labeled, are teachers of a lesson which needs teaching - gone are the days when "bully" referred to the teenager who picked on the elementary school student, now the "bully" is the teen who makes fun of the one teen who doesn't wear deodorant, or who dyes their hair an unnatural color. The question, of course, is which social class is hosting the backlash against "bullies", and why.
Do you know the difference between our upper classes and our lower classes? It's not, as one might immediately think, power, or money. These things don't change your station in life. Your station in life is determined by one thing and one thing only: The expectations of other people. This is well-understood in the East, and formed the explicit principles by which Imperial China was governed, in the written teachings of Confucius, but here in the West we tend to try to ignore it. We tend to see things like ritual suicide as honorable but ultimately barbaric practices, not seeing the way these practices tie into civilization itself.
Western media has increasingly tended to portray the enforcement of social rules as a bullying behavior, and we have in recent years begun to strongly discourage this enforcement. I'm a staunch individualist - but I'm also a rationalist, and I recognize a self-destructive attitude when I see one. I also recognize a particularly insidious form of social engineering - a re-stratification of society. Because, you see, classes have always, and everywhere, been divided first and foremost by adherence to social law. The upper classes have -far- more expectations heaped upon them; expectations of dress, behavior, accent and verbal tics, dinner manners, how to stand, how to walk, how to address people - the upper classes have etiquette drilled into them from birth. You think this is an accident of fate? More, you think it is an accident of fate that our upper classes are telling the lower classes that none of these things matter?
Clothing, to pick one example, is -always- a uniform. It -always- tells other people who you are. Who do you think gets the job in an interview - the lower-class person who shows up in jeans and a t-shirt because they think the people who insist that a suit and tie are important are just bullies, or the upper-class child who wears a suit and tie because they've been taught the important of a good uniform since birth? It's not money, nor connections, that guide children from birth to remain in the social standing they began it in - it's knowledge, knowledge that is being carefully and deliberately sabotaged by those -claiming- to be standing up for the disadvantaged even as they make their disadvantage permanent.
The upper classes don't have more freedom - this is an illusion. They have far, far less freedom, because while their station in life theoretically grants them greater privilege, they only enjoy that privilege so long as they do not actually exercise it. Quite a lot like money, actually - the rich man is only rich so long as he doesn't spend his money, after all.
Li is the path to power. Appear the fool, and be treated as one. Appear to be a person to be taken seriously, however, and you will be.
Not that I advise anyone to pursue this course, any more than I would advise others to become misers so that they might become rich, and for precisely the same reasons. However, while I would not advise miserliness, I -would- advise careful consideration of purchases and the establishment of a financial reserve - and likewise I would advise the careful evaluation of social expectations.
Bullies, as anybody who tries to teach social rules is now being labeled, are teachers of a lesson which needs teaching - gone are the days when "bully" referred to the teenager who picked on the elementary school student, now the "bully" is the teen who makes fun of the one teen who doesn't wear deodorant, or who dyes their hair an unnatural color. The question, of course, is which social class is hosting the backlash against "bullies", and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)