Risk and Extortion XXIII: Intermezzo (We Have Never Been Modern)

Having laid out kenosis as an alternative to identity thinking, this analysis has taken the risk of becoming a moralizing text. In order to avoid delving any deeper into normativity and morality, I am quickly returning to the political-philosophical underpinnings of my sociological analytical framework. The rejection of identity thinking does not need to be morally legitimated. When one engages in a debate with someone who deploys identity thinking, it will become obvious that the bottom line of their positioning will be that of self-preservation at all costs; ironically, as the entropic nature of self-preservation at all costs will ultimately destroy that which is to be preserved, either in terms of modes of thought (moral corruption) or in terms of mode of extension (actual existence) or both. The pursuit of identity politics is ultimately always entropic, as it relies on the deployment of violence to sustain itself.

By invoking identity politics as a means to pursue the interests of a few at the expense of the many, and having the latter sacrifice their health and their lives in order to do so, the Establishment is always at risk of being exposed. This is exactly, where the language of risk enters. Risk and anxiety are closely coupled entities as risk is the abstraction of anxiety in terms of probability and impact (often itself quantified and abstracted as capital). The risk of the Establishment being exposed as an extortion scheme becomes more obvious when we consider the long history of close associations between politics, law and organized crime (more recently, the culture industries have also been thrown into the mix). This is not merely restricted to the associations between the Italian Mafia and Post War anti-communist operations in Italy, or between US-based Jewish crime syndicates and the establishment of the Zionist State, but runs through every state, every government and every multinational company.

The mind-sets of politicians, high-profile lawyers, bankers, multinational CEOs and crime lords are often almost identical. It is no coincidence that there is a general common-sense antipathy towards these groups as they are the bringers of death and destruction for nothing more than their own personal gain. It is the more remarkable, that what we have been taught about democracy has very little bearing on this reality. We are taught that democracy relies on equality before the law, due process, the primacy of the common good etc. Yet, in every existing democracy, many among those who float to the top are at best mere thieves and vandals, at worst they can be drug-dealers, rapist and murderers; all legal of course.

This assertion that organized crime and the business of governing are often intertwined, is not to pander to conspiracy thinking or cynical-ironic self-valorization. Instead, it is a dry and objective analysis based on understanding interests. One cannot hoard endless amounts of wealth and scarce resources if one is not engaged in the corruption of institutions that function to keep the existing order going. And that is why the PMC are so important, as they provide the veneer of respectability and legitimacy with which these institutions immunize themselves against critique. This is why the public sphere is not dominated by billionaires but by celebrities, politicians, journalists, pundits, intellectuals etc.

This should provide the backbone of a sociological analysis of what is referred to as “social order” or “society”. Rather than worshipping the icons of modernist imaginaries, which assume that unlike during the Middle Ages, modern societies are firmly based on the dual monopolies of violence and taxation in the hand of the state, we should be open the possibility that these so-called monopolies are at best self-proclaimed assertions of sovereign rule over a specific territory that can still deploy the arbitrariness of violence and corruption when necessary, as they are not beholden to anyone else. The recent collapse of the veneer of International Law, especially in the domain of protecting Universal Human Rights, proves that the sovereign rule of Israel, the USA, Germany and the UK has no problems with arbitrary violence on behalf of a minority of powerful stakeholders. That is, if we want to understand “order” in relation to “sovereignty”, we must start from the assumption that we have never really been modern.