The condition of politics in a pragmatic framework of
non-sequentiality, non- linear functional dependencies,
non-determinism, decentralized, non-hierarchic modes of
interaction or accelerated dynamics, extreme competitive
pressure-that is, in the framework of the civilization of
illiteracy-currently escapes definition. State of flux
appropriately describes what such a political experience can be.
What we have today, however, is a conflict between politics
anchored in the pragmatics that is still based on literacy and
politics shaped by forces representing the pragmatic need to
transcend literacy. The conflict affects the condition of
politics and the nature of contemporary political action. It
affects everything related to the social contract and its
implementation: education, exercise of democracy, practice of
law, defense, social policies, and international affairs.
Changes affecting current political experiences are part of a
sweeping dynamics. These changes range from the acknowledged
transition from an industrially based national economy to an
information processing global economy focused on service. Part
of the change is reflected in the transition from national
economies of scarcity (usually complemented by patterns of
preserving and saving) to large, integrated commercial economies
of access, even right, to consumption and affluence.
Established in the context of political movements that focused on
individuality, these integrated economies affect, in turn, the
condition of the individual, who no longer sees the need for
self-restraint or self-denial, and indulges in the commercial
democracy of permissiveness. Consequently, political trials are
met, or avoided, with an Epicurean response: withdrawal from
public life for the pleasures of buying, entertainment, travel,
and sport, which in a not-so-distant past only the rich and
powerful could enjoy. Politics itself, as Huxley prophesied in
his description of the brave, new world, becomes a form of
entertainment, or yet another competitive instant, not far from
the spirit and letter of the stock market, of the auction house,
or the gambling casino.
Political involvement in a democracy of permissiveness is
channeled into various forms of activism, all expressions of the
shift from the politics of authority to that of expanding
freedom of choice. The new experience of increasingly interactive
electronic media is probably correlated to the shift from the
positivist test of facts, as it originated in science and
expanded into social and political life, to the rather relativist
expectation of successful representations, in public opinion
polls, in staged political ceremonies, in the image we have of
ourselves and others. Albeit, the power of the media has already
surpassed that of politics.
All these considerations do not exhaust the process under
discussion. They explain how particular types of activism-from
emancipatory movements (feminist, racial, sexual) to the new
action of groups identified through ethnic origin, lifestyle,
concern for nature-use politics in its newer and older forms to
further their own programs. Openness, tolerance, the right to
experiment, individualism, relativism, as well as attitudinally
motivated movements are all illiterate in nature in the sense
that they defy the structural characteristics of literacy and
became possible only in post- literate contexts. Some of these
movements are still vaguely defined, but have become part of the
political agenda of this period of fervor and upheaval. Literacy,
in search of arguments for its own survival, frequently embraces
causes stemming from experiences that negate it.
The impact of new self-constitutive practical experiences and
definition on digital networks already qualifies these
experiences as alternatives, regardless of how limited an
individual's involvement with them is. Within the realm of human
interaction in the only uncensored medium known, a different
political experience is taking shape. What counts in this new
experience are not anonymous voters lumped into ineffective
majorities, but individuals willing to partake in concrete
decisions that affect their lives in the virtual communities of
choice that they establish. While the mass media, still
connected to the literate nest in which they were hatched,
partake in the functioning of political machines that produce
the next meaningless president, a different political dynamics,
focused on the individual, is leading to more efficient forms of
political practical experiences. There is nothing miraculous to
report in this respect. Notwithstanding, the Internet can be
credited for the defeat of the attempt in 1991 to turn back the
political clock in Russia, as well as for the way it is
influencing events in China, East Europe, and South America.
How did we get here?
Human relations can be characterized, in retrospect, by
recurrences. Distinctions within self-constitutive experiences
occur under the pressure of the realized need to achieve higher
levels of efficiency. Relations, which include a political
component pertinent to cooperative efforts and the need to share
the outcome, have been evinced since the syncretic phase of
human activity. There is no distinct political dimension in the
syncretic pragmatics of immediacy. Incipient political identity,
as any other kind of human self-identification, is foremostly
natural: the strongest, the swiftest, those with the most acute
senses are acknowledged as leaders. The most powerful are
successful on their own account. And this success translates
into survival: more food, more offspring, resilience, ability to
escape danger. Once the natural is humanized, the qualities that
make some individuals better than others were acknowledged in the
realms of nature and human nature. Whether as tribal leaders,
spiritual animators, or priests, they all accomplished political
functions and continuously reaffirmed the reasons for their
perceived authority. Over time, natural qualities lost their
determinant role. Characteristics based on human nature, in
particular intellectual qualities such as communication skills
and management and planning abilities, progressively tipped the
balance. Current textbooks defining politics do not even mention
natural abilities, focusing instead on the art or science of
governing, shrewdness in promoting a policy, and contrivance.
From participatory forms of political life, in which solidarity
is more important than differences among people, to the forms
characteristic of our time of personal and political shift away
from each other, changes have taken place because human practice
made them necessary. Politics was not and is not a passive result
of these changes, some of which it stimulated, others of which
it opposed. The survival drive behind participatory forms was
continuously redefined and became a different kind of assertion:
not just better than other species, but better than those before
us, better than others. Competition shifted from the realm of
nature-man against nature-to the realm of humanity. Once the
element of comparison to the other, or judgment by others, was
introduced, hierarchy was established. Hierarchy put on record
became, with the advent of notation, and more so with the advent
of writing, a component of experience, one of its structuring
elements. It is no longer a here-and-now defined action of
immediacy, but action expanded as progression over generations
and societies, and among various societies. Accordingly, while
solidarity, though permanently subject to redefinition, was
still in the background, the driving forces were quite different.
They resulted from the need to establish a political practice of
efficiency pertinent to the pragmatic framework, henceforth to
the needs of the community.
For as long as human activity was relatively homogeneous, there
was no need for political delegation or for reifying political
goals into rules or organizations. Once diversification became
possible, the task of integration, to which rituals, myths,
religion, assignment distribution, and leadership contributed,
changed. Not only did people involve more of their past in new
practical experiences, but they also started to keep records and
to measure the adequacy of effort, and thus the appropriateness
of their own policies. Attention to their past, present, and
future also allowed them to become aware of the means that
distinguished political practical experiences from all other
experiences (magic, myth, religion). It was a difficult
undertaking, especially under the provisions of centralized,
syncretic authority. The natural, the magical, the religious, the
logical, the economical, and the political mingled. The critical
element proved to be represented by practical expectations. To
implore unknown forces for rain, a successful hunt, or fertility
was very different from articulating expectations related to what
needs to be done to maintain the integrity of work and life.
Initially, these expectations were mixed. They progressively
became more focused, and a sense of accountability, based on
tangible results, embodied in comparisons, was introduced.
While self-constitution is the projection of individual
characteristics (biological, cultural) in a given practical
experience, political practice is to a great extent a projection
of expectations. At each juncture in humankind's practical
experience, the previous expectation is carried over as new
expectations appear. Accordingly, it is expected that a
political leader will embody, in fact or through the symbolism
of authority, natural qualities, cognitive abilities, and
communication skills (rhetoric included), among other
attributes. When these expectations are embodied in specific
functions (tribal chief, judge, army commander, elected
legislator, or selected member of the executive body) and in
political institutions, the projection is no longer that of
individuals, but of the society committed to the goals and means
expressed, to its acknowledged values. Whether indeed each
tribal leader was the fastest, or each judge the most impartial
in ascertaining the damage done by a person who defied rules of
life and work, whether the military leader was the bravest, or
the legislator the wisest, became almost irrelevant after their
political recognition. Expectation overcame reality. This aspect
becomes very significant in the context of literacy. Moreover, it
becomes critical in the transition from the pragmatics on which
literacy is based to a pragmatic framework in respect to which
literacy requirements only hinder.
Political institutions firmly grounded in the assumptions of
literacy still debate whether tele-communting is acceptable,
tele-commerce secure, or tele-banking in the national interest.
While the debates are going on, these new practical experiences
are taking hold in the global economy. Networks, in full
expansion, are altering the nature of human transactions to the
extent that fewer and fewer people participate in elections
because they know that the function of these elections-to present
choice-is no longer politically relevant. There is a need to
bring politics closer to individuals; and this need can be
acknowledged only within structures of individual empowerment, as
opposed to empty representation.
Political activity resulted in norms, institutions, values, and a
consciousness of belonging to society. Not by any stretch of the
imagination is politics a harmonizing activity, because to live
with others, to enter a contract and pursue one's individual
goals within its limitations, means to accept a condition of a
sui generis trade-off. Political experiences involve, in various
degrees, skills and knowledge for giving life and legitimacy to
trade-offs. Language is the blood that flows through the arteries
of the political animal. When tamed by literacy, this language
defines a very precise realm of political life. The heartbeat of
the literate political animal corresponds to a rhythm of life
and work controlled by literacy. The accelerated rhythm that
became necessary under a new scale of experiences requires the
liberation of political language from the control of literacy,
and the participation of many languages in political
experiences.
It should come as no surprise that the expectation of language
skills, even when language changes, in people involved in the
practical experience of politics is carried over from one
generation to another. Regardless of the level of sophistication
reached by a particular language, and of the specific form of
political practice, effective use of powerful means of
expression and communication is required. Even when they did not
know how to write, kings and emperors were regarded as being
better writers than those who could. They would dictate to the
scribe, who created the perception that they probably
translated what higher authorities whispered into their ears.
Even when their rhetoric was weak, the masters of persuasion
they used were seen as only agents of power. Books were
attributed to political leaders; victory in war was credited to
them, as well as to military commanders. Law codes were
associated with their names, and even miracles, when politics
joined the forces of magic and religion (often playing one
against the other). All this and more represent the projection
of expectations.
The particular expectations of literacy confirm values associated
with its characteristics. Politics and the ideals embodied in
the Enlightenment-it carried into action political aspirations
originating in religion-and the Industrial Revolution cannot be
separated. Expectations of permanency, universality, reason,
democracy, and stability were all embodied in the political
experience. New forms of political activism were encouraged by
literacy and new institutions emerged. Awareness of boundaries
among cultures and languages increased. Centralism was
instituted, and hierarchies, some very subtle, others insidious,
were promoted with the help of the very powerful instrument of
language. Within this context, the practical experience of
politics established its own domain and its own criteria for
effectiveness, very different from those in the ancient
city-state or in the pragmatics of feudalism. Identification of
the professional politician, different from the heir to power,
was part of this process. Politics opened to the public and
affirmed tolerance, respect for the individual, and equality of
all people before the law. Political functions were defined and
political institutions formed. Rules for their proper operation
were encoded through literate means. The alliance between
politics and literacy would eventually turn into an incestuous
love, but before that happened, emancipation of human political
experiences would reach a historic climax in the revolutions
that took place during this time.
To celebrate all these accomplishments, while remaining aware of
the many shadows cast upon them by prejudices carried over from
previous political experiences (in regard to sex, race,
religion, ownership), was a task of monumental dimensions. We
can and must acknowledge that human political experiences played
a more important role than in previous social contexts in
maximizing efficiency in the pragmatic framework that made
literacy necessary. It was at this time that the role of
education, and especially the significance of access to it, were
politically defined and pursued according to the efficiency
expectations that led to the Industrial Revolution. The process
was far from being universal. The western part of the world took
the lead. Its political institutions encouraged investment, and
education was such an investment.
Political institutions reflect the pragmatic condition of the
citizen and, in turn, effect changes in the experience of
people's life and work. While the word illiteracy probably first
appeared print in 1876 in an English publication, in 1880
illiteracy in Germany was only one per cent of the population:
"Heil dem König, Heil dem Staat/ Wo man gute Schulen hat!" went
the slogan hailing the king and state where good schools were
the rule. This was the time when Thomas Alva Edison invented the
incandescent light bulb (1879); Alexander Graham Bell, the
telephone (patented in 1876); Nicklaus Otto, the four-stroke gas
engine (1876); Nikola Tesla, the electric alternator (1884).
Nevertheless, before Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, he learned
that only one per cent of all Russians were literate. In many
other parts of the world, the situation was not much better. In
addition, this was also a time when literacy was literally an
instrument of political discrimination. Those not literate were
looked down on, as were women (some held back from literacy and
study), as were nations considered ignorant and of inferior
morals (Russia being one of them).
Reflected in the ability to dominate nature, the growth of
science and the use of effective technological means influenced
the political nature of states, as well as the relation among
nations. Rationality formed the foundation of legality; the state
ascertained priority over individuals-a very direct reflection of
its literate nature. Rules were applied to everyone equally
(which later translated into an effective "all are equal," quite
different from the empty slogans of populist movements). The
rationality in place derived from literacy. To be effective
meant to dominate those who were less effective (citizens,
communities, nations).
Far from being a historic account, these observations suggest
that the literate political animal pursues political goals in
line with the sequential nature of literacy in a context of
centralized power, acknowledged hierarchies, and deterministic
expectations. The political institution is a machine, one among
many of the pragmatics of the Industrial Revolution. It did one
thing at a time, and one part of the machine did not have to
know what the other was doing. Energy was used between input and
output, and what resulted-political decisions, social policies,
regulations-was mass production of whatever the society could
negotiate: lubrication diminished friction. Parties were formed,
political programs articulated, and access to power opened to
many. Two premises were implicit in the literate discourse:
people should be able to express opinions on issues of public
interest; and they should be able to oversee the political
process, assuming responsibility for the way they exercise their
political rights. These two premises introduced an operational
definition of democracy and freedom, eventually encoded in the
doctrine of liberal democracy. They also confirmed the literate
expectation that democracy and freedom, like literacy, are
universal and eternal.
The failure of literacy-based politics takes place on its own
terms. Dictatorships (left-wing and right-wing), nationalism,
racism, colonialism, and the politics of disastrous wars and of
the leveling of aspirations that leads to the mediocrity embodied
in bureaucracy have brought the high hopes, raised during the
climax of literate political action, to the low of indifference
and cynicism we face in our day. Instead of the people's broader
participation in the political process, a hope raised by progress
in making equality and freedom effectively possible, society
faces the effects of the ubiquitous dedication to enjoyment in
corrupted welfare states unable to meet the obligations they
assumed, rightly or not. At times, it seems that the complexity
of political experience prevents even the people's symbolic
participation in government. Volunteering and voting, a right
for which people fought with a passion matched only by their
current indifference, have lost their meaning. There is no proper
feedback to reinforce the will and dedication to participate. It
also seems that in advocating equality and freedom, a common
denominator so low was established that politics can only
administer mediocrity, but not stimulate excellence. From among
all its functions, nationhood, as the embodiment of the
experience of political self-constitution, seems to maintain
only the function of redistribution.
Individual liberty, hard fought for under the many signs of
literacy, appears to be conformistic at best, and
opportunistic. To many citizens, it is questionable whether the
lost sense of community is a fair trade-off for the acquired
right to individualism. The hundreds of millions again and again
seduced by the political discourse of hatred (in fascism,
communism, nationalism, racism, fanaticism) wasted their
hard-won rights in order to take away from others property,
freedom of expression and religion, liberty, dignity, and
eventually life. Politics after Auschwitz was not meant to become
yet another instance of pettifogging. But it did, and we all are
aware of the opportunistic appropriation of tragedy (hunger,
oppression, disease, ecological disaster) in current political
entertainment.
The efficiency expected from political action under the
assumptions of literacy is characteristic of the scale at which
people constitute themselves. The nation is the world, or the
only thing that counts in this world of opportunity and risk. The
rest is, relatively speaking, superfluous. Nations, even those
that acknowledge the need to integrate, try to secure
functioning as autonomous entities. National borders may be
less guarded, but they are maintained as borders of literacy
translated into economic opportunity. When the goal of
autonomous existence is no longer attainable, expansion is the
answer. Ideological, racial, economic and other types of
arguments are articulated in order to justify the extension of
politics in the experience of battle. The two World Wars brought
literate politics to its climax, and the Cold War (the first
global battle) to its final crisis, but not yet to its end, even
though the enemy vanished like a humorless ghost.
A closer look at the systematic aspects of the political
experience of human self- constitution should prepare us for
approaching the current political condition. This should at
least provide elements for understanding all those accumulated
expectations that people have with respect to politics,
politicians, and the institutions through which political goals
are pursued. Political goals are always practical goals,
regardless of the language in which they are expressed or the
rituals attached. As recurrent patterns of human relationships,
political experiences appear to have a life of their own. This
creates the impression that agreements dictated by practical
reasons originate outside the experience, at the initiative of
politicians, due to a certain event, or as the result of random
choice.