Political action and real vs. virtual worlds

Discarnate is my fave among the many terms slung by Marshall McLuhan, who'd have turned 100 yesterday. It means, Philip Marchand wrote here, "almost literally bodiless." It originated long ago in occult circles: seances, messages from the dead. McLuhan himself passed on when the Internet was very young, but he sensed what was coming: virtual lives, lived mainly online. Today discarnate pretty much equals virtual.

Did this sense gnaw at Jonathan May-Bowles, a.k.a. Jonnie Marbles, sitting metres from Rupert Murdoch in Tuesday's parliamentary hearing, tweeting, "It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat." Something happens when you're in the physical presence of the hitherto virtual. "I can't believe that's really Rob Ford," said a kid who saw our mayor marching in the Easter Passion parade on College St. "He's like a god!" By which he meant a flesh and blood person you could touch, if you dared. It's so tempting.

Virtual activity can empower: you connect and are known to vast numbers of people. But it also disempowers; you're not present in that fleshy, Rob or Rupert sense. Only a virtual you is known. Did Mr. Marbles want to break through to nonvirtual reality as he rose and smote real Rupert with a real pie? Was there personal redemption: I exist as concretely as you! In that case, not getting through and being smacked in the forehead by Rupert's wife, Wendi, may have been just as satisfying. He said later that he did it for all those who couldn't be present, but that sounds too noble and after the fact. Did "far better" (or "far far better" as Sidney Carton actually said in A Tale of Two Cities on his way to the guillotine) really mean far less virtual?

Take Tahrir Square in Cairo, to which pro-democracy protesters who successfully ousted the tyrant, Hosni Mubarak, last March, recently returned, demanding swifter progress. Reporter Anthony Shadid described its, ahem, "reincarnation": "Nour Ramadan painted Egyptian flags on tired faces. . . Musicians like Cairo Kee took the stage, giving way. . . to impromptu poetry, oud recitals, children's a cappella and Arabic rap that denounced American and Israeli policies in the same riff with calls for speedier trials. . ." It worked. After a long slowdown, they got fast action. Social media brought them out but their carnate presence had the impact.

Actual bodies, in large numbers, have often been politically effective: The Roman mob ("The will, the will, we will hear Caesar's will!"); le peuple storming the Bastille; the Arab "street." They're frequently treated with the contempt implied in terms like mob and street. Sidney Carton did his far far better thing to save an aristocrat from Parisian mob injustice. Yet those huge gatherings can be impressively well-behaved and courteous. People insist on others being heard or worry about the language used. It's in virtual settings that you more often find violent, vile outbursts. Why is that?

The relative or total anonymity, I suppose. You can rant online and savage others without anyone saying, There are kids present. Or, Show some respect. There may also be a point of diminishing returns in virtual activity. The response is virtual too, even if virulent; and you might have to keep upping the level of rage, sanctimony, etc., just to maintain your degree of satisfaction. It's what I picture Jonnie Marbles seeking relief from in his real, though symbolic, act. Whew. One wishes McLuhan were still around to uncomplicate some of this.

It's true virtual or indirect acts can be politically potent. Eric Reguly in the Globe mentioned "A group of European banks that own the battered debt of Greece" who put their demands "in a paper presented Monday to finance ministers of the euro zone." It would be nice if a group of unemployed Spaniards or underfed children could also present a paper to the ministers. They might as well put it in a bottle or leave it on a park bench. Inside the Greek parliament, they passed that brutal, pointless austerity package; but you know it wouldn't have had a chance if it had been sent to a vote in the packed square outside.

This article was first published in the Toronto Star.

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.