Кто владеет информацией,
|5 dec 2016|
Ivan Zorin 28.10.2009
There are of course a lot of differences: tractor instead of plough, the president instead of the king, TV instead of rumors. But whether we are so far from the Middle Ages?
One shouldn't flatter: behind democratic phraseology there's invariable essence - the same shares of percent being in power and other who see themselves only in false mirror of mass-media.
The world of medieval people was inhabited by angels and demons, just as ours is occupied by - screen images; they were surrounded with preachers of crusades, we - with advocates of war with international terrorism. Virtual reality is all-pervading as gossips but the Middle Ages left nevertheless more freedom. Whether imperial sneaks or semiliterate collectors of a quitrent could be compared to all-seeing eye of tax police? Whether herald on the square is comparable to neurolinguistic ability to penetrate of a advert?
We are included in a public system more strongly and it is a payment for comfort. Our body has now possibility to sail over the ocean for 24 hours but soul is getting enslaved more and more. If medieval feoffee saw his master only on holidays, we see our chiefs - every day. Vassal dependence has been replaced by psychological, which is stronger, it is not written down in the account book of city council, it's imprinted into the consciousness.
As well as one thousand years ago some of the august families are in power, other - back at the bottom of the ladder. Before they were fed with a myth about Anoited One, now - with a legend about democratic elect. However in focus of general attention there are still "dear Sirs": rich men, politicians, "stars" of show business, rare - scientists, workmen - never.
Actually, people do not see themselves - as reflection they are being offered virtual reality rather far from their life, having doubtful purpose to entertain them. If in "dark" centuries the inhabitant found truth in church, in Postchristian society he was separated from medieval superstitions, imparting audiovisual values. Now telescreen talking heads set appropriate way of thinking and views are being corrected by evening newscast.
In comparison with the past similar practice leads to public unification, to average mass of narrowly focused specialists and total disappearance of thinkers. As well as predecessors, postindustrial feudal lords are afraid of shocks, their heralds sharp-sightedly observe the slightest display of discontent eradicating revolts in a germ - in consciousness. Daily propaganda frightens with revolutions with their horror and blood, dooming to watch advertising of Coca-Cola and to listen to arguments on advantages of a tie in peas for thousand years.
Medieval night was changed by the consumer society. Its apologetics is comes down to that it provides technical progress as much as possible. But what does society need progress for, if the majority is unhappy - it remains a riddle. The next attempt to construct universal empire on old principles of management is globalisation. A handful of the elite - royal family, others - outside of history.
Certainly, there were international organisations, parliaments, huge bureaucracy but the planet population has grown in thousand times. At the expense of demography the royal retinue has turned into the middle class but the percent of correlation of ruling elite to broad masses remained former. As well as aristocratic contempt for commoners. Otherwise than how to explain so low level of mass culture?
In a dark, dark village windows of a medieval castle were alight, doomed to poverty looked at then having lifted up their heads. But whether translation of distribution of "Oscars" or the next summit of G8 does not play the same role?
We are being convinced that we are infinitely far from feudal hierarchy, that presidential train radically differs from knightly retinue. We are being proved that presidents change each other according to the terms established by the constitution but the kings displaced each other approximately with the same frequency - unless a victory on elections is not a variation of race for power?
Whether it's so important to ordinary voter if he will be reigned by the son of the dead king or the successor of the retired president?
What is the difference to him, whether the power passed to Bush junior by the right of birth or by democratic way, after all neither this, nor that system guarantees that the Supreme armchair will be occupied by the most worthy.
One shouldn't forget also that stagnant capitalism does not provide rotation, putting forward on supervising posts people from the developed long time ago environment of plutocracy. Postindustrial feudalism supports illusion of participation, the inhabitant is assured of belong to ruling circles and he himself is happy to be deceived.
Actually no more than in the Middle Ages depends on his voice. However, there was enough hypocrisy in all the times: "vox popular - vox Dei" appeared not yesterday. It is not known who were considered more - a colleague on the Christian community / feudal states of Europe named themselves do / or the citizen of a Postchristian society to love whom the constitution does not oblige. Thus, if to get rid of democratic clichés, we will see how eternal essence of human relations which define all the same firm world order appears under game in familiarity and technical innovations.
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk