Is there a universally agreed upon measure of personal progress! There has lately been much talk about social inequality, aspects and consequences of it in the long run for the personal achievement and social progress. From birth certain layers have all the prerequisites and conditions assured to succeed or to constantly, in all endeavours – fail. Access to all the stages of a human life is procured, preserved for those who have already had a long record, generations in a line, of an abundance of that sort of goodness, on behalf of those to whom waywardly, no matter what, is denied. In a certain measure those who come from the rejected and disadvantaged lot are from the start assessed as inadequate or faulty not fit at least to even range in the same competition with the gilded by fortune or chance individuals. That very vicious circle imposed and strictly maintained by the society! Those measures are strict and rigid not liable to be altered draconically held by the watchdogs of the stability and conservation. No matter how strong can grow a bloke from the repudiated, forbidden camp. No matter how efficient and productive that one can be, what booming driving force he can contain, I don’t even mention here talent, vocation, dedication, it does not count at all, it’s not even taken into account. In the best case that one would be let be to climb up the life hierarchy till a certain specified level, so as a whole herd of those prodigious by descent VIPs parasitize on him, exploit suck his energy and rest on his behalf, prosper on his laurels, so as to either later at a settled moment be sacrificed, or constantly be mocked at, a sort of escape goat for the stationed in the 17th century Elizabethan era type of success of the blessed by that inheritance “princes” and “princesses”, projected and embedded as an absolute etalon in the texture of modernity.
It was stunning how cruel we still are, to look only at the regular seasonal fiestas, toreros events in Spain. In the XXI century we are still thirsty of bloodshed, of violent butchering, goring of toreador, man vs bull, beast. How beastly is the man to measure in dexterity and dodgery with the infuriated for namely this purpose beast! The conclusion of the Yahoo feature was a sort of totalization about gamesters and tauruses altogether: two or three toreadors have been taken to the infirmary for medical care, one has disputed his turn and played instead of another one, he was the one who finished the bull from the previous round, one more bull was killed, and four had been returned to their facilities, preserved for future games.
Within this context the allegence about modern cannibalism, not like a metaphor in the context of above mentioned conditions and terms of social becoming and progress of an individual, but literally! is fully conceivable and pending like a sword tied on a hair above the humanity’s tip of the head. Be these vestiges of the primeval groups on the planet, or a contrivance of degenerating, decadent snobs as a measure of autoconservation and survival as species but it could equally be borrowed from those Brazilian cannibalic tribes that keep the ritual as a refilling with energy and power out of a purely existentialist striving but also as a token of superiority vs subjection, authority vs dependence, where the pattern is preset. The cannibalism movement in literature, translation – a song on the theme.
No, the CRITIC still counts a lot, was the Guardian’s conclusion in connection with the currently in progress Cannes Film Festival. I completely agree and we, the art consumers trust their knowledge, experience tastes and align salutarily letting them influence us, mould ours too. Let us take for instance the total mess of Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, that has been rehonoured with a special attention by the Jury. That used to be a new genre in fiction, both written and screened, indeed which was developed by the Italian film producer. Reflecting the social ills of a generation back then in time, it has grown into a genre that has its place, that has several very successful practitioners producers and an audience that already can interpret adequately that gore of values, a banter of an existentialist dependence, addiction upon the miraculous shot. Not that we are not able to think or judge independently, but because we need very often a guide, an arbiter to moderate the intertwining mass, flow of such different perspectives very often malicious, vicious pouring into the common pool of public opinion. The antagonist of the CRITIC is the viral Troyan.
Indeed democracy is the most deficient form of societal organization. Especially for the masses unprepared, uneducated for living in a democratic society for engaging in a civilized dialogue. What comes to my mind is the very debatable issue of privacy – security on one side and unlimited, unrestricted control to informational resources on the other. Both the power and the demos are giving a fierce uncompromisable struggle upon this issue. Both camps, providers-controllers and users suffer enormous losses. So much so that my favourite columnist, analyst, opinion writer Fareed Zakaria came to a conclusion that as a result of the latest soft conquest by purely democratic means of Crimea by the Russian Federation, could lead to an erosion of the concept of war in modern era. The offenders’ motivation would be the attempt to remodel the borders, to share parts of the world, to reset a balance towards the opposite pole, to get damages for their prejudice not allow the emergence and growing in power of another hegemon – a suprastatal structure. Getting a measure for measure is impossible.
Me – I’m looking forward to see Hamlet in English Globe’s interpretation soon!