prisoner. Blame the director, if you wish, for failing to extract a sense of ideological
necessity,
inevitability,
in the decision that was taken to eliminate him. What came through insteadâperhaps it was the directorâs intention anywayâwas the sense of a âhallowed spaceâ as the dominant environment of the revolutionary cell, an evocation of the unreal that was accentuated by the real psychological extract, the autonomy of power, conveyed in the demeanor of these mostly young individuals. This all-pervasive extract was, in my view, the exercise of power. These individuals, separated from a world that they genuinely despised, or affected to despise, were lodged in the hermetic enclosure of absolutism. A limited environment, yes, but an environment that they totally controlled, and of which they were the privileged janitors. This was what mattered most. They were not deciding the fate of an individual, not even of a symbol, I felt, but were simply engrossed in the exercise of secretive dominance, and this was what lent that film its bleak and pathetic intensity. One was transported into another world whose basic commodity, evenly shared within the circle of the Chosen and celebrated with all due ritual and solemnity, was simplyâpower. Unnamed, unacknowledged, power was nonetheless the palpable fetish of worship.
Well, theorizing apart, the young executioners, imbued with a sense of a âholy mission,â or simply wallowingâalbeit with all appearance of deep reflectionâin the pure ambience of power, left the Western, capitalist world in no doubt whatsoever about their essential product: a climate of fear that enveloped the moneyed, their relations, the remotely connected, the political class, the middle class, and, occasionally, innocent victims of what military language loves to gloss as âcollateral damage.â
I must continue to insist that we do not underestimate the relevance of a material baseâeven justificationâof the âholy missionâ in all of this. However, even the most evidently objectivized base of the âholy missionâ is often complicated by the sheer relish that is experienced in the control of others. It is not possible to reject absolutely the notion that oneâjust one in four, in ten, in two dozenâmay be governed by no more than an impulse to secret, furtive dominance, the fulfillment of that individual by a moment of self-abandonment to this mysterious essence of power. I know, because I have met some such individuals. So, I am certain, have others in this audience. For now, I could do worse than attempt to burrow into the core of this commodity, one that has remained a puzzle to psychologists and philosophersâHegel, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and allâand, as with all riddles of the human condition and social impulses, leaves one with more questions than answers. This is not a matter of obscurantist speculation. Rather, there is an almost obsessive quest for some clarifying clues when one has been a participant in the kind of deadly struggle that ensues when one individual, a single mortal with no discernible exceptional qualities, convinces himself that it is his mission to bludgeon a populace of some millionsâten, twenty, forty, a hundred or more millionsâinto submission.
So now, directly to that conundrumâpowerâjust what is that? We know what it does. For a start, power takes away the freedom of the other and replaces it with fear. Still, that does not answer the ontological question. What, we may ask, is the common factor, the ingredient that guarantees a trill of nervous apprehension in, on the one hand, an audience watching
Dr. Strangelove
and, on the other, the citizens of Maryland with a sniper on the loose? Power, of course. The primitive fear of being controlled. It does not matter whether it is an invasion from outer space or power wielded from a subterranean command post: some alien force
Sonya Sones
Jackie Barrett
T.J. Bennett
Peggy Moreland
J. W. v. Goethe
Sandra Robbins
Reforming the Viscount
Erlend Loe
Robert Sheckley
John C. McManus