Syndicate: Constructing the political spectacl

["Ivan Zassoursky" <iiz@cnt.ru>]

There is a fantastic book I came across.

It is called "Constructing the political spectacle",
by Murray Edelman

Here is the review I posted on amazon:

Normative theories of democracy presume political process to be more or less
rational. However, we have accumulated so much evidence to the contrary that
perhaps the time has come to view these basic assumptions in a critical
light and - to get rid of them. If mass democracy is a spectacle, as Guy
Debord put it, why not make this the point of departure for our analysis?..

I was both delighted and a bit frustrated to find that somebody else (Murray
Edelman) has done this already, obstructing somewhat my plans for that
matter. And yet it is a brilliant book, crisp and clear,  both simple and
persuading, making complex issues .

The idea is elaborated thoroughly. Political spectacle is the logic that
stands behind the construction and use of political leaders and political
enemies, that elevates this or that political â??problem' in the spotlight.

Political problems are the constructs of existing ideologies and political
language. The main characteristic of political problem is that it is not to
be solved (e.g. unemployment). It is a narrative that is used for mass
arousal. This explains why substance is always eagerly sacrificed for drama,
raising support for political leaders but also creating a huge gap between
political agenda, everyday experience and personal well-being. Political
apathy is, according to Murray, the silent resistance of citizens to the
imposing rhetoric of political leaders, struggling over irrelevant issues.

Political leaders are constructed and employed by the political spectacle.
They have to act in the environment with so much structural and actual
constraints that there is not much they can do. The only criteria for
selection of political leaders these days also seems to be not their
administrative talents, but their ability to compromise and deceive. A
person with clear political message could never become a political leader,
because he would lack vagueness necessary to attract various groups of
voters.

The existing bureaucratic system is so complex and so much involved with
various interest groups and industries that putting together a coherent
policy is practically out of reach for any political leaders. The impotence
of political leaders makes them desperate to substitute tough stance for
tough action, enemies for adversaries and opponents, foreign affairs for
domestic policy. They start to look for enemies abroad, small enough to be
incapable of retaliation.

Forget inner-city ghettoes and gun laws â?? letâ??s bomb Belgrade, Yugoslavia
 or Baghdad, Iraq, or Grozny, Chechnya, or whatever). There is nothing like
this in a book of course â?? it features strictly theoretic approach and, by
the way, it way published well back in 1988, when the power structure was
much more stable thanks to Cold war long-term threat, the PR 'trick of the
century'.


------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/east/
 to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress