Culling the Herd: A Modest Proposal
Eli Zaretsky
Anyone who has studied the history of plantation slavery understands that the management of the modern labouring classes was modelled on the management of animals. One obvious example is racial classification. Another is the micro-techniques of the labour process: forms of discipline, cleanliness and deference, which, as Foucault showed, were based on dressage and other forms of animal training. With the legal abolition of slavery, the problems of managing herds shifted. Under slavery, the masters had an interest in maintaining the health and even longevity of the slaves, who were their main form of property. After abolition, however, maintaining the health of free workers turned into a burden, especially as the cost of medicine rose. Understanding these simple facts of modern political economy may help explain how the United States, the self-proclaimed ‘greatest country in the world’, ended up with one-third of all Covid-19 cases.
The large-scale slaughter now unfolding in America was not set in motion overnight. The herd had to be prepared. One place to start is with the response to the uprisings of the 1960s. Any herd has to have its rebellious instincts curbed. Most urgent was suppressing the African-American population, since they had been the spearhead of the revolt. Almost immediately, the leaders were murdered: Malcolm X, Fred Hampton and countless others. But state-sponsored murder is labour-intensive and unprofitable. A more effective means was mass incarceration. There are currently more than two million Americans in jail, and about 40 per cent of them are black.
Also important in managing a herd is to destroy all forms of critical thinking, in particular anything that challenges the supremacy of private property. The multitude was taught to react with instinctive, even ferocious, negativity to any idea that could be described as ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. Not only did this render the herd more submissive, it created a feeling of narcissistic superiority that helped its members accept the drastic loss of long-established rights. The master class, which had lived in fear of herd uprisings until it quelled the rebellions of the 1960s, was amazed at how easily the herd gave up the belief that it was entitled to jobs, housing and good schools. Also helpful, as with poultry and cattle, was the use of drugs (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine). Most fundamental, however, was convincing the masses that they had little or no right to medical care.
The intense anxiety at the level of ontological security that this produced was numbed by the force-feeding of credit, entertainment and consumer goods. The herd became fatter, more submissive and less curious, even as the use of whips, prods and mutilation continued. To the softening of their basic ‘species-being’ was added insensitivity to the suffering of others. The massacre of Muslims and Mexicans went along with the destruction of social ties in the process of domestication.
The wealth produced by the ‘modern’ techniques of herd management was enormous, and it sustained some of the most beautiful homes, colleges and art institutions in the world, available to the master class and their children. There was no longer any need to fear rebellion because it was always possible to quiet discontent by pulling one of the herd into the master class. There was, however, one flaw in the system: a certain number of proles needed to be kept alive, and that drained money from the engorged and hypertrophied rich.
When the coronavirus presented them with a choice between letting people die and closing down ‘the economy’, there was no question which the masters would choose. A herd that had already had its most contentious and inquisitive members culled, and that had been rendered submissive, would easily become accustomed to the slaughter of two thousand or so per day. It was all a matter of keeping the rest of the herd healthy.
Comments
Sounds like it’s all going to plan in the Land of the Free.
I should add that I a milquetoast leftist! Interesting piece, provocative.
Moreover, this depiction neglects the set of Americana who, while not rich are not poor and are white, marginally benefit from the described apparatus which, whether successful or not, undoubtedly exists. They have a part in its maintenance and are enguilted because they do not have all the burdens of the impoverished and have some of the education. WHY, I would say, do THEY support this structure? I would also ask, DO THEY, in fact, blindly, unequivocally support it?
However the latter question is answered it dampens the notion the article suggests of a calculated genocide. I do not mean to say the distinction matters. Genocide among indigenous peoples in the present United States was, as far as I've read, done with the implicit acquiescence of the greater public because, for the most part, they knew nothing about it.
Still, by the standards of the United States, they were complicit because they elected the leadership in Congress and in the Executive which carried it out.
This kind of sin continues to the modern day, as the article portrarys.
I think the upshot is that Americans, at large, as part of schooling and adult education need to confront the evils of their history, first towards indigenous North Americans, and, then, towards enslaved Africans and their descendents.
In these days, this might be extended beyond the Californian atrocities of Asian Americans towards Americans of Chinese descent.
Until these built-in prejudices, nay, racist inclinations are acknowledged and dampened, the United States cannot become the great country it once was, no matter what the Gang of the Orange Mango says.
Nipicking, I know, and I'm sorry. I just don't think a lot of the people who would be best served by understanding this message will recognize that point embedded in the satire.
Plus, It's a hallmark of the American Left to "well ackshually" each other to death over minutia while the Right tramples around heedlessly with the likes of Trump. So really I'm just doing my part. ;(
Nor was plantation slavery the only kind that existed in the US, any more than in any other slave-owning culture, as Frederick Douglass's history shows slaves could be part of the general economy too, even in a neo-classical way, semi-free profit sharers.
The orderly society was at the heart of Enlightenment thinking, in part a reaction to the civil wars which had ravaged Britain and Europe. It was themselves, their urban environments and their behaviour which they middle-classes first wanted to tame. Certainly they feared the mob, but not just as a threat to property but to that order. The deep ideological belief that those traits of order, discipline, education and hard-work had made the early industrial pioneers and therefore would benefit the workers if they adopted them still has enormous influence among ordinary Americans, although met with cyncism in parts of Europe. It was one shared by Chartists and other early working-class political activists.
All the early industrial societies invested in public facilities much aimed specifically at the Poor. Hospitals, orphanages, even the dreaded Poorhouses and new model prisons were seen as part of a civic and Christian duty not to forget the Poor. The US inherited the Evangelical impulse to do this through the Church and thus inhibited the British and European wider State provision which so marks our different approaches.
I was born in and live in the country he thinks he's describing. It's both more and less evil than anyone who inhabits that modern Elysium, the United Kingdom, will ever know.
"Under slavery, the masters had an interest in maintaining the health and even longevity of the slaves, who were their main form of property."
I think your memory of your understanding of the history of plantation slavery is, to put it mildly, a little selective! Why don't you take a quick glance back at the history of sugar plantation slavery and the expendability of slaves...when more after more after more in massive numbers were transported from Africa to replace the dead - who may have lived perhaps three years? The logic you reached for is academic, not real.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
You can expect a new force feeding of credit for the ones who are spared by the goddess Fortuna, for good measure.
https://www.jeanrafferty.com/post/a-modest-proposal
As of May 20 06:00 MST the USA is shown as having a population of 330+ million.
Taken together the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Spain have a population of 351 million.
The US shows a mortality figure of 95.5 thousand which works out to 283 deaths per million of population.
Western Europe as defined above ( I omit Scandinavia ) shows a mortality total of 145,500 which yields a mortality rate of 414 per million.
414/283= 1.46. Did Western Europe have roughly 1.5 times the amount of slavery and genocide as the US?
Counting is a useful skill.
Steve Merlan
Santa Fe NM
Henri
"Black Americans dying of Covid-19 at three times the rate of white people"
Um, as it turned out, they let people die and they closed down the economy. If one is going to be this conspiracy-minded, then why not see the layoffs and cost-cutting and shutting down of universities and indefinite closure of public (in the American sense) schools underway in the US as part of the master plan to drive the herd back into slave-like conditions as the delivery people and warehouse workers and forced labor in meat packing plants? I think you needed to take this piece even farther, and, as commentators suggested above, to be truly Swiftian, let's propose grinding up the babies of the "herd" for their antibodies and feeding them to the rich!
Those who "marginally benefit" from the system, as Jan Galkowski adds, are our Gullivers, though not all revere the master class as fervently, or ridiculously, as (Le-mule) Gulliver. In different ways, Swift, Adorno, and Zaretsky, I think, question the attempt to simply project oneself beyond the herd (or herds), as ritual invocations of "herd mentality" tend to imagine. For Adorno, Nietzsche's anticipatory dictum, "no shepherd and a herd," corresponded well with mass culture in industrial society, but the anti-socialist Nietzsche failed to see how this society reproduced the "same old oppression" of capitalism, only now made anonymous.
In Adorno's view, the "economic process"--or "the economy," in contemporary master-speak--perpetuated domination not just of the masses, but of the managers and administrators as well. One danger of the herd metaphor is that it seems to suggest that the latter are as oppressed or exploited as the former--a danger forefronted by some commenters and Zaretsky's longer ending on the disproportionate impact of Covid-19. But administrators and managers are a part of the herd insofar as the economic process also remains practically and ideologically beyond their control, with even the question of its transformation already ruled out of hand. (Anyone who has labored in the lower rungs of the contemporary university would be well acquainted with this logic among the well-intentioned and enlightened; however, to conceive the "masters" or "the 1%," well above these professional admin-managers, as just another effect of an internalized discourse system, is less squaring the circle than locking ourselves inside the corral).
If I'm not mistaken, Zaretsky's point here would be that the "masters" are intimately tied to "the economy," not because they are masters of it, but because they serve and profit from the dominance of this all-too-real abstraction. It is a rejoinder, then, to the bleating from a right that we only make those in government "masters" by obeying their orders (wearing masks, physical distancing), an act that turns us into "slaves" (a long history in the U.S. on this freedom from constraint, bound up with Indian Removal and the Middle Passage, as Greg Grandin's book argues). I understand the pessimism in Zaretsky's allegory, especially in light of the U.S. responses to the pandemic. It seems to me, though, that invoking ideologies of "the herd" always risk cutting in multiple directions. "Not a double-edged blade and yet ambiguous / for, on it, one cannot see where it has no point," as the Brazilian poet João Cabral de Melo Neto characterized this kind of irony in his poem, "The Country of the Houyhnhnms."
Although it too may run counter to proper Swiftness, Boots Riley's pre-pandemic film Sorry to Not Bother You offers a caustic revision of this ideological production of the herd. Significantly, though, it is by literalizing this metaphor--through the American corporation Worry Free's creation of a new laboring class of horse-human hybrids (Equisapiens)--that Riley's film imagines a more radical and egalitarian potential for struggle, couched in the ambiguous standpoint and prefix of these horse-human creatures. As the end suggests, Riley, too, seems weary of the "double death" of MLK invoked by Zaretsky, and revives an anti-herding imaginary for sheltered times.