Mass Superstition and Naked Women.

I see that the title got your attention. This post doesn't actually show any naked women, though. Sorry about that.

Oh, yeah, this is going to be like that Giant Puppets post. Go figure.

First on our discussion list we have this post (via Mithras, though I'm sure that he'd prefer that I used my powers for good). Short version: calendar chock-full of semi-naked women and anti-Bush agitprop. The site's currently not working, but here's the link anyway.

Second item: this NYT article about the first five radio stations that will show us a new era in liberal broadcasting (and defeat Rush Limbaugh and his ilk) (Via Bill Quick - and Mike of Cold Fury, who'll probably be happier about what I'm going to be doing than Mithras will be).

So. Two different articles discussing two different projects. One's a multimillion dollar business deal; the other's the hawking of a $12 calendar. What do they have in common? Amusingly enough, two things: first, they're pretty much magical rituals.

Second, they're incredibly flawed and clumsy ones.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not speaking of some sort of traditionally stereotypical form of magic; no eye of newt, toe of dog or any of that old nonsense. I'm being much more snarky than that. What we have here would be normally called superstition, except that superstition has the connotation of one person - or a very small group - doing something. Large corporate conglomerates require another phrase, and 'ritual magic' will do as well as any other. Oh, and by the way: this is bad sociology, yes. Call me when people start making good sociology, though.

Now, the calendar group is the more obvious example of the two - not to mention the one more likely to accomplish anything worthwhile. Now, nakedness as protest may go back at least to Vietnam, but the reason that we've seen it so often these days has to do in large part - possibly exclusively - with this story of the Nigerian women. Remember them? They held the workers of a ChevronTexaco oil terminal hostage for over a week simply by threatening to remove their clothing (which has extremely significant overtones of shame for the observers in that particular region); they ended up winning their dispute - and all in all, good for them - but that's getting far afield. Anyway, as this page pretty much confirms, the idea resonated with the antiwar community, leading to various pictures of various people wearing nothing in particular using their bodies to spell out words and symbols associated with peace. This calendar seems to be the latest incarnation: anyone reading this want to bet that the people that came up with the idea won't point to the Stripping for Peace people as part of their inspiration?

Now, on this issue the Right has pretty much asked among themselves, "So what's the point?" After all, from an outside point of view taking off your clothes is possibly the least effective form of protest that could have been chosen. There was always the hint that this was supposed to actually mean something profound to those looking at it - but the emotion rarely got transmitted, and when it did, it was pretty much universally shrugged off. This was because the entire thing was based on superstition. Something worked once, in a particular set of circumstances, with a particular set of people - and it worked so well that people assumed that the action itself held power. The spelling out of potent Words and Glyphs of Power was merely an unconscious desire to make the ritual work better by emphasizing the symbolism. 'Course, it'd only seem potent to people who were predisposed towards thinking it potent - which is why the Right mostly laughed its butts off at the sight; it didn't fit our own icons*.

Then there's the liberal talk radio thing. Again, superstition: the Right has turned the medium into a potent political tool, which has impressed the Left no end. However, many of them - certainly the ones who are setting up the chain! - have misunderstood the implications. Instead of asking themselves why conservatives embraced talk radio, they have apparently decided that it's enough to have the medium at their disposal, which is why they went out and bought some radio stations and are planning to stock them with liberal icons. Which is exceedingly foolish of them, because for a fraction of the money that they're currently getting ready to throw away they could fund the people who are actually in an analogous situation. I refer, of course, to Left-wing bloggers: like Rush Limbaugh and his kindred they have staked out a corner of a communications medium that formal media entities have overlooked; they may not have even remotely the same sized audience and/or influence, but some are learning how to get them**. Sufficient amounts of cash would only speed up the process - and it's hard to argue that this would be a less wise use of funds than setting up a radio empire that nobody's really all that interested in. But then, that's superstition for you. Get the how right and you don't need to worry about why. If you build it, they will come.

Not.

Moe

*Just so you know, we on the Right aren't immune to this sort of thing. Fortunately, the Left has not yet collectively learned to try to manipulate us with our own symbols instead of theirs, although there's a couple of Democratic politicians who are actually not bad at it at all.

**Of course, so are some on my side. It should come as no surprise that one of the few things that bloggers on both sides generally agree upon is in how irritating the mainstream media is, or that it's time this changed. Not all that likely to happen without big gobs of cash floating around, of course, but you never know...

Comments

[spc67]

Goddammit Moe!

That is two good ideas for the left in three days! Funding, or at least publicizing blogs (Kos, Atrios) would be much better use of resources. Or perhaps teaming Markos with an experienced lefty broadcaster, say Bill Moyers, to show him the ropes, than a year from now let Markos out on his own.

If this blog doesn't stop "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (sorry Katherine and sort of sorry Von), then Moe, I'm gonna seek the revocation of your VRWC membership card.

[JoJo]

Sex doesn't sell cars either. We're all too smart to fall for that.

[Moe Lane]

"If this blog doesn't stop "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" (sorry Katherine and sort of sorry Von), then Moe, I'm gonna seek the revocation of your VRWC membership card."

My Insidious Plan is deeper than you know. :)

[RDB]

Al Gore as figurehead for a Cargo Cult? I don't see why not.

[Katherine]

I think the naked ladies thing is based on the fact that people will notice them and there's no such thing as bad publicity for the cause. Personally I think there is such thing as bad publicity, but this isn't it--it's harmless, if ineffective, and I suspect most people involved on all sides enjoy it.

But you're absolutely right about talk radio v. blogs. I say this as a reasonably disinterested observer, because I am a slippery fish or ambipian or whatever in the blog ecosystem and that's riding Moe's coattails--I doubt I'd be high on funders' lists.

[Moe Lane]

Oh, I agree that the calendar's harmless on its own terms.

As for riding coattails... six months from now we may be relying on you to keep up that crucial presence on the Web. :)

[von]

Brilliant analysis, Moe.

[JoJo]

My Insidious Plan is deeper than you know. :)

Tell us more, Why is it that nudity (or semi-nudity) doesn't sell ideas?

Why shouldn't Giant Puppets, which provide photo-necessities, or, at the very least, photo-opportunities, receive media exposure? It has nothing to do with those present. It's not a question of superstition. The important question is what makes videographers press the record button. Answer: Giant Puppets.

Your silly blogger idea has already been exploited, with little effect, by Tech Central Station. So what's the Plan?

[Moe Lane]

"Tell us more, Why is it that nudity (or semi-nudity) doesn't sell ideas?"

When done in a proper manner, it does. The problem is that you (and I presume, the Giant Puppet People) are focusing on the fact that videographers are pressing the record button and overlooking why. There is, in point of fact, such a thing as negative publicity - which is why any organization or movement infected with GPP has an abyssmal track record of substantive policy changes.

But hey, if you want the GPP to keep doing their thing, go right ahead. It's not like they're any particular danger to any of the causes I follow.

As for the 'silly blogger thing' and TCS... TCS is not directly subsidizing and hosting the largest right-wing and libertarian blogs; they're paying their authors for articles, and 'to little effect' depends on who you ask. I continue to fail to see how funding, say, dKos, Atrios, Drum, Crooked Timber and others so that they may do this sort for a living can be less effective than funding liberal talk radio, given that the former is a proven market for interactive liberal thought and the latter is simply theoretical.

But you knew that already.

[JoJo]

which is why any organization or movement infected with GPP has an abyssmal track record of substantive policy changes.

Stopping the Vietnam war and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments don't count as substantive?

[Moe Lane]

"Stopping the Vietnam war and the Multilateral Agreement on Investments don't count as substantive?"

They don't get Vietnam, sorry: the GPP have what appears to be precisely zero interest in actual victims of actual dictators, which pretty much means that their claims to be descended from the prototype performance artists of the Nam demonstrations is, well, false. As for MAI... surrrre, the anti-globalization crowd won that one really, really well.

But tell me, JoJo: are you a Giant Puppet Person yourself? - because it's a little bemusing to actually find someone willing to even indirectly defend people who include the "We Support the Troops When They Shoot Their Officers" types. Brave of you, really.

[JoJo]

We Support the Troops When They Shoot Their Officers

Do you really think those people were genuine? I think they were operatives whose mission was to give people something to dredge up in discussions like this. Do I have any evidence? No. But how stupid do you think people are? (I admit, I think people are pretty stupid.) Do you have any evidence that they weren't?

[Tatterdemalian]

Burden of proof is always on the person who makes the accusation, not on the people who are being accused, and certainly not on people who are sitting on the sidelines watching with amusement.

Can you imagine how drawn-out some court cases would be if accusers could just keep throwing out conspiracies and demanding that the judge and jury disprove them?

"Okay, so you've proven that the picture was not Photoshopped, the people in the picture were actually well-known and popular members of the group that was protesting, that they did actually see the sign and were sufficiently literate to read and understand it before they started waving it... but can you prove that they weren't holding up that sign because alien mind-control rays were making them hold it up? Huh? Can you? Can you? HUH HUH CAN YOU HUH CAN YOU?"

[JoJo]

the people in the picture were actually well-known and popular members of the group that was protesting

If you've got evidence to that effect, I'll certainly retract. And, if so, I'll merely be further convinced that people are pretty stupid. What cha got?

[rilkefan]

Hey, Moe, how do you feel about sock puppets?

[Moe Lane]

Hey, Moe, how do you feel about sock puppets?

Well, Kukla, Fran and Ollie were only silly-harmless, but I always found Lambchop to be somehow sinister.