Thursday, 23 August 2012

Narratives of Poverty: Relevant Discourse or Grandiloquent Ignorance?

The way in which we as viewers see the world is expressed by how the screen communicates to us. The intermediate horseplay involved with creating a visual experience is nothing more then an open opportunity to unite technology with man. The increasingly strengthened relationship between man and machine foreshadows a narrow future, one of inter-connection and singularity. Implications of the warrior aesthetic, prevalent in other species, is noted most intensely within the approval of our own human rights.

Conversely, the idealised truism seen throughout utopian fiction is no closer to contemporary capitalism then it is to the industrial age. Textile factories were systematic approaches to formulating an industry of wealth. The economy is seen therefore as a default system in which societal ideologies can prevail. The Orwellian concept of distance through gratitude is flawed in this respect, showing how direct authoritarian control implements a false hierarchy. No matter how considered the gaps between castes in such a hierarchy, there will always be a fundamental similarity in the monetary values contained therein. The contemporary question that must be answered is how to make sense of such paradigm shifts in our technologically-based society. Following the ancient fable of the grasshopper, we should not squander this opportunity – with values given only within this specific context – and should rather try to understand where this neo-modernist take on worth and value can take us. We should be asking how, rather than why, and where rather than when – so that such universal truths are not overlooked; systematic generalisations can easily smother any real insights into modern fiscal politics – timeless truths, continually revealed through both historical and fictional narratives.

Although fiction can promote a non-fictional response through hyperbole, fictional creationism can also be seen as vapid – like a farmer without his tools. The political aspirations to create new worlds through falsehood is baseless, yet retains qualities relevant to the ephemerality of modern society. If the authoritarian is mother to the world, how do we act as the single child? The answer is not about language or reception, nor is it about philanthropy beyond democratic commonalities. The answer can be found in the question itself, with intentions of hyper-congressional notion being passed to foresee questions of social norms and answer them in advance. By using such fictional tools as insights into our instincts about the democratic-autocratic tension, we can move beyond baseless individual ‘insights’ and discover – for ourselves – the potential space of this answer. For as the world is as much a human creation as a natural progression, it follows that any relevant understanding can only be brought about under similar conditions. It is the action  of choosing the relevant tools that effects a position along the axis of this tension, and, in turn, this position results in the differences and commonalities contained with this fiction.

Modern speech through informal means is fluid, but its emotive elements are found only though a diluted grandiloquence. One may attempt to ‘take aim’ by comparing their needs to a destitute existence, with speech treated as a commodity – but none of these values are malleable. Collecting fruits may fill the basket of the poor, but the rich are distracted by collecting baskets. This mode of thought stimulates intentions relevant to neo-dynasty, post war hegemony and big bank ideal. It is exactly these intentions that reveal the shaky ground at the foundations of these expectations. Are they merely a product of our normative conditioning, or do they hold a greater truth about the reading of a timeless narrative? While we could make the case for increasing the aforementioned commonalities – by minimising the discrepancies between these narratives – we should not forget to apply the lessons learned from applied Marxism. Top-down application of diluted interpretation can only be effective in situations of disinterested analysis (see AFP), and so we must accordingly change our actions to embrace the totality of related thinking.