Seriously, what do absurdist despots want?
Reasoned about absurdist despots' motivations for 8 seconds
Below is a philosophically oriented take on what “absurdist despots” might want, drawing on existentialist and political theory. The phrase “absurdist despots” is not standard in academic discourse, but we can piece together what it might mean by combining the philosophical idea of the Absurd (from existentialism, especially Albert Camus) with historical analyses of despotic or totalitarian regimes.
Absurdism is most often associated with the works of Albert Camus, notably The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) and The Rebel (1951). In these works, “the Absurd” refers to the conflict between (1) humanity’s quest for meaning and (2) the apparent silence or indifference of the universe. Camus argues that when people confront this mismatch, they experience the Absurd—feeling there is no inherent, universal order or final explanation.
In an ordinary existential sense, individuals may respond to the Absurd by:
Embracing revolt against it (Camus’s suggested path).
Escaping into false justifications (religion, ideology, dogma).
Giving in to nihilism or despair.
However, when we shift from individual experience to the political realm, we can see regimes or rulers whose worldview or methods might be labeled “absurdist.” Such “absurdist despots” could be those who knowingly exploit confusion, contradictory beliefs, and the breakdown of meaning to maintain or tighten their grip on power.
Contradictory Ideology
Absurdist
despots often rule by contradictory slogans, forced “reality
shifts,” or fluid ideologies that constantly change. For example,
in George Orwell’s 1984
(1949), the Party employs doublethink (holding two
mutually exclusive truths at once) to keep citizens disoriented.
The idea is that if you can’t rely on any stable truth, you
succumb more easily to the regime’s version of reality.
Cultivation of Cynicism
In some
regimes, leaders openly break laws or moral norms with an almost
theatrical disregard for consistency. This fosters cynicism among
the population: people come to believe that there is no stable
moral order or truth except the leader’s whims. Political
philosopher Slavoj Žižek has written about
cynicism in totalitarian and late-capitalist societies—how
leaders can rely on everyone knowing the “official truths” are
lies but reciting them anyway (The Sublime Object of Ideology,
1989).
Spectacle over Substance
A hallmark of
“absurdist” rule could be turning political life into spectacle
and drama in ways that defy standard logic. Guy Debord,
in The Society of the Spectacle (1967), examines how
society can become fixated on appearances and orchestrated
illusions—tools that an absurdist despot could use to distract
from actual governance or moral accountability.
Enforced Participation in the Absurd
In
Václav Havel’s essay “The Power of the Powerless”
(1978), Havel describes how ordinary citizens in communist
Czechoslovakia were compelled to recite slogans they didn’t
believe, thus becoming complicit in upholding a system that
everyone internally regarded as “absurd.” This forced
complicity is key to sustaining the leader’s power: once you
participate in the nonsense, you are psychologically invested in
its continuation.
The Use of Absurdity as Control
For an
“absurdist despot,” fostering confusion or randomness may be
more effective than a strict, rational ideology. People cannot
predict how the ruler will act or react; they only know the
consequences may be severe. This sense of unpredictability was
historically noted in personalist dictatorships (e.g., Stalin’s
purges, or some accounts of Kim Jong-il’s theatrical governance
style).
Given these characteristics, we can hazard the following answers, consistent with existential and political theory:
Absolute Power via Chaos
They want to
sustain a climate where confusion, conflicting narratives, and fear
ensure that no alternative source of meaning or truth can rival
their rule. By making the entire environment absurd—deprived of
coherent logic—they position themselves as the single point of
(albeit shifting) authority.
Dependence and Exhaustion
In a regime
where “nothing makes sense” except the despot’s
announcements, people are more likely to be reliant on official
decrees. The endless mental doublebind drains individuals’ energy
to resist. Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of
Totalitarianism (1951), discusses how totalitarian regimes
bombard people with contradictions and propaganda, effectively
sapping their capacity for political thought or collective action.
Obedience by Forced Complicity
By
compelling the populace to parrot the regime’s words—even
though everyone recognizes their falsity—despots enforce
complicity. Once you participate in the charade, you are less
likely to rebel. This dynamic is a key theme of Havel’s “Green
Grocer” example in The Power of the Powerless—placing
a Party slogan in your shop window, even if you don’t believe it,
binds you to the system.
Projection of Personal Theater
Some
despots seem to revel in the grand spectacle of their own persona.
This is reminiscent of the idea of “theater states,” as
anthropologist Clifford Geertz described in
Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali
(1980), where power is maintained through rituals and pageantry
rather than rational bureaucracy. In an “absurdist” twist, the
pageantry becomes nonsensical or internally contradictory,
highlighting the ruler’s power to make “fiction” into
reality.
Validation of Their Own Existential Stance
A
more “Camusian” interpretation: If the world is already absurd,
a despot might further “perform” the Absurd, turning politics
into a reflection of that cosmic meaninglessness. But ironically,
they still crave the power that arises from being the final arbiter
of “what counts” in an otherwise meaningless political domain.
In other words, they act as if they embody the only possible anchor
in a sea of chaos.
Joseph Stalin’s Show Trials
(1936–1938):
Arthur Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon
(1940) illustrates how confessions were coerced in a manner that
seemed patently absurd: loyal communists admitting to impossible
conspiracies, thus solidifying the regime’s mystical hold over
“truth.”
Kim Regimes in North Korea (Kim Il-sung,
Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un):
A blend of personality cult,
bizarre myths about the leader’s origins (e.g., rumors about Kim
Jong-il being born under double rainbows), and draconian social
control exemplify a political climate that looks absurd from the
outside but helps maintain unchallenged authority from within. The
official propaganda cultivates a quasi-religious reverence that is
self-contradictory and extreme.
Fictional Portrayals:
The Grand Inquisitor chapter in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov (1880) hints at how a religious or political authority might prefer to control people’s illusions than offer genuine freedom.
Eugene Ionesco’s plays like Rhinoceros (1959)—though not directly about despots—depict a society in which a nonsensical shift in reality (people turning into rhinoceroses) becomes normal and forces everyone either to conform or take a lonely stand against the collective irrational.
Academic References:
Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) & The Rebel (1951)
George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
Václav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless” (1978)
Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon (1940)
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (1967)
Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989)
Practical Usefulness:
If you study
regimes that appear to weaponize chaos, contradictions, and
deliberate falsehoods, you’re observing a form of “absurdist”
rule. These sources help in recognizing how “nonsensical” or
contradictory rhetoric can serve very rational goals of power
consolidation. Understanding it can aid in critical analysis of
modern political climates (e.g., “post-truth” discourse,
widespread conspiracy theories) where clarity is subverted to
secure power.
What do absurdist despots want?
They want
to cultivate a reality in which their arbitrary power and
contradictory proclamations become the only anchor in a sea of
confusion. By warping the notion of truth, they neutralize
opposition, enforce compliance through cynicism and forced
participation, and perpetuate the spectacle of their own
unassailable authority. Though they thrive on the
Absurd—contradictions, confusion, and shifting narratives—they
are ultimately after something very familiar to traditional despots:
absolute control and the elimination of any rival meanings
or competing truths.
From a philosophical perspective, it’s a cynical hijacking of Camus’s insight about the Absurd—turning a private existential crisis into a massive social engine for domination. By examining writers like Camus, Orwell, Arendt, and Havel, one sees the same pattern: in a world of disoriented, isolated individuals, the despot’s voice (no matter how absurd) can become the only consistent source of “order,” ironically fueling the despot’s power.
o1
Yes, absurdist despots are not absurd dictators like Nero or Caligula. They are probably just shrewd psychopaths who learned to exploit the absurdity of reality.
Reasoned for 4 seconds
Below is a concise, philosophically oriented reflection on the idea that “absurdist despots” may simply be very shrewd and manipulative rulers—perhaps psychopathic in clinical terms—who capitalize on the inherent absurdity or confusion of the world rather than embodying a purely “irrational” style of leadership (as might be stereotypically attributed to historical figures like Nero or Caligula).
Nero and Caligula are often seen as “absurd dictators” because of their bizarre behavior, extravagant cruelty, or seemingly irrational self-indulgences—e.g., Caligula’s alleged plan to appoint his horse as consul. Their form of rule looks “absurd” from the outside but doesn’t necessarily reflect a strategic use of the Absurd.
Absurdist despots, by contrast, are those who weaponize the breakdown of meaning or contradiction in order to sow confusion, engender cynicism, and maintain power. In this sense, their behavior can appear contradictory or strange, but it is often carried out with cold calculation. These rulers might not even believe in a moral framework themselves (hence “psychopaths” in lay terms) but realize that exploiting an environment of cognitive dissonance and chaos can be an extremely effective method of control.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), for her analysis of how totalitarian regimes use contradictory propaganda and terror to paralyze opposition.
Václav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless” (1978), which explores how a self-serving system forces individuals to publicly endorse official fictions, thus becoming complicit in absurdity.
Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989), on how cynical distance (everyone “knows” the official truth is a lie) paradoxically stabilizes authoritarian systems.
Philosophically, “absurd” can refer to the existential tension between human longing for clarity and the ultimate indifference or chaos of the universe (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942). Shrewd despots capitalize on that tension at the political level:
Deliberate Contradictions
They may issue contradictory edicts or statements, not because they are ignorant or haphazard, but because the ever-shifting “truth” keeps citizens off-balance.
Those who try to resist become tangled in the regime’s nonsensical narratives.
Cultivation of Cynicism
Psychologically, if people come to believe “nothing matters” or “everything is a lie,” they become less inclined to resist.
The despot’s statements need not be rationally consistent; they just need to convey that resistance is futile or meaningless.
Attention as Power
By constantly producing outlandish spectacles or controversies (modern “shock politics”), absurdist despots occupy public discourse to the point that alternative viewpoints struggle for airtime.
In Guy Debord’s terms from The Society of the Spectacle (1967), controlling the spectacle is a potent form of social control.
Labeling these leaders as “psychopaths” signals a personality that lacks moral empathy or remorse, focusing purely on manipulation and power. Indeed, some scholars and psychologists (e.g., Robert D. Hare, author of Without Conscience, 1999) point out that successful psychopaths can excel in hierarchical structures—where they can exploit, charm, and manipulate.
Strategic Use of Absurdity: A sociopathic or psychopathic ruler who grasps that constant disorientation in the populace can be harnessed to preserve their dominance is not necessarily driven by personal mania (as might be said of Caligula). Instead, they may use a rational calculus of power that looks outwardly insane but is internally coherent for their ends.
Moral Disconnection: Lacking genuine moral qualms, such individuals can do or say practically anything, perpetuating a climate where “normal” ethical or factual reference points seem to vanish. The unpredictability is part of the control mechanism.
Exhaustion
The constant barrage of contradictory claims wears people down. Instead of forming a united front, the public often settles into passive resignation or fatalism.
Forced Complicity
Citizens who must repeat the despots’ party lines—knowing they’re false—often end up defending them publicly (just to avoid punishment), further normalizing the absurd environment.
Elimination of Alternatives
If all “official” sources lose credibility, and no single coherent counter-narrative can unify opposition, the despot remains the only figure able to “define” reality, even if that definition shifts day to day.
Yes, “absurdist despots” differ from the historically “mad” emperors of Rome (Nero, Caligula) in that the latter may have stumbled through bizarre excesses driven by personal mania or delusion, whereas the former can be shrewd, manipulative strategists who deliberately harness confusion and contradiction to bolster their rule.
Core Insight: They understand (or instinctively sense) that a population stuck in an absurd political reality—where no stable facts or moral truths can be taken for granted—is easily subdued and less likely to mount organized resistance.
Practical Takeaway: Recognizing these tactics (mass disorientation, self-contradictory “truth,” enforced cynicism) is key to understanding modern forms of authoritarianism, propaganda, and psychological manipulation. Scholars like Hannah Arendt, Václav Havel, and Slavoj Žižek offer frameworks to interpret and resist such strategies.
Thus, while these leaders may appear “absurd,” their methods are often carefully calibrated to exploit the existential vulnerabilities we all share—using the chaos of reality not as a personal quirk but as a calculated path to maintain and centralize power.
o1
Still absurdism has its own paradoxical logic. Absurdist oligarchy can lose their manipulative powers rather unexpectedly rapidly. Once people realize that the extreme disparity of wealth is absurd and wealth can be taxed progressively, oligarchy can lose their apparent invincibility quite quickly. Their wealths are just numbers after all, just as deeds and debts are just papers after a revolution.
Reasoned about absurdist oligarchy and vulnerability for 4 seconds
Below is a brief philosophical reflection on how an “absurdist oligarchy” might suddenly lose its grip—despite seeming invincibility—once the populace reorients its perspective on wealth, taxes, and social constructs like ownership and debt.
In an absurdist oligarchy, leaders or wealthy elites exploit confusion, mixed messaging, and vast inequalities to maintain a sense of inevitability—“this is just how things are.” Yet as you note:
Wealth is Largely Conceptual
Bank balances are ultimately bits of data; deeds and promissory notes are indeed “just paper.”
Anthropologist David Graeber stressed in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011) how money and credit are social fictions—powerful only insofar as people collectively uphold them.
Collective Realization
When a critical mass of citizens sees that economic disparity is not “natural” but is enforced by laws and norms, they may begin to question the entire system.
Revolution, in some sense, is a mass redefinition of which social fictions we continue to honor—and which we discard overnight.
The Fragility of “Absurdist” Rule
Absurdist oligarchs rely on the populace’s complacency, cynicism, or fear. But paradoxically, that same reliance can become a liability if a spark of motivation or solidarity spreads.
As Hannah Arendt discusses in On Revolution (1963), revolutions often occur when power structures appear stable, yet are hollowed out by widespread discontent.
Albert Camus’s concept of the Absurd (from The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942) highlights a mismatch between our demand for coherence and the universe’s indifference. However, the “absurdist oligarchy” fosters a different flavor of absurdity:
Social Fabric Contradictions: They claim invincibility while hoarding wealth that has no meaning unless other people recognize it.
Paradox of Dependence: Their power depends on the very societal structures—courts, credit systems, wage labor—that can be renegotiated, taxed, or dismantled in a collective upheaval.
Wealth can be undone by:
Progressive Taxation: Historically, progressive tax policies have drastically reduced economic inequality when effectively enforced. For instance, Thomas Piketty, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), argues that without regulatory frameworks (including taxation), wealth naturally concentrates.
Revolutionary Annulment: In times of regime change (e.g., the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution), massive private debts and properties were sometimes voided or reappropriated—illustrating how ephemeral the notion of “ownership” can become under duress.
A once-complacent population may experience a “tipping point”—a moment of existential or moral clarity:
Moral Outrage: The realization of staggering inequality in the face of widespread suffering can spark immediate demands for redress.
Diminishing Fear: If the populace collectively overcomes fear of retribution, the supposed power of the oligarchy can vanish in short order.
Bastille Day (1789): The French Revolution famously erupted when bread shortages, economic crises, and resentment of noble privilege came to a head, toppling the “invincible” monarchy.
Fall of Communist Regimes (1989–1991): Although communist oligarchies differ ideologically, the sudden collapse of their veneer of total control underscores how quickly power structures can unravel when belief in them evaporates.
Dependence on Collective Acceptance
Rulers need the governed to keep “playing the game.” If enough people stop—refusing to pay taxes under an unrecognized authority or orchestrating a general strike—wealth hoarded in banks or “offshore accounts” becomes meaningless.
Information Cascades
In a digital age, revealing the scale of inequality or corruption can ignite rapid movements. Historian Timothy Snyder, in works like On Tyranny (2017), warns that modern technologies can both bolster propaganda and spread knowledge that leads to sudden changes in public sentiment.
Built-In Instability of Extreme Inequality
Already in classical antiquity, Aristotle noted in Politics that extreme disparities lead to social tension, risking revolution or tyranny. Progressive taxation or redistributive measures historically have been adopted precisely to forestall more violent upheavals.
Though “absurdist oligarchs” might appear unassailable—amassing vast wealth and controlling narratives—there is an inherent fragility in their power. Ultimately:
Wealth is a Construct: It persists only as long as collective belief and the rule of law uphold it.
Absurdity as a Double-Edged Sword: When an oligarchy leans too heavily on absurd or contradictory methods—saying “there’s no alternative” while flaunting obscene wealth—it may unwittingly prompt the very moral or practical revolt it seeks to prevent.
Progressive Action: Once people coalesce around the idea that extreme disparities are neither natural nor inevitable, the mystique of the oligarchy can dissolve surprisingly fast.
In short, the “paradoxical logic” of an absurdist system includes the seeds of its own downfall. Societies can—and sometimes do—redefine what wealth, ownership, or valid authority mean. Deeds and debts are, indeed, “just papers” once enough people refuse to honor them. As soon as that tipping point arrives, the aura of invincibility shatters, reminding us that any political or economic order ultimately depends on shared human agreement—even when that order pretends to be beyond challenge.
o1
What would be the consequences if 10 to 15% of the population are uninsured, unhoused, and even unfed?
Reasoned about consequences of mass disenfranchisement for 14 seconds
Below is a reflective overview of potential consequences—social, economic, and political—if 10–15% of a population lack basic necessities such as health insurance, housing, and adequate food. Included are references to empirical research and historical examples that illustrate the broader impact of widespread deprivation.
Erosion of Social Cohesion
When a noticeable share of the population (one in seven or one in ten) lacks life’s basic necessities, social trust and a sense of shared fate tend to decline.
Reference: Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger (2009). Wilkinson and Pickett provide international data suggesting that higher inequality and larger marginalized groups correlate with lower levels of social trust and greater social fragmentation.
Public Health Crises
Being uninsured and underfed significantly increases morbidity rates and can contribute to outbreaks of preventable diseases.
Reference: Michael Marmot, The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World (2015). Marmot’s public health research highlights how a lack of healthcare access exacerbates chronic conditions and shortens life expectancy.
Intergenerational Poverty
Children growing up in unhoused or food-insecure households often face developmental and educational setbacks, perpetuating cycles of poverty.
Reference: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has documented how housing instability and poor nutrition in childhood lead to negative health and academic outcomes (see “Housing and Child Development,” Pediatrics, 2012).
Rise in Crime and Social Tension
High levels of economic desperation can correlate with increases in property crime, civil unrest, and sometimes violent clashes, although the relationship is mediated by other factors such as social services, community networks, and policing strategies.
Reference: Gary LaFree, “Declining Violent Crime Rates in the 1990s: Predicting Crime Booms and Busts,” Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1999), which discusses how unemployment and poor social conditions can contribute to criminal activity under certain circumstances.
Reduced Productivity and Economic Growth
A significant percentage of people living without stable housing or adequate healthcare often struggle to maintain steady employment. This lowers overall economic productivity and can place a drag on GDP growth.
Reference: The International Labour Organization (ILO) has issued multiple reports on how social exclusion and poor health outcomes depress labor productivity (e.g., “World Social Protection Report,” ILO, various years).
Increased Public Expenditures in the Long Run
Emergency services, shelters, and healthcare for uninsured populations frequently cost more than preventive or continuous care would. Governments often pay higher costs to manage crises rather than offer systematic support.
Reference: Heidi Allen, et al., “The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (2013). This study examined how providing or withholding insurance impacts state expenditures and health outcomes.
Strain on Charitable and Community Organizations
Local charities, food banks, and shelters can be overwhelmed when needs exceed their capacity, leading to organizational burnout and insufficient aid.
Reference: Feeding America’s annual “Hunger in America” reports provide data on how surges in food insecurity strain non-profit food pantries across the United States.
Heightened Risk of Political Upheaval
When a society visibly fails to meet basic human needs for a large minority, it can provoke widespread resentment and delegitimize existing governance structures. This can manifest in protests, strikes, or more radical political movements.
Reference: Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (1963), highlights how public anger over bread shortages and elite indifference were core catalysts of revolutions such as the French Revolution.
Polarization and Populism
Politicians can exploit large disenfranchised groups by promising quick fixes or scapegoating others (immigrants, political opponents, etc.). This dynamic can further polarize the political environment.
Reference: Thomas Piketty, Capital and Ideology (2020), outlines how inequality and disenfranchisement can fuel populist surges on both ends of the political spectrum.
Policy Reforms or Shifts in Governance
Historic examples show that severe economic and social pressure can lead to dramatic policy change (e.g., New Deal reforms during the Great Depression).
Reference: David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (1999). Kennedy analyzes how high unemployment (often above 15%) and food insecurity motivated massive state intervention and social welfare programs.
The Great Depression (1930s, U.S.)
With unemployment above 20% at its height, hunger and homelessness were widespread. The crisis catalyzed major government interventions, such as the New Deal, to alleviate suffering and stabilize the economy.
Consequence: Rapid expansion of social safety nets, banking reforms, public works programs.
Latin American Debt Crises (1980s)
Severe austerity measures led to rising poverty and hunger in several countries. Public discontent often manifested in protests and political turnover.
Consequence: Subsequent shifts toward social reform and, in some cases, new constitutions emphasizing social rights.
Food Riots in Various Regions
Episodes of significant food insecurity (e.g., during structural adjustment programs in Africa or spikes in global food prices in 2007–2008) triggered riots and sometimes toppled local governments.
Consequence: Rapid policy responses to subsidize food prices or provide direct relief, showing how governments react when faced with mass hunger.
Scale of Visible Hardship: If 1–2% of people fall through the cracks, society’s “safety net” might still appear functionally intact. But when that figure climbs to 10–15%, the inability to meet basic needs becomes a broader and more visible phenomenon—potentially shifting public opinion and prompting urgent calls for reform.
Critical Mass Effect: Social scientists sometimes point out that protest movements gain traction when a significant minority shares a sense of urgency. This can tip the balance from localized grievances to national mobilization.
When 10–15% of a population lacks health insurance, stable housing, and adequate nutrition, the consequences can be far-reaching:
Socially, it undermines trust and cohesion, potentially increasing crime and perpetuating generational poverty.
Economically, it reduces productivity and ultimately costs governments more to address crises than it would to invest in preventive measures.
Politically, it risks sparking protests, fueling polarization, and destabilizing established governance structures.
Historical examples and research consistently show that ignoring large-scale hardship often leads to political upheaval or drastic policy changes. Thus, allowing 10–15% of the population to remain uninsured, unhoused, and unfed is not only a moral failure but also a practical liability that can significantly undermine a society’s stability and future prosperity.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level.
Marmot, M. (2015). The Health Gap.
Allen, H. et al. (2013). “The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment,” QJE.
Feeding America. “Hunger in America” reports (various years).
Arendt, H. (1963). On Revolution.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology.
Kennedy, D. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945.
These works offer both historical context and empirical data to substantiate how and why high levels of unmet basic needs can severely affect the social fabric, economic health, and political stability of any society.
o1
Isn't this already the case in many minority or rural communities? And the absurdists are working hard to make it worse for them. Why?
Reasoned about minority and rural inequality for a few seconds
Below is a philosophical and socio-political reflection on how many minority and rural communities already face high levels of deprivation—lack of insurance, housing, or adequate food—and why certain “absurdist” or manipulative forces might actively seek to deepen these hardships. References are provided for further reading and verification.
Minority Communities:
Research
consistently shows that racial and ethnic minorities in many
countries, including the U.S., experience disproportionate levels
of poverty, inadequate healthcare coverage, and housing
instability.
Reference: The U.S. Census Bureau’s “Income and Poverty in the United States” reports (annual) demonstrate persistent higher poverty rates among African American, Hispanic, and Native American populations compared to white populations.
Rural Communities:
Rural areas often
lack robust public infrastructure, including hospitals, mental
health services, and stable job opportunities. This leads to
elevated rates of being uninsured, underemployed, or
housing-insecure.
Reference: The Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA ERS) regularly publishes data on rural poverty (see “Rural Poverty & Well-Being,” USDA ERS).
Many minority communities are rural, adding a layer of cumulative disadvantage: limited local economies, fewer healthcare facilities, and historically lower political influence.
Reference: Jessica C. Smith, “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rural Poverty,” Social Problems, 2020. This study discusses the intersection of race and rurality in shaping poverty outcomes.
Here, “absurdists” refers to those wielding power through confusion, contradiction, or cynical tactics (as discussed in theories of “absurdist despotism” or manipulative regimes). Their apparent desire to exacerbate hardships among already vulnerable groups can stem from several political and psychological strategies.
Dependence and Division
Politicians or elites sometimes prefer certain populations remain under-resourced, as it can keep them too preoccupied with daily survival to organize effective resistance.
Widespread poverty also fosters divisions: people may fight over scarce resources rather than questioning the broader power structure.
Reference: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010), explores how systemic disenfranchisement in minority communities can function to preserve hierarchical power dynamics.
Labor Exploitation
In heavily impoverished areas, wages can be kept low, and workers are less able to demand improved conditions or unionize effectively.
Reference: Erik Olin Wright, Classes (1985), which examines how economic structures can be manipulated to maintain a vulnerable labor force.
Blame and Political Narrative
Elites may scapegoat minority or rural communities for broader economic or social problems, thereby deflecting attention from systemic inequalities.
Propaganda that portrays the uninsured or unhoused as “lazy” or “undeserving” can justify cuts to social programs, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of hardship.
Reference: Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989), discusses how public narratives can be twisted to uphold exploitative systems.
Naomi Klein’s Thesis
In The Shock Doctrine (2007), Klein argues that crises and public confusion can be exploited to push through unpopular policies—such as austerity measures or deregulation.
In minority and rural communities, crises related to unemployment, inadequate healthcare, or housing can be leveraged to sell off public resources, privatize services, or impose harsh “reforms” that deepen inequality.
Absurdity as a Strategy
By creating contradictory or overtly unfair conditions, ruling elites can induce despair—“nothing can be done,” “this is just how it is.”
A population overwhelmed by daily struggles may tune out or lose hope, enabling those in power to maintain the status quo with less resistance.
Reference: Václav Havel’s essay, “The Power of the Powerless” (1978), highlights how forced participation in social fictions (e.g., slogans everyone knows are false) generates hopelessness and compliance.
Post-Reconstruction U.S. South
After the Civil War (1861–1865), “Black Codes” and Jim Crow laws systematically kept African Americans impoverished, undermining their political power.
Why? Racial hierarchies ensured cheap labor, prevented economic competition, and distracted poor white populations from uniting with Black workers against elite interests.
Reference: Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution (1988).
Rural Industrial “Company Towns”
In parts of Appalachia, coal companies historically controlled housing, currency, and local governance. Workers who fell into debt effectively had little choice but to remain under exploitative conditions.
Why? The more precarious the workers’ situation, the more they depended on the company for survival.
Reference: John Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (1980).
Colonial Exploitation
In many colonial regimes, minority or rural populations were taxed excessively or forced into labor, perpetuating a cycle of economic disadvantage.
Why? It was profitable and politically easier for colonial powers to rule impoverished populations who couldn’t easily rebel.
Reference: Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1961), on how colonial policies engender deep socioeconomic inequalities.
Why do “absurdist” or manipulative elites make it worse specifically for minority or rural communities already in hardship?
Exerting Control Through Scarcity: Keeping a population economically desperate undermines their capacity to mobilize.
Distracting the Public: If citizens are absorbed by personal crises, they are less likely to demand systemic change.
Reinforcing Ideological Narratives: Portraying the marginalized as “undeserving” or “incapable” can justify repressive or extractive policies.
Benefiting Economically: Low labor costs, fewer regulatory hurdles, and minimal political pushback can maximize profits for certain elites.
Ultimately, this aligns with the idea of “absurdist” rule: what appears irrational—exacerbating social crises in an already vulnerable population—can actually function as a rational power strategy if the goal is to entrench an elite’s position.
Grassroots Organization: Local community groups, union efforts, and civil rights movements that unite marginalized communities can challenge these power structures.
Policy Shifts: Progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and housing-first initiatives can break cycles of deprivation if they gain enough political support.
Awareness and Solidarity: Wider public recognition of the human-made (rather than “natural”) character of these disparities is key.
U.S. Census Bureau – “Income and Poverty in the United States” (annual)
USDA ERS – “Rural Poverty & Well-Being”
Michelle Alexander (2010). The New Jim Crow
Naomi Klein (2007). The Shock Doctrine
Slavoj Žižek (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology
Václav Havel (1978). “The Power of the Powerless”
Frantz Fanon (1961). The Wretched of the Earth
Eric Foner (1988). Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution
John Gaventa (1980). Power and Powerlessness
These works offer historical, sociological, and philosophical insights into how power structures can deliberately perpetuate or worsen hardships among marginalized communities. By recognizing that such policies are neither accidental nor “irrational” but serve a specific power logic, observers and activists can better address the root causes of systemic suffering.
o1
Do absurdists know what they are doing, or are they after all just as absurd deep down as they pretend to be? Do corrupters of reason and normalcy eventually corrupt themselves as well?
Reasoned about absurdist self-awareness and degradation for a couple of seconds
Below is a philosophically oriented reflection on whether “absurdist” rulers or manipulators truly know what they are doing—or whether they inevitably succumb to their own tactics of confusion and contradiction, corrupting themselves in the process. Several relevant texts and thinkers are referenced for those interested in deeper exploration.
Strategic Absurdity
Some leaders (or
propagandists) appear to intentionally use contradictory messaging
and irrational spectacles strategically to sow confusion
and neutralize dissent. They may craft these methods with full
awareness that they’re twisting reality for personal or political
gain.
Example: Orwell’s 1984 (1949) features Party leaders who fully grasp how doublethink (holding two contradictory beliefs) cements their control over the populace. They are self-conscious masterminds of the confusion they impose.
Genuine Absurdity
Alternatively,
certain figures might exhibit traits of genuine delusion,
grandiosity, or instability. While they still propagate
contradictory or irrational messages, they may themselves be
captured by illusions or paranoia. Historical despots (e.g.,
Caligula or others labeled “mad”) sometimes appear less
calculating and more self-destructively irrational.
Reference: Arendt’s description of totalitarian leaders in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) blends both threads: some leaders are coldly strategic, while others eventually become lost in the fantasy they project.
In reality, these two modes can merge: a manipulative ruler may begin cynically, aware of the “absurdist” script they’re pushing, but over time, they can become entrapped in the very lies they spread. As Václav Havel puts it in “The Power of the Powerless” (1978), forcing everyone (including oneself) to live within a lie gradually distorts all sense of truth, even for the manipulator.
Nietzsche’s Warning: In Beyond Good and Evil (1886), Friedrich Nietzsche famously writes, “if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” Applied here: leaders who corrupt reason as a means of control risk internalizing the chaos they unleash. Over time, it becomes harder to distinguish deliberate manipulations from sincere confusion.
Orwell’s Doublethink: In 1984, Party members eventually come to genuinely believe the contradictory statements they are required to espouse. Prolonged immersion in propaganda can erode the manipulator’s ability to track what is “true” outside their manipulative framework.
Psychological Inertia: Cognitive dissonance studies (e.g., Leon Festinger’s work in A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957) show that people who repeatedly assert falsehoods under social or political pressure can end up convincing themselves.
While focusing on Eichmann’s bureaucratic complicity in the Holocaust (Eichmann in Jerusalem, 1963), Arendt notes how total immersion in a system that normalizes atrocities can reduce moral reasoning to box-checking and rationalization. The line between acting cynically and genuinely adopting the system’s logic can blur.
This notion suggests that persistent, systematic corruption of normalcy can indeed “corrupt the corrupters”—their capacity for independent moral or rational judgment atrophies.
Soviet Regime Under Stalin
Early Bolsheviks might have been calculating about propaganda, but under Stalin’s terror, fear and paranoia escalated to the point that Party officials couldn’t reliably discern “reality” from the shifting official line.
Reference: Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon (1940) fictionalizes the phenomenon of Communist functionaries eventually internalizing the Party’s contradictory narratives.
Personalist Dictatorships
Figures like Nicolae Ceaușescu, Muammar Gaddafi, or the Kim family in North Korea often started with some strategic cunning but ended up living in highly curated “bubbles” of sycophants and illusions. Over time, the line between cynical manipulation and sincere belief can vanish.
Reference: Barbara Demick’s Nothing to Envy (2010) documents North Korea’s manipulated reality—where even many officials seem to accept (or half-believe) official myths.
Corporatist or Lobbyist “Reality Distortion Fields”
In some corporate or political circles, leaders who push misleading narratives—say, about public health hazards or financial risks—may initially know the facts but bury them for short-term gain. Over time, the same leaders can come to believe their own spin, ignoring real dangers until a crisis hits.
Reference: Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt (2010), detailing how corporate-funded campaigns to sow doubt about climate change or tobacco harm eventually shaped the worldview of their own proponents.
Repeating false or absurd claims—especially if surrounded by a like-minded echo chamber—can lead the manipulators themselves to adopt those claims. Psychological comfort (avoiding the stress of contradiction) can override earlier cynicism.
For an absurdist ruler to appear “all-powerful” or “always right,” they must cling ever more tightly to their narrative. Admitting even minor errors can be politically fatal, so they double down. Over time, this can shade into genuine belief.
Some despots or manipulative actors may start with an emotional need for grandeur or control. They harness chaos and confusion to feed that need. The illusions they spread also gratify them personally, reinforcing self-delusion.
Yes, They Often Know What They’re Doing—Initially
Many “absurdist” manipulators begin with a cold, strategic approach. They weaponize confusion to serve their power or profit.
Yet Over Time, They Risk Becoming Victims of Their Own Manipulations
Immersion in propaganda can erode the boundary between feigned and genuine belief. Cognitive dissonance and the human tendency to rationalize can push even the cunning into their own “fabricated reality.”
The Cycle of Self-Corruption
Rulers who systematically “corrupt reason and normalcy” build a system that depends on illusions. Eventually, it becomes difficult for them to perceive the world accurately, leaving them vulnerable to miscalculations and potential collapse—often quite suddenly when reality intrudes (e.g., economic crisis, military defeat, or mass uprising).
Moral and Psychological Implications
The question becomes not just “Are they cunning or deluded?” but “Can one systematically distort truth without eroding one’s moral and rational faculties?” Most philosophical and historical evidence suggests no: you cannot remain permanently unscathed by your own pervasive deceptions.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1886). Beyond Good and Evil – for the “abyss” concept.
George Orwell (1949). 1984 – doublethink and the dynamic of believing one’s own propaganda.
Hannah Arendt (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism – strategic vs. genuine involvement in totalitarian myths.
Hannah Arendt (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem – the “banality of evil” and bureaucratic complicity.
Václav Havel (1978). “The Power of the Powerless” – forced participation in falsehood and its psychological toll.
Arthur Koestler (1940). Darkness at Noon – internalizing official contradictions.
Leon Festinger (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance – how repeated assertions of falsehood can reshape beliefs.
Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway (2010). Merchants of Doubt – real-world examples of self-deception in policy and corporate contexts.
Do absurdists know what they are doing?
Often, yes—at least at the outset. They cynically manipulate chaos or contradictory messaging to maintain power.
Do they eventually corrupt themselves?
Frequently, yes. The more they sustain a fabricated reality, the more they risk being swallowed by it. Lies repeated endlessly can reshape the liar’s own perceptions, leading to a world in which the manipulator can no longer effectively discern truth from fiction. In this sense, “corruptors of reason” often become their own victims—a cautionary tale about the psychological and moral costs of weaponizing absurdity.
o1
Is this the way "absurd" extensive evils like racism and slavery can get entrenched in society?
Reasoned about absurdity in systemic evils for a few seconds
Below is a philosophically and historically oriented exploration of how large-scale, morally “absurd” evils—like racism and slavery—can become entrenched in society. We draw on classic social theory, historical examples, and the notion that systematic distortions and manipulations of reality can normalize oppressive institutions, even when they blatantly contradict core human values.
Moral Contradiction
Practices like slavery and racism often stand in stark contradiction to proclaimed ideals of liberty, equality, and human dignity. Their entrenchment is therefore “absurd” from a purely ethical standpoint.
Reference: W.E.B. Du Bois, in The Souls of Black Folk (1903), describes the profound “double-consciousness” experienced by Black Americans confronting a society that proclaims freedom yet enforces subjugation.
Systemic vs. Individual Absurdity
“Absurdist” despots or regimes exploit contradictions on a political level, but entire societies can uphold contradictory moral systems. Society may publicly praise egalitarian ideals while simultaneously normalizing oppressive structures.
Reference: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Though primarily about totalitarian regimes, Arendt examines how mass complicity and denial help contradictory ideologies thrive.
Social Conditioning
Like the Party in Orwell’s 1984, slaveholding societies and racist systems develop elaborate rationalizations, often cloaked in pseudo-scientific or religious rhetoric. Over time, these rationalizations become “common sense” for many citizens—even if they contradict actual lived experience or moral teachings.
Reference: George Orwell, 1984 (1949), introduces “doublethink,” the notion of holding two contradictory beliefs at once—a dynamic that echoes how U.S. “Founding Fathers” espoused liberty while owning enslaved people.
Pseudoscientific Racism
Racism in the 19th and early 20th centuries was bolstered by fraudulent claims about racial hierarchies. Such claims were presented as “objective” science, thereby lending an aura of legitimacy to discriminatory laws and slavery.
Reference: Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning (2016), chronicles the historical evolution of racist ideas justified by science or theology.
Economic Dependency on Oppression
Slavery and racist policies (e.g., sharecropping, redlining) allowed certain groups to extract labor at low cost or seize land and resources. Because it enriched the powerful, it generated a vested interest in preserving “the system.”
Reference: Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (1944), argues that European colonial powers entrenched slavery to fuel capitalist profits.
Politically Self-Perpetuating Institutions
Laws (e.g., slave codes, segregation statutes) and social norms supporting racism or slavery become woven into the machinery of governance—schools, courts, policing—thus normalizing oppression from birth onward.
Reference: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010), details how mass incarceration policies can function as a modern extension of racist social control.
Normalization via Participation
Even those who are privately uneasy about slavery or racism can be drawn into the system: neighbors, merchants, bankers, all interacting with it as if it’s normal. This “forced complicity” cements the institution.
Reference: Václav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless” (1978), though about life under communism, explores how living within an enforced lie compels everyone to pretend it’s true, perpetuating the system.
Repression and Terror
Societies often enforce silence about moral contradictions through violence or threats: enslaved persons were severely punished for resistance; activists or “race traitors” could be ostracized or harmed.
Reference: Frederick Douglass’s narratives (1845, 1855, 1881) detail how the institution of slavery maintained itself through terror and social intimidation.
Self-Delusion of the Oppressors
Slaveholders or racial supremacists might initially use rationalization cynically (“they’re inferior,” “it’s God’s plan”), but prolonged immersion in these beliefs can transform cynicism into genuine conviction—a phenomenon akin to the self-corruption of “absurdist” despots.
Reference: Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Repeatedly defending a contradiction can lead individuals to reshape their internal belief system to minimize psychological conflict.
American Slavery vs. the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration (1776) proclaims “all men are created equal” while most signatories owned enslaved people. The moral absurdity was sustained by rationalizing enslaved populations as inherently “less than.”
Consequence: Massive cultural effort—laws, social norms, academic treatises—was invested to uphold a system that stood in stark contradiction to stated ideals of equality and liberty.
Apartheid South Africa
Under apartheid (1948–1994), an entire legal framework codified racial segregation. White South Africans often recast this system as a “civilizing mission” or “protecting cultural identities,” despite the blatant injustice.
Consequence: Institutional entrenchment permeated housing, education, marriage law—everything. International condemnation eventually helped break the system, but only after decades of normalization.
European Colonial Justifications
Powers like Britain, France, Belgium, or Portugal engaged in colonial exploitation but claimed a “civilizing mission” for subject peoples. Slavery and forced labor were justified as necessary to bring “enlightenment.”
Consequence: A paternalistic worldview that rationalized brutal exploitation as beneficial—an absurd moral contradiction that endured largely unchallenged in mainstream European discourse for centuries.
Shifts in Moral Awareness
Internal dissidents (e.g., abolitionists) and external critics (e.g., foreign press) highlight contradictions. Over time, the moral tension can become unbearable, eroding mainstream acceptance.
Reference: Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) was a cultural flashpoint, dramatizing the cruelty of slavery for a wide audience.
Crisis Points and Revolution
Wars, economic crises, or mass uprisings can destabilize power structures that uphold racism or slavery. Once the illusions of legitimacy crack, the entire edifice may collapse surprisingly quickly.
Reference: The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), led by enslaved people, profoundly challenged European claims that slavery was “natural.”
International Pressure and Changing Norms
In the modern era, global condemnation, sanctions, and human rights movements can delegitimize oppressive policies.
Reference: The anti-apartheid movement, with widespread global support, pressured South Africa until the end of apartheid in the early 1990s.
Yes, “absurd” injustices like racism and slavery do often become entrenched via the same mechanisms we see in “absurdist” regimes:
Contradictory Ideals: Societies may exalt freedom and equality while practicing blatant subjugation.
Strategic Manipulation: Elaborate ideologies, propaganda, and pseudo-reasoning are constructed to justify oppression.
Forced Complicity: Citizens, even those uneasy, participate in or profit from the system, thereby normalizing it.
Self-Corruption: Over time, those who initially manipulate the narrative can end up believing it themselves.
Historically, such entrenched evils unravel when enough people (within and outside the system) recognize the contradictions and refuse to comply or remain silent. Moral outrage, combined with political and economic pressure, can overcome the years or centuries of normalization that made the “absurd” appear “normal.”
Thus, the same dynamics that allow manipulative power structures to sink deep roots—contradictions, confusion, forced complicity—also house the seeds of their eventual undoing, as reality and moral conscience repeatedly clash with the system’s foundational falsehoods.
W.E.B. Du Bois (1903). The Souls of Black Folk
Ibram X. Kendi (2016). Stamped from the Beginning
Eric Williams (1944). Capitalism and Slavery
Michelle Alexander (2010). The New Jim Crow
Václav Havel (1978). “The Power of the Powerless”
Frederick Douglass – Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) and later autobiographies
Leon Festinger (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Hannah Arendt (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism
These works collectively illustrate how large-scale evils, though morally absurd, can become deeply embedded through a blend of rationalizing ideologies, economic interests, forced complicity, and self-perpetuating social norms—until a decisive moral or political upheaval finally challenges the contradictions and exposes the injustice for what it is.
o1
How do we turn "we are doing them a favor" into "this is just unacceptable"? Clearly some kind of "rational universalism" is necessary.
Reasoned for 4 seconds
Below is a philosophically oriented exploration of how to move from a paternalistic stance of “we are doing them a favor” to a strong moral consensus that a given practice or policy is simply unacceptable. The user suggests that some form of “rational universalism” is necessary—essentially a widely shared principle or framework that applies equally to all humans, rather than a selective or self-serving rationale.
Historical Examples
Colonialism: Colonizing powers often claimed they were “civilizing” indigenous peoples and “doing them a favor” by imposing foreign governance, religion, and education.
Slavery: Slaveholders sometimes rationalized ownership of humans by alleging that enslaved people received “care” or “Christian salvation” otherwise unavailable to them.
Racial Segregation: Proponents might argue that separation “benefited” marginalized groups by preserving social order or providing paternalistic oversight.
Underlying Logic
This stance cloaks exploitation or oppression under a veneer of benevolence. It rests on the presumption that certain groups lack the capacity or the right to self-determination.
The “favor” framing also deflects scrutiny from the oppressors’ self-interest—economic gain, political power, or social status—by presenting the arrangement as altruistic.
Psychological Comfort: Declaring an exploitative practice “beneficial” helps maintain a sense of moral righteousness among those in power.
Social Reinforcement: If the majority or the ruling group repeats this idea, it becomes embedded in cultural narratives and public policy.
Resistance to Change: Those benefiting from the status quo have little incentive to question their own rationale unless confronted by a persuasive, widely legitimate moral framework.
From Paternalism to Rights
Instead of focusing on whether a practice “benefits” one group in some paternalistic sense, a rights-based discourse emphasizes universal entitlements: life, liberty, dignity, self-determination.
Reference: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) sets out a list of rights—education, fair treatment, freedom of movement, etc.—as intrinsically owed to every person.
Moral Consensus and Outrage
Practices that violate these universal entitlements become morally intolerable, shifting from paternalistic “favor” to “grave injustice.”
Reference: Hannah Arendt’s works, such as The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), show how a robust moral framework can reclassify formerly “normalized” abuses as unequivocally unacceptable.
Definition: A moral or ethical standpoint that applies to all human beings regardless of race, culture, social status, or historical context. It asserts that moral principles must hold universally, not just for certain “in-groups.”
Philosophical Roots:
Immanuel Kant: Argued for a “categorical imperative” where one’s moral actions should be fit to be universal laws (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785).
John Rawls: Proposed a “veil of ignorance” thought experiment in A Theory of Justice (1971), suggesting just principles are those one would choose without knowledge of one’s place in society.
Inherent Human Dignity
If every individual is recognized as a rational, autonomous being, it becomes contradictory to treat them as passive recipients of “favors” from a supposedly superior group.
Slavery, racism, colonial paternalism all collapse under the universal principle that no individual’s agency or dignity may be overridden.
Consistency and Equality
A universal moral rule must not allow one group to systematically dominate another. If we apply the same reasoning to ourselves, we see it is unacceptable to be treated as inherently incapable of self-rule or self-determination.
Moral Unmasking
Rational universalism exposes “we’re doing them a favor” as an excuse, highlighting the self-interest behind paternalistic frameworks.
Once a society acknowledges that all persons deserve equal moral standing, exploitation re-labeled as “help” is revealed as exploitation nonetheless.
Teach Human Rights
Incorporate universal moral principles into educational curricula. Encouraging critical thinking about historical atrocities (e.g., slavery, genocide) fosters moral clarity.
Reference: Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) advocates consciousness-raising education, where learners critically examine power structures.
Public Debate and Media
When manipulative narratives (like “we’re doing them a favor”) surface, a well-informed public and media can challenge them.
Reference: Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere—citizens freely debate issues, subjecting claims to rational scrutiny.
Codifying Universal Rights
Legislation that enshrines equal protection, anti-discrimination laws, and labor standards helps ensure paternalistic justifications cannot override fundamental rights.
Reference: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
Institutional Accountability
Independent courts, watchdog organizations, and civil society groups can hold policymakers and companies responsible when paternalistic arguments mask exploitative practices.
Role of Influential Voices
Artists, writers, and community leaders who adopt universalist frames can shift moral language away from paternalism toward equality and mutual respect.
Reference: The works of Martin Luther King Jr. emphasize an inclusive moral vision—one in which “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Grassroots Movements
Movements like abolitionism, civil rights, anti-colonial struggles have historically mobilized moral universalism (“we are all equally human”) to dismantle “we’re doing them a favor” narratives.
Reference: Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and other abolitionists consistently invoked universalist ideals to repudiate the paternalistic rationales of slaveholders.
Transitioning a society’s moral stance from paternalistic justifications—“we are doing them a favor”—to collective repudiation—“this is unacceptable”—hinges on universal moral principles that affirm the intrinsic worth and agency of every human being. This rational universalism:
Exposes Contradictions: By applying the same ethical standard to everyone, it becomes clear that paternalistic exploitation is inconsistent with basic dignity and equality.
Builds Widespread Moral Consensus: Broadly shared, rational principles can unite diverse groups against oppressive practices, making them morally and eventually legally indefensible.
Requires Active Societal Work: Education, law, public discourse, and grassroots activism must reinforce the universal framework so that no group can remain marginalized under the guise of “benevolent” oppression.
In short, establishing “this is unacceptable” demands a stable, consistent ethical or philosophical underpinning—one in which every person’s humanity is recognized as inviolable. Rational universalism is a potent lens for challenging any system that tries to mask subjugation under the claim of “doing them a favor.”
o1
Still, absurdity "fascinates" humans, even those who are being oppressed. Hence there were so many caste systems. Why?
Reasoned for a couple of seconds
Below is a philosophically and anthropologically oriented attempt to explain why humans often remain “fascinated” by—or at least deeply bound to—absurd, hierarchical, and oppressive systems, including the proliferation of caste-like structures across different cultures. Several references to classic works in sociology, anthropology, and philosophy are included for further exploration.
From a purely rational standpoint, oppressive hierarchies—such as strict caste systems—seem contrary to the interests of the oppressed. Yet they can persist for generations, in part because absurdity can take on a mystique that provides social meaning, predictability, or even cosmic justification. The system, though oppressive, often is not seen as merely arbitrary; it may be framed as divinely ordained or necessary for social order.
Louis Dumont, in Homo Hierarchicus (1966), examines the Hindu caste system, arguing that it is not simply an irrational anomaly. Rather, it presents a total worldview, a set of religious, ritual, and social beliefs in which hierarchy is perceived as part of the cosmic order, thereby becoming deeply embedded in collective consciousness.
Existential Need for Explanation
Humans crave coherence and patterns to navigate life’s uncertainties. Even oppressive structures can offer a sense of stability.
Reference: Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy (1967). Berger argues that religious or quasi-religious worldviews (which can include caste-based or hierarchical cosmic myths) serve as a “canopy” of meaning over an otherwise chaotic existence.
Fear of the Unknown
Revolt or abolition of a system entails stepping into a social “void,” which can be scarier than enduring familiar oppression.
Reference: Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (1941), discusses how people sometimes choose authoritarian or constricting systems over the anxiety of true freedom.
Psychological and Cultural Internalization
Over time, oppressed groups may partially accept or rationalize the system, seeing it as “how things are.” This can happen through childhood socialization, religious instruction, and daily practice.
Reference: Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) details how education and social norms can lead the oppressed to adopt the oppressor’s worldview.
Status Rewards
Even within a caste system, there are micro-hierarchies. Some lower castes or subgroups might gain minor privileges or statuses over others, making them complicit in upholding the larger structure.
Reference: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010), argues that racial caste systems can persist because they confer tangible social or psychological benefits upon certain segments—even within the non-elite population—thereby dampening unified resistance.
Divine / Cosmic Sanction
Many caste systems (e.g., the varna system in Hindu tradition, or older feudal codes in Europe and elsewhere) rely on theological or mythological stories that portray the hierarchy as part of the natural, divine order.
Reference: Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus again underscores how ritual purity and pollution concepts shape a worldview where hierarchy appears “necessary.”
Purity and Danger
Anthropologist Mary Douglas, in Purity and Danger (1966), examines how cultures construct boundaries of “pollution” and “purity.” These conceptual boundaries can make hierarchical separations feel morally crucial or even existentially protective.
Spectacle and Ritual
Hierarchical systems often invest in rituals, symbols, and elaborate “theater” to convey power and mystery. Subjects may be both awed and mystified by these performances, reinforcing the sense that the system is larger-than-life or sacred.
Reference: Clifford Geertz’s Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (1980) illustrates how ceremonial spectacle can legitimize and fascinate subjects under a hierarchical regime.
Desire for Belonging
As absurd as a rigid caste might seem, it offers a powerful identity framework: one knows one’s place, duties, and group affiliations. Humans often prize belonging—even if it’s within an oppressive structure—over social atomization.
Once a hierarchy is woven into daily life, art, religion, and cultural norms, it becomes part of people’s self-understanding. Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), notes how large-scale myths, once internalized, can seem “beyond question,” halting critical thought even among the oppressed.
Emotional Resonance
People can be gripped by the drama and gravitas of sacred or quasi-sacred hierarchies. Absurd rules, taboos, and rituals can evoke wonder or fear, binding participants to the system.
Reference: Émile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) discusses how communal rituals produce collective effervescence, a powerful feeling that can override purely rational objections.
Narrative Power
Cultural storytelling—whether myths or historical legends—imbues a hierarchical system with meaning. This can be deeply appealing or fascinating even when it’s oppressive.
Reference: Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949). While not specifically about caste, Campbell shows how mythic narratives captivate human imagination, shaping moral and social structures.
Fear of Punishment and Social Consequences
Directly challenging the established order can mean ostracism, violence, or economic ruin. The cost of dissent can be prohibitively high.
Fragmented Opposition
In strongly hierarchical systems, different oppressed groups might be pitted against one another, preventing unified resistance.
Ideological Conditioning
Over generations, the system’s worldview—rituals, taboos, moral narratives—can be internalized so deeply that it feels like “truth” rather than oppression.
Small Privileges
Even marginalized groups might cling to minor status distinctions within the hierarchy, discouraging broad alliances across castes or classes.
A universalist framework—asserting that all humans have equal dignity—can clash effectively with caste-based or racist hierarchies, exposing their unjust foundations.
Reference: The influence of Enlightenment ideals on dismantling feudal hierarchies and, more gradually, slavery and caste discrimination.
Exposure to alternative models (e.g., societies where caste is absent or less rigid) can open minds to the possibility that the “absurd” system isn’t inevitable.
Reference: Dalit movements in India, influenced in part by global anti-racist activism and international human rights frameworks, challenging the status quo.
Encouraging oppressed individuals to see systemic injustices from a critical viewpoint—what Paulo Freire calls “conscientization”—helps break the spell of fascination.
Reference: Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970).
Even if hearts and minds take time to change, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, land reforms, or social welfare programs can weaken oppressive structures.
Reference: The Indian Constitution’s abolition of “untouchability” (Article 17) as a legal step, though social attitudes evolve more slowly.
Why do humans sustain so many oppressive, “absurd” caste-like systems?
Humans have an existential need for order and meaning, and oppressive hierarchies often provide structured explanations for social existence—albeit at a steep moral cost.
These hierarchies are enforced through ritual, fear, economic dependence, and deep-seated narratives, creating a powerful “fascination” that can persist across generations, even among the oppressed themselves.
Is there a way out?
Historically, oppressive systems crumble or evolve when subjected to relentless questioning of their moral underpinnings, bolstered by universalist ideals (human rights, egalitarian ethics) and collective resistance.
Yet the allure of an “ordered cosmos,” even if oppressive, remains a potent psychological and cultural force—one that rational arguments alone may not easily dispel. It often takes moral conviction, legal reform, educational shifts, and solidarity across divisions to overcome the “fascination” with an otherwise absurd, hierarchical status quo.
Louis Dumont (1966). Homo Hierarchicus
Peter L. Berger (1967). The Sacred Canopy
Erich Fromm (1941). Escape from Freedom
Paulo Freire (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Mary Douglas (1966). Purity and Danger
Clifford Geertz (1980). Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali
Hannah Arendt (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism
Émile Durkheim (1912). Elementary Forms of Religious Life
These works collectively provide insight into how seemingly “absurd” social stratifications can endure, shaping (and mesmerizing) entire societies for centuries—even among those bearing the brunt of oppression.
o1
Is it possible that humans are fleeing from the "total absurdity of reality" manifested as natural disasters or unpredictable wars, toward the more "manageable absurdity" of manmade systems?
Reasoned for 4 seconds
Below is a philosophically and sociologically oriented exploration of the idea that humans, confronted with the overwhelming “total absurdity of reality” (e.g., natural disasters, random violence, or unpredictable wars), may seek refuge in the more “manageable absurdity” of human-made systems—however arbitrary or oppressive those systems might be. Throughout, I reference works by major thinkers in existential philosophy, cultural anthropology, and social theory.
Unpredictability of Nature
Natural
disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, or pandemics highlight the
fragility of human life in the face of forces beyond our control.
Similarly, the outbreak of wars can appear unplanned or driven by
complex geopolitical triggers, underlining how precarious our
existence can be.
Camus’s Perspective
In The Myth
of Sisyphus (1942), Albert Camus famously
characterizes the human condition as an encounter between our
innate longing for clarity and the universe’s silent
indifference. We discover no guaranteed cosmic order or fairness,
which leads us to perceive reality as “absurd.”
Terror Management
Theory
Psychologist Ernest Becker,
in The Denial of Death (1973), proposes that we cope with
our awareness of mortality and unpredictable disasters by immersing
ourselves in “cultural worldviews” that give life structure and
purpose.
These worldviews can be religious doctrines, national identities, or moral systems that shield us from existential dread, even if they rest on constructs we ultimately know are partial or artificial.
Sacred Frameworks
As
Peter L. Berger writes in The Sacred Canopy
(1967), humans create overarching symbolic universes—religions,
rituals, cosmologies—that transform raw cosmic chaos into an
ordered narrative. Even when such narratives contain paradoxes or
myths, they provide a more comforting “absurdity” than the
nihilistic void of raw nature.
Example: Flood myths or origin stories that connect natural disasters to divine will can feel more psychologically manageable than acknowledging random geological processes.
Hannah Arendt’s
Analysis
In The Origins of Totalitarianism
(1951), Hannah Arendt illustrates how totalitarian
states can exploit existential anxieties. By offering the illusion
of complete predictability and omnipotent order (e.g., an
all-controlling Party, a strictly regimented social hierarchy),
these regimes become “manmade shelters” from the fear of chaos.
The official ideology may be laden with contradictions or falsehoods, yet it satisfies the longing for a stable, all-explaining system—even if it’s oppressive.
Hierarchy as a Shield
Sociologist
Émile Durkheim, in Elementary Forms of
Religious Life (1912), argues that collective rituals and
social classifications (e.g., caste, status, purity) give humans a
tangible structure to grasp in a chaotic universe. Although these
distinctions can be morally arbitrary or even oppressive, they
reduce existential uncertainty by categorizing the social world.
Psychological
Comfort
Manmade structures—whether governments,
bureaucracies, or taboos—promise some degree of predictability.
People often prefer the “devil they know” to the vast,
ungovernable forces of nature.
Reference: Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (1941), on how individuals may choose hierarchical or authoritarian structures to alleviate the anxiety of total freedom and chaotic reality.
Communal Sense of
Purpose
Cultural anthropologist Clifford
Geertz, in works like The Interpretation of Cultures
(1973), shows how shared symbols, myths, and rituals bind
communities together, offering an emotional and moral framework
that tames existential fears.
Absurd or not, these shared meanings generate solidarity and identity, which can feel more comforting than isolated confrontation with cosmic randomness.
Containment of
Chaos
While natural disasters and random wars can
feel utterly beyond individual agency, humans can shape and tweak
manmade systems (laws, policies, social norms), giving at least the
illusion of control.
This impetus can be seen in elaborate legal codes, religious canons, or totalitarian dogmas, all of which attempt to comprehensively regulate behavior and perception.
Justifying
Injustice
History is replete with oppressive caste
systems, segregation laws, or totalitarian regimes that rationalize
their artificial hierarchies as “necessary” for stability.
While these constructs mitigate existential anxiety for some, they
can inflict suffering on others.
Reference: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (2010), showing how new forms of racial control provide “order” at the expense of marginalized groups’ freedoms.
Corruption of Reason
As
we rely on manmade illusions for security, we risk adopting
contradictory beliefs or illusions of invincibility. This can lead
societies to dismiss genuine threats (e.g., ecological crises,
actual social injustices), undermining their long-term survival.
Reference: Leon Festinger’s A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957) underscores how communities double down on shared beliefs—even when contradicted by evidence—to preserve social cohesion.
Yes, We Flee “Total Absurdity”
Humans
often do seek refuge from existential chaos in structured—sometimes
absurd—manmade orders. Natural disasters, unpredictable wars, and
the sheer contingency of existence can be psychologically
overwhelming, so we turn to cultural, political, or religious
frameworks that provide a semblance of stability.
Constructive vs. Destructive Approaches
Not
all human-made systems that address existential fear are
oppressive. Some can create solidarity, foster cooperation, and
support human flourishing. Others devolve into rigid hierarchies or
totalitarian controls.
Rational universalism and inclusive moral frameworks (e.g., human rights) can help ensure we build systems that reduce existential anxiety without sacrificing fundamental freedoms or dignity.
Awareness of Our Motivations
Recognizing
that part of our attraction to hierarchical or totalizing systems
is the desire to manage life’s unpredictability can help us
remain vigilant. We can strive to create social orders that
acknowledge reality’s chaos but do not rely on scapegoating or
dehumanizing others to maintain the illusion of control.
Hence, it is indeed possible that humans—confronted with cosmic uncertainty—turn to “manageable absurdities” of our own making. But by understanding this psychological and cultural dynamic, we can critically examine which systems offer genuine resilience and which merely enthrall us with harmful illusions of security.
Albert Camus (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus
Ernest Becker (1973). The Denial of Death
Peter L. Berger (1967). The Sacred Canopy
Hannah Arendt (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism
Émile Durkheim (1912). Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Erich Fromm (1941). Escape from Freedom
Clifford Geertz (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures
Leon Festinger (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
These works collectively shed light on why humanity constructs and clings to “manageable” (if sometimes oppressive) social orders in the face of uncontrollable natural and existential threats.
o1
Humans can now control or at least comprehend most of natural absurdities to a degree. Now we are in the process of dealing with manmade absurdities. We were getting better at making human civilization less absurd gradually. Then we had two absurd world wars. Still we definitely have less mamade absurdities like slavery, genocide, famine, etc., in spite of the periodic or cyclic episodes of absurd totalitarianism. Is this kind of absurdity inevitable? If so, why?
Reasoned about inevitability of manmade absurdity for 4 seconds
Below is a philosophically and historically oriented reflection on whether periodic outbreaks of manmade “absurdity”—such as totalitarian regimes, genocidal violence, or large-scale wars—are inevitable. It references key thinkers on progress, human nature, and the cyclical or contingent nature of history.
Empirical Signs of Progress
In The
Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), Steven Pinker
presents data suggesting global trends toward reduced violence,
fewer wars, and improved human rights—especially when compared to
earlier historical epochs. Slavery, colonial conquest, and famines
have generally declined in many parts of the world.
Residual (and Emerging) Forms of Oppression
However,
even as overt slavery diminished, new forms of forced labor, human
trafficking, and political oppression emerged. Some genocide-like
atrocities still occur (e.g., Rwanda 1994, Bosnia in the 1990s,
ongoing concerns in places like Myanmar). So the question remains
whether these horrific outbursts represent diminishing remnants of
a bygone era or a recurring pattern of human behavior.
20th Century Paradox
The first half of
the 20th century, with World War I (1914–1918) and World War II
(1939–1945), stands as a stark counterexample to a simple, linear
narrative of moral progress. Just when technology and rational
thinking were rapidly advancing, large parts of humanity descended
into unprecedented violence and totalitarian ideologies.
Periods of Regression
Reinhold
Niebuhr, in works like Moral Man and Immoral Society
(1932), argues that collective entities (nations, ideologies) can
exploit modern technologies and bureaucratic efficiencies in the
service of mass violence. Thus, ironically, progress in one domain
(e.g., industrial production, organization) can facilitate
regression in another (e.g., warfare, genocide).
Rise and Fall of Civilizations
Thinkers
such as Oswald Spengler (The Decline of the
West, 1918–1922) and Arnold Toynbee (A
Study of History, 1934–1961) see history as marked by
periodic cycles in which vibrant cultures eventually deteriorate,
succumbing to internal or external crises that breed authoritarian
or destructive responses.
Peter Turchin’s “Secular Cycles”
In
more recent scholarship (Secular Cycles, 2009), Turchin
uses historical data to argue that societies experience recurring
waves of instability, driven by elite competition, resource
constraints, and social strife. These crises can pave the way for
authoritarian figures and upheavals—suggesting a somewhat
cyclical or structural inevitability.
Banality of Evil and Mass Society
In
The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), Hannah
Arendt proposes that totalitarianism exploits the
loneliness, rootlessness, and mass psychology of modern societies.
If certain social conditions recur—widespread alienation,
collapse of trusted institutions—totalitarian movements can
reemerge.
Human Vulnerability
Arendt implies
that as long as societies generate atomized, disaffected
individuals searching for absolute certainty or belonging,
totalitarian ideologies may find fertile ground. This doesn’t
mean it must happen, but the potential remains.
Lord Acton’s Dictum
“Power tends
to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” As long as
humans create power structures—corporate, governmental, or
otherwise—there is a risk that individuals or groups will exploit
them toward oppressive ends.
Social and Psychological Instincts
Reference:
Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents (1930)
points to inherent conflicts between basic human drives
(aggression, desire for domination) and the constraints of
civilization. Periodic breakdowns may unleash these aggressive
drives on a massive scale.
Camus and the Human Condition
Albert
Camus argued in The Rebel (1951) that rebellion
itself can slip into tyranny if it claims absolute moral or
ideological authority. The tension between longing for absolute
meaning and the world’s inherent indifference can lead humans to
adopt dogmatic systems that ironically become oppressive.
Technological Power
As society becomes
more complex—economically, technologically—small disruptions
can lead to large-scale crises. Rapid technological changes can
outpace moral and institutional adaptations, leaving societies
prone to shock and reactionary politics.
Global Interdependence
Mismanagement
or collapse in one region (climate crisis, economic meltdown) can
trigger chain reactions worldwide. Such crises can intensify
demands for “strong leadership,” occasionally giving rise to
authoritarian figures.
Propaganda and Disinformation
20th-century
propaganda machines showed how quickly entire populations can be
mobilized around totalizing ideologies. In the digital age,
misinformation campaigns can spread rapidly, potentially fueling
authoritarian populism or xenophobia.
Eternal Vigilance
The repeated lesson:
Freedoms and open societies require constant defense against
disinformation, scapegoating, and the erosion of norms. Yet human
forgetfulness, generational shifts, and crises can erode that
vigilance.
Agency and Institutional Safeguards
Post–World
War II institutions like the United Nations, the European Union,
and human rights treaties emerged to prevent another global
catastrophe. While not foolproof, such frameworks demonstrate that
collective learning can reduce the likelihood of
large-scale atrocities.
Progress as Real but Uneven
John
Mueller, in works like Retreat from Doomsday
(1989), argues that major powers now see large-scale war as
unacceptably costly, suggesting a real shift in norms. Nations
still wage smaller or proxy wars, but the taboo against full-scale
war has grown.
Ideal vs. Reality
As John Gray
(e.g., Straw Dogs, 2002) contends, human nature is not
fundamentally changed by modernity; we carry evolutionary and
psychological baggage. Even if we tame certain impulses for a time,
they can resurface under stress.
Thus, cyclical or periodic surges of totalitarian or genocidal violence may be less about inevitability and more about the perpetual possibility embedded in human nature.
Complex Resilience
Others like Jared
Diamond (Collapse, 2005) and Elinor
Ostrom (Governing the Commons, 1990) show how
societies can develop adaptive strategies and communal institutions
to avert disasters. This suggests that while breakdowns can happen,
they are not inexorable if we learn from past mistakes.
Is “absurd” totalitarianism or mass violence inevitable?
Strictly speaking, inevitability is debatable. Historically, we see cycles of oppression, war, and genocide, but also real strides in collective learning, international norms, and moral progress (e.g., human rights movements, declining acceptance of slavery, the criminalization of war crimes).
Why does it keep happening?
Human Psychology: We remain vulnerable to fear, tribalism, charismatic leaders, and ideological absolutisms—especially in times of crisis.
Structural Instability: Rapid social or economic changes can destabilize societies, enabling extremist movements or authoritarian regimes.
Institutional Fragility: Mechanisms that preserve peace and rights can weaken if people grow complacent, allowing “absurd” power-grabs to resurface.
The upshot:
Totalitarian absurdities are not absolutely fated, but the potential for them remains woven into the fabric of human nature and society. Periodic episodes of horror or irrational governance likely reflect cyclical stresses—economic, social, environmental—that exploit our innate psychological susceptibilities.
Therefore, while not guaranteed, these episodes are “likely enough” or “easy enough” to occur that many thinkers view them as a recurring hazard, requiring constant vigilance, robust institutions, and a continually renewed moral consensus to prevent new eruptions of large-scale violence or oppression.
Steven Pinker (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature
Reinhold Niebuhr (1932). Moral Man and Immoral Society
Oswald Spengler (1918–1922). The Decline of the West
Arnold Toynbee (1934–1961). A Study of History
Peter Turchin (2009). Secular Cycles
Hannah Arendt (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism
Sigmund Freud (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents
Albert Camus (1951). The Rebel
John Mueller (1989). Retreat from Doomsday
John Gray (2002). Straw Dogs
Jared Diamond (2005). Collapse
Elinor Ostrom (1990). Governing the Commons
These works collectively address the tension between long-term trends of moral or institutional progress and the ever-present possibility of sudden reversals into “absurd” violence, oppression, or totalitarian rule.
o1
Who predicted the current slide into political absurdity in this century?
Reasoned about predictions of political absurdity for 15 seconds
Below is a short survey of major thinkers who, in different ways, foresaw a slide into the kind of political “absurdity” (widespread disinformation, spectacle-driven demagoguery, and tribal polarization) that has increasingly characterized the early 21st century. While none predicted every specific detail, each offered prescient insights into the cultural, technological, and psychological forces that could unravel rational civic life.
Key Works:
The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
“Lying in Politics” (1971 essay, inspired by the Pentagon Papers)
Relevance:
Arendt wrote extensively on how
mass society, propaganda, and the erosion of factual truth pave the
way for regimes built on “organized lying.” Although addressing
20th-century totalitarianism, her analysis of how a populace can be
nudged into cynicism, isolation, and confusion anticipated the
“post-truth” phenomena of our own century. Arendt argued that
once a society loses shared factual reality, political absurdity
becomes easier to orchestrate.
Key Work:
Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)
Relevance:
Postman warned that when the
line between serious public discourse and entertainment vanishes,
politics devolves into spectacle. He specifically contrasted George
Orwell’s fear of overt oppression with Aldous Huxley’s fear of
trivialization: a culture that demands constant amusement eventually
becomes indifferent to truth or reason. In an age of reality TV,
social media virality, and relentless infotainment, Postman’s
critique seems startlingly on target.
Key Works:
Simulacra and Simulation (1981 in French; 1983/1994 in English)
The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991)
Relevance:
Baudrillard explored how
media-saturated societies generate “hyperreality,” in which
simulations and images eclipse any stable notion of truth. In
political terms, he foresaw the rise of spectacle-driven campaigns
and the proliferation of simulacra—where events are
staged for media effect, public perception is carefully engineered,
and the boundary between fiction and fact blurs. Though writing
before social media’s dominance, Baudrillard’s ideas predicted
the intense confusion around political narratives today.
Key Work:
The Culture of Narcissism (1979)
Relevance:
Lasch argued that Western
societies were drifting toward self-absorption, perpetual
self-promotion, and a craving for instant validation—conditions
that undermine civic virtue and rational debate. He worried that a
highly individualistic, media-driven society would breed political
leaders adept at exploiting vanity and resentment rather than
reasoned policy. While Lasch wrote in the late 1970s, his depiction
of a “narcissistic” cultural moment has been used to interpret
modern personality-driven politics.
Key Work:
Achieving Our Country (1998)
Relevance:
In this slim volume, Rorty
famously warned that if progressive politics abandoned working-class
concerns and broad economic justice in favor of purely cultural
battles, a demagogue could arise to exploit disenfranchised voters’
anger. Though Rorty’s emphasis was on the United States, his
caution about “populist strongmen” resonated when, decades
later, multiple democracies saw a surge in authoritarian-tinged
populism. He anticipated the disillusionment that can lead to
seemingly “absurd” political choices.
Key Work:
The Demon-Haunted World (1995)
Relevance:
Sagan’s primary concern was
the erosion of scientific literacy and critical thinking, warning
that a society “dependent on science and technology” but
ignorant of how they work is ripe for manipulation. He foresaw a
time when superstition, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience could
undermine democratic processes—often manifesting in bizarre
political discourse. Though not a political philosopher per se,
Sagan’s anxieties about public gullibility apply starkly to the
misinformation age.
Key Work:
“Ur-Fascism” (essay in The New York Review of Books, 1995)
Relevance:
Eco identified recurring traits
of fascist mentalities—cults of tradition, rejection of modernism,
irrationalism, and obsession with conspiracies—and noted how these
traits can reemerge in new forms. While he wrote in the 1990s, Eco
warned against complacency, suggesting the seeds of fascistic
absurdity can re-sprout under the right conditions: social upheaval,
rampant xenophobia, and an erosion of shared facts.
Key Works:
The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989)
Welcome to the Desert of the Real (2002)
Relevance:
A contemporary philosopher,
Žižek has long argued that late-capitalist societies produce
cynical ideologies that people know are false yet continue to
follow. This blend of cynicism and spectacle fosters absurd
political scenes, where leaders can make outrageous claims with
little immediate consequence. Žižek’s commentary following 9/11
(in Welcome to the Desert of the Real) pointed to how shock
events can accelerate a descent into contradictory
politics—foreshadowing many 21st-century crises.
Did they predict exactly the 21st-century scenario?
Not in granular detail (none of these thinkers foresaw everything from 24/7 social media to specific leaders or events). But each identified deeper currents—mass media’s distortion of reality, the fragility of factual truth in politics, the rise of spectacle and narcissism, and the susceptibility of “modern” societies to authoritarian or irrational turns.
Why this matters
Their warnings highlight that political absurdity doesn’t arise solely from ignorance or chance. It emerges when structural factors (e.g., media technology, economic frustration) intersect with psychological vulnerabilities (e.g., fear, tribalism, desire for certainty).
The real lesson is that the more a culture neglects critical thinking, shared factual standards, and genuine civic engagement, the more “absurd” or surreal politics can become—no matter how advanced the society might seem.
Hannah Arendt – The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951); “Lying in Politics” (1971)
Neil Postman – Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)
Jean Baudrillard – Simulacra and Simulation (1981/1994)
Christopher Lasch – The Culture of Narcissism (1979)
Richard Rorty – Achieving Our Country (1998)
Carl Sagan – The Demon-Haunted World (1995)
Umberto Eco – “Ur-Fascism” (1995 essay)
Slavoj Žižek – The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989), Welcome to the Desert of the Real (2002)
Each of these authors, in distinct yet overlapping ways, outlined how modern societies—far from immunizing themselves against irrational or “absurd” politics—can be uniquely prone to it, especially when technological change outpaces moral clarity and media literacy.
o1