Within this return to narrative I’ve described in previous posts, we often find a situation where the protagonist is “stuck” in the ordinary workings of society, not thinking outside the box, doomed to the life on an unthinking drone due to apathy.
A larger number than ever before believe there’s nothing they can do to make effective change in the political area. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as we know- most of the people who honestly believed they could effect change in the social structure in the past were either poorly deluded or if they were not deluded - their methods were horribly ineffective. Possibly, this is a period of transition, realizing how little impact you currently can make on society and becoming apathetic, and then finding a new way of thinking that allows you to make an impact – like how many former cultural protesters (lets call them hippies) put down the protest signs and started socially responsible companies in the 1980’s that sought to bring reform using the currently available means of power (the effectiveness of this experiment – like everything else – remains questionable but certainly, worker conditions are better than ever in these ground-breaking corporations whose workplace compensation packages really don’t bear any resemblance to the turn of the century industrial factory’s slave wages).
But either way, there is apathy, and these movies show individuals breaking out of the bonds of their apathy and truly thinking – liberated through either violence or sexuality.
That’s right. Liberated through either violence or sexuality. We’re back to that again. We just keep going back to that. To make a horrible gender generalization – men go back to violence and women go back to sexuality. This is due to the way we’re culturally educated, not due to the fact that it has to be this way.
But this liberation through violence and sex really doesn’t do dick all to change much of anything outside these fanciful stories. Here’s where the idea is coming from:
The violence (fight club, ect.) all goes back to the great Male philosophy of history: that change is made by a select number of genius individuals – true leaders who were fearless violent men willing to fight for what the believed in.
Joseph Campbell's the Hero’s Journey.
And the romance all goes back to the great female stereotype that change is affected by women within smaller social units – families and friends – by a powerful matriarch who is incredibly influential in the social sphere.
Though it is the individual who is awakened in both kinds of stories, they affect is still limited by gender and the focus is on that individual’s leadership – how they change and affect the decisions of others.
When will we consider that perhaps it isn’t one great individual who creates change. That in order for change to occur, the other individuals within our society must be ready for it and make their own independent decisions to follow that leader. They are an even larger, more important part of the equation.
It doesn’t matter if you technically rule a country (such as Iraq) if the people in that country refuse to be ruled.
The power is within the majority – not within the great leaders- whether the majority realizes it or not.
If you want to get someone to come around to your way of thinking – a story is really a wonderful way to do it. Stories capture and inspire. They are easier to read, comprehend, and see our selves acting in – monkey see monkey do- than crap like this- like I’m writing - essays on cultural shifts.
The story teller, the shaper in our society, has the largest impact. If you can get someone to believe a good story. You’ve got them. (See Grendal by John Gardner for a story about the effect of telling stories.) Got them to do what with? Well to understand your point of view, but also, to make money off of them (see J.K. Rowling and also advertising) and most importantly, if you tell the story right, to effect actual change within culture.
I want to be a storyteller.