Fictitious Orderings

I’ll be honest, I was really annoyed that I picked this book after the last chapter.  As I’ve already stated, I just don’t think there’s any basis for that Freudian psychosexual crap.  However, Downey reinstated my attention at least partially in this chapter.

Downey attempts to defend the claims he ended with last chapter about how we envy our role models to the point of murder because we view them as having the ultimate good, and since we are all striving for this “good” life, we see them as competition.  In order to maintain our sense of justice, competition has to be eliminated.  

He backs up this claim by saying that the reason we don’t end up murdering our mentors, or anyone else we envy, is because of the order we have created through scapegoats and ranking systems.  Both examples are clearly displayed throughout history in all cultures of mankind.  

The most vivid image of scapegoats that Downey gives is lynching.  The victims, i.e. our scapegoats, represent everything we fear, hate, and/or envy, and by destroying them, we are tangibly taking care of whatever it is we feel is threatening us.  Downey writes the powerful phrase, “Astonished by our own savagery, we are suddenly calm.”  Thumos has gotten what it wanted, revenge.  Although in the case of the scapegoat, the injustice was never really there. 

Ranking systems can be as literal as armies ranks and corporate ladders, or as simple as youth respecting their elders.  Either way, if the thumos within us understands that those above us are too far above us to replace, then they are no longer a threat, and the desire to replace them is eradicated.  

All of this reflects our feeble attempts to maintain order within ourselves and within our communities.  In a way it shows that deep down, we all know how messed we can be, both as individuals and as communities. 

Greek Wisdom Turned Fruedian Bull

The "ring" of invisibility previously talked about reveals what Downey calls a "body politc," which is the community we all share here, and it reveals our true definition of justice.

On the contrary to what we say to each other, our natural desires tell us that to be just is to go after what we want without reguard for others.  The problem lies in the fact that when someone does an injustice to us, it is suddenly deemed bad, especially if we are not able to seek revenge for the act.  Therefore, the justice system most countries/governments have is not there because we all seek justice in and of itself.  Our true vision of justice is skewed, and because of that the justice system is there to protect people from each other.  It is there to check our natural desires and put a limit on the injustices we are capable of.  The only reason this system works at all is because our fear of suffering injustice greatly outweighs our desire to do injustices.

Downey explains this as our fear of losing the possessions.  Once you have something you want, you know longer own it.  It owns you, and you become consumed by the fear of losing it.  So, individuals support and follow the government's rules because they are what allows you to protect your possessions from others.  In this way you don't need police on every corner, the police are an internal coercion inside each of our minds that keeps us relying on reason instead of our natural desires.

Downey then talks about the desire for revenge all humans experience if a injustice has been done to us. The Greek word for this passionate rage that comes forth is thumos. It is the passion that enflames crowds and groups to do things that they normally would not.  It is the rage that causes you to risk your own life in order to get someone back for cutting you off at 70 miles per hour. Thumos wants justice, but a skewed kind that we all individually invent and decide is just at the time we are acting it out.

Up to this point I had completely agreed with Downey, but then he started using thumos to explain why we desire what we desire.  He first claimed that we are all imitating creatures, which I believe is true, and because of this we all pick a model whom we want to be like and that sets the tone for what we want from life, including possessions.  From here Downey goes off kilter.

He begins to justify, without ever literally mentioning Freud, the Oedipus complex.  Downey claims that we first learn this skill of imitation and desire when we watch our parents.  They are our first models and therefore the first people whose lives we covet.  He even uses the dreaded example of a boy wanting his mother because he wants to be his father and his father has his mother...yeah gross and confusing.

I have never once agreed with this theory.  First, because I have never wanted either of my parents' social status in life, nor have I ever wanted either physically (eww).  Second, I don't agree with Downey's position that the only reason it doesn't happen amongst families is because society looks down upon it.  I believe that their is something inherent in us from birth that establishes a physical and emotional boundary between family member, and when that is diminished all hell breaks loose (just watch Psycho).  


However, I did agree with Downey's assessment that babies are capable of jealousy and therefore are not inherently good as many people want to believe.  That says something about our human nature.  I think it's a big step in proving that we are born sinners, and although society doesn't help us out any, it is not the cause of our fall.