We
usually hold the cause-effect relationship in high regard when we are
discussing history and historical writing. Historical writing is
essentially a searching of causes: the cause of this revolt, the
cause of that uprising etc. A
town in nation A may be suffering from food shortages, which is a
cause, and the effect of which is a revolt among the working-class
population. This is a traditional form of historical reasoning that
we encounter in text books. However, it is our assertion here that
the cause-effect relationship is not accurate to explain the internal
dynamics and events in a country's history, especially given that we
are living in times where the interactions between nations in
the globe is more frequent and more fluid. We have to do away
outright with the cause-effect relationship because it tends to
explain a country's history in isolation, and it tends to arbitrarily
fix some events as important causes and others as important effects.
A lot of other more minor events are left out in this traditional
understanding of a nation's history through the cause-effect model.
A
cause-effect model exists in isolation, meaning that, it assumes a
chain of events can be explained without any reference to an outside
event. The 'cause' seems to be inexplicable, in that, it arises out
of something which cannot be captured or explained by the historical
document at hand...in some ways the cause is 'natural' or outside of
a nation's history, but something which determines the nation's
historical path. The 'effect', on the other hand, is totally
explained with reference to the cause. The model is tight, it does
not allow for external events. History is taken to be composed of two
important points, with other events that occur before, after and in
between as being deemed unnecessary and insignificant. Not all events
are considered important, and history as a smooth flow, where all
events have their determining impact, is not produced in the history
books. This is incompatible with how we usually experience history,
where every moment seems to be important, where many, many events
determine the importance of the 'effect,' and where there is no real
single cause.
Similarly,
the cause-effect model is an isolating model. In traditional history,
it assumes that the cause of an event can be found within a nation
itself. It isolates the nation against external influence, it assumes
that a nation does not get influenced by external forces at all. If
there is a revolt in A, then the cause is to be found within A. The
cause is located within the country inasmuch as the effect is always
manifested within the country. This gives strength to a form of
nationalism and national unity and shrouds the fact that outside
influence is quite heavy upon a country. We must understand that this
outside foreign influence cannot be isolated to a single event, but
must be seen as being more continuous.
In
contrast to this model of the isolated cause and effect, let us put
forward the model of mimicry. Mimicry means in this context the act
of imitating. In the globalized world of exposure to the actions and
events of other nations, it seems that mimicry/imitation is a
dominant mode of international relations. One
seems to know more about the other than one does of oneself, and even
more so, one
sees the other more than one sees oneself. Plus, mimicry also
implies a rapidity in influence between two nations which seems more
attuned to how relations in the globalized era are manifest. Like in
a mirror, the complete action of one's doing is completely imitated
by the image. It is our assertion that nations, and within them the
institutions and national subjects, mimic to a great degree.
This
mimicking happens to such a great degree that the cause, that which
is considered in the history books to be inexplicable and outside of
human control, is itself mimicked. For instance, we have the rise in
food prices as a cause. In traditional historical writing, it is
written in such a way as to make us believe that this was an event
that was outside of determination, in other words, it was not the
result of human action. But, in the logic of mimicry and imitation,
the cause itself is mimicked, meaning that the cause is not something
that happens and can only be observed, but that the conditions for
the emergence of the cause are created. So, the rise in food prices
is mimicked in order for there to be a revolution after, in that, the
whole cause-effect model in this specific context is mimicked. We
have the scenario where not so much the cause-effect model as to its
imitation and replication is more important in today's context. There
is, therefore, nothing original to a nation, but everything has been
imitated from one nation to the other wholesale. This is a way of
looking at international relations: rather than understanding that
each nation has a unique cause which initiates its historical events,
not only the events, but even the causes, have been mimicked from one
nation to another.
Just
as we have de-emphasized the cause in the globalized era, there is no
question of the distinction between macro-level and micro-level in
the logic of mimicry. There is no question of the dominance of
ideology, of big government or big industries. Rather, mimicking is
wholesale replication of events that may otherwise be considered
bizarre: the mimicking of food shortages, the mimicking of the rises
and falls in wages, the mimicking of big things and small things, the
mimicking of insignificant details, in other words, what are
traditionally considered studied and calculated decisions are in fact
taken because a more successful nation has taken them. Mimicking
drives a wedge between cause and effect: the food shortage is
mimicked as the cause and the revolt is mimicked as the effect, there
is no 'natural' flow from cause to effect. In the age of mimicry, a
revolution may not necessarily follow a food shortage, but it is made
to do so if that is how a dominant nation's history operates. Also,
government intervention is becoming increasingly invisible in the
relationship between images, even if the government component is the
mimicking agent, the ego...But,
even beyond, the government elicits the mimicking of
anti-government protests if this is what occurs in a dominant nation,
in a sense, the ego will even mimic its own overturning and 'death,'
even death does not escape this logic of superficial spectacle. This
logic is not there to produce some necessary effect or outcome,
rather, it is the absolute imperative logic due to the proximity and
contact between two nations in the globalized era, meaning that it is
an automatic process.
Where
is the nation to find value? Precisely in the fact that what is not
reflected in the image is the true substance and being of the nation.
The nation must operate via a negative and 'reductive' logic, what is
not there, what is absent, is mine. But this does not mean there is a
method of escaping the mimicry; there is no escaping the mirror in
the globalized era. If a reflective surface has been stood between
nations, then it is the job of each to realize that the image is not
the complete picture. Making one's image elaborate, creative, complex
and excessive is a method of countering the inevitability of
replication and imitation in the globalized world. In today's age,
style and substance may really not be enemies of one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment