Over the holidays I read Steve Berry's newest novel, The Paris Vendetta. Without ruining the book for those of you that plan to read it - one of the central themes of the storyline is the notion that "a feared external menace is essential for any central authority to preservere". It goes on to say:
"Such a menace must be believable and of a significant magnitude to instill absolute fear, and must affect society as a whole. Without such fear, central authority could well collapse. A societal transition from war to peace will fail if a ruler does not fill the sociological and political void created by the lack of war. Substitutions for the channeling of collective aggression must be found, but these surrogates must be both realistic and compelling."
What do you think? Can central authority (i.e. government in some form or fashion) exist in a society of complete peace? Does government create adequate "menaces" in order to preservere? The book suggests that war (or at least the threat of war) is the ultimate menace to society that maintains central authority and that an adequate substitute must exist in its absence - what are adequate substitutes? Could global warming, the threat of running out of oil, economic collapse, radical Islam and terrorism be adequate substitutes? Are any of these artificially contrived by government in an effort of self preservation?
Please share your thoughts. Click the comment link below!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The current American government goes out of its way to downplay the idea of Islamic terrorism. An Islamic male with known ties to Al Qaeda that tries to blow up a plane with a bomb in his underwear is classified as an "isolated extremist" and tried in civilian courts. Global warming is the currently preferred menace employed by governments to persuade the citizenry into allowing their freedoms to be taken away.
ReplyDelete