Stories and Politics

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
                                                    -Muriel Rukeyser

The building blocks of life.

I like this quote a lot. The story is a metaphor of change and progression (no examples come to mind of stories that are ever stuck in one place), so when applied to the universe we can see that it is capable of change in itself. This quality is further established by saying it is not made of atoms. What it is referring to in my eyes is not the tiny particles of matter, but physicality itself. It's a metaphor for a world constructed by immobile substance incapable of any alteration.

Just for the sake of noting, Mark in class had a different take on the subject by saying every element of the world is defined by a story. Atoms themselves have a story about how they came to be.

From what we talked about in class, stories define our world, and the large variety of stories illustrates the infinite possibilities of becoming. The stories that we are told the most have the most power, thus we attribute them to being (or at least as close as we can get). These are meta-narratives because they are big stories told to explain the world we live in.

How does this fit in with politics? Easy. The meta-narratives of the day are what constitutes as real, or being reality. The cool thing is that in english "real" comes from "regal" or pertaining to a king. The Spanish are much less subtle as "real" in Spanish means royal. The ideal King is one who reigns over everything he can see. What he cannot see is not royal, so thus not real.

It's definitely interesting, especially considering that the best way to keep power is to keep the stories told in your favour. The concerning factor behind this is that politicians will do anything to create and stay in this positive light as much as possible. Jean Cretien himself said that a good leader wins elections... nothing to do with moral character. The reason I dislike politics is due to the fact that you rarely seem to get a straight answer from politicians for the simple reason that not doing so is a more effective tactic. They use careful wording, with multiple interpretations so there's always a back-door.

I can agree my opinion seems cynical, however the existence of "The Prince" would say otherwise. It's essentially "How to be a Leader for Dummies" by Machiavelli in the 16th century. Featured inside are ideas like,

"Criminal acts do not show real virtue because crime lacks glory. The solution presented however is not to avoid crime, but to make sure crimes do not languish over ones whole career, but are done at a stroke. This, Machiavelli says, changes criminal virtue to virtue because it allows glory."

...The only problem with criminal acts is a lack of glory... so here's how to make it glory... wow. It's pretty sketchy and it also happens to be a novel carried around by many political figures. Now I'll admit I haven't read it myself, but just looking up chapter summaries will demonstrate shocking ideas, all aimed at staying in power.

So what can we do as a people? Be well versed in the issues. Rhetoric is a powerful tool in our world, especially since it is the medium our stories are told. When it comes to politics, the best thing we can do is to make educated choices and stand up for what we deem is right. As I've said before, sometimes a vote cast in ignorance is just as bad as not voting at all.

Never stop questioning.