The Value of Chaos

In a recent article on Vladimir Putin, continuing a line of argument to be found in his 2018 book, Bruno Maçães summarized something Joseph Brodsky wrote in 1990 about the relationship between power and chaos, particularly in relation to Russia.

What Brodsky identified was the connection between power and chaos, Since power needs the presence of chaos as a source of legitimacy, then chaos itself is legitimised and may even be celebrated. ... Brodsky recognised that power and chaos feed each other and grow together. Power is born from the act of bringing order to chaos. If there is no chaos then power itself must be used to create it. ... Chaos is never completely pacified, It continues to exist beneath the veneer of civilisation and the role of the sovereign consists in its management, so that it does not erupt to the surface.

Accusations of this kind have been directed at different regimes at different times, with varying degrees of justice. Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa, disputes the relevance of this model to President Putin, and suggests that the model might be more relevant to Western foreign policy instead.

Two entirely different narratives, with entirely different things labelled as chaos, and different notions of Putin's responsibility for anything. So before we can ask who benefits from chaos in a given situation, we have to ask what even counts as chaos.

---

Bruno Maçães, The Dawn of Eurasia: On the trail of the New World Order (Penguin 2018)

Bruno Maçães, Agent of Chaos (New Statesman, 24 November 2021). 

Paul Robinson, Putin mentions Gandhi: proof he loves Hitler! (29 November 2021)

Related posts Don't Waste a Crisis (November 2008), Political Theatre (May 2012 updated January 2013), Culture War (July 2021)

The Exception Proves The Rule - Media Power

I have recently heard the argument that the successful campaign in the UK to promote the Rage Against The Machine single over the one promoted by the British TV programme X Factor demonstrates the possibility of consumer power on the Internet.

Well.

One retailer at the time described this event as a truly remarkable outcome - possibly the greatest chart upset ever. 

Sarah Phillips and Steve Thomson describe another example, in which a musician uses social media to mount a complaint against United Airlines. And Curran, Fenton and Freedman quote a campaign against Nike in the 1990s, drawing on a paper by Lance Bennett.

While the phrase exception proving the rule is widely misused, the correct use of the phrase expresses the idea that a rare and remarkable event draws our attention to the underlying rule that governs most of the time.

In other words, if these examples are supposed to show us what real consumer power looks like, then this power only seems possible in very exceptional circumstances. So what is this really telling us about consumer power on the internet?

Before the Rage Against the Machine campaign, X Factor had taken the Christmas #1 slot for the previous four years running, and X Factor continued to do extremely well in the charts.

Mariann Hardey also notes that Simon Cowell, the impressario behind X Factor, also had a commercial stake in the Rage Against The Machine. Dr Hardey interprets this as proof (in case we needed it) that advertising works ... this is a far cry from consumer power in action.

---

BBC News, Rage Against the Machine beat X Factor winner in charts (20 December 2009)

Lance Bennett, Communicating Global Activism (Information, Communication and Society, 2003)

James Curran, Natalie Fenton and Des Freedman, Misunderstanding the Internet (2nd edition, Routledge 2016) 

Mariann Hardey, The Power of social media to kill in the name of ... (22 December 2009)

Sarah Phillips, United breaks guitars - The Rise of the Prosumer (Ipsos Health, July 2010)

Steve Thomson and Sarah Phillips, United breaks guitars (EphMRA Conference, June 2010)

Wikipedia: Exception that proves the rule, United Breaks Guitars