Stuck in a Swamp
In the preface of the Turkish edition of Professor Ay?e Zarakol's Before the West: The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders, she states: "If we look at the historical reflection in today's context… No order, no matter how permanent it may seem at the time, lasts forever… In the world I describe, there were many political and social facts that people at the time thought would never change, but most of them have either changed or been completely forgotten. Therefore, we shouldn’t get too bogged down in daily matters."
On the other hand, Elias Canetti says in his book Crowd and Power: “The cry of the crowd must be spontaneous. Rehearsed and regularly repeated screams are not proof that the crowd has gained a life of its own. The spontaneous and unpredictable cry of the crowd is obvious and has a huge impact. It can express all kinds of emotions.”
Shall we put the statements I have highlighted by Professor Zarakol and Canetti in our pockets and go skiing in Bolu, Kartalkaya?
I will not issue a report card as shared on social media and I will not directly criticize the government; because if a criticism is to be made today, this criticism should first be directed at the masses themselves (I also point the finger at myself)
At the peak of liberalism, in the days when Hegel waved the flag of dialectics in his hand, there were critical elections in the world and the result is clear. Each new government is more destructive than the previous one. Because every nation believes in its own uniqueness, X or Y identities, a religion or belonging to outdated political movements brings privilege. Let's say this, but why do the masses want to believe it? I have difficulty understanding this issue in the context of social media, artificial intelligence and Generation Z. Canetti helps explain the rise of totalitarianism and authoritarian regimes in his book, but in today's equation, the unknowns are endless and the pace of change has become unpredictable.
According to the latest findings, 79 people lost their lives in the hotel fire in Kartalkaya, Bolu. Before it was understood what was going on, institutional functions started blaming each other. And at the same time, there were still people skiing; because the money had to be paid, the holiday had to be taken, the selfie had to be taken and the task had to be completed.
While institutional functions blamed each other, supporters and troll armies clashed on social media. The most flattering, heartwarming, and pretentious words were exchanged, and the masses of functions indulged in a form of self-satisfaction—and continue to do so. We should have shared stories on social media, showcasing who was most upset, and that was all.
We had to do this as a crowd so that the thin threads of our divided consciences would become a bit more visible. We have experienced this in other disasters too; first, we mobilized, we united, and then we scattered. But why? I understand that, as a result of social engineering, the crowd might have been fragmented. However, what I do not understand is how the fragmented crowd, despite being frequently tested by national disasters, can remain indifferent. Perhaps no phenomenon is as real as we perceive it to be? In a world where no order lasts forever, is it because we are stuck in daily matters that our spontaneous cry never happened?
History shows us that reactions to disasters are not only shaped by the emotional burden of the moment, but also how a society sees itself. In her work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt emphasizes how open people become to manipulation when they lose touch with reality. The fragmentation of reality leaves the masses open to passivity and manipulation. The indifference we experience today is perhaps one of the most striking manifestations of this disconnect.
领英推荐
We also feel the effects of the integration of sociological frameworks that I cannot answer into the international system. 2025 will make this effect even more felt as an election year. I do not claim to give definitive answers to big questions; however, I wanted to at least underline the implicit arguments that everyone knows. The obsession with acceptance, which descends from international relations to the individual level, hypnotizing the masses and causing them to view events with indifference or selectivity, may have historical roots. I have previously touched on this issue in my article How the West Learned to Live with the East?
In his book Crowd and Power, Canetti says: “The stagnant crowd is very compressed, it is impossible for it to move really freely. There is something passive about its situation; it waits. The stagnant mass is not yet very sure of its unity and therefore remains motionless for a long time. However, this patience also has its limits, it must be discharged. Without discharge, it is impossible to say that a mass really exists.”
I will also leave this quote here.
With respect to those who tragically lost their lives in the Kartalkaya Hotel fire...