I couldn’t sleep last night, haunted by a world gone crazy.

I dreamt that a purported Israeli, with the support of one hundred rich American Jews, pretended to make a feature length film aggressively mocking the Prophet Mohammed and Muslims in general – Islamophobia and anti-Semitism combined!

The faux film producer uploaded a mock trailer to YouTube. Along with thousands of other clips, it was ignored. But then when the film was dubbed into Arabic, the demagogues of the world all played their roles – the clash of civilizations as mediated performance art.

Radical Islamic clerics worked as film distributors (monstrous monstrators as my Daniel Dayan might put it), bringing the clip to the attention of the mass media and the masses. Islamist and anti-Islamist ideologues worked up their followers, happily supporting each other in their parts. Feckless diplomats in embassies tried to assure the public that hate-speech isn’t official American policy. Analysts identified root causes.

The clash of civilizations was confirmed. All the players needed each other, supported each other, depended on each other. A marvelous demonstration of social construction: W.I. Thomas would be proud of the power of his insight. Social actors defined the clash of civilizations as real, and it is real in its consequences.

A reality confirmed with a jolt when I awoke, knowing full well about the global attacks on American embassies and symbols, and the tragic death of a man who was determined to go beyond clashing clichés, the heroic American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. The American right, including the marvelous Mitt Romney and Fox News talking heads, denounced President Obama’s purported support of the attacks and failure to stand up for American values, including the freedom of speech — this from people who worry about the war on Christmas. It’s a surreal reality this morning.

And this morning, wide-awake, I am savoring Marvelous Mitt’s recent video performance: right-wing newspeak de-constructed. At last, class warfare in America has been given a full public airing. In pitching his candidacy with his fellow fat-cats, Romney revealed his definition of job producers, the nature of dependency and the work ethic. He also showed himself to be a true student of Ayn Rand. Really, all who depend on government vote for Obama and the Democrats? No wonder he selected Paul Ryan. Identifying those who don’t pay federal income taxes with votes for Democrats is amazingly poor sociology, bordering on comedy, a point made beautifully in a letter to the editor in today’s New York Times.

To the Editor:

I woke up early this morning and drove my daughter several miles on a government-built road, all the way to a government-operated school.

I came back to my home — for which I receive a government-sanctioned mortgage-interest deduction — and called my parents, who both receive Social Security and Medicare from the government. Then I signed on to the Internet, which was developed by government-sponsored researchers.

So Mitt Romney is right, on two counts. I am “dependent upon government.” And I’m not voting for him.

JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN
New York, Sept. 18, 2012

As a social critic, I am ambivalent about the power of imaginative action in politics. On the one hand, I think that the power of the definition of the situation is a key resource of power for the powerless, the cultural grounding of “the politics of small things.” On the other hand, I worry about myth-making that is independent of factual truth.

On the positive side, there is the definition of the situation: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” This relatively simple assertion, the so called Thomas theorem, was first presented in a study of child psychology and behavioral problems by W.I. Thomas and his wife, Dorothy Swain Thomas. Yet, the theorem has very important political implications, going well beyond the area of the Thomases initial concern, moving in a very different direction than the one taken by the field of ethnomethodology, which can be understood as the systematic scholarly discipline of the definition of the situation.

While researching cultural and political alternatives in Poland and beyond in the 1980s and 90s I observed first hand how the theorem, in effect, became the foundational idea of the democratic opposition to the Communist system in Central Europe. The dissident activists acted as if they lived in a free society and created freedom as a result. A decision was made in Poland, in the 70s, by a group of independent intellectuals and activists to secede from the official order and create an alternative public life. People ignored the commands of the Communist Party and associated apart from Party State control, openly publicizing their association. They created alternative publications. They opened the underground by publicizing their names, addresses and phone numbers. They acted freely. They developed ties with workers and others beyond their immediate social circles. And when the regime for its own reasons didn’t arrest them, an alternative public life and an oppositional political force flourished, which ultimately prevailed over the regime.

The powerless can develop power that can and has overwhelmed the holders of conventional power resources. Daniel Dayan here considered how this worked in the case of the Gaza flotilla protest. This morning we could read about how a group of Saudi women are challenging the powers by publicly staging a drive-in. The controversy surrounding their action, the discussion of it on Facebook, is creating a new public life in Saudi Arabia. Facebook is facilitating the power of the powerless, in the Middle-East, North Africa and beyond, but it is the power of the definition of the situation that is creating this new public.

On the other hand, there is a seamy side of imagination and creativity in politics, revealed in two posts this week.

Rafael Narvaez illuminates a most basic and enduring problem. Race is a biological fiction that has become a most important social reality. Racial differences that do not exist, are said to exist, and, in the process, they come to exist, in their consequences. Racism is very much an ongoing social reality in the U.S. and beyond, even, and perhaps especially, in the face of the election of our first black President. Or is he bi-racial or is it post–racial? From institutionalized racism, where, for example, I observe that it is somehow especially difficult to keep open a decent food store in the black corner of my affluent suburb, to the persistent racial stereotyping on a major cable news network, i.e. Fox News, race is a fact, despite the fact that it is a fiction.

The relationship between fact and fiction is a more general problem, as Esther Kreider-Verhalle explored in her post this week. She was inspired to write about this issue when Fox News mistakenly used a still photo of Tina Fey, an entertaining impersonator of Sarah Palin, for Palin herself. Had the liberal cable news network, MSNBC, done this, some political motive might have been inferred, but that Fox did it, with a national political figure who also is a Fox employee, suggests the fundamental insights of the late social and cultural critic, Jean Baudrillard. Hyper-reality has overwhelmed reality. We can not tell the difference between the simulator of a political persona and the person herself, who is in fact a simulation. Politicians lie so much that their lies look like truths to them. In the process, they and their publics can not tell the difference. Truth melts away, as Anthony Weiner and a long line of public men behaving badly reveal. There is some resistance, suggested by periodic scandals, but these are but passing moments in our staged hyper-reality. I applaud Kreider-Verhalle’s cautionary conclusion: “Amidst all the gaming and faking, it would be good to realize that real decisions have an impact on real people.”

This is what our concern about fictoids is all about. Political actors imagine a reality. Palin makes up the notion of death panels for example, and the make-believe becomes real in its consequences, undermining the possibility of significant health care reform. The Republican leadership repeats often enough the formulation “the job killing stimulus package” and then what every sound economist knows – a recession is the time for government spending and not cuts – becomes politicized. Observations about global climate change become a matter of political debate, when fundamental scientific observations are questioned. Next, we will be politically debating fundamental the facts of Holocaust.

I once had dinner with Baudrillard. It followed his public dialogue with Sylvère Lotringer on “The Parallax of Evil: Domination and Hegemony.” I was surprised how quickly he accepted my criticism of his notion of a totalized hyper-reality. I asserted that the politics of the definition of the situation, “the politics of small things,” stands as an alternative to hyper-reality. I wondered why he was not interested in having a real debate. Perhaps it was a matter of his sense of table manners. Perhaps it had to do with his health. He died about a year later. But as I recall our discussion now, it is clear that we met each other representing the two sides of the definition of the situation and that the debate I wanted to have had no resolution. It is not a matter of debate but of judgment and action.

Living as if we are free requires confronting fictoids resolutely. Form matters.