The Right Archetype

"Even the humblest, most industrious citizen is expected to be an ignorant fanatic, whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and triumph, regardless of his own suffering. In other words, the mentality appropriate to a state of war. And being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival."

from a new dramatic version of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four quoted in an enlightening essay by Arriana Huffington.

The blogosphere, left and right, is in love with the concept of memes, which (embarrasingly enough for the right) was invented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, as a mental analogue to the gene.

The blogosphere works hard to make the meme theory real by replicating a vocabulary, which on the left includes always referring to "Bushco" or "Bush Co," and of course "the latest meme" (it's become a meme that the most successful meme in history is meme itself. FDR said that, I believe, or maybe Lincoln. ) And both blogging hands share such acronyms as MSM for mainstream media.

It doesn't take much science to figure out that the meme theory is bunk as biology. It's an analogy, a metaphor, two of the many concepts apparently sacrificed with cuts in literary education. It has some interesting application to the behavior of media and the evolving study of the web itself, with its viral analogies. But in discourse generally, we've got plenty of other words that are more precise, like cliche, slogan, stereotype and catch-phrase.

Which brings me to George Bush. Recent tendencies in the White House have led leaders in the southpaw blogosphere to routinely refer to "King George," or the analogy of Bush purporting to be King. But while the metaphor has merit, I don't think it's the best one.

I don't expect this argument to go very far, as the idea of "archetypes" doesn't cut much virtual mustard, even to those in love with "framing" (another dubiously applied concept.) But while there is historical justification for the king metaphor (suggested of course by "King George" of England during the American Revolution, the monarch George Washington didn't want to be), it's the wrong archetype.

Why? Because most of the deep associations of "king" are good. The longing for the good King's return is central to the Arthurian legend, the most potent archetypal story in England and its former colonies. Think Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. Princess Leia. The idea of royal blood as a symbol for virtues of leadership, nobility and power. The king is the most potent archetype affecting politics, and its potency is in the power it has on deep and unconscious levels. It is at this point quite destructive, but that doesn't alter the fact that people feel it.

There is also a certain aptness in the analogy as this president is the son of a former one. The irony of the Bushes as a royal family is worth analysis, most appropriately formed as a lacerating extended satire. But that's its effective limit.

What Bush is threatening to be is a much more modern species: the dictator. The proper historical analogy is not King George but Adolf Hitler. He isn't setting up a monarchy as much as a totalitarian state. This is more accurate in terms of the modern state and its apparatus. And in terms of its ugliness. A lot of Germans didn't think Hitler was ugly at the time. They were enthralled, and then they were scared.

Or, if you like, it's not King George but George Orwell we should be thinking of, and comparing the Bushites to. Among the supporting arguments I would offer is the Arriana Huffington piece linked above.

Of course it's important to be consciously aware that the dictator evokes the king archetype, as the ruling plutocracy evoke the nobility. There's a lot of magical thinking below the modern facade, along with a primitive urge to follow the one who appears strongest in order to survive.

The love of kings and royalty in our time is also expressed as celebrity worship, and in a milder way of fawning over and imitating leaders, even in the blogospheres. That's fine, if there's a corresponding enthusiasm for creativity, and an ability to modify the "meme" as a result of argument rather than the endorsement of fashion leaders.