Politics and perversion: A case study

It has become quite fashionable in recent political commentaries to discredit the average individual voter. By appealing to such institutional modes of categorization like the IQ test, many elitist political thinkers seek to discredit the ability of the average individual to make decisions as to who they would like to govern them. Yet we should turn this around and psychologically asses those who make such claims, those who assume a paternalistic vigilante status in the democratic process itself. We have to ask ourselves, "How do such individuals come about and what role do they play in our democratic process?" Also, we must further ask, "What do we in turn do with such people?"

Luckily, we at UIC need look no further than our own backyard for a great example. A student at UIC has recently taken it upon himself to begin distributing mass emails and cheap homemade voyeuristic videos of students aimed at discrediting certain individuals concerning UIC politics. These emails are stated to inform students about their representatives. But rather than simply deny allegations or partake in meaningless dialogue, I believe we should try to learn something from these actions.

This is achieved in the way we approach the arguments themselves. Whenever locked in a disagreement, one is best advised not to simply provide a counter-argument to the opposing side, but instead to look at the unnoticed assumptions by which the other views are based. In a way, to propose a counter is to give the other side too much credit.

For example, when arguing with a racist, who believes minority group X is lazy, dirty and uncivilized, it would be ill-advised and ridiculous to provide facts and figures contrary to that view. Rather, one should just look at the ideological perspective which must be assumed to arrive at such an opinion. Arguments should not be countered, but instead must be subverted.

This is how we should really approach the warped logic and narcissistic rantings of some concerning current UIC politics. Rather than giving credit to the ravings of a fragile and sick individual, we should attempt to understand how one could reach such a lonely and depraved state. Let us first look at the evidence.

In a recent email that was sent out, the subject in question composed a paragraph consisting of 5 sentences. The purpose of the paragraph was to express the fact that the subject has nothing to gain from his/her actions, that they are done for completely selfless reasons. Yet in this paragraph, the subject refers the him/herself no less than 12 times. (You may contact me to read the paragraph, for it was withheld from publication for privacy purposes.)

What is of course ironic is the apparent need to refer to him/herself so often while making an attempt to prove the selflessness of the action. We can already begin to see the underpinnings of the mind already, for contradictions are beginning to emerge.

The subject has thus proclaimed his mission to reveal the truth of the matter to students. Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan points us in the right direction in his analysis of the "bearers of truth." As Lacan states in his writings on perversion, the pervert is not defined by some sexual act which seems inappropriate, but instead is characterized as perceiving to have "direct access to the truth." Ladies and gentlemen, beware of arguing with a pervert, for they believe their own lies.

Another interesting contradiction is apparent in our crusading pervert, that of falling into his own trap. He accuses members of the student government for capitalizing on a supposed non-issue to further their own political aspirations. It is by doing this, by pulling the proverbial hood over the eyes of the poor defenseless undergraduates that the political masterminds will gain power and eventually invade Poland.

Yet how are the actions of this accuser any different than what he/she is accusing others of doing? Is he/she not capitalizing on an issue that was not an issue before he/she made it so? Is he/she not also selflessly claiming credit for him/herself?

Finally, it was once stated that politics is the art of controlling your environment. We should apply the same logic to arguments themselves, namely not letting the interlocutor define the terms of the debate. While some will state that the last UIC elections was defined by questionable election practices, we must question this assumption itself. When somebody questions elections practices, what they may really be questioning is the intelligence of undergraduates.

We cannot overlook the paternalistic overtone that constitutes the voice which proclaims to possess the knowledge of what equates fairness. Generally, the largest possessors of the concept of fairness are the most unfair people, those who will resort to slander and defamation to express their sense of justice.

Psychoanalyst Slavoj Zizek writes of the pervert, "The question we should confront here is what, then, does the pervert miss, in his endeavor to absolutely separate the Truth from Lies? The answer is, of course: the Truth of the Lie itself, the truth that is delivered in and through the very act of lying."

The unfortunate lesson to be learned here is that there are many perverts out amongst us. But the best way to approach individuals is to not take them head on, but to step back and assess the logic, for when this is done, the inconsistencies and contradictions become apparent. Therefore, the burden in this common political scenario always falls upon the citizen, or in this case the student. They should always be suspicious and informed about their government, but also realize that many are waiting in the wings to play the savior against these evil politicians. Yet often, the superficial attempt to expose is the greatest mask for deceit.