Compaction Cycle: The compaction cycle is a major factor in how Narrativist groups function and is my term for an unrecognized (but very
important) constant low level cycling of individual Narrativists
through a variety of different Narrativist groups. The compaction cycle
is of primary importance because it describes the trend towards
radicalization in Narrativist groups, and even provides something of a
barometer than can be used to approximate the general pace of and
anticipate when a Narrativist group is about to radicalize. That is to
say, when you see a compaction Cycle play out you know the group is
about to radicalize further. The more frequently that compaction cycles
are occurring, the more rapidly a given Narrativist group is
radicalizing. This cycle is also important because it is a major factor
in how Narrativist groups build common ground with each other when they
are looking for allies. (It also plays a large role in the cross
pollination of various strings of Narrativist thought.) To explain this
facet of Narrativist behavior I will call forth the metaphor of a
snowball. Specifically, a snowball made of that wet slush shit that is
right on the border between being frozen and being a puddle.
If you have never gotten a chance to play with such a snowball then let
me elaborate. By snowball standards they are heavy, awkward projectiles
that travel slowly and are easily dodged. Even when you do hit something
with such a snowball, the effect is minimal, usually a wet *punt*
sound. This snowball then is a metaphor for the average Narrativist
group when it is not under pressure. Unwieldy, awkward, not terribly
effective, but can still get the job done. Put a Narrativist group under
the pressure of "Narrative Dysphoria" (Defined in detail elsewhere)
though, and things change.
Let us return to our wet snowball. If you take it in both hands and
compact it, you will squeeze out a surprising amount of water. You will
then be left with an ice ball. Although much smaller and having less
total mass, an ice ball is a nasty projectile. Fast, accurate, hard to
see coming, and can leave a hell of a bruise. To take this example a bit
further, if you drop your new ice all in a pile of snow and scoop it
all up, you will now have slush ball with an ice ball core. A better
projectile than you started with, but not as good as the ice ball by
itself was. However, if you compact this new ball down, you will squeeze
out the water, and be left with an even larger total amount of ice in a
solid ball at the core. Now you are creating a dangerous weapon indeed.
And you can keep adding on layers of ice so long as you have a supply
of snow, eventually getting a baseball sized projectile of solid ice
that can really fuck something up. Even though you lose much mass every
time you compact the ball down, as long as you have a snowbank handy to
keep dipping your ice ball in, you can keep adding more total ice.
Now back to Narrativist groups. An average Narrativist group when not
experiencing narrative dysphoria is like our slush ball. A mixture of
hard and soft members, since when forming Narrativist groups are like an
annoying new Multi-Level Marketing scam. "We welcome everyone and anybody can be a success if you just adhere to our Narrative!" They will accept anyone
willing to pay lip service to the groups ideals and show up to meetings. When not under pressure
or threatened, Narrativist groups are much more relaxed and make a
conscious effort to be welcoming to outsiders (some of whom are then
selectively groomed for admittance into the
ever-present-in-Narrativist-organizations "inner circle").
All such groups when under pressure (particularly Narrative dysphoria)
however, start to drive softer members out. Stress rises, tempers flare.
Rhetoric becomes harsher, group identity becomes more important,
aggressive members start to scrutinize for any perceived flaw in the
tribe. Eventually someone (or a group of someones) finds themselves on
the wrong side of an internal dispute. It could be that they are
genuinely at fault, it could not be, doesn't really matter. In the
end they were guilty of the sin of not spotting the group think
searching for a scapegoat fast enough and as a result they became the
scapegoat and are summarily driven out.
This idea can be seen to play out over time on the (in)famous
conservative political discussion forum "FreeRepublic.com", hereafter
referred to simply as "Freep". This discussion forum is notorious for
the compaction cycles that play out like clockwork every Presidential
election cycle. Once the website owner (a gentlemen by the name of Jim
Robinson) publicly announces his preferred option for the nomination for
Republican candidate for POTUS this is treated as an official
announcement of support. From that point forwards the owner of Freep
simply bans any member who speaks up in support of of another candidate
or criticizes the candidate he has selected. The remaining users on
Freep have observably become noticeably and steadily more radicalized
over time as a result- and the standards of the community have gradually
eroded over time to the point where open racism has gone from being
verboten to being essentially the socially acceptable default stance.
Returning once again to our earlier metaphor- with the "softer" members (or water in our slushball) compacted out, the
remaining members are more radical overall. While the overall mass, or
number of members has decreased, the remaining members are the ones who
have proven themselves to be the most competent at falling in line and
will prove less likely to disagree with the group think in the future.
They have become like the Ice Ball.
Next the Narrativist group will enter a growth phase, and seek to add
new "softer" members (or more snow/slush) who will be welcomed in while a
semi-secret inner circle not so publicly makes all the real decisions.
This addition of new members will continue until the Narrativist group
comes under pressure or is subjected to narrative dysphoria, at which
point a new compaction cycle will form and another member (or potentially small group of members) will be made into scapegoats for
the group's failures and cast out. (In the metaphor of our slushball,
this is another round of compacting the water out of our slushball once
again and winding up with an even larger core ball of ice.) The
remaining members will become more extreme/radicalized, and will then
seek to add new members to the group once again.
The metaphor does not end here though, because we need to consider what
happens to those outcast members. Most of the time (85% or so if I had
to guess) they will go on to join another group. Since they are
Authoritarians they will join another group that also follows the Grand
Narrative. (While I would like to mention that this is how you get 9-11
truthers that become UFO nuts that become Objectivist "Captains of Industry" and then
wind up being 9-11 truthers again over the course of a long enough
period of time, I want to stay mostly with the Freep example.) The Freep
members that join some other online Conservative community will be
quite a bit more shy about rocking the boat. They will be more sensitive
and more alert for changes in their new home-tribes groupthink. They
will find themselves drawn to the new groups hardliners and will become
more hardline themselves. Often, abused becomes abuser, and when this
Narrativist group finds itself under pressure, (particularly narrative
dysphoria) the formerly outcast member will be among the most vicious
attackers of whoever winds up as the new groups scapegoat.
The overall trend here is that Narrativist groups swap members more
often than many realize, and one groups rejected softie becomes the next
groups hardliner. Just like our slush ball, the weak are driven out and
the ice remains, then more members are added and the cycle repeats
until eventually everyone is either a hardliner or has stopped
associating with Narrativist groups altogether. I feel this is a good
explanation for what we observe in the modern GOP. In raw numbers GOP
voters/supporters are in serious decline, but the remaining members are
rapidly becoming radicalized. Because of the Authoritarian takeover of
the GOP over the past 40 years the less hardcore Republicans are being
pressed out of group after group until they either become hardliners
themselves or find no home in the GOP.
Think of the Grand Narrative as a sort of basic format that the Inner narrative will take, a set of hooks that you could hang any Inner
Narrative on. So the more compaction cycles a Narrativist experiences,
the more developed their Inner narrative becomes, which inevitably leads
to the Inner narrative conforming more and more with the basic structure of the Grand narrative. As the conceptual confines of the
Grand Narrative are embraced as a consequence of Inner narrative evolution, the Narrativist is compelled to more
extreme forms of anti-social behavior, until at the highest levels the
Narrativist feels morally justified in committing acts of violence.
Think of it as a hypothetical scale from 1-10, with 1 being the lowest level of
compaction and 10 being the point at which there is a strong compulsion
to engage in acts of violence. (This scale is meant as a conceptual rough approximation to illustrate this concept.) As a Narrativist experiences more
compaction cycles, the compaction level of their Inner narrative rises in response.
Put a Narrativist through enough compaction cycles and the resulting Inner narrative evolution eventually they
will experience a strong compulsion to commit acts of violence.
I must specify here that just because a Narrativist reaches a 10 on my
hypothetical scale it does not mean they will become violent; rather, it
means that they feel morally justified and obligated to commit acts of
violence. Whether they engage in those acts depends mostly on two
factions: 1.) how much social stability is there in the community in
which the Narrativist resides, and 2.) how much encouragement the
Narrativist is receiving from communicating with other Narrativists who
are at a similar level of compaction.
Continue on to "Narrative convergence".
Full Glossary of terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment