Chaos has a great power of fascination in politics. The myth by which something new—and surpassing—can emerge from chaos and destruction is solidly anchored in our culture and ancient stories, such as that of the Phoenix Bird. It disputes the center of what is creative and attractive with the boring, predictable order, which shows signs of decadence and obsolescence. An established order that today is in question due to its limitations, if not failures.
In this desire, chaos theory (used in mathematics, physics and other sciences such as biology, meteorology and economics) has been used for some years to explain some social and political phenomena, and also to give meaning to increasingly complex realities, dynamic, evolving and with events that are incomprehensible and unexpected to us under the old paradigms.
Specifically, chaos theory proposes that, from disorder and lack of control, even that arising from conflicts on a scale, there can be a reordering of the social situation. In geopolitics, some decisions are often interpreted from “constructive chaos” taking into account its supposed transformative virtue: a new order can emerge from disorder, a reconfiguration of power that is favorable to one of the agents. A conflict, even a violent one, can bear fruit for some of the interested parties. And this benefit can be both through the result and through the fear it instills in those involved, and the diversion of the adversary’s attention and resources.
This approach has some interesting features for understand what is happening with the new rights. Taking values as a computer of social life, a deep questioning of them can lead to disorder, and, ultimately, a feeling of chaos that favors the changes that they propose and aspire to more or less explicitly.
One of the pillars of these strategies has been the questioning of norms of coexistence, rules of the game and limits in public dialogue. These actions, framed in the cultural battle that they propose to wage, and the importance that individual initiative can acquire make chaos theory an interesting tool from which to learn and reconfigure reality at will. Giuliano da Empoli in rehearsal The Chaos Engineers explain how these neopopulists moderns take advantage of “the fact that political power is unconscious, submissive and opportunistic in the face of the technological revolution” to use – in some cases with blatant complicity – the power of technological platforms to overwhelm the institutional framework, fueling polarization for their benefit. He cocktail of polarization, misinformation and hoaxes is used as an intoxicating brew by these chaos players.
What relationship is there between these new rights, the fascination with chaos or redemptive destruction, and the autocratic drive? Does this relationship exist? Stephen Greenblatt is a Harvard professor and one of the world’s leading experts on Shakespeare. In 2019 he wrote: The Tyrant: Shakespeare and Politics. The book revolves around the questions that Shakespeare asked again and again in his dramas: How can an entire country fall into the hands of a tyrant? Greenblatt draws a difference between the characteristics that allow a tyrant to occupy power and those necessary to govern, often antagonistic to the former. He indicates that, to achieve the management of power, “determination, the ability to intrigue, to deceive even your own allies and an obscene narcissism are essential; But once at the top, these qualities are incompatible with good government, and – for this reason – tyrants tend to crumble sooner rather than later. This phenomenon is also known as the Hubris syndrome.
Starting from the figures of Macbeth, King Lear, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar and, above all, Richard III, Greenblatt draws the portrait of the Shakespearean tyrant: “Narcissistic, arrogant, choleric, dominant, with an aggressive masculinity, with a deep contempt towards the laws because they stand in their way and motivated by various psychosexual concerns (the need to show their virility, the fear of impotence, the anxiety of not being considered powerful enough, etc.).” We talk about Shakespeare and tyranny in history, yes; but his current situation is overwhelming.
The flirtation with the autocratic drive—and its power of destruction through chaos, creative disorder—has powerful preachers. Donald Trump reiterated, in a bold and relativizing way, that he would be “a dictator, but only on the first day.” And in his first term he already pointed out the “deep state” as his main enemy. And Javier Milei stated, also in another recent interview: “I love being the mole within the State. I am the one who destroys the State from within. It’s like being infiltrated into the enemy ranks. “The reform of the State has to be carried out by someone who hates the State.”
For these new apologists of the supposed chaos or creative destruction, the reforms are a surrender or, what is worse, a betrayal. The only truly revolutionary thing—in his vision messianic and redemptorist—is destruction. But all autocracies begin with destruction. Democracies build, reform or evolve. Understanding the irresistible charm of symbolic fire – or sometimes real as in the coup d’état of January 6, 2021 in the United States or January 8, 2023 in Brazil – is a complex task.
The fascination with chaos, the new jokers of politics is revealing: “Introduce a little anarchy, disturb the established order and everything will become chaos. “I am an agent of chaos,” Joker proclaimed. It was a box office success. Joker 2 is coming.
Follow all the information from El PAÍS América in Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Politics #chaos #theory