![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Political involvement and anonymity.
Aug. 12th, 2011 09:06 pmWell, here's something I didn't know... according to The World Consensus Textbook Wikipedia, Venetian masks weren't just worn for Carnival... they were an important part of public life and the political process, with masks even being de rigeur at political decision-making events to ensure that all involved* could act as peers and state their opinions in anonymity.
Now the * is there because even without Wikipedia going into details, I know that all would not have been involved in political decision-making, but for the various people of whatever social strata were invited to the party the masks would at least have been a stab at leveling the playing field.
And then we come to the money quote of the article:
Get that? Decline of Republic... representative government, civic life centered around res publica, "the public thing", "the common good"... coincided with the decline of the right of citizens to go masked.
The first thing I thought of when I read this was Google+ and their "real names" policy. I went to find a good write-up about who that primarily hurts and why, but when I Googled I just got page after page of results of articles talking about their efforts to soothe users' fears. Oh, here's one. Anyway, that was my first thought... while masks doubtlessly allowed the very uppermost and crustiest of uppercrust types to enjoy some "freedom" from the strictures of their rank, it's the people of lower ranks who benefited the most from obscuring their rank... and their identities, shielding themselves from some measure of retribution.
Of course, Google isn't the government. But you know who is the government? Tautologically enough, the government is. And using the paper-thin excuse of protecting minors from sexual exploitation, the government is trying to strip away all our masks in the one medium that's proved to be remarkably oligarchy-resistant as a means of communicating and organizing.
And of course, the intersection of anonymity and power is something to think about every time a corporation fights for the right to make unlimited anonymous "donations" to political candidates and parties. They want the right to not only buy government influence directly, but they want to do it while wearing masks.
But I suppose if you've got that much money, why shouldn't life be a non-stop carnival?
Now the * is there because even without Wikipedia going into details, I know that all would not have been involved in political decision-making, but for the various people of whatever social strata were invited to the party the masks would at least have been a stab at leveling the playing field.
And then we come to the money quote of the article:
Near the end of the Republic, the wearing of masks in daily life was severely restricted
Get that? Decline of Republic... representative government, civic life centered around res publica, "the public thing", "the common good"... coincided with the decline of the right of citizens to go masked.
The first thing I thought of when I read this was Google+ and their "real names" policy. I went to find a good write-up about who that primarily hurts and why, but when I Googled I just got page after page of results of articles talking about their efforts to soothe users' fears. Oh, here's one. Anyway, that was my first thought... while masks doubtlessly allowed the very uppermost and crustiest of uppercrust types to enjoy some "freedom" from the strictures of their rank, it's the people of lower ranks who benefited the most from obscuring their rank... and their identities, shielding themselves from some measure of retribution.
Of course, Google isn't the government. But you know who is the government? Tautologically enough, the government is. And using the paper-thin excuse of protecting minors from sexual exploitation, the government is trying to strip away all our masks in the one medium that's proved to be remarkably oligarchy-resistant as a means of communicating and organizing.
And of course, the intersection of anonymity and power is something to think about every time a corporation fights for the right to make unlimited anonymous "donations" to political candidates and parties. They want the right to not only buy government influence directly, but they want to do it while wearing masks.
But I suppose if you've got that much money, why shouldn't life be a non-stop carnival?