I Think Shakespeare Would be Upset

I was struck, while watching the new version of Macbeth starring Michael Fassbender, by the blend of realism, authenticity, and modernity. All of these concerns were completely unimportant to Shakespeare, who was a writer firmly rooted in his time and concerned with pure entertainment.

The film has an anachronistic concern with trauma. In many ways it explains Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s actions as a kind of result of post-traumatic stress disorder. They are haunted by the death of their daughter (long a favorite speculation on the Macbeths’ backgrounds before the start of the play) and perhaps Macbeth is haunted by the violence of battle (which seems to have taken from him another son). This new version, rather than focusing on will or fate, or the supernatural, or even moral decisions, is centered around the experience of loss and grief. The realism we are so much in love with in recent cinematic history diminishes the humor and rhetorical flourishes which (to me) add great depth and complexity to the play.

I have always been an advocate of reading Shakespeare, which allows for close analysis of motifs, themes, and wordplay. Creating a “realistic” Macbeth confines the interpretation of the play and pushes it toward one articulation of the story where much nuance is discarded. In any case, the film is spare and atmospheric in its cinematography and is excellently acted. Perhaps the next interpretation (which I’m sure audiences are just clamoring for…) will leave in some of the fantastic, which both enriches the play and will marry it to its original intent.

The Impossibility of Perfect Security

In light of the terrorist attacks today in Brussels it is important to remember two things. First, the threat of suicide bombers is uniquely troubling to governments trying to prevent attacks. Stopping someone who is alone and willing to die in order to kill others is nearly impossible. It is a devastating terror tactic, not least because it frustrates immediate revenge. There will always be people who can blow themselves up, who can walk into a public area and shoot people whom the government will not be able to stop. It is dangerous for governments and citizens to seek perfect security from attacks such as these. The second point is that terrorist attacks such as these are able to terrify people and to frustrate everyday life, but they cannot destroy a country. These are attacks of weakness, and there are a whole host of threats much more dangerous to the life of a country than suicide bombers.

Borders are old-fashioned

In May of last year, Boeing, the enormous defense contractor and aerospace company, threatened to take its headquarters out of the country if the Export-Import Bank wasn’t reapproved by Congress. You can argue if the Export-Import Bank is a good idea or not but it is painfully obvious that Boeing’s ability to move out of the country is a grave challenge to American sovereignty. The true power of corporations in the modern world, especially in wealthy countries, is not their financial might, but their ability to employ thousands of people. Politicians know that if unemployment rises, if the economy retracts, their positions are vulnerable. This weakness gives corporations a huge advantage over states in this century.

States and their governments are restricted and defined by their borders, and borders are old-fashioned. Globalization, communications technology, and the rising economies of previously impoverished Asia and Africa are allowing large corporations to move around the globe to better serve their bottom lines. Another problem with states (and many corporations’ biggest gripe)? Taxes. Governments rely on taxing residents, goods, property, and commerce within their borders in order to fund their services, edifices, and institutions. But how can you tax a corporation if they’ll just leave? We often see this within the United States, corporations will relocate to a state with lower tax rates, and the states that those corporations move to are willing to trade tax revenue for employment. All of this gives rise to the impression of inequality: “the sovereign corporation gets whatever it wants but I have to slave away and bear an enormous tax burden.”

Another obvious example of the weakening position of the nation-state is the continuing rise of non-state actors. The gold standard for this was al-Qaeda before, ironically because of their aspiration to nationhood, the Islamic State. ISIS has destroyed the boundary that separates Syria and Iraq, a line set by the Sykes-Picot agreement between the British and French during the First World War. Few nation-states have arisen organically, most have had lines drawn for political reasons, Iraq and Syria, before the French and British drew their borders, were not nations but provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Communications technology and entropy has allowed non-state actors to gain power and redefine the physical spaces in which they operate. The decentralization of power is a key feature of the modern age.

Thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Voter Turnout

It is interesting to note that in an election year where the democrats are fielding such an unpopular and weak candidate as Hillary Clinton that one would expect voter turnout to be very low for democrats in the general election. If Donald Trump becomes the republican nominee, and he probably will at this point, I believe he will increase opposition voter turnout. The effect of Donald Trump becoming the republic nominee will almost guarantee the election of Hillary Clinton because Trump has stirred such opposition from normally uninvested or uninterested voters. If the Republicans could have fielded a centrist he would have a very good chance of winning the presidency.

Problems facing humanity in the future

There are two overwhelming psychological challenges that are going to face humanity as we move deeper into the 21st Century: 1) profound mutations of society brought on by new technology, and 2) a nihilistic outlook on life. I will address the first in this post.

Disruptions in economic life are already becoming apparent, and are in fact at the heart of the political crisis that has faced the United States for the last 10 years. As time goes on the economic changes brought on by technology will begin to deeply change society. Inequality, unemployment, and changes in social connections will upend people’s sense of security and could completely disrupt existing political structures. Technological changes will create an ever-increasing under class with a lack of skills to thrive in a new economy. This will create a sizable minority of people who feel alienated from society and culture at large. Politicians have done almost nothing to address this problem, and many plans, such as protectionist trade policies and increasing the minimum wage are nothing but band-aids on a gaping wound.