I think you can genericize it a bit and say humans are bad at defining themselves and need a reference point, and they often take the opposite stance of that reference point. I think this model fits in with that pretty well - there are groups who want to be "not-the-elite" which, if successful, the elite adopt. Classic "hipsterism."
It also fits in with a lot of local, national, and global politics, market differentiation, etc.
(sorry, nothing concrete to share and likely won’t for a long time)
I think one of the keys to a complementary bundle of mechanics is that they're distinct. Acting on different time scales, different reward structures that tug the brain around, creating choices that feel meaningful and don't ever repeat exactly.
Decades later, it's what the mainstream now sounds like. It always percolates up.
> I can attest that what drove us is not the desire to differentiate, but that the mainstream elite were lifeless bullshit
Here you state that the mainstream elite was "lifeless bullshit."
> we wanted to express something new
And you wanted to express NOT lifeless bullshit.
> that only we could sense. We were being us
This is what the mainstream elite couldn't see or make. It was NOT mainstream elite thought.
> it's what the mainstream now sounds like
The mainstream adopted it, and now there's a new generation of people who think that sound is mainstream lifeless bullshit and will create something that is NOT mainstream lifeless bullshit. This is not part of the Graeber thesis, but aligns well with the original post.
I also want to be clear that I don't think this is supposed to be a conscious process - there are times when people are intentionally contrarian but there are also people and groups who are unconsciously contrarian simply by saying "I don't like this thing."
I don't think the error is in defining ourselves by what sets us apart--it's fine and good to acknowledge our differences. I think the bad thing is leaning into those differences due to an aversion to the outgroup, which is the very essence of tribalism (or nearly so).
He also does not assign a property of good or bad to this observation, just that we do it.
I still think Bullshit Jobs was a terrible read but maybe I need to give some of his other stuff a shot.
1. https://textbooks.whatcom.edu/duttoncmst101/chapter/intercul...
Easy to say duh to this in 2021 thanks to education, internet, and everything. Must've been a breakthrough a few hundred years ago. For various reasons
It's true, of course, that the end result will be a subset of the people leading and most not (which is an outgrowth of basic specialization theory: if everyone's in charge of coordination and leadership, nobody has time to do the work that needs coordination and leadership). But was the new elite always apart from the followers and supporters, or are the rulers overthrown and during that process some subset of the overthrowers become a new elite due to the needs of specialization? Or, to say it another way: would the "new elite" have ever been an elite if they hadn't won?
George Washington was never commissioned in the British army. Fidel Castro was the bastard son of an immigrant. Had their revolutions not succeeded, would history remember them as elite?
(This is not an attack against crypto in general, there are ways to design a cryptocurrency so it's equal to all participants regardless of the time they buy in, it's just that they fail to gain adoption because of a lack of VC funding and support from the crypto community, as neither can make a quick buck out of it)
But there was still a massive moat for institutions due to the need for trust, backed by a regulatory framework. And entrenched institutions means entrenched elite. What crypto provide is a temporary workaround for a faction of the financial elite to build rival institutions.
But the crucial thing is member of the new "crypto" elite are for the most part "junior" (in the status sense) members of the Tradfi elite. So for the rest of us peons, it will stay business as usual !
Their observations align with my own - it's all about standing out. Me different because me better. Or vice versa. Same thing
Let’s explain fashion using cellular automata. This isn’t going to be cringe-inducingly nerdy at all!
Any government, including human beings who identify as nations, can signal they've shifted to practicing such a culture by adopting the following symbol and integrating it into their symbology:
∀
This is the mathematic notation for the phrase "for all." A government that's operating on a model to meet all needs while denying none can signal this by including this symbol in their art, like flags, seals, etc.
[1] https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-hate-coexist-bumper-sti...
We need systems that are fun, healing, and don't caretake for trust trauma.
"This" could be considered a culture of freely giving to meet people's needs, including the needs of the environments they live in.
Satisfying All Needs Through A narchogiving (SANTA)
I want a network of SANTA communities, offline and online, dedicated to meeting people's needs. The SANTANet.
Another example: I'm helping my hair to mat into ∀.
I've legally changed my name to Peacefully Revoking Consent To Be Governed For You And For All. My signature is "<peace sign> ∀" I'm also running for president on a platform of founding a new government to replace this one. The logo will include ∀
I'm nurturing a 3yo by empowering them to do whatever they want that won't kill them. This requires facing down and releasing old traumatic conditioning. I'm not perfect and need more people in my life to help them revolt against me when I slip into choosing from trauma mode. So a community where it's normal to run around naked in cold weather, regardless of age, is something I'm working toward.
Cities still have a lot going for them by providing the best access to services (especially after covid is over), but one thing I see happening in the future is the establishment of "remote working villages" in smaller towns. Price and quality of housing will be the main selling point, but they'd also have access to nature and a good sense of community (in fact the projects could be self-organised and funded by the residents if you find the right people).