The Discourse of Imposition: Mimesis, Politics, and the Impossibility of Freedom.

We are social creatures; we are not "free," whatever freedom might mean to you. "Freedom" can be a mantra, put to good effect, in the political arena, used to close down debate on novel policy ideas - alternately, "freedom" can be used to pry open previously closed debates. Freedom is a tool; how you use it depends on your agenda.

But I say we are social creatures and not "free," certainly not in the romantic perception that implies that more freedom is somehow the panacea to all society's ills. We are not free because we are driven to impose upon each other. Sharing your opinion is just such an imposition (this is why "freedom of speech" is so important!). We impose upon one another in direct, indirect, and collective ways. We impose upon our family and friends; we impose upon service staff and public servants; we impose upon the institutions that we rely upon to conduct our everyday business; through those institutions we impose upon people we have never met. We are, in turn, imposed upon by our family and friends; by various institutions and public officials; even by complete strangers, directly and indirectly.

It is through this dynamic and pervasive imposition that politics emerges. Politics is the endless discourse, indeed struggle, of social (and economic) imposition. Man, to quote Aristotle, is a political animal because man is a social animal. The discourse of freedom, however nebulous, is bound up in this discourse of imposition. It is not to be considered illegitimate, as such; it is quite a natural expression of political desires. It is, nonetheless, a part of the discourse of imposing political interests and perspectives on others - and, conversely, of resisting the same imposition in return.

We cannot step outside this discourse of imposition; it's in our DNA. We are hard-wired to identify with others, and to assert ourselves - to impose. We are, to quote William James, the imitative animal. We learn by imitating others; nowhere is this more evident than with children. To make the point explicit: children learn by imitating their parents and others in their environment. Acquiring language is predicated on this imitative education. Our social nature is also predicated on this inherent imitative, or mimetic, capacity.

We are drawn together because it is required for the proper functioning of our organism - the biological entity that we are. We are, after all, animals, whatever else we might be. We have a biological purpose to satisfy, with many biological functions necessary for that purpose to ultimately be satisfied. We are by no means "free" to pursue this biological satisfaction apart from the discourse of imposition. We are biological, social, imitative, and political animals all at once.

That we are drawn together out of mimetic instinct has many consequences. We not only persist in imitation throughout our lives - imitation is, after all, an important cognitive short-cut: we accept received wisdom and opinions from many quarters, including religion and politics, and we regurgitate that wisdom vociferously, now, perhaps, more than ever - but we impose upon each other because of this mimetic instinct. Politics is mimetic in the sense that we are engaged, permanently, in a social transaction predicated on imitation.

Politics, furthermore, is a projection of mimetic instinct. We do not imitate blindly (although this might be debatable in some regards), but we construct, through our original mimetic learning and beyond, a model of behaviour based on the aggregation of mimetic patterns. Our "world-view" is predicated on these patterns - we are a satisfied when these patterns are reaffirmed through our social interactions and experience. That is, when the world is presenting us with mimetic patterns that match our mimetic patterns all is right with the world. More simply, when we see people acting in a way that matches the patterns we are used to (the patterns we acquire through our initial mimetic learning, and which persist through adulthood), we are satisfied that things are going smoothly.

When we see people acting in ways that are not sanguine to our preferred patterns of behaviour and experience, in ways we are not used to imitating and which are not successful models of behaviour for us, there is a cognitive conflict. We do not like what we are seeing - it is wrong! This applies, not merely to immediate or direct experience, but abstract experience as well. And this is where we return to politics.

Politics - in a democracy at least - is a largely abstract experience. Politics is the argument of abstract objects, policies, laws, regulations, that govern specific sets of behaviour. The more politically inclined view the world through an ideology: an abstract set of protocols about what should or should not happen at the communal or societal level. Ideology, in other words, is a world-view predicated on mimetic instincts. Indeed, there is research to suggest this link neurologically between political identification and mimetic instinct. I direct you to Marco Iacoboni's 2008 book Mirroring People, Chapter 10, "Neuropolitics," specifically. I'll discuss this marvellous book in greater depth another day. In a nutshell, there is evidence to suggest that we are hardwired to identify and imitate the actions of others; generally, this idea comes under the rubric of "mirror neuron theory." This neurological predestination has implications for politics,  marketing ("neuromarketing"), or anything else that involves human behaviour - even the abstractions of human behaviour.

We object to behaviour that we cannot imagine ourselves engaging in. In short, behaviour that is (to re-purpose a fading word) "inimitable." Inimitable behaviour presents us with an inaccessible mind - if we cannot imitate the behaviour, if we cannot identify with it because our mimetic model of morality has never included it, then we cannot be sure we are dealing with a fellow mind-haver. We opine to impose our mimetic model - through the wonderful tool of language - on other, but clearly inferior, mind-havers. If our words cannot reach them, then surely they are subnormal! The derision and vitriol on the Internet suggests that political subnormality is, in fact, the norm! There is little respectful or intellectual discussion; epithets and condescension are commonplace.

We are never free because we are biologically incapable of freedom - at least the metaphysical kind of freedom that so many seem to appeal to. Freedom cannot be imitated - what can be imitated is ideology, or a politically-based mimetic model of the world. Conversely, ideology can be imposed because it can be imitated. Inimitable behaviour is unacceptable, even in abstract experiences like political discourse. We are political animals because we are imitative animals. Without imitation, there is no need for politics.

This is a place where I intend to talk about stuff that is entirely unproductive. I do lots of things that are productive (that's my argument anyway), so why can't I just get native and naked once in a while and blather about my favourite topics? Philosophy, poetry, politics. All things I enjoy, none of which bring in any money!

Nobody is paying for any of this, so none of us can complain!