Control, Policing, and the delusion of where order comes from
I don’t know… So there’s doubt. But I still continually hear of a confluence of concept between order and control.
So, when it comes to the police in particular, it’s not remotely uncommon to hear about the idea that the reason for the police is to maintain order. I cannot help but find this suspect and even totally nonsensical. Not because of a delusion of desired outcomes, but because of a misunderstanding of how systems work.
Perhaps a big problem is in the marketing of what these institutions are for, or even more importantly an ignorance of deep systems theories; but what I’m going at is that not only are they not the same, but no similar manifestation outside of a wanted construct even realistically exists.
Let’s say it this way… Police do not create order. They impose “control”. As for why, is another argument entirely. But this is about perception, and what is actually possible given the conditions of the universe we are in. If you want get into the argument of order vs control, ask in the comments.
The idea is this, and despite socio-political arguments about power dynamics that are real… Policing, as in the action itself, are not contingent upon the results that make order possible. I can imagine how unintuitive this sounds. Order is an agent of chaos which organically emerges as part of process that gives form to complexity. Control is the illusion we convince ourselves is real because we believe force trumps natural law, and the appearance of results for the efforts is convincing enough to delude the actuality of the cause and effect.
As I have in the past contended… The illusion of security that most believe is the result of something like policing, only exists DESPITE our efforts to control the systems we are engaged with. So much so that it is generally incomprehensible that in all likelihood, the controls we attempt to impose have nothing to do with why order exists. We think we are determining the outcomes based on our deliberate engagement and efforts to control the systems we are a part of.
Following this… We are actually destabilizing implicit order in efforts to impose control. As a qualifier let’s be clear that power is not control explicitly (or implicitly), but appears as such as our perspective assumes an anthropocentric ideology of primacy.
In this context, any dismantling of history is an attempt to ask what we have affected, but pretty much always assumes that our influence has increased stability through control attempts, whereas I’m saying they have never been the cause of the creation of order, and only the cause of division and power imbalance in the attempts to “control” outcomes.
So what does this mean? Mainly that we have delusions of what control is vs. dominance (power) or control (a self imposed delusion of influence). I’m not trying to disparage any deconstruction attempts in the consideration of how power has accumulated and why in current sociology-economic contexts, but want to express a theory which posits that ultimately this is not the actual underlying mechanism where order actually creates stability. To destabilize any current power dynamics is totally fine by any metric I can account for, but it still scratches the surface of what’s actually going on.
This is saying that the violence of control has power is in perception, not action. This doesn’t discount the reality of the cause and effect of deaths due to the imbalance, but proposes systemically that why the power exists is because it is believed, not because it’s implicit. And of course as long as the perception imposes itself on the regular lives of people in different classes, it cannot be ignored the consequences of said belief. But what this does say is that the belief itself is the source of the power, and that the perception of control does not itself create the order. The order is because the system is complex and connected, and is self sustaining regardless of the attempts to control it.
A lack of policing does not lead to a lack of order. This argument explicitly claims this is the delusion of most human thinking; that instead systems self organize, and that our efforts to control them are actually the cause of the instability, not the cause of the “apparent” stability we see.
I seriously find most focus’ to correct imbalances are using the delusion of the solution to solve the problem by the same means by which the problem is continually perpetuated.
About the author:
Glen Allan is a ridiculous person with thoughts and ideas which fly in the face of normal convention and challenge many assumptions about what people generally think of as reality.
He recognizes that many people will either disagree or claim the ideas to be founded in delusion, and only has to say that he'd like it if you could try to realize the world might not be what you think it is.