FIGAROVOX/ANALYSIS – Hillary Clinton has made a selfie giant with its activists who were thus turned back. For the philosopher Bertrand Vergely, this image reveals a cynicism politics that borders on the perverse.
professor of philosophy and graduate, Bertrand Vergely, philosopher and théogien. Teacher in classes of Khâgne and teacher at the Institute of theology of the orthodox Saint-Serge, he has published The Silence of God (ed Presses de la Renaissance, 2006), Back to the wonder(ed Albin Michel, 2010), Become who you are (ed Albin Michel, 2014), The temptation of the man-God (ed Ferryman, 2015) and, most recently The mercy or the defeat of hell (ed Médiaspaul, 2016).
observers of the political life are interested in the language as well as images. They are not wrong. As in psychoanalysis, it is where it is flush with the essential, which is often hidden. The scene recently shows Hillary Clinton during a meeting of the campaign in front of an audience performing a selfie giant with it, the candidate to the White House, is from this point of view, highly revealing as to the perversity 1) policy, 2) communication and 3) of the image.
In appearance, this selfie has no other pretension than to be playful and make people laugh by making fun.
In appearance, this selfie has no other pretension than to be playful and make people laugh by making fun. Is this the case, however? When Hillary Clinton offers this game to its audience, it plays no. She knows very well what she is doing. She knows in particular that his audience, which is quite immature and infantile, dream of having a selfie with it. Also does it go to the encounter of it in the tempting by the fact of him providing what he dreams unconsciously. Which, from the point of view of political marketing is finely played. Whether in its immediate surroundings or on Facebook, be able to appear with Hillary on the mode of “Hillary and me” and, thus, make the buzz, when one is part of fans of Hillary, this builds loyalty. When one is undecided, this gives strong reason to vote for it.
Hillary Clinton is not playing, does it not, a dangerous game of manipulating, but also to allow themselves to be manipulated in return ?
Well played, Mrs. Clinton, therefore, does one want to say! Except that, moved by a certain discomfort, one is pushed to question. Playing with her audience, as she did, Hillary Clinton does not play, does it not, a dangerous game of manipulating, but also to allow themselves to be manipulated in return?
The America that was built on the myth of the self made man and, more recently, on one of theexecutive woman, has a tendency to exacerbate his ego. During the sixties with the appearance of the me generation, this self-absorption, sometimes fascinating, has helped to produce a lost generation. Today, he feeds the hysteria of a Trump. Leaving will make a big orgy egotistic collective, Hillary Clinton does not eat she not the demons of America? Don-does it not have a layer of ego to the ego of american that really doesn’t need this? Through an “I” without border plunges, does it not, the policy is short in the swamps unhealthy at all to the ego? As well as the saw Socrates in Athens twenty-five centuries, the temptation of it, is it not demagogy, which is to flatter the egos to manipulate them to his liking? And this manipulation does she not have a name to know the cynicism?
leaving will make a big orgy egotistic collective, Hillary Clinton does not eat she not the demons of America ?
The policies that play with the crowd by accepting its games and its infantilism are cynical. But it was not only them. The crowd that politics manipulates cynically is as cynical as the policy itself. If she allows herself to be easily manipulated it is that she uses this way to handle in his own way. In that regard, the image of this audience whole turning his back to Hillary Clinton, looking at his laptop rather than it is talking. In general, to turn the back on someone, what is it but start him as a message: “I don’t want to see you“? Everywhere in the world, the popular vote is often blurred with the policy, as well as the policies to which they are to administer a correction. Here is this not the case? Are these not the destructive impulses and self-destructive politics that prevail?
aren’t you the destructive impulses and self-destructive of the policy which will prevail ?
We think the image peaceful and pacifying. It can be, but, there, is it? Is it not the violence through the worship of which it is the object? Through also and especially the way she plays with everyone playing with everything? If the selfie means that “Me and Hillary” is much more interesting than Hillary, if the fact of turning the back to this last means that a break with the policy is much more captivating that bind to him, to stage in the process of slapping around the image a candidate for the Presidency of the United States as well as the political, that is otherwise manifest at the great day that slap reality in preferring the virtual is much more real than reality itself?
At the end of his life, Freud discovered the existence of death-impulses. This incredible scene gives him reason. In a polite society when we don’t show her behind, that is to say, his violence. Here, in a way obscene, the policy shows us his behind by claiming openly to his violence. In a polite society when we do not speak of “making” a policy or an audience. Here, the policy shows again how obscene how a candidate has decided to “play” his audience and to “get” the candidate. In a polite society when there is resistance to the ease and passions primary. It does not let itself be guided by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment