Column: Panem et Circenses

Political conventions are designed to entertain us while they mount a grandiose manipulation of the viewer. They are spectacles of power. And they give us insights into the American political machinery, which ranges from the hopeful, to the patriotic, to the bizarre.

And yes, I did it. I watched the broadcast portion of both major political conventions. I watched the videos, listened to the commentaries and the pundits, as well as the speeches and the occasional creepy chanting. Well, I really should say, I watched most of the broadcasts; mojitos only go so far.

[Photo by Mallory Benedict/PBS NewsHour/Flicr]

[Photo by Mallory Benedict/PBS NewsHour/Flickr]

In a way, conventions are elaborate rituals. Their process is both intentional and highly orchestrated. They have invocations of ideals and invocations of ancestors. They raise the energy of the room and that of the delegates, slowly cresting then releasing it to imbue their nominee with the mantle of leadership and launch them into the general election bubbled, empowered, and ready. And this ritual serves as an investiture, as we might make a high priest. They are making a new avatar: a leader of the party that embodies the party. It’s all very magical, and actually very Pagan.

The conventions invoke a series of archetypes to create that investiture as they heighten the patriotism and amplify the positive energy onto the candidate. The speakers and leaders call upon our own American “mythology,” which echoes a series of Pagan deities from Roman Religion, iincluding Iustitia (justice), Libertas (liberty), Aequitas (equality), Hestia (individualism), and Mercury (commerce).

The leaders align their rhetoric to party platforms and national values. In doing so, they try to align themselves with these gods and ancestors. It is magical and ceremonial manipulation at its grandest. And it’s the most hypocritical; the politicians, who enthusiastically invoke these gods, also cling to their superficial monotheism to placate their constituencies.

Pagans and Polytheists see their energies at work in the world today. Much of our own ritual work and self-reflection involves understanding and communicating with these aspects to better relate to the world around us. It is familiar. It is an act of changing perception.

Like ritual, what conventions are designed to do is shape our beliefs. Our social world — the world of our interpersonal interactions — can only be understood through our perceptions. That is to say, our perceptions shape our social world. We take in sensory information, like speeches and imagery, then organize that material using our experiences to help us make sense of it all. It is a process that is exploited in ritual to help us understand ourselves and our world more fully.

The convention mojito. [Photo Credit: M. Tejeda-Moreno]

The convention mojito. [Photo Credit: M. Tejeda-Moreno]

Some of our spell work employs these same processes. When we engage in guided imagery to manifest our wishes, we are lining up the future with our desires. When we cast a spell to be more open to love, for example, we remind ourselves through phrases and imagery of our desire. And in doing so, we also hone our perception to make ourselves aware of moments when love is available.

As a result, we enable ourselves to be more conscious to accepting love when it’s offered, even in unlikely ways and places. We become active managers of our perceptions. And through that, actively change our interactions with the world to get what we want.

The politicians and their endorsers are doing the same thing. Through speeches and imagery, they seek to confirm our perceptions that their nominee will make the best leader. They rely on our beliefs of what makes a great leader, managing our expectations through character witnesses, symbolism, and behaviors. They are using the ancient craft of bards and the modern tools of social psychology to build that better leader and pull our vote.

They are also taking advantage of something termed Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT: Fischbein & Lord (2003)). ILT suggests that we have preconceived ideas about the qualities that make a great leader. These qualities are built within our cultural archetypes of leaders, and they are active all the time.

Our assumptions about leadership (the “implicit” part of ILT) guide our perceptions and ultimately our responses to our leaders. Would-be leaders exploit ILT to “look the part” of leadership. Much like wearing a Triple Goddess headband, the leader adopts the symbols and colors of their party and nation to validate their leadership. But they also involve themselves with the symbols and language of leadership to manipulate our belief in them as being effective.

I often explain this theory and its application using the film Excalibur (1981). The film illustrates the Arthurian symbols of power, like Excalibur, Merlin’s staff and the knights’ armor, as demonstrations of authority. The story also explains the divine selection of Arthur to lead Britain, while also illuminating the important values of fairness, justice and duty. His mortal, spirit and fairy contemporaries attest to his prowess and preparation. All gods select him to lead. Pagan gods embrace Arthur and underscore his Celtic origins. And, as the Fisher King, he is Christianized gaining the favor of the god of Abraham and a follower of Jesus. The myth of Arthur as king becomes a metric to measure the worthiness of a leader.

The designers of conventions are keenly aware of the power of these metrics. They craft the party message with intense precision. They craft the candidate’s story to build their mythic leadership. They engage in the subtlest of mythopoeia –– the construction of myth — to build a compelling story around their candidate.

We learn of each candidate’s heroic voyage to the moment. We are given a frame-by-frame accounting of each candidate’s life that foreshadows their greatness as well as readiness to lead. This includes an accounting of accomplishments, deed after deed, carefully chosen to reinforce our perceptions of their greatness.

The speeches of the nominees are road maps into the future. They become prophets distilling their messages to explain their visions. And like prophets, they recount the signs, sometimes of doom and sometimes of success; sometimes of fear and sometimes of hope. They are looking to manage our perceptions so that their specific vision becomes the shape of our world. They each want to become our leader, our Arthur, our Odin.

The designers want us to recognize in their candidate the capacity for leadership and greatness. They want us to see in their candidate the grace of an exceptional leader who, like Odin, is intensely concerned with responsibility and wisdom. A leader who, again like Odin, is powerful in battle and powerful in reason. A leader who values knowledge so fully that to gain it, as the Rúnatal attests, painfully becomes his own oblation to further it. They want us to see in their leader the face of Odin embracing the role of service and teaching us that leading demands sacrifice.

Seriously, they really want this, and they bring to bear the science of persuasion and leadership to accomplish that aim. More than 70 years ago, social scientists discovered that authoritative stances did not result in effective leadership; they only made someone do something.

In a landmark study at the Ohio State University, two dimensions emerged as critically important to effective leadership: (1) organizing people toward goals while (2) being trustworthy and compassionate (See Bass (1990) for complete discussion). The artificers of the candidate myth will infuse a candidates’ stories with evidence of these dimensions and more. Myth-making is full-time and full-on. We’re expected to just sit back and enjoy the spectacle with popcorn and Kool-Aid (or a mojito, as it were).

But conventions are not just about the past and a leader. Like ritual, they are also about the future: the manifestation of a future state. As I watched speech after speech end in “God Bless the United States of America!” what each speaker actually could have easily added was, “So mote it be!”

Jean_Dodal_Tarot_trump_01These speeches are not prayers. They are not supplications to greater powers. They are arrangements by expert craftsmen carving word upon word on the mind of the listener. Each word conveying a meaning and sentence altering perception. Their purpose is distortion. Political speeches are attempts to re-organize the universe of facts to promote a platform and garner a vote.

They are attempts to bend the will. That very thought reminded me of the Magician, the first trump card of the Major Arcana. In divination, as many will know, it is the card that follows the Fool. What strikes me about this card is how it informs us of the strengths and risks of a great magician. If it appears in divination upright, it represents that noble power of orchestrating magic toward change, holding space between the earthly and divine realms to bring forth that divine immanence and energy on present problems. The Magician becomes the fulfillment of potential and the challenge to use our energies to continue evolving the world around us.

The Magician card also exposes that the symbols and artifacts of change are themselves sources of manipulation. The card shows us how the minor arcana are left on the table. They are used as prisms to bind our perception so we see the world in only one way, and that latter outcome is inconsistent with how Pagans conduct our lives. As a community we strive to unhook ourselves from the judgments and mechanical perceptions that limit our ability to live genuinely.

In reverse form, that first trump card represents the egotistical intoxication of power. It augurs miscommunication and the negative aspects of manipulations. The reversed Magician uses his art to hook us into symbols and tropes that create a fragmented life where our awareness is tinged with fear and our hope is managed through hate. This is very seductive; because this Magician also gives us selfish solutions that end up being easy answers. The Magician reversed suggests power for personal gain and control. This Magician is a fraud.

The recent political conventions also showed me why they are attempts at magic but fail to be magical. Conventions are triangles: they look like ritual but lack the circle. Conventions are designed as giant megaphones to change perception. But despite the rhetoric of community and the people, the pageantry and power are all top-down. They are voices on a stage cast into a receptive audience. There is no balance, only lip service to it.

Through circles, we remind ourselves that no one has more voice than the other, no one has more power than the other, no more rights than the other- even if those others are presidential candidates. We remind ourselves that magic happens when working in balance, facing and respecting each other, much like that famous table.

Citations

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Fischbein, R. & Lord, R.G. (2004). Implicit leadership theories. In Encyclopedia of Leadership. Burns, J.M., Cho, K., Goethals, G.R. & Sorenson, G.J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*   *   *
The views and opinions expressed by our diverse panel of columnists and guest writers represent the many diverging perspectives held within the global Pagan, Heathen and polytheist communities, but do not necessarily reflect the views of The Wild Hunt Inc. or its management.

The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.


To join a conversation on this post:

Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.

15 thoughts on “Column: Panem et Circenses

  1. I have often said that good ritual is good theater, and vice versa. What could be more theatrical and thus more ritual, than a political convention?

  2. This time around the conventions have convinced me that neither party has anyone worthy of the responsibility of the presidency of the United States, and that both parties live in an alternate universe, nothing like the one lived in by most Americans.
    Both of the parties are fake and totally out of touch with the American People. Time to create new parties that listen to the people and follow the American people, rather than try to rule the American people.

    • You are correct, but… The Founding Fathers designed the political system precisely so the “little guy” had no voice. In order to vote in the 18th century you had to be: 1) MALE, and 2) a property owner. Most people back then were not property owners and the Founding Fathers immediately disenfranchised half the population (Women) as well as minorities such a Freed Blacks and Native Americans who lived within the new country. It was only with time that blacks (after the civil war) and women (1920s) were given the vote, and Native Americans were only considered to be citizens(!) in 1924 which is when they finally got the right to vote.
      Unfortunately, the country was basically founded to keep the rich in power.

      Personally, I think that needs to change and one of the first ways to do that is to repeal Citizens United. I also believe strongly that all PACs and money needs to get OUT of our political system which is now just as corrupt as what we complain about other countries. I have advocated for decades that all media be required to give a certain amount of free advertisement to political candidates whether on the local, state, or national level, in order for them to retain their FCC certification under the guise of public announcements. Further, there should be a limit on how much money a candidate can spend as far as travel expenses etc.
      I also believe that Congress and the President should be subject to the laws that they create, including discrimination laws, minimum wage and that they should also be required to have the same insurance that most Americans have as well as put money into the Social Security System and not have their own retirement funds.
      And BTW, I have no intention of running for office, but I have made my views known to my representatives who then send me nice polite form letters which I immediately trash because I know they haven’t read the ones I send them.
      EOR (end of rant. ::smile::)

      • You are actually quite right about the intent to have the landed gentry rule the country.

        That last little bit in the Constitution about a Black person being 2/5 of a White person. Think about it as Black people could not vote, nor could any other minority, who did that help?

        The House of representatives was the only house that the numbers population determined the numbers of representatives. So that 2/5 added the the population for the number of represented in the house, and basically helped the states with the most slaves control things.

        As other states gradually got rid of slavery, it helped what became the South to hold on to political power. Before the Civil War because of the value of the slaves, the South was actually wealthier than the North, which only changed by the Civil War and the alleged freeing of the slaves. It was a financial consideration to punish the South, not a human rights act by Lincoln.

        Still it continued the Black’s work of the former slaves working to full human rights, just as earlier escaped slave did before them. So black people have been fighting for their human rights for along time and they still have trouble getting it. But don’t ever under estimate how hard they fought to free them selves, including the hundreds of thousands that fled to Canada.

        No one gave those slaves their freedom, they just took it, and the danger of getting caught to get free.

        It is a shame that we barely talk of Black history at all, particularly when you consider how long they have been part of our country.

        Same goes for our hidden American Indian history. Not knowing of the past makes us unaware of how they got the problems that they suffer from today. Same goes for all the other people that made our country that we choose not to talk about. Take away any of them and this country would not exist. So we could have had a lot of alternate possible countries to what we have now.

        Nothing dull about the real history of the United States but you have to hunt it down on your own, because it is never taught in school. It is both bloodier and more cruel than the cleaned up version we were taught. But the people that we were not taught about were often more interesting than those we were taught about.

          • I stand corrected. It has been a very long time since I read that, a good many years ago.

          • I stand corrected then. I am remembering something that I read a very long time ago, and my memory can be faulty sometimes. at age seventy.

          • Honestly I disagree with most of your argument, but I don’t think this is the place to go into it.

            You do get credit for acknowledging your mistake though.

          • NeoWayland, only a fool and egotist would claim to never be wrong. I have been proven wrong a great many times I and I assume that I will be proven wrong again, even as you showed my 2/5 should have been 3/5.

            History is a tricky subject for a number of reasons. First it depends on what records survive and how dependable those records are ,who our which sides is writing the history and then each historian is going to have a different opinion and bias.

            One example the Asian Pacific theater of the World War II. The Japanese have never admitted any of the Atrocities that we claim that they did. The Rape of Nanking, the Prisoner of War camps , the use of Slave Labor , nor the forced use of Korean Comfort Women.None of their school history text books cover that.

            Of course let us be honest, and note that we talk very little of our war Atrocities in any of our many wars. Nor do any nations, at least without pressure from others.

          • It does speak to your character. I’m know I’m not always right, but there are those who wrap themselves in One True Way™. And they aren’t all People of the Book.

            I agree that history can be a tricky subject. I’ve learned that perspective matters just as much as the record.

            I’ve also been around enough to know that religion and history don’t play well together.

            Chances are there are many things you and I will never agree on. Chances are that you and I already agree on many things. While I’m up for a political and historical discussion, I’m not sure this is the place. If you like and with your permission, I’ll quote you on my political blog and we can continue the talk there. Or if there is another place you’d prefer, I’m willing to give that a try.

          • I do tend to ramble on. We can try your blog and see how it works out. I fear that i already spend ten to twelve hours a day online, but then I am somewhat house bound at my age.

  3. Hmmm…..an excellent article for advancing the notion that the US needs to transition to a parliamentary democracy. Because 100% of the opinion and description of the goings-on at the conventions reflected reality. The take home message, both parties work to develop a cult of personality. If either party respected the voters and if the voters respected each other, the conventions would be about ideas of governance. Instead, they are professionally produced TV advertisements. So, yes, it would be wonderful to have a government that respected the people, but that would mean the “sell job” would be abandoned.