3 June 2009
| Draft
Complementary Bullfighting Metaphors of Global Governance
Challenge of asymmetric engagement
- / -
Introduction
Complementary metaphors of governance
Comparison of metaphors
Bullfighting styles
References (in
main paper)
Annex 1 of Viable
Global Governance through Bullfighting: challenge of transcendence
Introduction
Bullfighting (or
tauromachy) is considered by many to be a flagrant example of glorified indulgence
in abhorent human cruelty to animals and a highly problematic reflection
on those who appreciate it. It is also considered by some to exemplify some
of the highest values of humanity, notably courage, skill and elegance in
the face of the immediate possibility of personal fatality. A bull is seen
as the epitome of animal strength and courage, and much to be admired.
What follows is an exploration of how the challenges of global governance
might be fruitfully understood through the lens of bullfighting -- through
two complementary metaphors. In one, global governance is like the matador's
manipulation and domination of the bull, accompanied by a degree of torture
and slaughter (starvation, inhumane weapons, etc). In the other, it is change
agents who are like the matador, faced with the irritable, dangerous animal
of global governance. In the first, goverance is glorified through spin --
with its problematic consequences either reframed as honourable or
carefully kept from public awareness. In the other, it is change agents who
are glorified, but with little effective attention to sustaining the processes
of governance that are jeopardized as a consequence of their action.
A valuable context for any such exploration is to be found in the cultural,
even archetypal, significance of the bull over millenia. Bull
mythology was widespread in the ancient world where it had been the subject
of various cultural and religious incarnations -- now partly reflected in
some neopagan cultures. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric
bull worship and sacrifice.
In the following metaphorical comparison, the significance of the "sacred
bull" is
seen as variously confused and semantically conflated through the appropriation
and expression of the highest human values through "bull". The
challenge is to understand how such values should be appropriately celebrated
and under what conditions the "bull" should be "sacrificed".
The current implications of the underlying archetypes are discussed
thereafter, notably with regard to bullying, bullshit, bull-markets, financial
bubbles, and to the dilemmas associated with globalization. It is appropriate
to note a degree of concern at the level of "bullshit" in the world of business
and the necessity for "bullfighters" (Lois Beckwith, The
Dictionary of Corporate Bullshit: An A to Z Lexicon of Empty, Enraging, and
Just Plain Stupid Office Talk, 2006; Brian
Fugere, Chelsea Hardaway and Jon Warshawsky, Why
Business People Speak Like Idiots: A Bullfighter's Guide,
2005). Unfortunately such concern is barely evident within the world of global
governance, although the subject of external comment, as noted by Etienne
Klein (Conversations with the Sphinx, 1996)
citing François-Bernard Huyghe (La Langue de Coton, 1991)
to the effect that:
...diplomats and other politicians are increasingly using a watered-down
language whose few and hence inflated words no longer have any true meaning;
a consummate consensual language that panders to the taste for tautology
and disables contradiction; a discourse which has an answer to everything
because it says practically nothing; a language unanswerable because it
churns out propositions that leave so much room for interpretation that
listeners are free to hear what they hope for. In other words, a language
so all-inclusive that it gives no chance to paradox -- and here there are
grounds for unease, we must confess. (p. 85)
The conditions in which this language in governance might be appropriately
described as "bull" remain to be clarified. The urgency of doing
so emerges from a previous exploration in which that language is fundamental
to the faith in which others are expected to hold governance (Abuse
of Faith in Governance: mystery of the unasked question, 2009).
The arguments which follow may be understood as partially addressing this
challenge.
Complementary metaphors of governance
Global governance, for those who practice and
appreciate it, may indeed be seen as the art of dealing courageously with
the masses of the world and the potential danger they represent through social
unrest -- as with the bull's incarnation of animalistic propensities and
dangerous strengths.
A valuable complementary
perspective is however to see global governance -- through its massive strength,
cunning and limited effective brain power -- as incarnated by the bull,
manifesting bullish tendencies, and expressing itself through "bull" (fore
and aft). The extreme art for any change agent is then the capacity to
engage with this bull -- especially given the mortal danger it represents,
to life and livelihood, in endeavouring to do so. One such use of
metaphor is by Stephen Holmes (The
Matador's Cape: America's reckless response to terror, 2007).
Comparison of metaphors
| . |
Governance as matador
Masses as bull |
Governance as bull
Change agent as matador |
| Bull |
. |
. |
| Strength |
Power of the masses, especially when aroused to collective anger |
Over-powering strength of agencies of governance and their propaganda |
| Animalistic tendencies and irrational impulses |
Fickleness of public opinion; animal-like behaviour of crowds (lynch-mobs,
etc) |
Fickleness of government, its arbitary initiatives and barbaric savagery |
| Limited intelligence, compensated by animal cunning |
Limited comprehension and oversimplification,
compensated by "common
sense" |
Limited government comprehension of issues, compensated by political
cunning |
| Insensitivity and clumsiness -- "bull in
a china shop" |
Arbitary, ill-considered enthusiasms |
Clumsy legislative measures and general insensitivity |
| Savage and damaging charges |
Destruction of the commons and non-renewable resources to sustain livelihoods |
Destruction of non-renewable resources by authority
to ensure its own self-preservation -- "bulldozer democracy" (as practiced
by the European Commission) or "bulldozing" settlements and
houses |
| Courageous persistence and endurance -- to the death |
Courageous endurance of the masses, despite every deprivation and indignity |
Efforts of governing authority at endurance past
any "sell-by
date" -- at any cost |
| Distractability and gullibility -- leading the
bull "by a ring through
its nose" |
Gullibility of the masses as manipulated by the
media and "spin" |
Gullibility of governance (cf Emperor's
New Clothes) |
| Setting / Context |
. |
. |
Bullring (plaza de toros):
-- inherited from the pre-Colisseum era
-- context for game-playing and sacrifice
-- integrative coherence (in contrast to the "square" and spreadsheet)
|
-- overriding enthusiasm for games, drama, "circuses" (of panem
et circenses)
-- unique sense of collectivity and significance offered by arena |
-- game-playing predilections of governing factions
-- excitement offered by risk
-- sense of coherence offered by the game setting
-- summit conferences and parliaments as bullrings (or trading "pits") |
| Spectators (aficionados) |
the masses observing the game (and its cruelty) but not engaged in
it, other than by identification with either bull or matador --
and judging their interaction |
the masses observing the game (and its cruelty) but not engaged in
it, other than by identification with either bull or matador **** |
| Sponsoring authority |
those in power, behind the scenes, who only take
risks through their surrogates "in the ring" -- but to whom
the latter are beholden |
those with moral authority, behind the scenes,
who only take risks through their surrogates "in the ring" --
but to whom the latter are beholden |
| Bull breeding and training, in preparation for the
ring |
"preparation" of mass factions through
appropriate propaganda ("spin"), radicalization and stimuli
(false flag operations) |
"preparation" of government
factions through appropriate propaganda, radicalization and stimuli |
| Schools of matadors (Escuelas
de Toromaquia) |
schools of government, business
and leadership (School
of the Americas, United Nations System Staff College, College of
Europe, NATO Defense College, etc) |
alternative colleges and courses for potential change
agents (Transcend Peace University; Schumacher
College, International
Solidarity MovementNonviolent
Peaceforce, etc)
and critical thinkers |
| Bullfighters (Toreros) |
. |
. |
| Picadors:
a pair of horsemen using a lance to "test"
the bull's strength (and to tire it), providing clues to the matador as
to which side the bull is favoring. Causes major loss of blood and ensures
that the bull lowers its head (in preparation for the kill). The vigour
of the bull's response to this provocation is appreciated as a measure
of its courage. |
. |
. |
| Banderilleros:
running
as close to the bull as possible, they are charged with placing beflagged
pointed sticks in the top of the bull's shoulder (to correct "faults"
in the manner in which the bull charges). They are judged by the crowd
on their form and bravery. |
. |
. |
| Matador:
charged with appropriately killing the bull in the final phase of the
bullfight.
In the early phase of the fight, the matador uses
a cape (capote de brega); in the final phase he uses a stick
(a muleta)
from which a red cloth hangs, obscuring a sword.
In both cases the bull is attracted (and distracted) by a series of
passes to demonstrate his control of it. |
supreme authority faced with controlling turbulent
masses, notably presidents, dictators, governing councils, juntas (but
including secretive bodies: Bilderberg
Group, Trilateral
Commission,
etc); responsibility for policies implying or ensuring their termination
("iron fist in velvet glove") |
individual or collective change agents faced with
challenging unpredictable, all-powerful governance (as recognized by
the Right
Livelihood Awards, etc);
responsibility for ensuring the termination of irresponsible policies
of governance and their agencies |
| Red flag -- cape dynamic |
. |
. |
| cloak of invisibility/ agitation |
. |
. |
| Values exemplified (irrespective of whether or not
the bull is actually killed) |
.. |
. |
Artistry, elegance and grace of style |
. |
. |
| Athletic coordination and agility |
. |
. |
| Courage, daring, and risk-taking in the face of mortal hazard (central
to the nature and appeal of bullfighting) |
. |
. |
| Skill / Discipline |
. |
. |
| whistleblowers |
. |
. |
| Honour / Shame |
. |
. |
| Technique and skills |
. |
. |
Toreo antiguo: the bull and the bullfighter
are undersrtood as occupying different planes -- "terrenos" -- seemingly
on different tracks. The art was to ensure that the trajectory of
the animal would run parallel to the matador, but when this was impossible
he would try to ensure that the intersection of the two planes be as
brief as possible (like a good boxer who hits stronger opponent and
gets out of his reach with an in-and-out fast motion). [more] |
. |
. |
Innovation of Juan
Belmonte: The torero and bull are brought into
the same plane, almost eliminating the track where the matador used
to run, since the torero's goal is then to remain static.
The bull is forced to gravitate close to his master in a tangential
relationship to a point. [more] |
. |
. |
| Innovation of Manuel
Rodríguez ("Manolete"): The encounter of
man and animal takes place an instant before the bull is in front
of the torero, thus delaying the act of bringing the animal toward
his body (parar). The passes flow more
easily, forcing the bull to follow the muleta, in an almost circular
trajectory, where the end of one pass becomes the beginning of the next
(ligar). [more] |
. |
. |
| Passes |
. |
. |
Taffalera
Media
Veronica
Navarra
Larga
Chicuelina
Veronica
Crinolina
|
. |
Le Chatelier
Martial arts
5 Ring |
| Styles of bullfighting |
|
|
| Spanish style |
. |
. |
| Recortes |
. |
. |
| Portuguese |
. |
. |
| French |
. |
. |
| Freestyle |
. |
. |
| Comic |
. |
. |
| Tōgyū (Japan) |
. |
. |
Bullfighting styles
Notes adapted from Mario Carrión (Belmonte
and Manolete: the Herculean Pillars of modern bullfighting):
- Toreo antiguo: At that time the art of bullfighting
was governed by the picturesque axiom of lagartijo which said,
'you stand there, and either you move yourself or the bull moves you'.
At that time a complicated system of 'territories' was held to govern the
relationship between the bull and 'territories' of the torero.
- Innovation of Juan
Belmonte: His theory is 'you stand there, and the bull
does not move you... if you know how to fight'. The territorial assumption
is considered superfluous. Not being a reasoning creature, the bull
is held not to have any territory, especially since there is no surveyor
to lay down the boundaries. All the ground belongs to the torero,
the only intelligent being in the game, who should therefore keep it.
He forced the bull to go around him, whereas others had until then
jumped all over the place like circus performers. Belmonte reduced
the distance between man and beast to a minimum, to the point that
they seem to be integrated into a man-bull entity.
In Belmonte's technique, the man faces the bull with the muleta like
a fence in front of him protecting his body. Then, before the charge of
the bull, the torero slowly pushes the cloth toward the horns,
engaging the bull to bring the animal toward his body (parar);
at the same time the leg farthest removed from the bull is moved in the
direction in which the bull moves (cargar la suerte); then standing
still, the matador will lead the bull away, making the length
of the path of the bull as long as possible (mandar). All this
should be done as slowly as possible with the nostrils of the bull only
inches away from the muleta (templar). The result is
a very long pass with a long trajectory, that bulls with short choppy charges,
cannot follow. With those bulls the bullfighter had to revert to the lidia technique
of old times administering effective, dominating passes which lack the
plasticity that the public had come to admire.
- Innovation of Manuel
Rodríguez ("Manolete"): Instead of placing
the muleta in front of his body and pushing it toward the
beast, "Manolete" would keep it closer to his hip on the side where
the bull would exit, with his body in profile to the bull. Since the
body of the man was already placed sideways in the direction of the
exit of the bull, there was no need to cargar la suerte to
send the bull away. This was accomplished by lightly twisting his body
at the waist and stretching his arm while maintaining a statuesque
position with his feet and legs a few inches apart from each other,
comfortably resting in the ground. This position allows for fast defensive
movements when the need arises, and makes the placement of the body
easier for the next pass. This tricks the eye of the spectator into
creating the illusion that each individual pass is longer.
|
