Gallery

‹ Back

The structure of the social rat-king

 

In the spirit of hypothetical democracy, that which behaves absolutely in its paradigm, the existence of any absolute form of governance, is deeply flawed. First and foremost, let us establish the quantifiable manifestation “too much democracy” could take. With regard to its earliest character, the inaugural Athenian concept of “rule of the people,” was the proper description for the theory of democracy. Rule of the people entrusted the sole ownership of the societal apparatus to the average citizen, and not to the gentry. In which case the primal and, for the most part metaphysical, state of this theory resembled Marxism. But the practical use of the theory came as the collective assembly of the gentry, despite the people. Therefore, the practical ratification of an egalitarian theory that existed solely in idealism, proved silly in that it betrayed its original purpose envisioned by the Greeks. The later-arrived, more familiar democracy is a fairly innovative notion. It encompasses a far greater portion of the general population, and represents their wishes, somewhat accordingly. And so it is, if done properly, rather lovely, at least in its attempts to complement the egalitarian faith for which it was conceived. That is to repeat my previous assertion if done properly, which I believe is critical to clarify, it seldom is. This is why, to fully begin our analysis, we have to isolate democracy in only its contemporary theory. The means by which the entirety maintains the social apparatus. An absolute democracy would therefore do away with the state altogether, in favor of collective ownership. Imagine this stateless agglomeration of people is responsible for maintaining everything that is and everything that will be. One would assume that the collective would behave with far too much discourse to allow anything beyond a cacophony of dueling perceptions. In which case the notion would fail rather quickly with little worth deliberation. But if we assume that this absolute democracy could think somewhat homogeneously as survivability requires, then the nature of this collective becomes far more sinister. And perhaps, the gathering of individuals is so predictable that it may also be considered a singular individual. Consider the following thought experiment. Place an individual inside a room with a nuclear key, across the world at a targeted location a different individual will sit in their own room. Both individuals have been made completely aware of the presence of the other soldier, yet neither knows the counterpart. They know only that the other holds a nuclear key and stands ahead of the launch panel. Knowing the context of both individuals having the potential to destroy one another, we can assume that both persons believe that a nuclear war is inevitable. But aside from understanding that this could and may very well happen, both persons now believe that in launching the nuclear weapon they save themselves yet kill their alternate and half the world as well. Yet if one chooses to behave as an altruist, they should expect to perish as well. Although neither incident is preordained, it may as well be absolute because in knowing that a nuclear war could happen, both individuals inevitably will it into being by selecting one of two outcomes. The notion that both subjects are altruists is so implausible that it may as well be disregarded. So, do you eliminate your alternate and live safely in your bunker, or do you hold off your fear and accept death? Both actions result in a cataclysmic apocalypse of sorts, and truly there is no ideal solution. What is so unique however about this concept is that there exists a very simple choice both subjects must make. If both souls are altruists, then there is no suffering, and yet what is so intriguing is that we all know that outcome is improbable. To be an altruist, one has to assume the trust of another party to behave selflessly as well. Of course, a reader may delude himself into believing that he too will be an altruist. And by doing so, he affords the other party a chance as well. But if this reader were to be placed in that same bunker, his inevitable cynicism would become apparent. It is inherently human to behave with regard to oneself and in fear of another. From this belief and that of numerous psychological examinations, the consensus is established. That being, the majority of society will prove interchangeable with the soldiers in the bunker. And if every individual is behaviorally identical to their counterpart, when under the threat of death, then in what case is anyone truly an individual? And in what case can a democracy function as a gathering of distinct ideas? Conversely, nobody truly views a swarm of ants as a gathering of individuals, and the same applies to the absolute democracy. In which case all members are individuals in theory, yet they all function as a singular body, consider this hypothetical democracy as a rat king of sorts. A mess of individuals tied together by their tails to a singular point, whereby they may as well be called a singular being. And the center of this tail, or in our case the human mind, may be called the democratic singularity. Or the point in which the group is no longer a gathering, but a singular organism.

For the most part, this rat king exists as a group to some degree, but in name, it is stronger, a king or an individual greater than itself. It functions as an individual, for all individual rats express an identical character. The traditional description of a rat king, runs that if a cluster of rats lies together with their tails tied beyond unraveling, then all rats will pull until the cluster dies. However, if each rat is motivated by its individual desire to eat from the same source of food in the same direction, then all rats should therefore move towards the same general area. If this process continues, the group can move and survive as if it were one single rat.  Thus, the rat king lives, but it lives as an individual. Interestingly, the altruistic rat cannot function in this rat king, for the king only lives when each individual rat feels the selfish desire to disregard his associates and move towards the same food. While the altruist bites at its tale and individual singularity, it hopes to untangle the rat king. It does so thinking its actions will avail every rat. But in doing so, it prevents the rat king from attaining homogeneity of movement. Then the rat king dies, with every other conjoined rat. For its longevity is preserved by the assumed individualism of all rats present. As such, any purely social collective cannot survive with a complete altruist.

Amid the vacancy of a selfless individual, society itself consequently becomes devoid of individuality. Although they will believe they are greater in it, just as society perceives we display a fairer degree of individualism in our political partisanship, ironically identical to millions of others. This is not meant to denigrate the concept of democracy in any sense but rather to tell the hazard posed by an absolute democracy where all choice becomes collective. 

A greater fear, that follows absolute social control, is any that concerns morality. The presence of a social rat king could become the most abhorrent display of suffering. Consider the common occurrences of war crimes, whereby the impetus to their being is the removal of the self. Each individual is obliged to become an extension of the collective when joining the military, at the fear of losing one's individual life and or gaining individual benefit. By their nature, the individual's agency is the chief paradoxical reason for which one surrenders their independence. The consequences of this loss then become apparent, when one believes that they hold little individual worth, they too feel a lesser inclination to be individually pious. Remorse and any inkling of life associated with the individual become vacant. For now, the soldier does not kill his victim, but the collective does. The military becomes a single apathetic organism or a rat king. An individual is only capable of remorse until it loses that individuality.  A democratic movement too, that loses itself in social collectivization, begins to degrade into moral ambiguity and a cold existential being. And if not for the lack of remorse that follows the rat king, every rat will soon lose all knowledge of itself, save the desire to exist.  

Yet the single most potent danger inherent to a massively democratic society is the psychological destruction awaiting each member of its class. When removed from a single inhuman party, such as the state, the individual soon finds himself with perceived freedom of thought. For the state serves not as an altruist, but as the onlooking logician who offsets the cold action of a social majority.

But like the many rats tethered to one another, the individual may conclude that his individuality is what paradoxically expunges his independence. And when one arrives at this epiphany, It becomes apparent that he is no longer an individual, but a mere extension of a greater person. Yet if a state offers a contradictory belief to that of the rat king and acts as a guiding hand, rather than a sickening knot of tails, all rats present are deluded at least some comfort. But the knowledge that our independent thought is also responsible for its destruction is a colossal dread to endure. In a society in which the collective maintains all that defines our reality, there is a loss of self and belief in one's specialty. One might presume that granting all a sense of individuality is liberating to that degree. Rather, the process may soon become a nightmare. We hold fundamentally human thoughts, thus why collective thought experiments are so indiscriminate in their efficacy. But a controlling state prevents its subjects from concluding their lack of distinct character. It is only through the presence of a state and external order, that this realization perpetuates in secrecy. But when the state is replaced by an absolute collective, then democracy has gone too far in its once-innocent aims. One cannot rely on humanity to arbitrate humanity, and therefore it is why we surrender such responsibility to institutions. There is a human truth that must be obscured by an institution, the urge to inflict pain and to separate oneself from the collective. Our horrific realization that we are so invaluable to the collective can be equated to the poor rat who turned his head to see the macabre horror of the rat king.

This brings us to the paradox regarding the rat king and absolute democracy: if all rats and their individuality contribute to the greater individuality of the rat king, then by what reasoning is the rat king, or the democratic collective, not an individual? In a state of absolute social control or in which the government is replaced by the collective, there is the nagging argument of whether the individual even is an individual. Perhaps the rat king is not even a paradox but a fallacy, yet it is an interesting concept nonetheless. The freedom of the self inevitably brings about the destruction of the self; When given the prerogative to behave independently as one wishes, the individual will behave uniformly to all others afforded the same freedom. 

Lastly, I urge anyone who reads this to understand that it is only a social theory and not a definitive assertion. As such, it is not even certain that the collective will align itself with less individuality than if governed by an external force, but it is still a playful notion nonetheless.  And the final question I wish you all to ponder: if all individuals live in cohesion with one another, then they may function as a singular entity. Therefore, at what point do we decide whether the collective is deserving of personhood? And do we then remove such personhood from the individual?