Imtiyaz, II

Imtiyaz, II

By John Taylor; 2007 June 13

Yesterday we discussed Imtiyaz, or distinction. Human nature does not change; we all get out of bed in the morning in order to make a change, to stand out, to do a little better than we have ever done, or to better what others do. We all want to be distinct, to make a difference. In moderation, directed to proper ends, this natural desire for exclusivity is not a bad thing, in spite of its dire consequences in today's capitalist economy. Consider what the Qu'ran says,

"And if your Lord had pleased He would certainly have made people a single nation, and they shall continue to differ." (Qu'ran 11:118, Shakir Ali)

We could have been like ants, or robots, or cutouts, all the same and perfectly reconciled to our sameness. But the fact is that we are not, and never will be. We will always strive for distinction, for that fateful word "Imtiyaz" that woke up the Master from His nap some 95 years ago. The talk He then gave has some of the structural characteristics and literary devices that made ML King's "I have a dream today" speech so famous. Here is the last paragraph of the post-Imtiyaz awakening talk,

"I desire distinction for you. The Baha'is must be distinguished from others of humanity. But this distinction must not depend upon wealth -- that they should become more affluent than other people. I do not desire for you financial distinction. It is not an ordinary distinction I desire; not scientific, commercial, industrial distinction. For you I desire spiritual distinction -- that is, you must become eminent and distinguished in morals. In the love of God you must become distinguished from all else. You must become distinguished for loving humanity, for unity and accord, for love and justice. In brief, you must become distinguished in all the virtues of the human world -- for faithfulness and sincerity, for justice and fidelity, for firmness and steadfastness, for philanthropic deeds and service to the human world, for love toward every human being, for unity and accord with all people, for removing prejudices and promoting international peace. Finally, you must become distinguished for heavenly illumination and for acquiring the bestowals of God. I desire this distinction for you. This must be the point of distinction among you."

Yesterday we looked at two philosophers, Heath and Potter, whose talks and articles describe how this desire for distinction, distorted by materialism and adolescent rebelliousness, has perverted a good thing, free enterprise, and made it into a cancerous folly, consumerism. They write,

"We find ourselves in an untenable situation. On the one hand, we criticize conformity and encourage individuality and rebellion. On the other hand, we lament the fact that our ever-increasing standard of material consumption is failing to generate any lasting increase in happiness. This is because it is rebellion, not conformity, that generates the competitive structure that drives the wedge between consumption and happiness. ... As long as we continue to prize individuality, and as long as we express that individuality through what we own and where we live, we can expect to live in a consumerist society." (The Rebel Sell; If we all hate consumerism, how come we cannot stop shopping?, <http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2002/11/rebelsell.php>

Typical Canadians, they offer a sweet and simple solution to the problem of the incestuous relationship between individual rebellion and consumerism. Think you are changing things by staging a consumer revolt? Not a chance, rebellion is what it is all about. What do we do to really change it? According to them, you just go after their matchmaker, or pimp, if you will: advertising. Advertising is the brain worm that perpetuates what is crushing our happiness while burying us in "solutions" and material means. They propose to do this by a small legislative "tweak." They mention it briefly, an enticing glimpse that makes one hope that they will treat it at more length in their upcoming book.

"... a society-wide solution to the problem of consumerism is not going to occur through personal or cultural politics. At this stage of late consumerism, our best bet is legislative action. If we were really worried about advertising, for example, it would be easy to strike a devastating blow against the brand bullies with a simple change in the tax code. The government could stop treating advertising expenditures as a fully tax-deductible business expense (much as it did with entertainment expenses several years ago). Advertising is already a separately itemized expense category, so the change wouldn't even generate any additional paperwork. But this little tweak to the tax code would have a greater impact than all of the culture jamming in the world."

That is all we get. I anxiously await the book to find out how and why such a simple adjustment to the tax code would be enough. Myself, I would think that much more would be required. For one thing, I think we all know that these advertisers are doing much more than hawk their wares.

They constitute a substitute religion.

Children are brainwashed by advertising from the time they are toddlers. Parents may hope to expose them to a couple of hours of religious instruction a week, while, thanks to television, they get dozens of hours of direct advertising, along with dozens more hours being exposed to a culture that feeds upon commercialism and is oriented around corporate values. Every advertisement we watch places a virus of materialism inside our head, a Trojan ready to unleash harm whenever the moment is right. And that moment is not confined to when we make a decision to buy or not to buy. The time bomb can explode whenever we make a value judgment or need to one thing, one person, one idea over another. In other words, every time we use our mind.

True, some find ways to avoid using their brains whenever they can. For them it is a dead issue. Others care a great deal.

Heath and Potter suggest only that we stop subsidizing mind pollution; why not take it a step further? Why not tax it? We could tax advertising at its source, advertising, just as we should tax pollution at source (we do not do that, it is true, which is why when you drive out into the country on a clear day now a blue haze sits on the horizon, and when you look up at the moon, even on a clear night, it is surrounded by a halo). A factory that spews out smoke profits from the destruction of the air we all breathe. It is stealing from a resource we all depend upon for our lives. It is only fair they should pay for doing this proportionately, so as to cover the costs of clean-up, and maybe also cover some of the burial expenses of those who die from cancer and other weather related health conditions.

 Same thing with advertising. Our most precious possession is our thoughts and values. Advertising pollutes that resource, so corporations that want to exploit it should at least compensate us for the energy we have to invest in purifying our thoughts and values from contagion.

 Actually, now that I think of it, this is a bit of an unfair comparison. A factory that pollutes the air does not intentionally cause cancer in those who breath it. It is a side-effect. An advertiser, on the other hand, aims at every bit of harm he does. He sets out to pollute our minds, to lay land mines in thinking and choosing, to influence values in ways not intended, and to do things that the victims are in no condition to take responsibility for.

 True, most people are willing after a hard day to make a bargain. They agree to take in the benefits of free television programming and hope that they can tune out the ads. That is exactly what the corporatocracy wants. Advertisements breed freely in tired, inattentive viewers; this mindscape is delicate, easily polluted, and highly vulnerable to Trojan horse attacks. The subtle mind manipulation of advertising hits directly at what, more than anything, makes us human, our thoughts. The Master is reported as saying,

 "... the distinction of man lies in his ability to investigate reality and ascertain the truth." (Mahmud, 200)

 For one thing, we do not investigate reality once and for all, and then stop. Even if we try to flag down the train of thought, it will not stop for us. In fatigue its rails are easily sabotaged and redirected where we do not want them to go. We search truth every moment of our conscious life, and the weak times, tired moments, are just when we need protection the most.

 Remember Abdu'l-Baha's vigilance, even when he was tired to the point of exhaustion. It was, as always, exemplary. Once at Green Acre, He arrived home after giving several talks and felt so tired that He could not even sit down. He made fun of it.

 "Our condition is that of the tired iron worker's apprentice whose master said to him, `Die, but pump.'" (Mahmud, 219)

 It is a devil's bargain we make in our tired moments, in our living room sofa. The devil is avid to profit from brains for sale. In this sense, consumerism is no different from communism. The communists and socialists forcibly part us from our wealth and power -- Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is only the most recent of a long succession of leaders separating the wealthy elite from their booty. Advertisers use more subtle techniques, but their object is no different. The Master said,

 "If the socialists succeed they would seize the world's wealth and then divide it. But the Baha'is sacrifice their lives and properties. Socialist principles would annul class differences and distinctions and thus cause disorder in the system. But Baha'u'llah has laid down a great foundation for a system which, although it advocates the oneness of humanity and upholds the common weal, will preserve the various ranks. Every rank should perform its duties. Rights should be equal and all are the servants of one kind God. He who performs righteous acts is nearer to God and he whose efforts are more virtuous is more bountifully confirmed." (Mahmud, 365)

 Consumer advertising feeds on individualism, using the ancient divide and rule technique of separating me from us in order the better to lift my wallet. The Master's solution aims at equality, but more than the stereotypical, external equality of the individualist, the equality that only encourages more buying for more individual distinction. He seeks equality before God, an equality that does not necessarily remove distinctions of rank and role, especially when they are of benefit, and encourage a moderate desire for distinction.

 The Master, nonetheless, had a great personal revulsion for the mindless urge for personal distinctiveness that advertising is designed to instill. He went to great lengths to avoid a hint of distinction for Himself, even when it would have benefited what He was doing. He eschewed pillows, for example, and rested His head on a brick instead. And remember from yesterday how he refused a wagon-lit on the train, even when his body cried out for rest. He had elsewhere praised the lack of a "first class," "second class" and "steerage" on American trains. He liked that the only distinction was the rental of a bed compartment for overnight trips. Yet He avoided even that whenever He could.

 This dislike for distinction was not peripheral to His philosophy. Not by a long shot. He came to America when racial distinction was at its height. These he deprecated in the strongest possible terms,

 "Racial distinctions and national differences are purely imaginary. Humanity is one in essence; it is one progeny of a common ancestor inhabiting the same globe; and there is no difference in the original genesis and creation of God. God has created all humanity." (Mahmud, 93)