We find it in advertising, in political and corporate rhetoric, and within daily interactions.
What is significant historically? What is significant today? What is significant tommorow?
What was most significant during the sinking of the Titanic?
<!– the identifier in the following script tag can be a GR book id or an isbn –>
No -I’ve not digressed into the abyss of common-sense partisan ideology.
Rather, I’ve apprehended a contemporary populist ideological article of significance for the purpose of de-constructing it linguistically.
My contrasting slogan is, Make Americans Great Again.
The term “make” seems to suggest that whatever quality of “America” existed before, can now be reconstituted by a particular political movement as opposed to any other set of circumstances which may cause America to be “great.”
To make “America” as opposed to “Americans” great again seems to emphasize the “greatness” of country in relation to other countries, as opposed to individual as the source of “greatness.” It places emphasis upon economic and military dominance as opposed to ideological or moral dominance, at the same time mystifying the role of Americans within the paradigm of making “America” great again, i.e., what is the ideological, or better yet lawful meaning of “America”?
The term “great” is as hollow as the term “America” or “change” in that change could be either for better or worse, whereas “great” could mean powerful, mean, and nasty, or egalitarian, erudite, and ethical.
The term, “again” presupposes an historical moment in time when “America” was “great.” The mystification of the term “great” returns to haunt us as we struggle to determine the definition of “greatness.” If we return to the definition – egalitarian, erudite, and ethical – such an epoch may not necessarily coexist with a powerful, mean, and nasty epoch, therefore we know not which epoch of “greatness” to which we are aspiring.
I would suggest that any corporate, military, or commercial quality of the construct “America,” is meaningless in the absence of the quality of it’s “citizenry.” For the sake of the citizenry as opposed to any corporate, commercial, or military structure, it is the citizens, or better, individuals themselves which are in need of improvement in as much as they are ignorant of their role as the source of power and any other distinctions (as above) implicated therein.
What is your end game?
For non-symbol using animals it is merely survival.
But what about symbol-using beings?
Perhaps if we borrow from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Motives we can begin to piece it together…
However is our ultimate “end game” merely an empty glass which we fill as full as possible as we attempt to satiate a particular hierarchy of needs?
Or is our “end game” more about motives based upon Maslow’s “needs”?
In the book, I have reworked Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs into a Hierarchy of Motives as follows (beginning from the bottom of the pyramid): Biological (Based upon Maslow’s physiological needs), Control (“ “ “ Security), Consubstantiation (“ “ “ Love & Belonging), Ego (“ “ “ Self-Esteem), and finally Potentiality (“ “ “ Self-Actualization).
When we are born we are primarily driven by physiological needs, later we seek to control our environment/s so as to ensure conditions of predictability and security, still later as symbol-using social animals we seek consubstantiation with others, as social animals we aspire to the highest positive value of self in relation to others (ego), finally we aspire to the highest potential for achieving and overcoming all potential obstacle to the self.
The common denominator throughout is – subjectivity.
Every phase of our lives, every day, every minute, we are seeking to reduce, and by default, eliminate, subjectivity in one form or another.
Thus our end game, your’s, mine, and everyone who has ever lived, is the annihilation of subjectivity.