This is the epilogue to a three-part series of posts, titled “Reflections on the Revolution in Isla Nublar”, interpreting the movie Jurassic World. The whole series of posts in order is the following:
I realize now that I did not explain at all why I picked the title for this series of posts on Jurassic World. It is of course meant to call to mind Edmund Burke’s classic critique of the French Revolution, which has the much more elaborate title Reflections on the Revolution in France, And on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event. In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris.
Burke is sometimes caricatured as being an arch-conservative and stick-in-the-mud, but it is important to realize that in the context of his society, he was actually rather on the progressive wing. Burke was a supporter of the American freedom struggle, a champion of the rights of the Irish (he was of Irish descent himself), and vehemently opposed to the East India Company’s depredations in India. And yet, he was fundamentally opposed to the French Revolution, because he saw in it the release of forces deeper and more dangerous than those unleashed by any other revolution: rationalism, utterly convinced of its own correctness and of the total mistakenness of all other positions, willing to overthrow everything that came before it in the name of a new world order founded on pure reason unencumbered by primitive inherited idiocies.
What happens on Isla Nublar is a revolution in that sense: a full overturning of the existing order (a re-volvo) and the institution of a new system based on different principles.
There are important contrasts, however, between the French Revolution and the Indomitable Revolution: the order being overthrown in Isla Nublar is one based on rationalism, bureaucracy, and control; what replaces it is the law of the jungle, literally. And as happens with any revolution, there is a great deal of gratuitous slaughter of the innocents, which proceeds until the spearhead of the revolution, the Indominus rex, is torn down and a new tyrant, the Tyrannosaurus rex, installed in its place. Tradition—of a sort, at least—wins out.
How is the Indominus rex taken down? Not by a single force alone, but by the T. rex working in concert with the velociraptors. (And note that the “hero”, Chris Pratt, does not actually do anything more than keep the boys safe, while the “damsel-in-distress”, Bryce Dallas Howard, is the one who actually releases the T. rex and thus arranges for the final battle. For all sorts of reasons she is the real hero of the story, in human terms, but really, humans are passé on Isla Nublar by this point.) These “small platoons” do not coordinate their efforts by communicating and strategizing, but through the emergent structure of the law of the jungle. But even so, none of these creatures manage to kill the Indominus rex: it is swallowed up in the chthonic all-devouring maw of the mosasaur when it breaks the enclosure of the lagoon. Even revolutions have their limits, beyond which lies the true darkness of pure, unrestricted violence.
The structured violence of the jungle under T. rex is thus fundamentally different from the rampant, random violence inflicted by Indominus rex. We thus have two, mutually complementary, views on revolution:
This may seem more like Hobbes than Burke, but in some ways it is in line with Burke’s views of society running at different layers with different rules and power arrangements for each layer. Even the T. rex, alpha though it may be on land, has no dominion over the air or the water.
As we have seen in earlier installments of this series, the law of the jungle when it runs stably is not so different from the law of the free market. The monopolistic, rationalist top-down corporation is taken down by chaotic violence, which in turn is replaced by the free market of power.
- An extended look at the role played by clothing in depicting personal transformation in the movie.
- An expansion of our analysis, from clothing through enclosures to social relations structured by power, understanding, and survival.
- An examination of survival, evolution, rationality, and the (non-)distinction between the real and the virtual.
- An epilogue defending my choice of title, and offering some final thoughts.
I realize now that I did not explain at all why I picked the title for this series of posts on Jurassic World. It is of course meant to call to mind Edmund Burke’s classic critique of the French Revolution, which has the much more elaborate title Reflections on the Revolution in France, And on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to that Event. In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris.
Burke is sometimes caricatured as being an arch-conservative and stick-in-the-mud, but it is important to realize that in the context of his society, he was actually rather on the progressive wing. Burke was a supporter of the American freedom struggle, a champion of the rights of the Irish (he was of Irish descent himself), and vehemently opposed to the East India Company’s depredations in India. And yet, he was fundamentally opposed to the French Revolution, because he saw in it the release of forces deeper and more dangerous than those unleashed by any other revolution: rationalism, utterly convinced of its own correctness and of the total mistakenness of all other positions, willing to overthrow everything that came before it in the name of a new world order founded on pure reason unencumbered by primitive inherited idiocies.
What happens on Isla Nublar is a revolution in that sense: a full overturning of the existing order (a re-volvo) and the institution of a new system based on different principles.
There are important contrasts, however, between the French Revolution and the Indomitable Revolution: the order being overthrown in Isla Nublar is one based on rationalism, bureaucracy, and control; what replaces it is the law of the jungle, literally. And as happens with any revolution, there is a great deal of gratuitous slaughter of the innocents, which proceeds until the spearhead of the revolution, the Indominus rex, is torn down and a new tyrant, the Tyrannosaurus rex, installed in its place. Tradition—of a sort, at least—wins out.
How is the Indominus rex taken down? Not by a single force alone, but by the T. rex working in concert with the velociraptors. (And note that the “hero”, Chris Pratt, does not actually do anything more than keep the boys safe, while the “damsel-in-distress”, Bryce Dallas Howard, is the one who actually releases the T. rex and thus arranges for the final battle. For all sorts of reasons she is the real hero of the story, in human terms, but really, humans are passé on Isla Nublar by this point.) These “small platoons” do not coordinate their efforts by communicating and strategizing, but through the emergent structure of the law of the jungle. But even so, none of these creatures manage to kill the Indominus rex: it is swallowed up in the chthonic all-devouring maw of the mosasaur when it breaks the enclosure of the lagoon. Even revolutions have their limits, beyond which lies the true darkness of pure, unrestricted violence.
The structured violence of the jungle under T. rex is thus fundamentally different from the rampant, random violence inflicted by Indominus rex. We thus have two, mutually complementary, views on revolution:
- Burke: the desire for a purely rational, efficient order running on universal principles will inevitably degenerate into a bloody all-annihilating chaos.
- T. rex: bloody chaos, once it devours itself, will lead to the emergence of multiple domains, each with its own hierarchy of power.
This may seem more like Hobbes than Burke, but in some ways it is in line with Burke’s views of society running at different layers with different rules and power arrangements for each layer. Even the T. rex, alpha though it may be on land, has no dominion over the air or the water.
As we have seen in earlier installments of this series, the law of the jungle when it runs stably is not so different from the law of the free market. The monopolistic, rationalist top-down corporation is taken down by chaotic violence, which in turn is replaced by the free market of power.
Fin.
No comments:
Post a Comment