Reducing extremism by reduction of "wing length"?


Counteracting Extremes Enabling Normal Flying (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Given the above understanding of wings, especially with respect to the political spectrum, the current preoccupation with extremism and its eradication can usefully be explored in terms of eliminating the extreme ends of such wings. This obviously implies the radical left and the radical right. This possibility can be fruitfully explored through metaphor.

Eradication? In this case the extreme is associated with root. Reference to "radical" obviously suggests exploration of the process of "eradication", as discussed separately (Norms in the Global Struggle against Extremism: "rooting for" normalization vs. "rooting out" extremism? 2005; Eradication as the Strategic Final Solution of the 21st Century? 2014). The latter notably included sections on:

The last section, resulting from a literature search with regard to "eradication", indicated a remarkable current preoccupation with zombies -- at least as evident via the web.

Wing-clipping to reduce wing length: With the sense of two primary wings in socio-political discourse -- left and right -- the operational possibility can focus on how the extremes are to be eliminated, thereby reducing the "length" of the wings.

Wing-clipping has been readily used as a metaphor descriptive of the process of restraining or reducing freedom. This metaphor for clipping a bird's wings to prevent its flying away dates from ancient Roman times. It is the focus of a poem (Chris Bodor, Wings Clipped, 2014). For example, it has been applied to:

The widespread use of the strategy framed by this metaphor offers the strange spectre of a global civilization with an aspiration to soar and fly -- but with many of its social institutions and actors subject to wing-clipping provisions. How is a "grounded society" expected to fly? More provocative, and potentially more relevant, is the related practice of castration -- frequently used as a metaphor with respect to groups and their initiatives. Should radicals be castrated like eunuchs in the empires of the past -- or as with the compulsory sterilization instituted in many countries of the past century (including South Africa, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Japan, India, Israel, Peru, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, Uzbekistan)? Perhaps the most radical thinker with respect to the development of computers, notably in service to the World War II efforts of the UK, was Alan Turing -- subsequently subject there to chemical castration. Is this the treatment which would be appropriate for Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden?

Wing-clipping is of course a practice well-recognized in animal husbandry with respect to the domestication of wild animals, including pets. With respect to birds, this takes the form of trimming a bird's primary flight feathers ("primaries") so that it is no longer fully flighted. As noted by Wikipedia: Wing clipping is usually performed by avian veterinarians, pet store employees, breeders, or the birds' owners themselves. It is generally carried out on pet birds, particularly parrots. If performed correctly, it is a painless procedure and is quite distinct from pinioning, which is carried out by amputation of the wing at the carpal joint. Presumably those undertaking the procedure would have a role equivalent to religious policehoods and to political commissars.

Excising extremes as a key to enabling global governance to fly?
(what percentiles should be removed to enable which styles of governance)
Excising extremes as a key to enabling global governance to fly?
Image adapted from FlightSilhouettes by L. Shyamal - Own work.
Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.

The entry details the controversy associated with the procedure which is worth exploringas a source of metaphor with regard to the political spectrum. These include:

  • Most pet bird species are highly adapted to flight. Some species may fly miles a day searching for food in the wild. Flying is the best form of exercise for birds. Denying pet birds the opportunity to fly may also contribute to sedentary behavior, obesity and related health problems. However, a correctly clipped bird will still be able to fly short distances in most cases, which, due to the clipping, will cost more energy, resulting in a more intense training of the muscles involved in flying.
  • Clipped birds sometimes appear insecure and less confident, perhaps from their inability to escape from perceived predators. Over-clipped birds may have balance problems and fall easily, contributing to insecure or fearful behavior.
  • It is very easy for an inexperienced groomer to overclip a bird. Birds that have not been clipped properly and have had their wings trimmed too short may not be able to land safely. Over-clipped birds can be badly injured if they fall from a perch or attempt to fly.
  • Wing clipping may create a false sense of security. Clipped birds, if spooked, are still capable of a short, powerful burst of flight.
  • Where a bird's ability to carry out its reflex escape response is thwarted by being clipped, it may develop behavioural problems associated with fear. The default position of leaving the bird with the ability to fly normally, while teaching the bird flight commands should ensure safe flying for pet birds.

The noted use of wing clipping with respect to parrots suggests further comparison, given connotations of "parroting" as the mindless repetition of words or ideas. Is this indicative of an underlying strategy of indoctrination -- to achieve normality?

Breeding out radical wing tendencies: Through selective breeding over time, this is well recognized in the case of animal domestication. Genetic engineering is now offering a more radical approach to the challenge. Both approaches offer metaphorical equivalents. The former with respect to education (and indoctrination) -- "from the earliest age" -- as currently proposed in order to eliminate the emergence of any form of radical thinking. The second approach merits consideration in terms of the future potential of memetic engineering. This has already been anticipated in the study by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman (Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media, 1988).

Prohibition of wings of extreme length : Legislative measures can be envisaged, or are already taken, with respect to political parties on the far right or the far left -- as is already evident in a number of countries. Extremism is simply criminalised.

Current initiatives to censor social media, and notably Twitter, are an indicator of options under consideration (Turkey blocks Twitter, Facebook and YouTube websites, DW, 6 April 2015). The Prime Minister of Turkey even vowed: We'll eradicate Twitter. I don't care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic (Turkey bans Twitter -- and Twitter explodes, The Washington Post, 21 March 2014).

Reframing length reduction: The preoccupation can be usefully framed metaphorically in terms of:

  • Aircraft wing-span reduction: Also appropriate to this argument is the analogy offered by the progressive reduction of wing-span in certain aircraft designs. This is obvious in the case of fighter jets, and ultimately the helicopter with wings of a most rudimentary nature (if any). The emphasis is on the control of power and direction otherwise, whether through of use of flaps or orientation of blades.

  • Spectrum reduction: Given current competition for wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum valued for communication purposes, the question is how best to reduce access to the extremes of that spectrum

  • Breeding for normal human consumption: Appropriate to this argument the distinction between the wild turkey and that which is bred for human consumption offers relevant insights. Brian Palmer (In its wild form, that funny looking turkey can fly -- though it won't get very far. The Washington Post, November 25, 2013) Even wild turkeys rarely fly more than about 100 yards; their domesticated kin can't flap their wings fast enough to support sustained flight.
    • If you've ever been to a turkey farm, you know that domesticated turkeys -- the kind most of us eat -- do not fly. Why?
    • Their breasts became too strong. Farmers prize turkeys that grow large breast and thigh muscles, because those are the most valuable parts in the poultry market. Over time, farmers have bred turkeys to have larger and larger breasts.
    • A turkey breast gets stronger as it gets larger, but the animal's power-to-mass ratio diminishes, so it can't flap quickly enough to support sustained flight. In a sense, its exactly the opposite of what happened to the now-extinct dodo. When that bird's flying ancestors arrived on the predator-free island of Mauritius, building powerful wings became a waste of energy. Over the generations, the dodo's breast muscles grew too weak to enable it to fly.
    • The domesticated turkey's massive breast muscles also begin to stretch the tendons and ligaments that hold the animal together, and the shoulder joint gradually pushes apart, further inhibiting flight. (Wild turkeys, in contrast, have strong, stable shoulder joints.)

Whole-system viability: diversity reduction and flightlessness: The case for reduction in wing span merits further consideration in terms of systemic perspectives on viability. It is somewhat ironic that the desire for eliminating extremes should occur in a period in which there is much discussion of unforeseen consequences of biodiversity reduction as an unfortunate consequence of human development. Of particular relevance is debate regarding wildlife which endangers that development in some way (sharks, wolves, bears, tigers, and the like). From commitment to the elimination of such species for that reason, the debate now recognizes their value for ecosystems despite such dangers. Controversy continues with regard to the protection of humans and their livelihoods from the actions of such species.

The debate with respect to cultural diversity -- psychodiversity? cognitive diversity? -- is as yet in its infancy by comparison. Proposals to eliminate the wolves may come to be recognized as being as questionable as in the case of the natural environment. The issues are also evoked with respect to the protection of rare species of domesticated animals (cattle, etc) and fruits. The questionable efforts, by such as the European Union, to standardize the marketable range of certain fruits merit consideration in this light. The value of diversity (Steve Denning, Why Is Diversity Vital For Innovation? Forbes, 16 January 2012; Drake Baer, Why You Need To Feed Your Brain Different Experiences, Leadership Now, 8 January 2014; Helen Mayson, Cognitive Diversity: why is it important? ILM, 9 May 2014; Herrmann International, What does diversity have to do with innovation?, The Whole Brain Blog, 9 March 2015; Ishani Aggarwal, Cognitive Style Diversity in Teams, Carnegie Mellon, 2013).

As yet to be clarified is the relationship in systems terms between diversity and viability, although concerns with respect to gene pools go far towards this. Birds, as viable systems, exemplify sustainability -- in contrast to aircraft which are highly dependent on non-renewable resources. One ironic argument is that the period of writing sees an aircraft demonstrating, through circumnavigating the globe, the viability of sustainable flight based on solar power -- with a wing span of necessarily extreme length,. Named Solar Impulse, it has a length: 22.4 metres and a wingspan of 71.9 metres.

Indicative stages in progressive reduction of extremes
(highlighting the question of what degree of reduction results in loss of flying capacity)
Stage I Stage II Stage III
Stage in progressive reduction of extremes Stage in progressive reduction of extremes Stage in progressive reduction of extremes

As remarkably demonstrated with respect to the wild turkey -- the proposed symbolic alternative to the bald eagle -- human intervention has rendered it flightless. The supreme irony lies in the manner "the eagle" has effectively bred "the turkey" into a condition suitable solely for human consumption. This achievement is celebrated annually in the USA with the sacrifice of over 87 million turkeys in 2012 in the USA (46 million eaten at Thanksgiving, 22 million at Christmas and 19 million turkeys at Easter).

Without human breeding programmes, is the turkey still a viable species of bird? Or is it progressing down to a condition exemplified by the dodo and its extinction? Pursuing the metaphor of wing reduction, does the flightlessness of the ostrich offer other connotations -- given its alleged capacity to "hide its head in the sand"?

Given the symbolic choice made by the USA in favour of the eagle over the turkey (as noted in the introduction), it is somewhat extraordinary the investment in turkey production for celebratory human consumption by that culture. Does hormone enhancement of such production such reflection on any analogue relating to human intelligence? Does this suggest an unexplored dissociation between the aspirations to eagle-soaring and the systematic development of a culture of consumers and consumerism? Why the association of stupidity with the turkey -- even by President Nixon, who famously likened himself to a "dumb turkey" for failing in 1972 to recognize the suggestions of a Watergate coverup?

Is the aspiration to global governance to be associated with an unrecognized process to "make turkeys of us all" -- effectively unable to fly? Or will this result in a form of blowback through which global civilization condemns itself to the flightlessness of the dodo -- with its resemblance to the turkey?

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]