Money, Power, Dominance: How Electronic Media Changed Our Culture

By Steven Kuhn

From the telegram to Instagram, western culture has undergone drastic changes in the way individuals communicate with one another. Steven Kuhn details how these changes have progressed and the consequences these innovations have had on our culture. Hugh Heffner and Gianni Versace have proven themselves to be influential titans in utilising mass media. They have changed the western concept of femininity by building on the print media created by Hollywood and moulding the ‘super model’. Heffner would go on to pioneer reality television in a way which continues to influence twenty-first-century programming and vanity-driven social media platforms. Long after Hollywood in the 1920s and the rise of the internet from the cold war, social media was born, exacerbating the culture of sexualisation and dominance competition which had always existed offline. From Piczo to Tik Tok, Steven Kuhn shows where our electronic culture is heading in the future.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Austin Macauley Publishers
• Release date: Nov 30, 2022
• ISBN: 9781398425828

Steven Kuhn

After a lengthy academic career gathering diplomas, Steven Kuhn began a deep study of neurobiology, psychology, history, fashion and politics. It was the diabolical state of the social landscape in Britain which led him to write two full-length books.

Book preview

Introduction

The Judgement of Paris

In room 18 on the second floor of The National Gallery in London, there exists one of the most remarkable works of renaissance art by Rubens depicting The Judgement of Paris from Greek Mythology. Whilst the painting depicts Hera, Athena and Aphrodite having their beauty judged by Alexander on Mount Ida, it is the classical story behind this seventeenth-century painting which bears a staunch relevance to twenty-first century romanticism.

On the same night as Tyndareus had made love to his wife, Leda, Zeus had taken the form of a swan and also had an intercourse with Leda. Polydeuces and Helen were the children bore to Zeus, and Castor bore to Tyndareus. Other sources suggest that Helen was the daughter of Zeus and Nemesis, and that when Nemesis had assumed the form of a goose to avoid Zeus, Zeus assumed the form of a swan and had intercourse with her. Both versions of this myth require shape-shifting and bestial breeding. Nonetheless, it is through this breeding that Helen was created, a woman greatly popular with the men for her immortal status.

Greek kings came to Sparta to compete for the hand of Helen. Tyndareus worried that if he picked one of the potential suitors, the rest would descend into violence. One of the initial suitors, Odysseus, promised Tyndareus that if he helped him acquire the hand of Penelope, he would swear all of the suitors to a pact. Under this pact, the suitors vowed to aid the chosen bridegroom of Helen if he became injured by someone else with regard to his marriage. Tyndareus accepted the offer of the pact, and asked Icarius to offer Penelope to Odysseus in marriage.

After Heracles had conquered Ilion, Priam became king. By his first wife, Arisbe, he had a son named Aisacos, who was taught the art of interpreting dreams by his grandfather. Priam later gave his wife Arisbe to Hyrtacos and took Hecuba as a second wife. Just before the child of Priam and Hecuba was born, Hecuba had a dream in which she gave birth to a firebrand who would go on to burn the city to the ground. Upon hearing of this dream, Priam sought Aisacos for interpretation. Aisacos attested that the birth of the child meant the ruin of the city and that it was best for the pregnancy to be terminated.

When the baby was born, Priam gave it to his servant, Agelaos, with the instruction to take it to Mount Ida. The baby was suckled for five days by a bear and was eventually re-discovered by Agelaos, who took the baby home to be raised as his own, giving it the name Paris. As Paris grew up, he surpassed his peers in beauty and strength, and later acquired the name Alexander due to his ability to ward off robbers and protect flocks.

Alexander (Paris) was warned not to sail for Helen by his wife, Oenone. Oenone had made this clear via prophecy though Alexander had failed to listen and went after Helen. Oenone had further warned that if Alexander was injured in his pursuit, he should come back to her as she was the only one who could cure him. As Alexander abducted Helen from Sparta and Troy was under attack, Alexander was struck by an arrow and made his way back to Mount Ida to be healed by Oenone. Feeling let down and betrayed, Oenone refused to treat him, so Alexander returned to Troy where he met his death. Unbeknownst to Oenone, when she had changed her mind and decided to heal Alexander, the news of his death led her to hang herself.

With this in mind, let us return to The Judgement of Paris. It is proclaimed that Alexander abducted Helen to ensure that the race of demigods would be raised to glory. Eris – the Greek goddess of Chaos – threw an apple in front of Hera, Athena and Aphrodite as a prize for the most beautiful. Zeus instructed Hermes to take the women to Alexander on Mount Ida to have their beauty judged by him. Hera told Alexander that if he chose her, she would grant him universal dominion. Athena offered Alexander victory in war. Though it was Aphrodite who would be victorious – offering Alexander the hand of Helen.

It is interesting how the connotations of The Judgement of Paris resound in the twenty-first century. Alexander was offered three choices, all of which would enhance his dominance status and increase his position on the social hierarchy. This is essentially the cornerstone of modern masculinity – ensuring that one retains dominance and cache at all times, regardless of the insecurities which accompany it. Further, The Judgement of Paris resounds with notions of modern western femininity, as women have their beauty placed on arbitrary pedestals which have evolved alongside advancements in media – from the original renaissance pamphlets, to Playboy, to Instagram. While Alexander sought to raise the glory of the demigods, it would seem as if those demigods have reappeared in the form of reality television stars and social media influencers.

In addition to explaining the cultural changes which have led to, amongst other things, self-harm on Instagram, over-sexualisation and controversy marketing, I have written and formatted the chapters in this book in an order which I feel is conducive to creating a long-lasting understanding in the reader.

Further, I felt it both important and relevant to show that a great deal of human behaviour in the western world is dependent on the individual’s genome and its response to its environment. The vanity-driven culture of individualistic dominance is coupled with a social landscape in which a collective mentality seems necessary. The genetic underpinnings of these behaviours are more crucial than you’d think.

In order to gauge an understanding of the current teenage and young adult generation, it is necessary to begin by detailing the culture within which their primary authority figures – their parents – grew up. A socio-political climate rife with rebellion and hardship.

1. Rebellion

The Socio-Political Climate 1973–1990

On 29 May 1985, before the kick-off of the European Cup final between Liverpool and Juventus, the reputation of British football on an international level began to reflect the socio-political climate in Britain. Looking out at the abhorrent scenes in the stands, the commentator lamented:

‘I think these scenes that we’re looking at, in fact, are a recording of the earlier problems. But as one does look at them, one cannot but feel the time has come indeed – if I can express a personal opinion – has long since passed when we have to consider the majority, and if that means that we have to take some steps to prevent the minority coming abroad to drag the name of our country into the gutter, then we have to do it, because it seems that nothing less than that will solve this problem. At least let us try and sort out the problem at home and not have to explain it to those abroad.’¹

He was referring to the riots inside the stadium between masses of fans from both sides. Hundreds of both Liverpool and Juventus fans wielded large metal poles, covered their faces with scarves, and unleashed themselves on each other in a mass brawl. Stabbings and killings soon followed. They could not be stopped by hordes of riot police and horses. In an attempt to quell the unrest, Juventus players ran out to the stands in a desperate attempt to reason with the rioters, with a modicum of success. Many fans who died on that day were crushed to death by other supporters in panic as they attempted to leave the battleground unharmed. This situation caused metal fences to collapse, crushing fans under the weight of people trampling over them. The abhorrent territorial activities of English football fans during this period earned them the title of the ‘English Disease’ among Europeans. As the commentator referenced problems at home, he was referring to the considerable changes in government policy which occurred during the reign of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. From the early 1970s to 1990, socio-political events triggered a great change in the way people responded to the concept of power and authority.

From the early seventies until the turn of the century, Britain’s socio-political landscape was one rife with both domestic and international struggles. Both of these would cause a gargantuan change in the way the British people considered figures of government, and the methods by which they would construct themselves in collective units to bring about change.

In 1973, Saudi Arabia supported Egypt’s assault on Israel with a hard-line on their own oil exports. Countries which supported Israel were hit with a 70% increase in oil prices and a supply reduction of 5% per month. For the British conservative government, this could not have come at a worse time. With confidence in Edward Heath’s government falling, the increase in oil prices was the cherry on the cake for ushering in a Labour government.

With Harold Wilson at the helm, Labour touted their commitment to the concept of ‘Industrial Democracy’. Lord Bullock was to piece together an enquiry and report on the needs and requirements of worker representation in trade unions. Jack Jones – a highly influential union leader of the Transport and General Workers Union – played a key role in this process. The Bullock Report concluded that worker representation would be controlled by the trade unions and that such representation would come into fruition if more than one third of employees wished it. Though, companies with greater than 2,000 employees ought to be obliged to partake in industrial democracy.

Fearing the influence of workers and trade unions in the management process, employers were considerably sceptical about these new developments. With this, the concept of a two-tier hierarchical scheme with a policy board was put forward. The policy board was essentially a management board comprised of individuals not predominantly involved in the running of the company. Worker’s representatives were to hold no more than a third of the seats – the workforce were to elect their own representatives.

The grandiose social projects which occurred outside of politics during this time were highly influenced by what was going on at 10 Downing Street. As we shall see, the British society was undergoing a gargantuan change in the way younger people reacted to authority.

Towards the end of the latter half of the 1970s, the British people were at war with high unemployment, low wages, and rapidly rising cost of living. Much of this was spurred by uncontrollable levels of inflation, reaching 18.4% between 1979 and 1980. Fearing the worst, the Employment Subsidies Act of 1978 provided supplementary payments to employers to enable them to recruit or maintain current employees. With many people losing their homes to the stranglehold of monetary policy, anger and injustice were beginning to rear their heads. Embittered by the media’s character assassination of James