Foxes & Lions

Black Swan

Gareth Morgan in Images of Organisation suggested that metaphors were useful to make comparisons, foster discussion, and advance understanding. He also cautioned that such metaphors may be distortions of reality, and not to be taken literally.

Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto in his Circulation of Elites suggested that there were two basic types of elites in society, those that manipulated the majority of citizens by force or fraud. Borrowing from Niccolò Machiavelli, the metaphors used to describe these two different elites were lions (force) and foxes (fraud). These two types were always in circulation: when lions were in power, foxes were out; and foxes in, lions out.

During a very informal coffeehouse discussion this circulation came up. One person suggested that the last 4 US presidents may roughly fit Pareto's circulation model: George HW Bush (Lion); Bill Clinton (Fox); George W Bush (Lion); and Barack Obama (Fox). Both lions were wartime presidents and not thought to be scholarly in their skill sets, while the foxes were associated with scholarship skills (Rhodes scholar Clinton; Harvard editor Obama) and peacetime economic growth (Clinton) or economic recovery (Obama).

It should be noted that this is a very brief and superficial discussion of Pareto's Circulation of Elites, and is used here to encourage discussion, rather than to be a comprehensive and rigourous review. Given these limitations, any merit to Parato's work, or the very casual example given?

Comments?

Victor

So, education and economic growth are fraud?

In metaphors, lions are usually seen as positive - leadership, strong, protective, etc. And propping up dictatorships and starting wars makes you a lion?

I think the metaphors / examples are broken.

Torakx

Lions let the lioness hunt and watch the cubs. The lion uses force and intimidation to fend off other sperm doners and possibly also to fend off other predators. They are purposefully visible in their application of force.
A fox hides and uses the undergrowth to manouvre through it's environment. They live in dens under the ground.
The metaphors work quite well I think in relation to the topic here.
Besides what I mentioned there was a clause in the OP
"He also cautioned that such metaphors may be distortions of reality, and not to be taken literally."

The fact that anyone would try to defend one of the foxes mentioned here, shows how much of a fox or lion these presidents were/are.

I think this is a beautiful metaphor and mechanic you have brought my attention to! Really I had to smile when I looked at this.
I used to use the presidential tv ad campaigns to figure out who the next american president would be, as it is usually fairly obvious who has decidd to "throw the fight" just on these ads alone. Now i have a second mechanic to follow!
I'm wondering more seriously now, if I can place a bet somewhere for the next elections.
I haven't been following american politics in the last two years, but the adverts alone are fairly reliable in the elections I followed for Bush(twice) and Obama.

It doesn't really matter if the left or right side wins by and large. Maybe some sponsors lose out on business here and there. I think the main sponsors cover both sides anyway and may just have a preference for a fox or a lion depending on their plans for international fraud, invasions, business etc.
Not only that but from these easy predictions in the past elections, to me anyway, it seems that a side is already chosen before the elections and it is just a matter of programming the nation to go in the desired direction.
Which is actually very easy IF you have money to advertise and have knowledge of NLP, CBT and so on.

Victor

Torakx wrote: »

sperm doners

Remind me not to eat in your kebab shop. :pac:

Torakx

Stepping back a bit and looking at the polarization that seems to occur in this mechanic(if it is so). This shift from "progressive" policies(fox) to aggressive policies(lion), back and forth.
Is it an inherent shift in the collective unconscious, regarding political ideologies?
Or is it a programmed/manufactured shift?

Keeping with the theme of this forum, I guess it's best to explore counter theories to my own views of manufactured consent and manufactured collective idiological thinking, by asking if this is a natural progression from one to the other as a sort of reactionary effect. Much like a pendulum swinging, each direction a response to the nature of the political, social and economic environment created by the last "swing".

I personally think that the types of people who attend groups similar and including Bilderberg meetings and CFR meetings, including and especially their advisors, have full knowledge of these mechanics and will continue to steer international politics and economics using these frameworks of thinking.
I can't say national in relation to these people, as I do not think these are nationalistic in any way at all.
I would like to know what others think about this mechanic occuring naturally as a reaction.
I am unable to pose this theory myself. I just can't make any sense of it if I'm being brutally honest.
But for sure open to hearing some ideas on how this can be so.

Black Swan

Victor wrote: »

So, education and economic growth are fraud?

Many members of particular party affiliations (GOP or Tea Party faction) across the pond have commented accordingly in regards to Clinton's and Obama's economic claims, suggesting fraudulent political spin to hide the massive expansion of federal deficit (rather than attributing real economic growth to their administrations). In particular, members of these party affiliations had continuously attacked Obama's "Fox" skill set, suggesting that his education and degree from Columbia were frauds, as was his birth in Hawaii. Does this fit with the cunning Fox metaphor for some members of GOP or Tea Party, although their perspectives may be party-biased?

Gareth Morgan used the lion metaphor "The man is a lion" to suggest that he is brave, strong, and ferocious, but in using this expression, he did not suggest (nor would Pareto or Machiavelli) that the lion was also as "cunning as a fox." Some members of a different party affiliation across the pond (Democrats) have contended that GW Bush was not particularly bright, but indeed was ferocious in launching the two longest wars in US history (Afghanistan and 2nd Persian Gulf War), while hosting the worst recession since the Great Depression; i.e., the Great Recession.

Victor wrote: »

I think the metaphors / examples are broken.

This may be, but these metaphors have served their purpose in launching our discussion of Pareto's Circulation of Elites. Morgan did caution that metaphors were distortions of reality, but useful.

Torakx wrote: »

The lion uses force and intimidation to fend off other sperm doners and possibly also to fend off other predators. They are purposefully visible in their application of force.

A fox hides and uses the undergrowth to manouvre through it's environment. They live in dens under the ground.
The metaphors work quite well I think in relation to the topic here.

Your elaborations seem consistent with the Pareto's and Machiavelli's use of fox and lion metaphors.

Torakx wrote: »

This shift from "progressive" policies(fox) to aggressive policies(lion), back and forth.
Is it an inherent shift in the collective unconscious, regarding political ideologies?

...asking if this is a natural progression from one to the other as a sort of reactionary effect. Much like a pendulum swinging, each direction a response to the nature of the political, social and economic environment created by the last "swing".

Your pendulum metaphor seems consistent with the spirit and intent of Pareto's Circulation of Elites.

Victor

Black Swan wrote: »

Clinton's ... the massive expansion of federal deficit

Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus, as a time when the Republicans were still living the Cold War, i.e. bemoaning the loss of non-productive jobs for their financiers and constituents.

Black Swan wrote: »

Does this fit with the cunning Fox metaphor for some members of GOP or Tea Party, although their perspectives may be party-biased?

I can't be held accountable for the paranoid delusions or FUD of others.

Black Swan

Victor wrote: »

Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus, as a time when the Republicans were still living the Cold War, i.e. bemoaning the loss of non-productive jobs for their financiers and constituents.

I believe that the federal deficit had been somewhat reversed in direction, but I doubt that there was ever a surplus under Clinton or any US president in past decades. See below UC Berkeley chart that shows the Clinton administration federal deficit roughly at 5.5 trillion USD when he left office:

Victor

Black Swan wrote: »

See below UC Berkeley chart that shows the Clinton administration federal deficit roughly at 5.5 trillion USD when he left office:

That shows the total up to any given point, not what was incurred in any given year. Most of the debt had been incurred in the Reagan-Bush years. You'll note that there is a dip at the end of the Clinton years, as shown in this graph also.

Torakx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdowns_of_1995_and_96

A 2010 Congressional Research Service report summarized other details of the 1995–1996 government shutdowns, indicating the shutdown impacted all sectors of the economy. Health and welfare services for military veterans were curtailed; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped disease surveillance; new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health; and toxic waste cleanup at 609 sites was halted. Other impacts included: the closure of 368 National Park sites resulted in the loss of some seven million visitors; 200,000 applications for passports and 20,000 to 30,000 applications for visas by foreigners went unprocessed each day; U.S. tourism and airline industries incurred millions of dollars in losses; more than 20% of federal contracts, representing $3.7 billion in spending, were affected adversely.

Nothing comes for free.
Well, maybe except for interest on debt created by the federal reserve lol
I will presume all here are well aware that national debt is the amount of money in circulation. I am unsure though if this includes the interest added on top for the "loan" as it were, each time they create a debt bond.
Obviously you can't pay back the national debt and the interest, you would have to create more money to have enough in circulation to payback the interest, which ironically requires another loan, which comes at interest... and around you go, untill there is nothing left to give but the lives of citizens as slaves.
Slave bonds could be seen as birth certs I suppose, but that's a whole other story.

I'm still more interested in the mechanic first mentioned in this thread.
Is it really just a pendulum swing?
During my conspiracy theory days I posted on the CT forums with evidence of obviously flawed political campaigns, in my opinion designed to ruin one persons election chances and raise the other up.
One president candidate always has really good campaigns. While the other has terrible propaganda implanted. Very much shooting themselves in the foot.
I don't want to bring the much hated theme of conspiracy theory here though. I realise there is a whole lot of propaganda against this buzz word.

Is there any other evidence or mention in these books about this mechanic and why it comes about?
It seems tome it would need to rely on the voters in general to be well aware of the economic situation and economic policies.
Or possibly to be conservative, the advertising slogans in campaigns. I don't think most voters follow so closely the pledges of candidates and the current economic issues.
It looks like a lot of the influence on voters is through television and news stations, which are all controlled by a small minority, who have vested interests in the elections I am sure.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Is there any other evidence or mention in these books about this mechanic and why it comes about?

The original source: Circulation of Elites appeared in Vilfredo Pareto's Trattato di Sociologia Generale (1916); English translation edited by Arthur Livingston titled The Mind and Society (1935).

Pareto borrowed the fox and lion metaphors from The Prince (Niccolò Machiavelli, 1532), but added his circulation concept, while suggesting further that there were elites dominated by either foxes or lions, not finding one that exhibited both in Machiavelli's ideal prince combination:

"So, as a Prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he should learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves."

Unlike Pareto, Machiavelli suggested that Lorenzo de Medici, who was the de facto ruler of Florence, was such a prince, being both fox and lion at the same time. But such anecdotal evidence by Machiavelli should be approached with caution, in that he may have had an ulterior motive when dedicating The Prince to de Medici; i.e., an attempt to reacquire his lost position and influence in Florence's government.

Torakx

In your opinion, did Medicci often make excellent use of force and strategy/tactics as a leader?
I don't know much about him myself. I watched a few episodes of a really bad tv series where his character was represented
I wouldn't rely on it too much..
What it did show was a man who was strategical and decisively harsh or stern from the little I remember.

Although I am not so taken up with any questions on whether there has ever been a "prince" or not.
I'm curious if you or the author mentioned has evidence, correlations or oppinions on the question of the hidden elites causing and manipulating this to and fro mechanic.
Or if their is a large amount of evidence, to show it is an inherent mechanic and not created.
Was there anything else you wanted to discuss? From the original post?
I might be missing a big question or two, even after reading it a few times.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Or if their is a large amount of evidence, to show it is an inherent mechanic and not created.

Ran across this work. There are probably many others.

Ocasio, W. (1994) in Political Dynamics and the Circulation of Power: CEO Succession in U.S. Industrial Corporations, 1960-1990, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2 , pp. 285-312, suggested that circulations of elites occurred from a longitudinal study of US corporations. Although citing Pareto, Ocasio was not strict in adhering to the Pareto circulation doctrine (i.e., what you have referred to as the mechanics), rather interpreting circulation in a way to examine corporations, while at the same time comparing and contrasting it with institutionalisation theory.

Torakx

I'm going to guess the addition of institutionalisation theory, the thinking is along the lines that it is a culture or macro(or maybe meta?) social phenomena.
To survive amongst their peers they need to become a fox or lion or both, therefore it is a cultural phenomena.
I've switched from "mechanic" to "phenomena". I think that's closer to the mark for philosophy.
I think Occams Razor kind of rules out my theory and paranoia haha.
Drats!

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

I've switched from "mechanic" to "phenomena". I think that's closer to the mark for philosophy.

Certainly your choice. When addressing Sociology as a forum discipline, mechanic was not a foreign term. For example, sociologist Émile Durkheim used mechanical solidarity as a measure of social cohesiveness in small, undifferentiated societies. In a more recent work, Gareth Morgan (Images of Organisation, 2nd edition, 1997) has a chapter on mechanisation, treating organizations as machines. The machine metaphor has its place towards fostering discussion, even if it may be a distortion of reality.

recedite

Michael Collins; Lion, died in a trap.
De Valera; Fox.

In modern times, the Irish Taoiseach has usually been a fox.
CJ Haughey, I think, could alternate between the two, in true machiavellian style.