Managing Genius

       As discussed in class on Thursday, if genius is the creation/begetting of entirely new structures, then the quality of its manifesting is therefore socially contingent. For example, the genius of Hitler was dependent upon an already existing economic/nationalistic depression as well as history of Jewish oppression. Arguably, were Hitler born in another spatial or temporal condition, he would not have been capable of amassing his 3^rd Reich.

       However, the capacity, the actual structure of genius is not socially contingent; rather, as long as there exist social norms there exists the possibility of genius. And considering social organisation has been a permanent feature of human history, it seems that the creation of normative behaviour is, too, essential to the human experience. Indeed, Heidegger’s concept of Das Man would corroborate this. Anyway, if normative behaviour is essential, than though the manifestation of genius cannot be guaranteed to occur, it can neither be guaranteed not to occur. 

       However, through manipulating social construction, though we cannot generate genius itself, we can encourage types of genius from manifesting or remaining dormant. In this sense, I mean to say that we can incentivise divergent thinking in some arenas, and discourage it in others (also, allow me to caveat that I am attaching no moral value to types of genius). Take for example how we have constructed our political system: in a representational form of governance, those who strive to hold political office must be comfortable with, if not thrive upon, making decisions that have immediate and serious consequences on complete strangers’ lives. Moreover, in order to remain sane enough to complete average everyday tasks, a politician must unflinchingly make these decisions; there is a necessary degree of detachment from the lives of strangers needed in order to enact such unilateral consequences. I would venture to say it would be impossible to digest the input of every constituent in, say, a congressional district (nonetheless an entire city, state, or even nation). Thus, it is evident that our political structure encourages, if not demands, that our leaders be sociopathological, which is often a crucial ingredient in genius. To be sociopathological, one is able to consider possibilities others would conceive of as morally/socially unthinkable, and vice versa. Literally, sociopaths live their lives thinking “outside the box.” 

       But to the contrary, consider the type of genius that an anarchistic political organisation would allow - or more importantly, would not allow - to manifest. If in an anarchistic community, power is evenly distributed amongst constituents, then theoretically, every member is as responsible for the condition of the community as the next member. Therefore, sociopathy would be a highly disadvantageous behaviour, and would in turn be marginalised. Though structurally, genius cannot be prevented from occurring, its societal reception and reaction can be affected.