from: "The highest type of Englishman": gender, war, and the Alfred the Great millenary commemoration of 1901 by Stephen Heathorn
source: Canadian Journal of History, 1 December 2002
via: HighBeam Research

Myths about the central place of the Anglo-Saxons in the development of England reach back as far as the sixteenth century, and radical arguments about the suffering of "Freeborn Englishmen" under the "Norman Yoke" became significant rallying cries in the straggles of the seventeenth century. Radical patriots in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries invoked the ancient rights and virtues of the Saxon yeoman in their attacks against "old corruption" and the "alien" cosmopolitanism of the British elite. But after the era of the American and French revolutions, a more patrician reading of the Anglo-Saxon heritage increasingly challenged the radical celebration of plebeian Anglo-Saxonism. Historians like Sharon Turner, and novelists like Sir Walter Scott helped shift the popular representation of the Anglo-Saxons, transforming them from plebeian founders of the ancient constitution into "virtuous flaxen-haired Saxon maidens and sturdy, blue-eyed Saxon yeomen" led by a noble and chivalrous native aristocracy. It was these Saxons who became the progenitors of the English -- exemplified in Scott's hero Ivanhoe.

Is history no more than a series of ideological press releases? This general view is sometimes referred to as "the social construction of reality." On the other hand, we all suspect that there have been certain facts, certain certainties -- those planes really did crash into the Twin Towers. Television aside, intersubjective verification tells us this is true -- other people were there, saw it happen, reported in detail what they saw. So we know it wasn't like "one small step for man" from a faked up moonscape in some New Jersey warehouse.

But the interpretation of that event, indeed of any set of historical circumstances, warrants the use of quotation marks around "the facts." Everything depends on the lens you look through. For instance, we're fairly  sure there was something we call The Inquisition, and something we call The Reformation, and something we call The American Revolution, but what these phrases mean... oh man, don't get me started. Because each seems to mean a lot of different and often conflicting things to a lot of different and often conflicting people. OK, so are we clear on that much, then? Can we agree to be pretty much in the dark about everything further back in time than, say, lunch? Good. We're making progress.

But then, some other guy comes along and tries to confuse things by writing a book with almost the same title as the other book mentioned above, and -- given the fact that the first book is hugely famous among the sorts of people who track hugely famous books -- this is a sure signal that Something Is Up With That. The following is...

from: Searle, rationality, and social reality by Alex Viskovatoff
source: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 1 January 2003
via: HighBeam Research

In The Construction of Social Reality, Searle sets out to provide a philosophical account of social institutions. He states: "The question that has puzzled me is, How are institutional facts possible? And what exactly is the structure of such facts?" Institutional facts are facts that hold only by virtue of human intentionality, such as "Paris is the capital of France"; they are distinguished from what Searle... calls "brute facts," facts that would hold even if no human beings existed, such as "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen." Searle goes about this project as one might expect from a contemporary philosopher who has written extensively about the philosophy of mind... [etc, yada, yada]

My abrupt elision above should be taken as no sign of disrespect for Dr. Searle or his philosophy of mind (whatever it is; I haven't the foggiest). But his example is unfortunate, because last time I checked, Paris was also someone named after a hotel, in which she probably did a lot of... but no, let me not jump to hasty characterizations. In her recent book, she says of herself: "A lot of people seem to have the wrong idea about me..." Quod erat demonstrandum. All depends upon the lens you look through. Which glasses Paris Hilton is wearing, I can't imagine. Philosophically speaking, I can only know either a) that they are not mine; or b) that I need a new prescription.

I hasten to point out at this juncture that this is primarily comedy writing and any attempt to attribute some deeper meaning to what you're reading here may well lead to the sort of insanity that has caused the author -- that would be me -- to compose it.

Nonetheless -- or case in point (your pick) -- there does seem to be a good deal of confusion going around about this whole business of historical facticity. This applies in triplicate at the personal level, but that, fortunately for us all, is beyond the scope of the present post. In hopes of enlightening myself to some small degree on this score, I looked into a copy of Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need To Know About American History But Never Learned.

Frankly, I didn't expect much from this book. It sounds so vulgarly popular and readable. In a nutshell: "factual." What fun is that? OK, so I'm in denial about wanting to be enlightened in any way shape or format. I like  being confused. Let's face it: mystification is just so much more interesting. Richer, complexer... (where's my Effexor?) However, I have to say I was impressed by the following bit, and therefore inclined to think more highly of whatever the book may be about if I ever get around to actually reading it...

Joshiah Strong... argued that the United States was the true center of Anglo-Saxon virtue and was destined to spread it over the world. "This powerful race," wrote Strong in the best-selling book Our Country, "will move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond." Then, borrowing from Charles Darwin, whose ideas were being floated around, Strong concluded, "Can any one doubt that the result of this competition of races will be the 'survival of the fittest'?" Strong left no doubt as to who he thought this race would be.

That's not Josiah Strong in the picture; it's of course Charlie Darwin. In a hat. The quote is interesting (to me) because it connects "Anglo-Saxonism," "manifest destiny," and racialist notions generally. These were big at the time -- maybe even bigger than they are today -- as the following clip from Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist [pp. 443-443] makes abundantly clear...

The rise from savagery to Shakespearean nobility was a comforting crumb to the Victorian gentry. But it was a short step to the racist slurs that Darwin was already hearing. Given the dinner-table wisdom that genteel Anglo-Saxons towered above their black butlers, evolution cast a shadow over ancestral purity. Lyell himself was irresistibly drawn to the theme: go back umpteen generations and would blacks and whites find a common ancestor? Itself the descendant of an ape? The very idea 'wd give a shock to ... nearly all men.' No university would sanction it; even teaching it 'wd ensure the expulsion of a Prof. already installed.' Race was blowing up as an emotive issue in the 1850s. The hardbitten Robert Knox... achieved a new notoriety by his doom-mongering about coming racial wars. He made the races separate species. Others like Louis Agassiz made them separate Creations; and one of Darwin's contacts thought it `fortunate for those of us who respect our ancestors & repudiate even the contamination of Negro blood - that Agassiz remains, to do battle with the transmutationists.' Darwin instantly confessed his evolutionary 'heresy' as a rebuke, declaring himself 'as bad as the worst.' But this deep-rooted racism left no doubt that evolution threatened more than one cultural taboo.

History, reality, lenses: that's where this started. And now I can divulge that it's all been a setup. A kind of setup, at any rate, for the table below. Keep some of the concepts already covered, but change the lens. You should have all the clues you need by now to read between the following lines -- all the while keeping in mind that as (and as heretofore stated) this is comedy writing, no resemblance to any person, living or dead, is intended or implied.

comparison of DSM-IV diagnostic critieria for Narcisistic Personality Disorder (NPD) with certain political / social / cultural (PSC) analogs
Overview of NPD: A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
NPD	PSC
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes