This pairs well with the idea of institutional immunity.
The Stranger King myth explains why transgression can confer legitimacy but only while the ruler is perceived as operating outside ordinary contestation.
Once the “stranger” is fully inside the system markets reacting, courts responding, institutions adapting, the mystique collapses into exposure.
Modern power doesn’t fall when legitimacy breaks; it persists under permanent visibility.
Thank you for putting this article together in your inimatable way.
It's notable how quickly the conversation moved away from ordinary Venezuelans and Venezuela as a nation.
While comparisons and wider implications are interesting, in an ideal world they should be balanced with the specific realities of each situation.
Venezuela used to be the wealthiest country in Latin America; now it is in the bottom 10–20 in the world. The Gini coefficient has always been extremely high (which is what propelled Chavismo), and that is still the case.
For example; If Colombia, Guyana, or an alliance of Latin American nations had made the same move, I feel the narrative would be quite different. However, for two decades, nobody did. Ordinary people suffered: medicines were and are scarce, liberties were and are restricted and survival from day to day became and still is the focus for many. You won't hear many Venezuelan voices, and that's for a good reason: fear. They know they must keep quiet. This is not over, and we all know that. However, the future of a whole nation is riding on the hope that this could potentially be a small step in the right direction.
"... The hero manifests a nature above, beyond, and greater than the people he is destined to rule..."
— definition of a coward, tyrant, and a bully.
Why did those mythologies have this character as a "hero"? In that sentence the word needs to be in quote marks, since it is not a modern meaning of the word hero. The usage in this sentence is or should be archaic, it's Nietzscherian, and in modern context means "corrupt, horrific and a total ꕗꗇꕷꖡꗇ𐝥ꕒ."
Hey Bijou, well in many ancient mythologies 'heroes' do not necessarily have to be nice people. The term here is used in an anthropological sense, to refer to the leading protagonist in a mythology, one who inspires awe, fear etc. You'll note that Sahlins goes on to describe the hero as 'monstrous' and 'violent'
This pairs well with the idea of institutional immunity.
The Stranger King myth explains why transgression can confer legitimacy but only while the ruler is perceived as operating outside ordinary contestation.
Once the “stranger” is fully inside the system markets reacting, courts responding, institutions adapting, the mystique collapses into exposure.
Modern power doesn’t fall when legitimacy breaks; it persists under permanent visibility.
Thank you for putting this article together in your inimatable way.
It's notable how quickly the conversation moved away from ordinary Venezuelans and Venezuela as a nation.
While comparisons and wider implications are interesting, in an ideal world they should be balanced with the specific realities of each situation.
Venezuela used to be the wealthiest country in Latin America; now it is in the bottom 10–20 in the world. The Gini coefficient has always been extremely high (which is what propelled Chavismo), and that is still the case.
For example; If Colombia, Guyana, or an alliance of Latin American nations had made the same move, I feel the narrative would be quite different. However, for two decades, nobody did. Ordinary people suffered: medicines were and are scarce, liberties were and are restricted and survival from day to day became and still is the focus for many. You won't hear many Venezuelan voices, and that's for a good reason: fear. They know they must keep quiet. This is not over, and we all know that. However, the future of a whole nation is riding on the hope that this could potentially be a small step in the right direction.
This article probably covers it better than I can https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/venezuela-without-venezuelans-maduro-trump-media-coverage/
"... The hero manifests a nature above, beyond, and greater than the people he is destined to rule..."
— definition of a coward, tyrant, and a bully.
Why did those mythologies have this character as a "hero"? In that sentence the word needs to be in quote marks, since it is not a modern meaning of the word hero. The usage in this sentence is or should be archaic, it's Nietzscherian, and in modern context means "corrupt, horrific and a total ꕗꗇꕷꖡꗇ𐝥ꕒ."
Hey Bijou, well in many ancient mythologies 'heroes' do not necessarily have to be nice people. The term here is used in an anthropological sense, to refer to the leading protagonist in a mythology, one who inspires awe, fear etc. You'll note that Sahlins goes on to describe the hero as 'monstrous' and 'violent'