"and the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder came up. These include "has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations"".
This quote is from a well thought out post by Tanos on Entitlement, posted in his weblog and linked from the ownership wiki on The Slave Register.
It got me thinking, first, in terms of the relationship between entitlement and rights. If the sense of entitlement exists where rights are specifically not claimed, and even when all rights have been expressly given up, on what does it base itself? And in a situation where rights themselves have been seen as baseless, exactly what is it that a slave has "given up"? And what is the fundamental difference between Master and slave if we cannot lean on the notion of rights to distinguish them?
In the notion of slavery that comes down to us from Greek society, we distinguish "citizens" from "slaves". A citizen has rights conferred on him by the city-state, while a slave does not. The citizen also has duties to the state, while a slave has duties only to his/her owner. Obviously in dealing with Total Power Exchange and Internal Enslavement this definition will not suffice, because in terms of current society both Master and slave officially have rights conferred by the state, and have duties to the state, since the state does not see a difference between them. This lack of societal backing leads some to question the possibility of the Master/slave relationship in modern society, but I believe this idea comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of the Master/slave relationship in the ownership subculture.
If entitlement is appropriate to a Master, while not to a slave, the specific meaning of entitlement cannot come down to a matter of right. Positing that "human rights" involves a false equation of "human" with "citizen", we are going to do without that particular crutch of thought, useful as it has been in terms of developing better treatment of human beings. The lack of progress beyond a certain level of potential egalitarianism in society, and our seeming inability to actualize it, perhaps comes from the lack of a basis for human rights in a real ontology of the human.
If as a Master I am entitled, to what am I entitled? As a Master I fundamentally find my meaning in my concerns, cares and loves. And it is my will that puts these first, orders them, and determines how best to promote their well being. My slaves are fundamentally important to this, as they embody my concerns and cares, and receive my love. Of course my slaves have concerns and cares as well, and certainly love. Without these they wouldn't be human slaves. But the fundamental difference is that my slaves have given up a correlation between their developed personalities and these things. Instead they are concerned with the Master's concerns, care about those things the Master cares for, and love in concert with the Master.
As Master I feel entitled because my will is in line with my most basic meaning, as slave they do not have a personal sense of entitlement, because their meaning has been merged with mine, any remaining sense of entitlement or right comes from doing my will. As a result slaves still feel entitlement, they still feel the urge to do what is right and what they are needed and required to do, but this right of the slave is in reality their expression of the Master's entitlement, of doing what is right for their Master, of accomplishing the expression of his concern, his cares, and his love.
Of course the upshot of this is responsibility, which is what a Master takes on in willing his concerns, cares and loves. For a Master there is no set limit on this responsibility. For a slave, responsibility is there to align their will with their Masters, once that is accomplished (and the accomplishing is a constant effort) their responsibilities are simply an expression of the unlimited responsibility of their Master.
No comments:
Post a Comment