Chaos is a Friend of Mine

-- By StephenSevero - 16 Apr 2010

"Complexity so intricate no one can fathom it."

In "Something Split," a chapter of Lawrence Joseph's Lawyerland, we are introduced to transactional lawyer Carl Wylie through his apathy. He claims he doesn't care about what the “law” is, or even “money.” Rather, Wylie says what interests him is chaos, which he describes as being “so intricate no one can fathom it.” In short, Wylie believes and accepts that everything he does is embedded in an impenetrable chaos. At first, this interest seems strange - why would a transactional lawyer, someone who deals with complex and intricate business deals on an almost daily basis, place his business beyond his ken? What good is a lawyer who doesn't even attempt to understand the nature of what he does? But approaching the story through the lens of Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, this interest in impenetrable complexity can be understood as another step in the larger scheme of societal evolution.

"He is especially prone to accept so much of the creed as concerts the inscrutable power and the arbitrary habits of the divinity which has won his confidence."

In many ways, the role of the lawyer can be seen as paralleling that of the priest and holy man in Veblen's book. Like the shaman, the lawyer stands between people who want something and the inscrutable but propitiable Other that can satisfy their desires. The Law, like God, is not necessarily powerful or animate in fact, but the lawyers act as though it is, and it is this behavior which gives the Law its true power. For example, the many rituals performed and artifacts used by the priest make the presence of God stronger in the eyes of the believers. Also like God, the Law itself may be too complex to understand, but, like the priest, the lawyer is intimately familiar with Its power- not by some academic understanding, but rather by continually subjugating himself to it.

Of course, that is not to say that many lawyers and priests do not think they "know" the Law and God metaphysically. Holmes defined the law, and priests have defined God. Ultimately, however the power of the Thing in everyday life is what It does. The lawyer has learned he can manipulate Its power within certain limits to obtain certain results but need not be able to explain exactly how he has done so. This is the lawyer's "expertise": a set of skills or techniques not logically or studiously obtained, but intuited through years of experience with and relationship to the power of the Law, a power which the lawyer himself helps to sustain.

Veblen sees this animism as a hereditary holdover from our more primitive days, Wylie just sees it as effective. He downs multiple espressos a day just to keep up with his work - which is constantly accelerating. Intense, detail-oriented concentration at an ever increasing pace - sag behind and "you're irrelevant fast - real, real fast." And yet, Wylie’s daily life appears to be steeped in ultimately irrational, religious-like ritual. All Wylie eats and drinks all day is fruit, 3-4 double shots of espresso, and wine. On a practical level, such a diet is likely not the best way to stay detail-oriented. Even Wylie's description of the espresso is filled with religious fervor. "I time when it hits— the extent to which it speeds the thought process. That precise point when consciousness is heightened and everything glows." In short, a Veblenian animism can be seen as leading Wylie to act irrationally qua transactional lawyer.

In fact, this understanding of animistic behavior can be extended beyond the law of transactions to help explain other present-day phenomena. For example, consider the "gray box" of CDOs and the stock market in general. Flipping stocks is a gamble, and one which allows the gambler to affect the outcome. Flipping stocks is a gamble, and one which allows the gambler to affect the outcome. The more people who want a stock, the more valuable it is. This satisfies the gambler's desire that his bet is not in vain, that it has influenced the outcome. "It is felt that substance and solicitude expended to this end can not go for naught in the issue." Veblen feels that this animism hampers rational thought. If the "gray box" isn't just a machine, but a being - one capable of at least some sort of clinamen, then there is little value in close scrutiny of the moving parts. It is enough to have seen it work often before, even if its wealth generation defies the laws of thermodynamics.

"Which goes to show that you can make a million dollars a year by pretending to know what you're doing, and being able to sit through interminable meetings without developing any serious maladies."

In capitalism, these irrational, animistic behaviors can be seen as evolving according to a principle of efficiency. Currently, Wylie earns his living by transferring money "in a way no one else in the world knows how to do quite as efficiently." If he continues to be the most efficient, his position will be secure. His animism, his treatment of the law as indeterminate chaos almost capable of independent conceit, may still convince his business partners of his skill—but the value of the show is rapidly decreasing. As technology connects people from all over the world, firms no longer have to rely solely on nearby generalists like Wylie. A priest who dabbles in all the gods isn't as useful and pecuniarily valuable as one who specializes in the particular god I need to woo.

In short, Wylie is being forced out by a Veblenian societal evolution. He already feels the acceleration, commenting on how much harder he works and how much faster he must move to stay relevant in the ever-expanding world. "Partnership isn't worth shit. You do business with a partner or an associate to the extent to which you get more from them than what you're giving." Thus, life in capitalism can be understood as the increasing interaction between animism and efficiency, ritual and outcome. The underlying irrationality is as ancient as the human race itself.

---

Done working on this. I tried to make an argument out of your ideas (an argument I thought you yourself might make). I liked the quotes you had selected for the subtitles, but I had to take some of them out because they kept distracting me and disturbing the flow of the argument itself. I also re-arranged some stuff/ took some stuff out to accommodate the word limit. I hope my editing has done OK by you. Kalliope