"The Caligula Effect" -- Attempting to Explain Unreasonable Subordination

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory)

Article Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co.

The article "The Caligula Effect" explores the concept of irrational subordination to authority, using historical examples like Emperor Caligula's reign as a metaphor. Mr. Tomasio uses Caligula's reign as a backdrop for discussing arbitrary and irrational authority, making the concept relatable to everyday situations.

The article also engages in philosophical inquiry, asking readers to question the legitimacy of power structures and the role of collective resistance in dismantling unjust power structures.

Additionally, the article presents fictional and historical examples of "The Caligula Effect" in order to ground the concept in a greater framework.

In conclusion, the article presents an interesting and creative exploration of power dynamics through the lens of "The Caligula Effect".

(Background music)

*********

Living for yourself often requires the destruction of others for us to continue, in every respect. Both financially and socially. But living existence often requires the detriment of others. We must ultimately destroy them, or recruit them to our cause in order to live and often indeed profit finally, though the very thought is abhorrent to me. This is the lot of all living beings. To be alive requires the sacrifice of others, one way or another -- Mr. John Duran

The Main Body

"The Caligula Effect", not to be confused with a game with the same name, is a term I made in an attempt to describe the reasoning behind being subordinate under someone, who does not have much reasoning, to deserve loyal subordinates.

In other words, I made this term in order to explain the phenomenon, where a figure of power and authority, have those, even if they are being incompetent, mad, hated and so on; Just like Emperor Caligula himself.

Did you know? The name "Caligula" is a nickname and wasn't Emperor Caligula's true name. Apparently, the nickname means "little boots" in Latin, and he got that nickname, because his mother used to dress him as a Roman soldier when he was a child.

Anyways, despite being an absolute ruler for life, this Emperor was only in power for only 4 years. His reign died with him, when he was assassinated by a military faction, whose power was stronger than the Roman Senate itself.

As Emperor, Caligula was insane, and some may call him today "The Mad Emperor". He would butcher his own citizens, appoint his own horse to a position of authority, have temples in his name, and deem himself a God. Obviously, his position wasn't necessarily respected, but certainly feared.

But how about this, for thought? What if Caligula's power wasn't that important? What if his power was merely given, by others, and none more? What if, he could've easily been disposed of as a tyrant, if no one would've respected his own authority, practically?

The absurdity of such power, which is given, can be regarded as "The Caligula Effect". Have you ever thought to yourselves, why do certain people have their power? Is their power, necessarily objective? A fact, like the dawn of day, per se? Is there anyone that cannot be rebelled against, even by questioning, alone?

So, by this philosophy, it makes a lot of sense that Caligula only survived 4 years as Emperor. Some democratic leaders ruled far longer than he did, and their leadership is divided by terms, not for life! Do you see the irony?

When you are a democratic leader, your leadership is supposed to represent the will of your people. On the other hand, when your leadership is forced by power alone, it is easy to be rebelled, and even be the subject of assassination attempts.

Why are dictators despised? It's not necessarily due to their personality or behaviour, but simply because they are in authority, regardless of whether or not we asked them to be in that position. The mere fact that they are dictators, can be seen as a disrespectful gesture to our own consent, or lack of it, of their positioning.

However! The fact that we may disapprove of their position, does not mean we don't allow it. How come? The answer can be simple: We allow it, as a collective, by not resisting, or not resisting enough. By giving up on this idea. Of course, we as individuals can rebel for ourselves, but it does not mean others will not be in the way, EVEN if said others, disapprove of the leader, themselves.

In other words, disapproving is not the same as resisting, even though one could lead to the other.

This is why, the main solution to the "Caligula Effect", is by collective resistance, and not simply by disapproving, hating, or despising the figure in question. By resistance, I refer to the disrespect of their authority, practically, and not only or simply by words, or any other form of media.

One can claim that teachers are "Caligulas" of their own, even if they're not mad like the Roman Emperor himself. The only rule that grants them their legitimate authority, is compulsory education.

Even if the class members hate being at school, their hatred alone is not a form of resistance, against the figure that represents that authority. They may hate all they want, but next morning, they will attend school, all because they "have to", by the law in question.

It's not like students love to learn, necessarily. But the fact that they were never asked that question, and the fact that their answer does not matter practically, is the most basic example of the "Caligula Effect" today.

To simplify -- the "Caligula Effect" is essentially the lack of reasoning to obey through subordination, while there appears to be a greater reasoning, to do otherwise. In a sense, it was "good" that Caligula was assassinated by his own guards, as his rulership was absurd, both in practice and in legitimacy. A rulership of a real-life psychotic clown.

Perhaps, his own legitimacy was from his predecessor, Emperor Tiberius, who chose him to be his successor.

Other than a dictator's "natural" ways of coming down from power, such as death or resigning oneself from that position --- the only way to resolve this "effect" is to make a collective effort, to overthrow his or her authority, from their subordinates (us, usually).

To do so, it is imperative to convince others, that collective resistance is justified, by the lack of reasoning, present in the current state of affairs.

To end this article, I'd like to give examples from fiction and history, where this effect applies:

Fictional Examples

1. In Jimmy Two-Shoes, Lucius Heinous, the show's villain, only has authority because of his vast wealth. In an episode where he became poor, he practically lost all his power, because everyone stole everything he owned.

His girlfriend, for example, was only there for the money, and never for love. Nonetheless, no one other than himself, likes him. Without the salary he provides to his workers, he is nothing.

2. In The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, Dr. Robotnik's power might as well come from the fact that his henchmen are too foolish to betray him. However, there are exceptions, but they are few. In addition, their dangerous job, which gets them severely injured, goes unpaid.

Historical Examples

• Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, argued in his work Leviathan that humans are inherently selfish and violent. To avoid chaos, he proposed a social contract in which people surrender their individual rights to a powerful sovereign in exchange for protection and order.

This absolute authority, akin to a Leviathan, could be seen as a Caligula-like figure. While the sovereign might not necessarily be insane or cruel, their power is derived from the fear and obedience of the people, rather than their legitimacy or moral character.   

• Michel Foucault, a 20th-century French philosopher, explored the ways in which power is exercised through institutions and social structures. He argued that power is not simply repressive but also productive, shaping individuals and their behavior. The concept of the panopticon, a prison design in which inmates are constantly watched, is often used to illustrate this idea. 

The fear of being watched can lead to self-discipline and conformity, even in the absence of direct surveillance. In this sense, the panopticon can be seen as a metaphorical representation of the Caligula Effect, where individuals submit to authority out of fear and the perception of constant surveillance.   

• Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s, established a cult of personality around himself. He was portrayed as an infallible leader, and dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Stalin's power was based on fear, propaganda, and the control of the state apparatus. While he was not necessarily insane in the same way as Caligula, his tyrannical rule and the fear he inspired among his people are examples of the Caligula Effect in action.   

• Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean military dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990, seized power through a coup d'état supported by the United States. His regime was characterized by human rights abuses, including torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Pinochet's power was based on military force and the suppression of dissent. His rule is a historically-late example of the Caligula Effect, where a powerful individual maintains control through fear and intimidation.   

While the specific circumstances may differ, the underlying principle remains the same on the historical, real life degree: individuals or groups can maintain power through fear, intimidation, and the perception of their authority as absolute.