If you want to see human nature stripped bare, look no further than the jaw-dropping social experiment by Marina Abramović, aptly titled Rhythm 0. Created in 1974, this controversial performance art piece took place in the bustling city of Naples, Italy, a setting rich with culture and history, and possibly a fondness for mind-bending art. Abramović, ever the risk-taker, offered herself as the subject of an interactive performance that would last six grueling hours. What really got people talking was the twist: the audience was invited to do anything they wanted to her, using any of the 72 objects she had laid out on a table, ranging from a rose to a loaded gun. The why here is both captivating and terrifying—to shed light on the dark recesses of human nature when unshackled by the rules of society.
Let’s rip off the band-aid and talk about the real reason Rhythm 0 is so shocking: it tapped into that primal instinct we all pretend doesn’t exist. Some of the objects on the table were harmless—think feathers and honey. Others were downright sinister, like scissors and knives. It's the same primal instinct that we conservatives argue needs boundaries, laws, and yes, personal responsibility to keep us from devolving into chaos. Abramović sat there for hours as people started out cautiously, then quickly descended into abusive behaviors. As if driven by a herd mentality, some audience members cut her clothes with scissors, while others smeared her with paint. The piece was a stark revelation of humanity’s Jekyll and Hyde nature, begging the question: without restraint, what kind of savages are we?
Young minds today are fed the narrative that people are inherently good, that systems are the problem, not individuals. But what Rhythm 0 proves is that an absence of law and order reveals some inconvenient truths. When told there would be no consequences, the civilized citizens of a society quickly morphed into tormentors. If anything, this performance piece was an exercise in social Darwinism, showing us that morality isn’t just a given. It’s a choice, and one that people need to actively make.
The symbolism here shouldn’t be lost on us, but for some reason, it is. Marina Abramović’s supposed aim was to explore the limits of trust and the human will to dominate. And boy, did she find it. But there’s an irony liberals might want to consider: those who argue against law and order, believing that humanity can self-regulate, might have some explaining to do after considering the results of this ‘experiment’. It’s a compelling argument against anarchy, an unfiltered glimpse into the kind of world we’d live in without rules or structure.
Now, the performance ended not with a bang—or rather, thank goodness it didn’t—but with Abramović rising from her chair after six hours. Once she stood, the air supposedly changed, as if the spell broke, and suddenly the bystanders fled. The same people who had spent hours tormenting her within an inch of her life couldn’t face the consequences of their actions when confronted by the human being they had objectified. Talk about a wake-up call. This moment was perhaps the greatest commentary on human cowardice and guilt. It’s easy to get swept up in immorality when there are no repercussions.
The takeaway from Rhythm 0 is almost evangelical in its implications. It’s a reminder that unchecked freedom doesn't lead to utopia; it can lead to chaos and suffering. The reason conservatives often champion governance is because structure and accountability act as the unseen police of mankind’s darker impulses. If anything, Abramović's ‘art’—if that’s what you want to call it—can be seen as an accidental endorsement of a world where structure, accountability, and yes, law, is absolutely necessary.
Without doubt, Rhythm 0 remains a potent testament to the necessity of courage and restraint. We like to think that society has progressed, that humans are better now than they were in the ‘70s. But are we? More importantly, do we even want to be, or are we kidding ourselves?
In a world where performances like Rhythm 0 still manage to steal headlines, we should remember this: everyone possesses the capability to be both cruel and kind. It’s not our virtues that define us, but how we choose to respond to human nature’s darker tendencies. Sometimes, boundaries exist for a reason.