thought of the day 3

Hence 'the arguments'.........and all of this is unedited, obviously.

for me, accountability is one of the earmarks of democracy. our public institutions are unresponsive, some would say less than the private sector. there is a fundamental distance from the average person with his surroundings, an alienation. Difference, and ineffectiviy , castration, and impotence. 

we can characterize populace as schizophrenic, but is absurd the correct term? more often it refers to totalities or totalizing experiences, like life or existence in general. Populace are without meaning but in the way a body is. how could it be said exactly, that it is absurd if the species creates the very ground for meaning? if the body is charged with the contents of meaning, then we have entered into a strange bio-paradigm.

Society is the animation, the link which lends itself to scrutiny. They require elaboration about their circumstance, they are unique (we speak of temporality, and contingency). The subjective repercussions of that scrutiny is an experience which belongs to an individual. given contingency society can be improved, given the (political) will it can be challenged and scrutinized. And if we can be said to be an absurd society, it seems that this is a sentiment that we would have to share in common. 

of society, Power relationships are central to the discussion, as are hegemonic forces. The practical discussion revolves around the institutions of power and the populations which are their subject. SO can we characterize this relationship as ABSURD? The answer for me is Yes. 

For Camus, the absurd person has given up hope for a simple cure for society, but for that reason he has learned to live with his absurdity and can improve upon it. He is pitched at every turn against a bunch of institutionalists who confuse the term 'peoples or demos' to argue for a political rationality, over and over again, which is either ironic or a sleight of hand on the term politics. They are opposed to the term which refers to something contested or debated i.e. a 'speaking' situation, and have re-framed it according to their oligarchic ideologies to mean governance and rule. Alternatively, when the discussion turns to class interests it can mean the distant halls of congress impeding the progress of private industry though its 'regulation'. I am inclined to think they are more concerned with the limits of control and an upper class hegemony. Of course by politics i mean, of democracy, or revolt. I think for an effective movement to happen the possibility has to be argued that co-operation is a suitable form of revolt. Between us Solidarity, but not peace (with the other).

Thought of the day 2

***%^n, thanks for your reply. I'm going to need some time to think about this to give you an appropriate response. A couple things come to mind however, and I'm glad you used the term co-opted because for me it is a central device in the uses of rhetoric. But we might be employing a different usage of said term. When i was first introduced to it at a series of anarchist seminars in D.C. the speakers were discussing how capitalists were using common motifs from communist and anarchist aesthetics like the red star, sickle and hammer on their pre-ripped jeans, and grunge aesthetic etc. Dead kennedy songs are used in car commercials, and republicans are crying out power to the people. The speakers were concerned about, how they can 'steal' their symbols back. But, i think these efforts are useless. I am also reminded here how lesbian media are using the image of rosy the riveter, and the word bitch to describe their vision of an empowered woman. Symbols are about identity and experience they are supposed to embody and convey. But this means, if we can infuse central terms of political discussion with with new meanings, our arguments carry with them a strange potency that is directed at the very heart of the 'frame of reference'. 


Take the neo-cons for example. Their very persuasive arguments are centered around general but 'American' terms like freedom and democracy. Promoting freedom (through military aggression). Without the art of the co-opt, how are we supposed to speak to people on their level? An activist will ignore this at his/her own peril. The communists' argument is alien to the layman because the term proletarian is about as american as a bowl of borsch. we are a people dissatisfied with messianic idols, be they political or religious. Post-Reagan politics is moving towards a political rationalism, which i think could be provided by a proletarian style nationalism just as easily if not better. 


lets review the platforms. What is fiscal responsibility; does it have anything to do with public schools? What is national security, does it have anything to do with de-armament (sp?) and normalization of relations? What is opportunity, social mobility perhaps....and political integrity, maybe that has something to do with separating the industrial power structure from the funding of political campaigns; lets buy back our politicians (for instance). 


Politics like you say is indeed the interruption of normal power relationships. But for that reason, i think it is like a speaking situation, akin to something like due process, or arbitration, Even so, we are obliged to follow rules. Rules, norms and the common motifs of political discussion. Thus, the subversive element appears to be harmonious with the times, and would have the effect of what Frued calls 'the uncanny' Of course this formula only goes so far, there are real power relationships at work here. We may not be afforded our day in court less we forge that opportunity through our labors. But letting the situation get worse will not help us i think. And how do we create a new politic without metonymizing these old values to reflect the mindset of change?

Our institutions are perfectly rational to those for whom the profit is afforded to. I often come back to schmidt when i consider the efficacy of a 'class consciousness' or critique of power relations. This friend-enemy relationship appears to be productive to a certain extent. Also, any 'inside' forms its borders according to what is 'outside'. That is why universiality is never an attainable goal, unless we exclude the proponents of division; There is no coherence to this community, unless we exclude those who seek to destroy it; there is no great society, unless we usurp the captains of exploitation and so-forth.

Anyhow, your characterization of populace has its historical roots in Plato which im sure your aware; it has been the central schemata of any anti-populist argument that i've ever heard. It boils down to defining populations as irrational and schizophrenic, therefore requiring a vanguard, or rule of oligarchy. From Marx to Goldwater, Keynes to Adam Smith, western political pedagogy is obsessively anti-democratic. But we are afraid of this great beast because we call it a great beast; this is a rhetorical maneuver. We often find that we are in fact merely a great flock, and the term leviathan is rightly afforded to those nobles who comprise 'the institution'.

thought of the day

i think 'the problem' of political apathy can be explained at least in part by understanding the experience of absurdity (in the existentialist sense, a world perceived with a lack of meaning or purpose). for example, you are familiar with polling data im sure that shows the political process and its personas, (in part because of media representations) are viewed with an overwhelming sense of distrust and ambivalence. when obama launched his campaign he wisely used the slogan, 'change we can believe in'. this election was unequivocal in terms of voter participation over recent decades....anyhow without taking too long to explain my thought id like to engage your philosophical mind on the possibility that a rhetoric often denounced as manipulative and dishonest could be the life and salience of contemporary politics and a certain type of 'identity politics' is necessary to engage actual human beings. i dont think its necessarily dishonest, simple questions like 'who are we, and what do we want' fall into this category. a deepening of democracy can be framed in a historical context, or historical mission easily. of course by deepening i mean, the intervention of politics in society, or democratizing our economy (the fact that the process is so removed from ordinary life is a relic from early democracies and uncompromised oligarchies etc). and historical mission and class warfare can easily be revived by creating a symbolic 'outsider' and an 'outsiders grievance' has been shown by the tea party movement. coming back to absurdity, i dont think the analysis is exhausted by a philosophy of political activism, leading us to consume our work with functional categories and confuse theory with rhetoric. the 'out of joint-ness' or the absurdity is a proper object of theoretical investigation. but when derrida explained through hamlet, that 'the time is (always) out of joint' he did not lead us to the soft politics and post-modernisms of rorty where democratic struggles are validated by a sense of irony (rorty is first of all confusing the concept of irony, and the ironic observer with cultural relativism). derrida's metaphor is surprisingly insightful to my problem here because absurdity is always a matter of 'to live or not to live' and then 'how to live in an absurd world'. in this case, political participation, or non participation and so on. it is obvious that an astute activism is founded on the righting of wrongs (killing hamlets step father), and a question of 'who are we';  a wide range of rhetorical metonymizing and symbolic hegemony, and not merely upon a soft politics of acceptance and loving kindness.


if the civil rights struggles were waiting for an ironic observer or pan-universalism, i doubt it would have ever left birmingham.