Derrida's Ghost Goes on a Road Trip with Hansel and Gretel to Madison, WI

Derrida's Ghost Goes on a Road Trip with Hansel and Gretel to Madison, WI

By Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 9:31pm |

Paul Klee’s Angeles Novus

Every act of creation is first an act of destruction.

This little quote of Picasso is one of the thoughts that have sprung up as I have followed the recent events (and the reactions to the events) from Egypt to Wisconsin. I first came across it as a teenager in psychologist Rollo May’s Courage to Create. I have never read anything about what Picasso thought these words meant, or even in what context he uttered them. I just know how I have interpreted them. And on the initial encounter with them, there is a simple kind of truism: when we put something new into the world, we alter the world, destroying what is previously there. In order to create the painting, the blank canvas must be destroyed. God had to destroy the void in order to create the universe. In order to create democracy in Egypt, the autocratic regime of Mubarak had to be destroyed.

One can assert the world is in a state of constant unfolding, that the only thing constant in the dynamic unfolding is change itself. So even if we never intentionally seek to create anything, each moment will be different from the previous one, unique in spite of its seeming similarities. (Which would undermine the saying “the more things change, the more they stay the same,” but that is another story.) So when we create, we are merely modifying the change that would have occurred regardless. Of course, when that modification is related to something like overthrowing an autocratic regime like in Egypt, then the “mere modification” is no small matter.

But it is that intentionality of the act of creating of something new, and its precedent act of destroying, that I believe is significant. Because just as we will make a value judgment about what is being destroyed (collective bargaining for public employees or an autocratic regime) and created (a democracy or a more powerful government able to dictate compensation package for public employees), there is also a inherent value judgment in the imaginings which made the acts possible. There is a judgment that the what-is is not enough or desirable and we thus seek to alter the what-is, to make something new upon the what-is, whether that is a blank canvas or political structure. Sometimes, as in the case of making a painting, what is being destroyed (the blank canvas) does not cause much hang wringing. Other times, there are those who wish to maintain the status quo and resist the creative act, such as we seen right now in Libya and Wisconsin.

In order to imagine creating, we must first imagine destroying something. The painter may not have had the exact words “I am now going to destroy this blank canvas” just before “I am now going to create a painting,” but there was some variation of those two strains of thought. Similarly, the people in Egypt had to first imagine the destruction of Mubarak’s regime before they could imagine the creation of something like a democratic government to replace it. One branch of thought that comes from this (bearing in mind the emphasis on the “destruction” being precedent to the “creation”) is to the extent that a regime like Mubarak’s can create the impression that it cannot be destroyed is the extent it eliminates the possibility of the antecedent thought of something created, like a democracy, to replace it.

It is important to note that the inverse of what Picasso said is also true: Every act of destruction is first an act of creation. One way to look at this would be to say that the destruction of Mubarak’s regime required first the creation of an alternative. Now we find ourselves in the endless dynamic of precedents and antecedents, every thought of creation needing its corresponding precedent thought of destruction, and every thought of destruction needing its corresponding precedent though of creation.

The same is true going forward. One can say that the Walker’s act of creation, which was dependent upon the destruction of the unions, has in effect, created a new surge in the labor movement as people have reacted to it. Just as some may see in a modern work of art (such Piss Christ) the destruction of traditional values and beliefs, thus setting off the creation of efforts to resist such works of art in the future (by destroying the NEA).

I suppose I should point out that this particular blog began a little while ago as a response to something Obey wrote in a comment in response to one of my comments on a blog here: “but I honestly don't know where you're going with the post-structuralist stuff.” And I suppose one post-structural response is neither do I. And that is in a way the heart of the matter.

Thich Nhat Hanh in The Heart of Buddha’s Teaching relates a Zen story regarding man riding a horse. The horse is galloping quickly, and it appears that the man on the horse is going somewhere important. Another man, standing alongside the road, shouts, “Where are you going?” and the first man replies, “I don’t know! Ask the horse!”

Hahn relates the horse to our habit energies – our fears, angers, cravings, desires – that control us and creates a constant state of agitation. We are the powerless rider being taken where our horse of habit energies takes us. The Buddhist in me agrees with Hahn. But the post-structuralist in me would say the horse can also be understood as language—the stream of cultural discourse—into which we born and immersed before we are aware of it, nowhere present at once, and yet makes itself felt in every act of speech or writing. To modify the notion posited by Nietzsche, the prisonhouse-of-language is not a static structure, every facet of it in perpetual motion, like the staircases of Hogwarts, its movements stretching back into the time before history, and leading us into the next moment of the future.

Or to put it another way: what is being imagined being destroyed and created may not only be more than what we think. They may even be something entirely different. A case in point: Judith Butler gained the ire of some feminists when she pointed out that in order for women to overthrow the oppressions of patriarchy, they had to first empower themselves as women, which meant those facets which were unique to women, and this reinforced the fundamental dualism of women/men, and, thus, they were in effect partly affirming the basis upon which the patriarchy was supported and justified. The same can be said for any other oppressed group in their efforts to overthrow the oppressors. For “workers” to unite against “management,” they have to in effect affirm the roles of management and workers, which reinforces the power of management over the workers.

Butler isn’t saying (nor am I) that oppressed groups shouldn’t empower themselves or seek to be not oppressed, only that they should be aware of the dynamics of power as they struggle against oppression.

In working on my response to Obey, I stumbled on one of Obey’s more recent blogs which I think nicely illustrated what I am driving at here. Political Labels: Of Chickenhawks and Turtledoves? is a really great blog I think it is worth a read, or a re-read for those who saw it the first time it appeared, as he delves into the dualism of the political labels of hawks/doves.

Which brings me to my point (ii) [Why-oh-why do I have to get tarred as a ‘dove’ every time?]. Given the choice between being the hawk or the dove in the room, I'd assume everyone wants to be the hawk. A dove is basically a tarted up pigeon that (a) flitters around in Hong Kong movie action scenes as the souls of the innocents rise to heaven, or (b) sits around waiting prettily to be ravaged and eaten by … hawks. Whereas the latter are majestic animals that can spot their prey from 5000 feet up in the air and swoop down at 100 mph in a spiral so that they keep an eye fixed on that target, and well, you get the picture...

This highlight nicely the notion put forth by Derrida regarding metaphysics, as related by Jack Reynolds of La Trobe University (from which the rest of Derrida related quotes are drawn) :

The philosophical aspect [of deconstruction] concerns the main target of deconstruction: the “metaphysics of presence,” or simply metaphysics. Starting from an Heideggerian point of view, Derrida argues that metaphysics affects the whole of philosophy from Plato onwards. Metaphysics creates dualistic oppositions and installs a hierarchy that unfortunately privileges one term of each dichotomy (presence before absence, speech before writing, and so on).

Or in the case of Obey’s world, hawks are privileged over doves. And later on Obey asks the fundamental questions:

So, who decided that the hawk-dove dialectic applied only to these issues, and more importantly, to this way of framing the issues?

Much of the energy of post-structualists is aimed at just how did this or that dialectic got applied in this or that way (rarely is it a result of some shadowy committee of a cabal), how this or that way of framing the issues became the way of framing the issue as if were the natural way of seeing things. The general point at this point is that whatever the current “framing” is, it is unfolding of the process which is the horse we are riding on.

In the ‘Afterword’ to Limited Inc., Derrida suggests that metaphysics can be defined as: “The enterprise of returning ‘strategically’, ‘ideally’, to an origin or to a priority thought to be simple, intact, normal, pure, standard, self-identical, in order then to think in terms of derivation, complication, deterioration, accident, etc. All metaphysicians, from Plato to Rousseau, Descartes to Husserl, have proceeded in this way, conceiving good to be before evil, the positive before the negative, the pure before the impure, the simple before the complex, the essential before the accidental, the imitated before the imitation, etc. And this is not just one metaphysical gesture among others, it is the metaphysical exigency, that which has been the most constant, most profound and most potent”

According to Derrida then, metaphysics involves installing hierarchies and orders of subordination in the various dualisms that it encounters. Moreover, metaphysical thought prioritises presence and purity at the expense of the contingent and the complicated, which are considered to be merely aberrations that are not important for philosophical analysis. Basically then, metaphysical thought always privileges one side of an opposition (presence over absence), and ignores or marginalises the alternative term of that opposition.

To use Obey’s example, hawks are privileged over doves, and doves are, thus, marginalized. Whether we are aware or not, we employ some metaphysical frame through which we understand the world. The post-structural approach is in one sense an attempt to merely show us the frame we utilize, whether we are aware of it or not.

Now Obey summarizes the implication of this dynamic this way:

So, in short, being a hawk – for it is usually the same people who are hawkish on all three policy areas [war, deficit, and inflation] – basically amounts to being a predator, preying on the lives of the young, the welfare of the workers, the desperation of the debtor. And dressing up as a hawk – fierce and proud and strong – lets you do that in the guise of the ‘serious statesman’.

Which pretty much answers (iii): why do people take the 'hawks' seriously? The label does all the work for them. You don’t need to argue the merits of endless war, deflation, economic austerity. Your costume ends that argument – the hawk is by definition right.

All this brings me to a pretty familiar conclusion regarding political discourse. Labels can be good, but they often do more than merely describe your policy position. Often they carry connotations that put a little surreptitious thumb on the scales before the policy argument is even engaged. So every newspaper, newscast, or blog that uses these labels according to the now prevailing convention plays into the hands of those who stand to benefit from this frame: the ruling elite. And they aren't your friend.

I would agree wholeheartedly. And it is the post-structuralist approach which offers a way to counter this power which derives from controlling the frame, which decides which term is privileged over the other, which is marginalized. Or to put it another way, it actively seeks to deconstruct the hierarchy. Or as Derrida wrote:

“…it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practise an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticises”.

Post-structuralism is not the panacea to all our problems. But it is a method, an approach, which offers a means to deal with the ability of some to oppress and marginalize others here and elsewhere. How much verbiage on this site alone has been devoted to how “liberalism” has become a dirty word and how to rehabilitate it politically? The same could be said for the dualism of capitalism/socialism in this country. And so on. The problem we dealing with is not trying to show people that polar ice caps are melting or that the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us is growing. Where are dealing with such things as why people who hold liberal views prefer to refer to themselves as conservatives.

This blog wasn’t just a response to Obey statement above, but also another comment made in the same thread by Obey:

And, finally, yet others seem to believe (hey there A-Trope and Seaton!), that it's all hopeless anyway, America is doomed, and nothing is to be done except slop around in the sea of despond, so lets all just shoot ourselves ... or seek solace in crapply european post-modernist literature (fwiw, I prefer the former). I'm at a loss as to what to say to these people.

My point would be that it isn’t solace I seek in the “crapply european post-modernist literature,” but rather a way to move forward toward something better than what is now, where doves aren’t marginalized and hawks always win the argument. But it means giving up being able to settle into a world where we just replace one hierarchy with another, although we always will find a replacement when we undermine another. Which is another way of saying it unceasing process. There is no closure. No point in time in which we can say we have reached our destination. As soon as we give the power to the People, we have to step in to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

We always have to remember we are on that horse and aren’t exactly sure of where we heading, nor are we exactly sure what we are creating and destroying, when we are creating and destroying. And “crapply european post-modernist literature” is one of those means to help us remember, such notions such It is in our nature (whatever that is) to involve ourselves in, as Derrida said above, “the enterprise of returning ‘strategically’, ‘ideally’, to an origin or to a priority of thought.” To further elaborate on what I mean by this (but maybe not clarify), I turn to someone I frequently quote: Herbert Blau [emphasis is mine]:

When and if we turn back the pages of history, we usually stop at the place that where we are or where we’d like to be, what we have to prove. Not only will history prove the opposite if we look further, but it’s perfectly logical that it should. History is not an exact dialectic (Marx never said it was), but it contains all the possibilities that have been imagined, usually in impure states and with the contradictions side by side. We are always looking for the nuclear event, the remotest particle of memory, that happening, a dromenon, whether to root a doctrine or to authenticate the Plot. When we’re not playing things back, we’re leaping ahead of ourselves. The more secular we become the more our lives are being lived in the memory of an afterlife—which is why we have so much trouble living the moment. That is the chief problem of acting, in life, in theater. It is a real problem, maybe genetically imprinted. In the theater, even the theater, even though we know the French use the word repetition for rehearsal, we’re still indecisive about what a rehearsal should be—what do we repeat? The technical problem reflects the ontological problem, and that always turns out to be metaphysical. Side by side in history with the idea of progress is a natural instinct for thinking of advance as an act of recovery. Our most telling compulsion is a loss. Whether a lapsed Paradise or a Big Bang set it all in motion, there is still a fallacy of origins in the idea that what came first shall come last. That the last shall be first may be the only approximation of the heavenly dispensation we shall ever know, which is one thing we may conclude from King Lear. Which brings us to where we should be historically, up-to-date. We are where we are, for the moment. That doesn’t, however, keep memory from desiring back. The fallacy of origins persists like the utopian dream, which couldn’t exist, so perhaps no fallacy, if it didn’t somehow reach back to the shadow of what it is dreaming. I mean desire is regressive. It wants the future in the instant. It even wants to have had it. If there is no past which doesn’t include this present, there is imaginable future which is nothing but future. Certainly it’s confusing; why shouldn’t it be?

To bring this blog to an end (what comes last), I turn back to what came first – Klee’s Angeles Novus, of which Walter Benjamin wrote:

A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

Laurie Anderson incorporated portions of this quote into her song The Dream Before:

Hansel and Gretel are alive and well
And they're living in Berlin
She is a cocktail waitress
He had a part in a Fassbinder film
And they sit around at night now drinking schnapps and gin
And she says: Hansel, you're really bringing me down
And he says: Gretel, you can really be a bitch
He says: I've wated my life on our stupid legend When my one and only love was the wicked witch. She said: What is history?
And he said: History is an angel being blown backwards into the future
He said: History is a pile of debris
And the angel wants to go back and fix things
To repair the things that have been broken
But there is a storm blowing from Paradise
And the storm keeps blowing the angel backwards into the future
And this storm, this storm is called Progress

Add new comment
5226 reads

Comments

You babble good. Reeeeeeal good. This must be how they all talk out in Indiana.

Anyway. Problem is, politics-wise, when you argued in the previous blog - seemingly with a straight face - about 5 minutes ago - that your conception of "power" isn't so narrow as to just mean the Governor's office, but that it ALSO includes the House and the Senate, I just have to ask... exactly which Foucault did you read?

Upton Charles "Upchuck" Foucault?

Ernesto "Biff" Foucault?

Richie "I Had A Hamster Up Der, But Onlee The Oncet" Foucault?

As for the rest of this blog, I donno man.

I mean, I went to school and dutifully read my Nietzsche and Baudrillard and Feyerabend and Kim Basinger and Rorty and Mary Daly and Habermas and Alan Moore and Derrida and Levi-Strauss and Chuckie Taylor and SWAMP THING and Foucault and Mary Douglas and Althusser and Unger and Chomsky and Gramsci and Poulantzas and Whitehead and a poet once and then maybe a coupla other guys, but damned if they didn't come out with a biiiiiiiiit more meat at the end of their schticks than "Things come before and after... and there's change... and it's all pretty much in process... and ummmmm, splitting things up into twos isn't all that great sometimes." (Well, truth is, Mary Douglas never actually produced much more meat than that, but hey - exceptions/rule.)

So. We're left in a not great place here, Trope.

Thankfully, there's Obey. Who suggested - perhaps not surprisingly, during an argument with you - that "we all just shoot ourselves."

I understand his feeling.

And I'd like to hereby publicly announce my willingness to shoot Obey in the head the next time he is stuck in an argument with you. ON CONDITION THAT, when/as/should I be similarly stuck, he shoot me.

In the fucking head, Obey - and no wounding, cause I don't wanna come back.

Because, ponced up American political interpretations of crappy European post-modernist literature is a really really really (repeat until sufficient reality has been absorbed) crappy thing.

P.S. And then there were none.

by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:23pm

But Obey asks - who decides these things? What is your answer? Since you do nothing to respond to what I write in any substative way, I will, given your support of Obey, that you can give a definitive answer to the question. Who decides that hawks are privileged over doves? And why you are it, how do we change it? Answered in one blog or less.

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:40pm

Bang.

by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:45pm

I rest my case.

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:49pm

The part I like best about this is how worked up you get about people mocking post-struturalism, whereas the destruction of the American working class seems to raise no great hackles.

P.S. And also.

by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:00am

Examine how the middle class is being destroyed.

Then ask what is the solution.

Is there any corresponding suffering somewhere else in the world?

Even if one accepts the solution, and any corresponding negative consquences elsewhere, how does one achieve that solution in this country, politically speaking? Does it have anything to do with altering the current discourse?

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:06am

Wait, he missed. It's only a flesh wound! The fleshy part happens to be his brain, but still ... .

Medic! Medic!

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:02am

That's the 3rd head wound this month. Just call me Marc Savard.

by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:06am

And while I will agree that I don't express myself in straight line, I would like you to take something specific and demonstrate how it is just babble.

Or then again maybe you are one of those people who looks at any art produced after 1891 and says "I don't get it."

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:43pm

I think this guy's views pretty much sum up my response to art post-1891.

And politics.

And fresh fruit.

http://www.tommanoff.com/articles/4838/absaloms-hair-new-york-sidewalk

(I knew that'd come in handy, sooner or later.)

by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:52pm

which I would say "exactly" - It is so nice to see that you actually agree with me.

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:56pm

He's still breathing! Wiggle your fingers, quinn. You can do it.

Now hold up three of them. I said three, moron! That's better.

He's going to be all right, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:05am

Derp?

by quinn esq on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:07am

Actually I should have said 1896 when your ilk sat in the audience of the opening of Ubu Roi in France and when the opening line was "Merdre" (i.e. shit) (or was it murder) you rioted.

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:52pm

You should tweet that.

by quinn esq on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:54pm

trope don't tweet

by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/05/2011 - 11:57pm

Merde! Crissez nous la paix, svp.

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:08am

From the web:

"Crisser is a transformation of Jesus Christ. It means I really dont give a damn. It is considered extremely vulgar."

"in addition to be quite vulgar, this is strictly French Canadian. It is not an example to follow."

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:30am

Not to wade into this AT/Québécois ménage à trois, but now that you've told me what that means, I'm definitely going to use it as "an example to follow." Thanks, guys!

by Verified Atheist on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:21am

On second thought, that was rude. I sort of apologize.

But Derrida, Trope? Derrida and Hansel und Gretel? That's what you've got to offer?

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:34am

Svp means please, so I was trying to tone things down.

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:37am

i take the svp wholeheartedly. All is good. I was a little confused by the "crissez" and I just found the only explanation I could find in a quick web search interesting. Those whacky French Canadians. ;)

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:51am

Aren't we trying to find our way home? Aren't we lost in the forest, not seeing it from the trees? Or is the witch (socialism) really what we love even though everyone told us she (remember this still a patriarchy) is evil? I could go on, but ...

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:39am

but...please don't.

by kyle flynn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:42am

ah come on....y'all love it. I am the Charlie Sheen of Dagblog. {burp}

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:53am

Trope, that's about the most sensible thing you've written all day. Good night.

by kyle flynn on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:58am

Good night. I am off to eat the bones of trolls. For I am winner, winning as I come with me forces through the air....where are the freaking goddesses? I create all that I destroy. Am I Republican or Democrat? Or am I an independent? Or am I not-independent? Is the just another episode of Jepordy?

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:19am

I will skip the main debate (?) here.

Structuralism to me (as per Levi Strauss) is a method by which we see how people or a people think!

Herd instincts will always prevent the masses from actually examining an issue. In my opinion anyway.

Am I part of a herd--you betchya. I fight that instinct every day, but I ultimately lose.

When I was a kid it made a difference if you were a Ford or a Chevy fan? Why? I could never figure it out and the urban myths just flew everywhere.

Political parties are businesses and almost like football or baseball teams.

What the hell difference does it make in my life if the Vikings actually won a superbowl?

But there are fervent Viking fans just as there are fervent Texas repubs or Boston dems.

As soon as the team of choice is eliminated from contention, thoughts about the new season come to the fore.

As soon as a politician is elected, plans are made to keep the politician in office and plans are made to get that politician out of office.

Sharon Angle is preparing for a new run. For what? Nobody knows.

But within this silly process, big business received more tax breaks; rich people received their tax breaks; basic urban services have been cut; the middle class has (on the whole--whatever that means) lost more of a hold on the economy; more people are unemployed; the poor's benefits have been frozen for three years in the face of real inflation (not the silly numbers issued by the government)....I could go on and on here.

Coffers were opened by the dems during their control of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Supposedly the insurers will no longer be able to just drop the insured from their lists due to preexisting conditions.

There are real consequences with regard to which team wins the prize.

Repubs are best at using structural theories to sell their filth.

Hell, the chubby fuck on FOX wires up his captive audience so he can learn the best possible manner in which to frame an issue for his propagandized polls.

But I find structuralism fascinating as a study.

What does it mean to be a human being?

Forgetting the herd, how can we best break our cultural bonds and excel at something without losing our humanity?

Here I am rambling in the middle of the night.

I love this post and I am going back to review Obey again. ha

by Richard Day on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 1:58am

And do I have to tell you that March Madness is upon us. Forget the Vikings. Did BYU give up a shot at championship because they let go of one of their star players due to his engagement in pre-marital sex? As Bowie said: This is not Ameica.

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:07am

hahahah

But exactly how does a Brit who dresses up in women's lingerie and sleeps with Jagger tell me what America is? hahaha

And that poor kid; do they throw kids off of a team for watching porn and rubbing one out?

by Richard Day on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:25am

There was a main debate, Richard? Seriously? I was distracted trying to save quinn's life, after he shot himself in the head. (What a moron! Doesn't he grasp how dangerous that is? He runs with scissors, too.) Anyway, turns out he's going to pull through. Some brain damage, but regular readers will hardly notice.

Thanks for stepping in, though, and calming the roiling waters. It's been a fun day, hasn't it? Let me point out that, even though I swore a bit on this post (in French, so it sounded a bit classy!) I made just one innocuous interjection on a post below that I will decline to name. I take no responsibility for any of the mayhem that ensued. People are just way too sensitive these days. But I mean -- Derrida?

I could quote Bakunin, or Philip K. Dick, or Chuck Taylor. But most people would find that boring and irrelevant. Or would they?

by acanuck on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 2:23am

as long as you don't quote Lady Ga Ga you're okay in my book. Extra points if you can find Mili Cyrus quote that supports your thesis. Double points if you find a quote from The Beiber.

by Elusive Trope on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 3:03am

Impressive. An enormous amount of material oganized into a coherent whole. I certainly couldn't have done that, or anything close to it. So you are a smart and well educated.

Less smart and less educated I find I chiefly disagree with you -not here today.- I'm not able to reach any judgement whatsoever.-but in your comments elsewhere.

In a course once I absorbed the statement "You can not argue about first principles". Which is probably not the same as You can't argue about personal preferences ( I like blue and you like red) but it's close.

In another course I had to read a series of significant court decisions:mostly Supreme Court but also some Appeals Court ones.All split decisions with brilliant dissents.At the beginning I was a Republican but I always agreed with the liberal jurists. Their reasoning led towards an overall position which conformed with the way I wanted the world to work-which I suppose means with my first principles.

By the end I changed my party affiliation while most of the class moved in the opposite direction. We all eliminated the discrepancy between our professed positions and how we really want things to be.Seemed useful.

Brilliant as I find the above I wonder whether you've done that.

by Flavius on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:00am

This post made me think of one I just saw at WordPress this week:

http://hmunro.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/creation-and-destruction/

That's all I'll add, because I'm not inclined to discuss politics today. It's raining and it's dreary out and I'm just not in the mood. But, enjoy the link.

by LisB on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:17am

Thanks. That's a great link. The sculptures made from those books are so impressive.

by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:11pm

Aren't they? I can only imagine all the planning and careful effort that goes into making each one. Or, if you'd rather, that goes into "destroying" each book in order to create new art.

by LisB on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 6:45pm

I seem to have missed some fun around here on Ramona's blog. Not sure what all this is referring to, but in any case...

Firstly, AT, thanks for responding to my question about what the point of the post-structuralism was. And thanks for reading my blog and being so nice about it. The nut of your response as I read it is this bit:

We always have to remember we are on that horse and aren’t exactly sure of where we heading, nor are we exactly sure what we are creating and destroying, when we are creating and destroying. And “crappy european post-modernist literature” is one of those means to help us remember, such notions such It is in our nature (whatever that is) to involve ourselves in, as Derrida said above, “the enterprise of returning ‘strategically’, ‘ideally’, to an origin or to a priority of thought.”

In short - it's a convenient check against overconfidence in one's judgments and a useful shock-collar to be used on anyone with too much in the way of courage of their convictions.

To which I'd say: fine. A little scepticism tends to be a good thing. Maybe one hasn't thought things through carefully enough, and been led astray by the heat one's words carry rather than guided by the light they bring to bear on the subject matter. And unveiling layers of unacknowledged presuppositions is part of the clarificatory process. Acknowledging frames, adjusting and reframing those very frames are all important tasks in any debate.

But I don't find post-structuralist THEORY to be very useful or enlightening in that regard. Lots of the post-structuralists case-studies, on the other hand, are quite useful. Its the theoretical puffery around those studies that are, imvho, utterly indigestible. Further, imo, if you strip them of the jargon and high-flying verbiage, those case-studies aren't doing anything particularly novel. It's the same enterprise as Socrates was involved in on Virtue, Plato on Justice, Aristotle on Happiness, and so on down the line. Unveil the conceptual structure, adopt a new angle of attack and reconfigure it. Rinse and repeat...

That might just be a subjective personal impression regarding all that literature. I admit it's not necessarily a very interesting one, and it's obviously not one you agree with. Others seem to enjoy your abstract discourses on post-structuralism, so my personal tastes are pretty irrelevant.

But here is something I personally find more interesting and more important about our disagreement. Like I said, I don't have a problem with how post-structuralists apply their theories to particular spheres of discourse. It's the general attendant post-structuralist weltanschauung that bothers me. Or in ... um ... English - it's the attitude of deep scepticism concerning any and all frames of reference that adherents of this philosophy tend to adopt. As a general outlook on the world, it strikes me as a philosophy of despair. But it is a comforting form of despair because it removes all seriousness from any inquiry. Everything is an illusion - even the very notion of there being illusions. I'm not saying that is a central conceit of pomo philosophy, it's just the resulting ingrained confident sense you end up with after exercising one's deconstructive arts. It strikes me as a world-negating form of detachment. Some may consider that a zen-like virtue. I find it to be a vice (and its an impression I got from meeting some of the main pomo french philosophers).

And one that I see as infecting your political attitude. If I may say how you come across from my vantage point - you seem less attached to, or confident about, the solidity of the liberal web of beliefs and values (eg. war, torture, economic and social justice) than many, and yet highly attached to, or confident about, the solidity of the current political structure of the country (the only possible progress is to be effected through existing structures and by small increments). I find the latter to be highly unstable - like tectonic plates floating on liquid magma, the solidity is illusory, and change on the surface tends to happen in sudden sharp moves (cf. North Africa). And I see the liberal values not as some kind of utopian ideals, but as realistic, realizable goals in the here and now.

I hope that doesn't sound too insulting. I could I suppose find a more polite/less stark way of staking out our differences, but I think we've been around this mulberry bush enough times so that you appreciate that there is no disrespect intended. When faced with the choice, my sense of etiquette tends to yield to the desire for clarity

Another couple of thoughts - I like that Picasso quote. I'm not very much of a creative type, but my s/o is an artist so I asked her how it struck her. She said she finds the artistic process to be very much motivated by aggression. I.e. it's a destructive force that gets channeled into creative expression. Anyhow, that's just one other take on its meaning beyond the mere metaphysical platitude.

Now Quinn, fire away...

;o)

by Obey on Sun, 03/06/2011 - 8:43pm

I don't find this insulting in anyway. I very much appreciate your response and the effort you put into it. I would say that some of the conclusions regarding post-structuralism and its relation to politics, illusion and despair are ones held by many and hopefully I will address in my next blog.

by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 8:39am

Its the theoretical puffery around those studies that are, imvho, utterly indigestible. Further, imo, if you strip them of the jargon and high-flying verbiage, those case-studies aren't doing anything particularly novel.

Yup.

Here you go, don't need no PoMo, my bold highlighting:

...We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies....
They speak of naturalism in opposition to modern painting. I would like to know if anyone has ever seen a natural work of art. Nature and art, being two different things, cannot be the same thing. Through art we express our conception of what nature is not.
Picasso, 1923

Pre PoMo, it was just called "common sense" and no one seemed to need a lot of fancy words to know what "common sense" meant. Picasso was not a seer or a great thinker or ponderer, he was a "what are you going on about, you're being ridiculous, use the senses god gave you" common sense kind of guy, you can see that in the fuller quote at the link (i.e. with his eyes fixed on the ground, spends his life looking for the pocketbook that fortune should put in his path.). He even had more than a bit of a temper as regards that.

I must admit I have an attitude about PoMo formed during my graduate studies in art history in the late 70's, when I decided to take a seminar in film studies in the new hot cross-disciplinary "department of PoMo," just to see what all the hubbub was all about. A seminar where I often often ended up secretly rolling my eyes that the professor thought my insights were so brilliant. They weren't brilliant at all, they were just the very basic art historical approach (and, in the end, the basic human approach) to figuring out meaning in man-made images, an approach which I was at the same time guiding freshman in doing as a TA in survey courses, like many others before me. I came out of it thinking there was only one useful thing in PoMo, a word they invented, and I do still think it is phenomenally useful: deconstruct.

by artappraiser on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:03am

I agree that deconstruction (which, in line with your comment re what used to be called common sense might more simply, if not entirely accurately, be called "digging deeper", "peeling back the layers of the onion" or "going behind the curtain" of surface perceptions of reality and/or meaning) is a powerful tool.

When it becomes something of a fetish and overdone it can lead to a kind of paralysis of analysis, perhaps even nihilism, which is what I think I am being semi-"accused" of on Flavius' collective bargaining thread for daring to suggest (acknowledge?) that revitalizing unions, which I strongly support, might not be the best or only "answer" to some of our economic and social problems. (on the phenomenon of deconstruction's influence in many areas of thought since roughly 1980, see Daniel Rodgers' Age of Fracture, which I think you might find stimulating).

Public policy decisions--and choices by individuals about whether and how to engage politically, which form an important part of the context in which public policy decisions--to the degree they are a product of reasoning--are necessarily made on the basis of inherently flawed aggregate conclusions. Which, of course, can be deconstructed ad infinitum.

We still make decisions and act, whether we wish to or not. Howard Zinn: One can't be neutral on a moving train. I believe that is an accurate statement about reality because reality is always in flux whether it appears to be or not.

To engage in endless deconstruction is a decision in itself, heavily biasing political inaction and thus a continuation of whatever dominant dynamics are in play in the context. Whenever we act, politically or otherwise, at some level we should realize full well we have highly imperfect, incomplete, and flawed information and perspective.

Of course, how one thinks about and would articulate a social reality that one perceives as a moving train ("is there a "class war" going on in the US now? Of what nature? Do I attach a normative interpretation to it?), to the extent it has an intellectual basis to it, derives from aggregate conclusions, necessarily based on incomplete information. And could be deconstructed quite easily so as to show that.

Meanwhile the train lurches towards the cliff. Or does it? Are being thoughtful, continually inquisitive and maintaining some potential for acquiring a degree of skepticism in the face of new information, on the one hand, and being politically active and committed on the other, fully compatible? Or is there an inherent tension between the two?

This comment prompted in part by your comment the other day in your Turkey news item post, at http://dagblog.com/link/turkey-wave-searches-and-arrests-investigative-journalists-9247:

All I've ever really been interested in on the net is finding a bunch of people to share the best reporting and wriiting by others and then analysis and discussion of it. When that ends up being something meta that people actually are debating the worth of doing (or even attacking people doing it in preference for advocacy writing and activism) of course I get dragged in.

If this comment makes no sense whatsoever or is confusing in parts and you or others are interested and would like me to try to clarify, I'm glad to do that. Otherwise, please feel free to ignore as just another in a long line of abstruse AD comments.

by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:12am

I would like to take from my Picasso quote link again in response:

In my opinion to search means nothing in painting. To find, is the thing. Nobody is interested in following a man who, with his eyes fixed on the ground, spends his life looking for the pocketbook that fortune should put in his path. The one who finds something no matter what it might be, even if his intention were not to search for it, at least arouses our curiosity, if not our admiration.

You look at the world and analyze it in order to be surprised by things you might affect or might affect you. If you are continually searching for things you wish to find, you'll spend much of your life on a wild goose chase.

And that ideologically motivated interpretation and action has often been a real actual killer. See Forster on tolerance and militant ideals.

by artappraiser on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:34am

I was unable to get that link to work.

by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:39am

oops

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/1941-07-00a.html

And a pre-emptive: you'll likely not get too much more from me on this discussion. I had a moment of inspiration re-reading that Picasso quote. But I ain't got much more, and actually loathe all philosophy and similar think, not just the PoMo variety. It depresses me.

by artappraiser on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:55am

Oh, ok, then. Thanks for the tip.

by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:53pm

I would point out that Post-Structuralism is different than Post-Modernism, although there is definitely some bleed over between the two. Actually I would argue that in Post-Modernism we have witnessed some serious anti-intellectual artists, who have offered, through seemingly heady pontification, a deep hostility to ideas and deep reflection. Moreover, there have been plenty of lazy or not quite intellectually sharp folks in both who mangled the ideas and conceptions. In the same manner, while I can easily find some real dudes in the world of "talk" therapy, who push a bunch of hackneyed theories and solutions, I understand that in the right hands it is a incredibly powerful means to achieving greater self-awareness and healing.

It has always true in recent times that academia facilitates a lot of garbage simply because of the publish or perish rule, which forces folks to keep finding out something new to "say" about the same things even when there isn't anything really new to say. And in the post-structuralist world - the "jargon" and style of writing is like abstract art, something which can be quite moving when used by someone with creative talent, but when it is used by lesser talent, all one gets is incomprehensible mess.

by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:00pm

Trope

I would just like to say that I have always thought Walter Benjamin's Angelus Novus (and now the Israel Museum's Walter Benjamin's Angelus Novus) had little to do with Paul Klee's Angelus Novus. That Benjamin made that drawing into a fetish which had everything to do with him and nothing to do with Klee. Which is fine as people are allowed to interpret whatever the hell they want from works of art.

The reason for raising it in the context of your essay, though, is to point out how piling a bunch of Benjamin text on top of it has affected how so many look at it.

Just for a start, if you could see the wit and humor Klee used to respond to the horrific events of his life in 1933, just a suggestion that Klee's angel of 1920 is more likely not so spooked as awed.But don't take my word for it either. Look at the better image in my second link for yourself, erasing Benjamin's words from your mind. Just look.

Do with this point what you wish.

Edit to add a fun point of serendipity: I recall that Klee's first abstractions in the teens, his first forays into the style we know him for, pre-Bauhaus, were inspired by a trip to ta-da: Tunisia.

by artappraiser on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:05pm

OK, I know even less about art than I do about post-whatever-ism (and that's saying something), but when I see the painting, I see an entity (an angel, if you must) with a closed mouth and big lips, raising his (or her) hands. I see neither spooked nor awed. Biased as I was to see this entity as an angle, I imagine him (or her) to be giving a benediction.

As I said, I know nothing about art, so you may now begin mocking me.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:39pm

Hey! I also know diddly/squat about art. Looks like an anthropomorphic goat-bird signaling a touchdown to me. ;-)

I find the facial expression rather too puckish to accept any of the interpretations offered so far regarding the creature's state of mind.

by kgb999 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:32pm

I find the facial expression rather too puckish to accept any of the interpretations offered so far regarding the creature's state of mind.

And I'm no ink-blot testing psychologist, but that sounds like a fairly normal sensible humanoid interpretation to me (Klee was Puckish,) as does Mr. Atheist's.

The dude Benjamin, on the other hand, seems to have had so many things going on in his head that it's surprising that a blank piece of paper didn't suffice for him to see ominous visions.

by artappraiser on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:01pm

I am left with the impression Benjamin wasn't really looking at the work and reacting so much as he was using it as a vehicle to say something he wanted to say anyhow.

(this is officially the least-informed topic of many ill-informed topics on which I have weighed in with a blog comment.)

by kgb999 on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 5:43pm

I actually had a tshirt given to me as a gift with the image of Angelus Novous on the front before I had ever heard of Walter Benjamin. A couple of interesting conversations came as a result of folks commenting on it. No one ever mentioned Benjamin. It was only when I was doing a research paper that focused on the performances of Laurie Anderson did that I learn the source of the last part of her song. So for me, Benjamin's take on the painting was just one little layer on all the previous layers that had preceded it.

I do understand your point. And it is problem, or just sort of sad, that too many people won't trust themselves to intensely engage a painting, but rather find out from "experts" or whoever what it means first. One of the points that Rollo May made in Courage to Create was that the person engaging a painting or other work of art is participating in just as a creative act as the person who made the work of art. For my young teenage mind at that time, that was a kind of big stuff. It is rather subtle how the meme that this particular piece means that and the goal of the spectator is see that permeates our society.

In the end one could argue that any interpretation of a work of art has little to do with the work of art and everything to do with the interpreter. In a sense, when we interpret Angelus Novous or Hamlet, we are really just engaging in self-interpretation. A kind of therapy so to say. Which explains why some are so threatened by much of what the art world has given us over the centuries.

by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 7:37pm

How did you guys all get so smart?

If there's going to be a test I want to sit next to someone and cheat

by Flavius on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:26pm

Be forewarned that if you're copying off of me, I plan on copying off of AA, and you know how that telephone game goes…

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 12:40pm

Oh my God. That would be disasterous. I can't afford to to appear that smart.They're bound to smell a rat.

by Flavius on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 7:01pm

I'll write down here where there's more page... but thanks to Obey, ArtA and AD for their responses. And yes, Trope, I will talk sensibly for once, instead of just brawling or goofing.

1. Uncertainty. I completely agree on the need for skepticism or uncertainty about one's own worldview, and especially when it comes to politics. It's one thing to muck up your own life, but quite another to be myopic or unconscious or rigidly ideological when it comes to sorting out joint social problems like war and other life/death decisions. One way I try to do that is my adjusting the level and type of my political commitments - sometimes I work hard and offer ideas and contact people and so on; and other times I critique, or maybe work to challenge a candidate, or create community pressure on them; etc.

2. Vs. Action. The trick with uncertainty, is, of course, to still be able to act. And not just act when the mood hits, or in limited ways - but to be able to commit yourself, full throttle, to the fray. Because many of the single-minded fanatics enter politics with incredible force, or amazing patience. So, whether it's passion or endurance, we of uncertain mind have to be able to match the fanatic - while not copying them.

3. It Blowed Up Real Good. I love reading deconstructions, and agree they've been around for centuries, and exist in all fields, and everyday people do it, etc. Or should I say, 'loved" reading deconstructions. I loved reading people who'd soaked themselves in some institution or artwork or political moment or book or concept, and who would then slice it open in the most extraordinary ways. But the joy in it came from the fact that they had in fact SOAKED themselves in it, lived it, experienced it, felt it, whatever. Take Nietzsche on Protestantism. The Death of God guy spent YEARS actually IN the front pew. So when they would apply their perspectives, and slice it and tear the frame off and reach in and pull out the emotional load and force its inner tensions to blow it up... it was wonderful. And incredibly freeing. I loved was never seeing the nation-state the same way again, or freedom, or wealth, or religion, or tv, etc.

4. But Some Wanted To Blow Up Everything. Everyday. And this was always opposed, in my mind and reading and study, to the "totalists." The "systematizers." The ones who had some grand framework, or fabulous method, or all-seeing eye, and who had to shove everything through that orifice. As a certain German fellow said, "I distrust all systematizers and I avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." And I had a good nose for sniffing out totalizers, precisely because I was one of them. I had that horrific desire to complete every set, to include everything in anything. But... I began to break out of it after a time. The thing was, however, I became more aware of how widespread they were. Easy enough to see them when they walk into a Church. And there were also the academics who did this with structuralism of one form or another. Same thing happened in Marxism, with the structuralist school which thought everything was to be shoved into some grand all-knowing all-absorbing world-spanning life-sucking capitalist machine, which was - once you boiled it down - invincible. But there were many other totalists. There were Marxists and Feminists and people who worshipped John Rawls and analytical philosophers and maybe the worst, the narrow political ideologue and the party hack - I'm New Left, New Right, New Democrat, Neo-Conservative, Liberal, Labour, etc. And I took great joy in tearing them all - the intellectuals and the political types - new ones. Deconstructing, ripping, slicing, whatever I could to make it obvious that their systematizing didn't work.

5. Self-Destruction. Then came the plague of pomo, the profs and the kids who just couldn't stop the self-abuse. Not ever. Worst of all, beyond their totalism, was that their work was lazy. Second-rate. They had immersed themselves in nothing other than their own misery and self-absorption. And since they had nothing in particular to say - because they KNOW anything in particular - they whipped up frothier and frothier theoretical language. Meanwhile, in person, they struck poses and yawned, deconstructed themselves and their own views, fell into intellectual and political comas. Their new worldview was totalist, completely self-referential, politically neutered, and gave them no traction in the real world. They rendered themselves useless.

6. Political Despair. Pretty much everyone commenting here has picked up the same sense. That it led to political despair. And if there's a real-world train hurtling off the tracks, that despair is not useful. And even if someone really into pomo remained motivated, the theory itself wasn't of much help in a practical setting.

7. Back To The Particular. For me, and a couple of dozen friends, we lived in this world, and then.... took a turn. Towards the particular. And the politically practical. This was 1983-86'ish. We were all on the fast track to the tenured top of the ivory tower, and yet somehow decided that all this theory was ending up nowhere, while the world's poltical train was hurtling off a cliff, driven by the mad men and women of the New Right. So, we headed out toward the particular, starting with getting some not-quite-so-far-to-the-right people elected, and thus aimed to halt the advance of the Reagan/Thatcherite/New Right project, and buy some time for people to create and grow the alternatives. Were we uncertain, you bet. Was the task incomplete, absolutely. But would any of us have preferred a world in which the Dems lost in 92 and 96? Probably not. And after that push, I think it's safe to say, we LIKED it. We liked the world of particulars. And so, we got stuck in.

8. Tools. And I find that even now, 25 years on, I don't have much time for pomo or popo theory. The particulars, the case studies, the projects - done well, they're still a joy. Immersing myself in a field is the only way I know how anymore. And then... once waist-deep in it... I get to use the tools that geniuses like Nietzsche and Feyerabend and Bateson and Mary Daly and a batch of others provided. For example, and it sounds funny, but I try to build things that are reversible, for instance. "Reversibility" is a really useful idea, and it builds in uncertainty, a bit of humility. Same as the concept of thresholds - the important thresholds we don't know about with any precision, so best to give them a wide berth. And the dynamics of the change. I spent years of my life immersed in polls, and I can tell you, if you go back over them, the daily wave of polling results and info we hear do NOT translate into a longer or even middle-term outcome. Politics is still more chemistry than mathematics - Bobby Kennedy knew it. Or ratios. I learned that when I'm growing an alternative, it's a big big thing to get from 1% to 10% - and making that trek moves you out of hopelessness. You go from being outweighed 99:1 to 9:1. And people believe you can beat 9:1. So I worked hard on growing things til they had that better ratio - a fighting chance for the future.

And that, if I may be so bold Trope, is where I'd genuinely second Obey's comment, "And one that I see as infecting your political attitude. If I may say how you come across from my vantage point - you seem less attached to, or confident about, the solidity of the liberal web of beliefs and values (eg. war, torture, economic and social justice) than many, and yet highly attached to, or confident about, the solidity of the current political structure of the country (the only possible progress is to be effected through existing structures and by small increments). I find the latter to be highly unstable - like tectonic plates floating on liquid magma, the solidity is illusory, and change on the surface tends to happen in sudden sharp moves (cf. North Africa). And I see the liberal values not as some kind of utopian ideals, but as realistic, realizable goals in the here and now."

If I could recommend anything, it'd be that people immerse themselves in histories of change and in the theorists who wrote about the concepts of power and freedom and democracy while immersed in the particulars. Sadly, in the US - and this is an intellectual charge - "change" is too often narrowed down into "particulars" that are far too narrow, such as "biographies of Presidents" or party political histories of the Dems versus the GOP or narrow legal discussions, while talk of "democracy" becomes regurgitations of the world's worst civics lessons right down to including chapters on how "America is the greatest and most generous and peace-loving and God-fearing nation on Earth etc." In short - it's not worth much. It needs to go a lot wider.

9. Power. It's like what I was saying to you earlier about power. There is an extraordinary over-emphasis in American political discussion on the political institutions as they presently exist. In many cases, it's downright worship - of the constitution or division of powers or bill of rights or whatever. It's like listening to political fundamentalists talk, to be frank. But just to go back to our discussion, I believe that only a fraction of real "power" is found in the nexus of the Governors Office the Senate and the House, or even in the process of voting for them. Sure, these existing structures and their existing practices are important. But they're a long yard from eternal, complete and immutable. For starters, there's power - and an independent right to exist - in the press, the internet, in wealth and property, in spending habits, the environment, NGO's, unions, civic society, church, family, universities, art, culture, film, music, novels, new ways kids relate, Twitter, blogs, cafes, street life, new political campaigns and performances. And this is always and everywhere changing, and often is being changed deliberately, by people. By us. Which means the grand rights and ultimate powers claimed by those in office in no way need to be agreed to in the form or at the level they wish. And even if granted by myself, and others, they are only provisionally given.

Seen in this wider lens, the "power" that the "people" of Wisconsin "handed" to the "Republican Governor" is a fraction of the power in play in Wisconsin.. Seen through the wider lens, Union opposition and runaway Senators become colourful parts in a much wider set of power plays than the narrow lens being forced upon us by a focus purely on methods and tactics and rules within a particular piece of the existing political apparatus. We probably both agree that we are only going to get the political change we need if we reorient this much larger field of powers, if we bring very new methods and techniques to bear on the existing political machinery, if we rethink both our goals our policies and our means, if we resee the whole damned thing. But the hard part is that we have to do this on the fly - we can't take 7 years off for a good long seminar. And we have to make particular our support - at some stage in the process, the booth beckons or the sides form up in the streets. And yet, we have to keep at least one eye on the wider, longer view - and not be devoured by the wisdom of those focussed on the next vote.

10. People. And it's the too-close-to-the-coalface ideologues that are my least favourite part of being here at Dag or at TPM. The voices with their locked in conceptions of the Democratic Party or being liberal or of Obama or how the institutional structure works or how the American people think. For example, apparently, I'm a lefty "progressive," and thus, must have not liked Clinton, and have never had a sniff of power or done any real work, and know nothing about how things "really" work. Their fanaticism is that of the self-proclaimed practical, realistic, political person. What I see are people as swallowed in a single all-absorbing worldview as were the structuralist Marxists, and as are the Fundamentalist Christians.

Because what I know and lived from the era of Bill's win, and what I've since learned during 20+ years since of working with lefty governments in power - somehow it's all washed away, in all its particulars, by these people who have decided they know the only way things can be done. They dominate the Democratic Party, and yet... they really don't like debate. I often agree on the course they're proposing, but you've heard them, and I swear it's ALWAYS the same storyline, framework and worldview - it's always about having to stop the Republicans (as though the thought hadn't crossed anyone's mind!!), but that can ONLY be translated into meaning that we all have to support the latest cabinet appointment (e.g. "sure Robert Gates was a war criminal, but it sends a signal of compromise to the Republicans, and will calm voters worried about national security. And... derp.), or accept why the President can't do anything (there just aren't the votes, and the bully pulpit is overrated, and and and and), or why we need to compromise yet again with the "right" (as though no one had ever gained by fighting on principle, or fighting and losing on the day in order to position oneself for the war), or accept this poll which clearly shows the way Americans are and always have been and always will be (gulp.) Their self-image though, is not of a fanatic or an ideologue, bur rather of a "practical" person, a compromising liberal, a "serious" person, with "realistic" views.

You want to do a post-structuralist take-down, there's something for you.

Enough for today. And bet you wish I'd go back to abuse! ;-)

by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 2:56pm

Wow, quinn. That was excellent. You lost me on only about 5% of it (somewhere around "Particulars Lane" and "Change Avenue"), but what I got, I liked. Very nice.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 3:40pm

Wish I had one of those GPS thingies. It would've made navigating the stacks a whole hell of a lot easier.....

by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:22pm

Meaty, quinn. Good to see you've bounced back from that head wound.

by acanuck on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 3:53pm

Now this means I do not have to kill myself, right?

by Richard Day on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:05pm

If I remember the math right, I think you.... have to shoot Obey.

Or beat him to death in the library with a candlestick.

One of those.

Anyway. Things get muddled.

by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:20pm

Nice to see one of these thread chokers again, Q!!

Anyhow, so who shoots who now...?

:o)

by Obey on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:10pm

As I said, I believe Dick shoots you.

And then me.

After that, he gets free smokes in prison.

And the world ends.

by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:24pm

And bet you wish I'd go back to abuse! ;-)

No, Quinn . I appreciate both aspects of your personality.

In the past your abuse, has acted as a protector to those of us who have to fend off those who enjoy tearing us simple folks apart, because we offered another perspective, foolishly thinking we had something to offer.

I have a high school education and barely made it through…I can't defend against those with a higher education.

You have been a big brother, just as some others…. sleepin , obey , kgb and others willing to step up.

You have the ability to step in, telling the abusers, “instead of picking on the little guy, here take me on. Smart A”

This particular entry, shows the side that teaches. I appreciate that too. Maybe I am one of those locked into a system?

I'll need to reflect upon what you have just written and see if I can improve.

Thanks Quinn,...... and if ever you see me as the bully, please be kind.

by Resistance on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 4:30pm

Thanks for your kind words, Resistance.

I think we have some in-house difficulties right now, amongst us bloggers, for a couple of reasons. For starters, we're a slightly smaller pool than was at TPM, and know each other fairly well. This site also does a better job of keeping out the real trolls, with the consequence - oddly enough - that we less often get "unified" against a named external foe attacking us, and more often instead, turn on each other. A bit of cabin fever, I suspect.

Also, and more importantly, I think there has been an extraordinary loss of political hope on our side of the spectrum, partly as a result of the recession/crash, but also surrounding Obama. It's not that the guy hasn't done some good things, he has. And he's clearly better than the GOP. But I think for many of us, there is a distinct falling back from what he promised, and moreso, a loss of connection between his Administration and those of us who wanted to help make things happen.

With the result that there's a lot of political frustration, disappointment, even despair --- and we then turn on one another.

I believe that if we can begin to move into more hopeful times, we'll all regain some of our patience and civility. It's hard not be short-tempered right now, I think. I know I am.

by quinn esq on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 7:00pm

I know all to well the disappointments with the Obama Administration

I think there has been an extraordinary loss of political hope on our side of the spectrum, partly as a result of the recession/crash, but also surrounding Obama

I have 1/4 million reasons why.

The bankers were saved and the victims ignored, and there is no Justice.

I suppose when the Democrats come with hat in hand; begging for financial support, I can tell them the money I had set aside for Democratic causes, was stolen?

by Resistance on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 9:38pm

I was phoned around dinnertime, as I often am, by someone calling for "a generous contribution" from "President Obama and the Democratic party". I know they are calling for money and usually cut them off and say yes or no, depending. This time I listened to the pitch. The caller's script referenced helping to ensure the President's re-election in 2012. The reaction I had to the call was unlike any I've had to anyone calling me for money for the Democrats that I can recall. I simply said I was not prepared to contribute at this time and hung up abruptly. (Having had a blind sales phone call summer job as a high schooler I usually do better at being at least polite to others in a position of doing that thankless job.)

I didn't say any of this to the caller but my thought process was essentially, "Excuse me, but I have not decided whether or not to support the President for the Democratic nomination in 2012 and frankly would be more inclined right now to contribute funds to a challenger whose commitments and values were closer to my own."

What a difference a few weeks make. The events in Madison, more than any so far, have left me with a growing feeling that this President is choosing to make himself a bystander when others of our fellow citizens, who he at one time might have joined, are demonstrating and protesting cheerfully out in the cold in Madison, fully engaged in one among the great struggles of our time.

I felt angry at a President I was able to see for the first time as just a bit smug and maybe too political and expedient by half even for a US President, too content to let other people do the hard work and take the big risks. Understanding full well at one level that he is, of course, and in the end, a politician, I felt more underwhelmed by his performance than ever. My patience for supporting a probably very, very nice but increasingly self-marginalizing person as our President grows thin. And, in line with what others are saying here, a part of me felt like saying to him, if I could, "With respect for your humanity, Mr. President, go get it from your Wall Street contributors--they can spare it a good deal more easily than I can. Please don't be too tough on them--their feelings have been hurt, you know."

He comes off to me as less and less of a peoples' President by the day but as one who serves, wittingly or unwittingly for it hardly matters, as just another suit for our day's unaccountable robber barons. Less and less like the candidate who told us, comfortably and with a smile, that he was just a "mutt". More and more like another entirely ordinary politician, one with the look of an auditioning future or wannabe Wall Street banker who at that point, perhaps, fashions that he could really have an influence on what the President of the United States might do.

So, not to be entirely negative, I will, as I said I would, write soon with what I can find out about groups who are engaged in candidate recruitment for 2012 Congressional races. I doubt this President is going to need my help to win re-election next year. The question is therefore why, given that, I should contribute what I can to him rather than towards other potentially more fruitful efforts. I am a good deal more worried about the future of our country than I am about President Obama's political fortunes at this time. He seems to be holding his own just fine when it comes to securing the latter.

by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 4:06am

Well done. There is obviously too much here to fully respond to this all, but hope to do so shortly in coming blogs. But there is one portion I would like to highlight, not in attack mode, but as means of saying "yes, exactly."

But they're a long yard from eternal, complete and immutable. For starters, there's power - and an independent right to exist - in the press, the internet, in wealth and property, in spending habits, the environment, NGO's, unions, civic society, church, family, universities, art, culture, film, music, novels, new ways kids relate, Twitter, blogs, cafes, street life, new political campaigns and performances. And this is always and everywhere changing, and often is being changed deliberately, by people. By us. Which means the grand rights and ultimate powers claimed by those in office in no way need to be agreed to in the form or at the level they wish. And even if granted by myself, and others, they are only provisionally given.

Now this is very true. But what is also true is that there are those who have an agenda which is counter to (for a lack of better term) a liberal agenda. Sometimes what is being generated out there is not done with any conscious socio-political agenda, "I just like to make films," "I make this kind of music because it sells," etc etc, but in effect undermines the way forward. What's even more important, those with the best of intentions can unwittingly be furthering the undermining of progress toward a better world.

Some time ago I had a conversation with a professor once who spent his graduate years studying the United Fruit Company. Today, going into the grocery store or any store for that matter, we have a lot of power as a consumer. But being knowledgable about every product, all the consequences and implications of the purchase of this brand of banana, or bananas in general, or that stereo, or....it is nearly impossible. As the professor said at the end of our conversation, "It is impossible in today's society to know all the times we are walking hand in hand with the devil."

For me, post-structuralism is a means, and by no means the only means, to reveal in all of the images and texts and flurry of information from the advertiser to the blogger to the performance artists, what is possibly going on. What message am I taking in? How am I registering it? The thing that pops into my head at this moment is the flap over Obama choosing not to wear a flag lapel pin.

If we can understand the dynamics of power which are inherent in the discourse (e.g. the flag lapel pin as just another abritrary sign with an arbitrary meaning, but it is presented in such a way that the meaning becomes concrete and "natural" and, consequently reinforces a particular socio-political view), then we are empowered through the films and performances and blogs to undermine that power.

There was an interesting quote from the playwright Wendy Wasserstein which have since lost and can't find -- an interviewer asked her about the politics of I believe The Sisters Rosensweig, which she responded to the effect of "any time you have females take the lead stage bow it is political act."

by Elusive Trope on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 6:00pm

United Fruit was under the control of a guy named Carl Lindner-probaly now dead. I could look it up if I were interested. When last I had occasion to inform myself he had installed one of his inexperienced sons as the Manager.

One of Carl Lindner's I'm sure well rehearsed ploys was to begin an initial meeting seated himself on a couch while his guests were given straight backed chairs with too small a seat. He then spoke in an unnecessarily low tone so his guests had to lean awkwardly forward almost as if they were begging for a favor. HIs own team was present ,but standing completely silent, a couple of feet to the rear ,making it somewhat more awkward to find yourself almost kneeling in that attitude.There was absolutely no way of staying back since he started with a little routine of showing pictures of himself as a 12 year old milk deivery boy. I guessed to impress his visitors with his rise to his current eminence with a fleet of private jets instead of a horse drawn milk wagon. . .

I could speculate about his intention in the little set piece but I won't .When I next met him he spoke in an absolutely normal tone . no audience, no uncomfortable chairs, no illustrated story of his meteoric rise...

by Flavius on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:28pm

I meant to conclude that your professor was findng himself walkng hand in hand if not with the devil at least with someone whose company you're not going to enjoy.

by Flavius on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 10:31pm

All post-structuralists go to hell, Flavius. Another reason to try to live a good life.

by acanuck on Mon, 03/07/2011 - 11:20pm

Is this here some of that intellectual elitism I've been hearing about? Dang.

Living and dying. Living and dying. Living and dying.

And that painting up on the top is not a angel, it's a spaniel begging for a Milkbone.

by wabby on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:15am

Yes it does.

If you look at it upside down, it looks like some kind of Jimminy Cricket with his slippers on, and standing in something.

by Resistance on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:31am

Every spaniel begging for a milkbone IS an angel...

by Obey on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 1:26am

Nicely done, AT.

I can follow the idea expressed by Blau and Derrida that all "dialectics" that see the future through the narrative of origins can be means for rendering new ways of seeing and doing things incomprehensible or fanciful. What I don't understand is how Derrida gets to have a logic of History after dispensing with this "metaphysical" prejudice.

Much of what has been pointed out above in regards to the power of framing-what is-possible echoes Marcuse in his One-Dimensional Man. The rough sum of the book says: Power structures control talk about alternative ways of living and making things for our lives. Being well ensconced in the dialectic of class struggle, Marcuse was repeating/reframing the Marx idea that new order is brought forward through the way the old order would negate it. Should it be said that, in the matter of proposing a logic of History, Marcuse was following a "metaphysical" prejudice? The phrase "heightens the contradiction" is presumbly the kind of thing Derrida wanted to undermine. In this small space, I am neither arguing for or against Marx. Just proposing that there must me some minimal conditions that need to be met before one goes on like that.

Put another way, if the demand for an either/or is merely an attribute or desiradata of the individual and not a feature of actual public life, then the logic of History must be an illusion, a penumbra, the shadow on the wall confused for an intelligible gesture. But Derrida speaks of a double gesture and a double science.

If I destroy the oracle at Delphi, may I still twitter the gods?

--------------------------

What I heard in the story about Mr. Hahn's horse is that the rider is always terribly behind. Behind in knowing in what direction he is going and fuzzy about where he has been. Behind in knowing why even the most immediate decisions made by him are like the actions of a stranger. I hear Mr. Hahn telling me the rider is supposed to become more involved in what is happening.

--------------------------

I realize the above is short and cryptic but my numerous attempts to qualify it only made it worse.

by moat on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 8:18pm

If I destroy the oracle at Delphi, may I still twitter the gods?

the best line (question) of the month award nominee.

Cryptic may be the only way to respond, and through that provide some means to some kind of truth.

The one thing that comes to mind with Marcuse is that during this economic meltdown, all the talk of class war, it boils down to people wanting more of the pie. Which reinforces the basic notion of capitalism. To quote Blau:

The trouble with history is that it gets us all wrong. We are born to its double bind. Whatever it is that 's determined, we are what make the momentum, the madness, for the momentum is blooded too. We are suicidal and genocidal. We are randomly destructive. We violate our space by the mere living of it. We are the victimizing eyes unblessed by the victims we have become. The damage we have done to the world is appalling, immeasurable. We are the ruins of time. Is it all determined? Could we have changed it? Absurd question: there is no other question. as we see in the theater. This is a place to be ashamed. We are whart happened. Who can imagine some turning point point in the affairs of men when we might have chosen otherwise? History may occur once or more than once, but it is not exactly replayable; not even plays are. Do we really think the would be in a more satisfactory, less politically corrupt, environmentally hygenic condition if Golgatha had never occurred or Aristotle never lived or no gun went off in Sarajevo? or if nobody discovered E=MC2?

by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 9:16pm

Class struggle is not just about how the pie is sliced up. Certainly the immediate reality tends to make the pie the thing to talk about. But if I am following Blau correctly, there are many unreplayable events that have gotten in the way of getting past discussing the redistribution of wealth. And if Blau isn't saying that, Marx certainly did.

You have piqued my interest in Blau. I will read more.

by moat on Tue, 03/08/2011 - 10:11pm

Goodness gracious, AT. You've outdone yourself with this:

The one thing that comes to mind with Marcuse is that during this economic meltdown, all the talk of class war, it boils down to people wanting more of the pie. Which reinforces the basic notion of capitalism.

Where do you get this stuff? From some poststructuralist, postmodernist, post-deconstructionist, professional navel-gazer who might as well be on some Rove payroll?

Like moat said. This is about so much more than wanting more of the pie. Among other things, it's about dignity. It's about respect, including self-respect. It's about having a voice in what goes on in one's workplace instead of being dictated to unilaterally by people who often don't have relevant information to inform their decisions. It's about notions of fair play, of justice, of equity, of, dare I use the "d" word, democracy. These are symbolic, non-material constructs which are more important than purely material considerations to many on the currently losing end of the class war. It is impossible to understand the labor movement or class warfare without understanding this.

by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 7:06am

What I've come to suspect, Dreamer, is that in Trope's world it's all pie.

Dignity, respect, fair play, democracy -- there's only so much of it to go around, and what someone else gains, Trope loses. And the money is nothing to sneeze at, either.

by acanuck on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 3:30pm

In tropes World, all pies are alike.

I'd much rather have a Marie Callender pie, or Village Inn pie,,, because of the better ingredients. Micky D's pie is okay for the kids, but cant we all have a piece of the better Pie?

It's not the piece that's as important; its what pie are you slicing from, to serve me; while you cut one for yourself from the best.

The excuse "there wasnt enough of the good pie, so be happy you ungrateful, be glad you got any slice at all"

by Resistance on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 5:37pm

Disagreement with an opinion is one thing; Ascribing base motivations to someone for having an opinion is another. The latter activity can never advance the discussion of the former.

by moat on Wed, 03/09/2011 - 6:02pm

I'm just summarizing the opinion with less verbiage, moat.

by acanuck on Thu, 03/10/2011 - 2:30am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 8 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 8 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 10 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 10 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 11 months ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day