tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post113829379948275804..comments2023-11-03T06:36:27.305-04:00Comments on Phronesisaical: Fascism's faceshelmuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1138380547723342702006-01-27T11:49:00.000-05:002006-01-27T11:49:00.000-05:00Barba -- well, it is a forthcoming book, after all...Barba -- well, it is a forthcoming book, after all. But I didn't see any need to read it. I'm acquainted with how Goldberg works.<BR/><BR/>As for the PC stuff, it has a twisting history. As I understand it, "PC" is originally a phenomenon of the McCarthyite right and the expression was used to refer to the Red Scare. It was appropriated by the right in the 80s to refer to some forms of multiculturalism and feminism ("feminazis"), and then blown out of proportion to most of the actual claims and arguments. Some of the things said by folks on the left were equally ridiculous, of course, but they never had the same traction with the broader American public as does the right's version of PC today. The latter has the characteristic of playing on the worst elements of human behavior and belief -- fear, xenophobia, racism, classism, etc. The left's version at its worst placed serious limits on speech, but at its best was an attempt to broaden our conception of justice -- and how language can reflect injustices -- rather than shut it down through psychological manipulation.<BR/><BR/>"From Goldberg to Marinetti and back." Um, yeah, it's a bit meandering. But I'm kind of fond of putting Goldberg in the same class as museum-burners just for the hell of it. He should understand.helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1138379599756636362006-01-27T11:33:00.000-05:002006-01-27T11:33:00.000-05:00This is a really nice post, Helmut. I'm not sure h...This is a really nice post, Helmut. I'm not sure how you managed to get from Goldberg to Marinetti and back . . . I'm taking notes on form. <BR/><BR/>But while Goldberg's title is kind of silly, that right attitude in the States has a pretty deep tradition itself, no? We've all seen it, for example, in the characterization of an intentionally mis-understood sub-set of liberal values as "political correctness," a label that gave way quickly to notions of "the PC Police," etc. The frightening thing about that (as you're making clear in the post) was the easy, uncritical adoption of that language by most of the country, regardless of their political committments. The terminology "PC"--and all its attendant discursive manifestations--became quite quickly a pretty good example, I think, of the kind of democratic fascist phenomenon you describe here, undercutting dramatically any serious liberal claims (few of which were ever made, of course) about speech issues. In that light, Goldberg's title (I love it that we're talking about just a title--why would anyone need to read that?) seems a natural next step in the process. Maybe this is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. <BR/><BR/>But, then, maybe it isn't.barba de chivahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13331020665581474024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1138329825336293092006-01-26T21:43:00.000-05:002006-01-26T21:43:00.000-05:00Eric -- Nice omment. I'm reminded of a remark by Z...Eric -- Nice omment. I'm reminded of a remark by Zygmunt Bauman to the affect that community arises when individual identity is challenged. Community takes on both nefarious and importantly meaning-giving forms of sociality. It's the reactionary form that the right understands well and has locked into. And, you're right, liberalism has no response. It may seem counterintuitive, but there are merits to not having a response given the framework through which the response is called for. As a philosophical approach liberalism takes up better the contingencies of existence, ontological and political. In a sense, then, it is truer to the condition we find ourslves in pluralist societies undergoing radical flux as technological and geopolitical developments outpace our capacities to assimilate them and transform them to our own collective advantage. Liberalism often gets that basic condition right, but conservatism has the response -- reactionary as it is -- to it. Liberalism often seemsz to say that that's the state of things. Personally, I think this is a braver stance. But in a world of insecurity both real and created by political maneuvering, the concrete proposals of reactionaries ring truer to ears that want comfort and security. Saying that the world is one that can only always be only relatively secure ends up a seeming non-answer. Maybe this is because it requires an attentiveness to larger, more abstract structural conditions and forces. The right, however, appeals to emotional reactions. That's what makes it both publicly accessible and extremely dangerous.helmuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09069600766378586919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14072474.post-1138301748572584682006-01-26T13:55:00.000-05:002006-01-26T13:55:00.000-05:00One of the recent reads I am most reminded of by t...One of the recent reads I am most reminded of by this post is Mark Mazower's <I>Dark Continent,</I> a history of 20th-century Europe. In trying to explain the weakness of liberal governments after the first world war, he points out that these were largely minimal governments offering rule of law and free trade, and little else. Not only were they poor in terms of the kind of ideological vision and "inspiration" they offered, but also generally declined to take on ambitious social programs or otherwise protect citizens from the effects of this deeply one-sided "free trade." And they presided over decline. So it was not very surprising that collectivist movements with a detailed articulation of historical purpose and a set of social programs that covered everything from material needs to sociability gained in popular appeal -- communism and, to a greater degree, facsism. They might have had some objective appeal, or it may have in fact been the case that people thought that their civilisation was dying and they had to do something dramatic about it. But one of the strongest factors seems to have been the failure of liberalism <I>either</I> to genuinely inspire or scare people. As in Lewis Black's description of the US now: "one party that has no ideas, and one that has bad ideas." <BR/><BR/>What we get with that here is fear, polarization, disillusion, widespread abstention ... all it takes for the kind of "revolution from above" you are describing to take over.Eric Gordyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743744653177736119noreply@blogger.com