Democracy, Rhetoric and Performance: September 2004 Archives

Well, I was worried in the beginning but I think Kerry did well, overall. Will it backfire on Bush, him repeating "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" so often? (I'd love to see a clip of him saying that statement over and over again! How many times?)

The difference certainly (!) seems stark. A vote for Bush is for hegemonic go-it-alone, American supremacy. Period. I liked Kerry's insistence on alliances, and the notion of a global test. And that he articulated several ways the world is more dangerous now than it was before.

Who else is gonna chime in? Is my preference clouding my judgment?

Just in case (!) anyone wants to start something here.... :-)

I'm still waiting on a volunteer or two to add as "authors" so the class doesn't have to only respond to my initiative....but only if someone really wants to. It could be fun to transform this into more a group-type blog (that was Raz' and my original idea, but that was before he abandoned me, sniffle).....

Hope those of you at the lecture might share too. (sigh...!)

This story inspired me ~ maybe there IS hope. :-0

"Left-wing politics are thriving on blogs the way Rush Limbaugh has dominated talk radio, and in the last six months, the angrier, nastier partisan blogs have been growing the fastest. Daily Kos has tripled in traffic since June. Josh Marshall's site has quadrupled in the last year." ~ NYTimes, Fear and Laptops on the Campaign Trail

Of course, as far as democracy goes...

We're doing a pretty good job of surfacing differences now. ;-) We haven't necessarily come to any agreements over issues of moral difference, but more possibilities are on the table (methinks). As I drove home (to work) and half the class went out (to party), I was thinking about trickery and provocation.

Well, I don't know, but I would guess that we ended up about where Lisa was hoping we'd end up in our discussion last night. :-) I was noticing how oriented I am to "structure of feeling", how Marxist-oriented (or at least well-grounded) many (most? all?) of the new cohort is, and now wondering about poststructuralist group dynamics. :-) Someone was telling me that the first round of this class was tough (in some respects) because the students had such different interests....I imagine we do too, but we pulled off quite a participatory discussion that (from my subjective space of point of view, smile) was a thinking-together which generated new knowledge (although to what degree and how much varied, I'm sure). Probably I'm in this mode because of an intellectual interaction between this class and Stephen's (where we're discussing inclusive democracy, how to make room for difference).

In this class, I'm still struggling with the notion of overdetermination, which is used by Althusser and Freud, among others. My penchant for group dynamics and forms of social metonymy (when the microsocial "stands in" for the macrosocial), has me thinking about the valences individuals bring to group membership & participation....which I'd just bet can easily be overdetermined in a parallel way as Gibson-Graham et al used it (building on Althusser).

Anyway, congrats to Erin for nailing the inverse equation of "suffering" being the possible overdeterminant instead of "class"!

After seeing Bush Family Fortunes (which details how the Florida vote was compromised..."bought for 4 million dollars"), it's especially discouraging to read in the NYTimes today that electronic voting will go national this year despite numerous already identified problems and weaknesses.

Can you hear my sigh?

Stephen just posted for the DRP class (Democracy, Rhetoric & Performance) that one must "fight propaganda with propaganda" and yet questions whether this attitude in and of itself contributes to the difficulty of reaching genuine democratic decision-making. (We're still debating what might qualify as "genuine.")

This brings up something Kennaria and I have discussed on a few occassions - whether human nature is inherently incapable of rising to (or being taught, as the deliberative democrats advocate, and social constructionism would seem to support) this level of....integrity? It definitely has something to do with a balancing of regard for oneself AND others, whomever those "others" might be.

I've been thinking about sharing the earlier post about the youth vote with my class, especially since Ben commented. Does sharing my passion that they ought to vote violate Fish's prescription not to my position as an educator to try and cultivate citizens? The fine line we were discussing about encouraging active and deep critical thinking without telling students WHAT to think is at issue here. If they look closely at my blog, they will be able to discern that I have a distinct preference as to WHO I wish they would vote for....

What a class we had last night! After a deliberative first half ("the best discussion" Bryan said he's "ever had" in one of Stephen's classes, grin), and a raucous second half, Stephen debated Viveca on the morality of Michael Moore's filmmaking. He had been searching for an area of genuine disagreement that we could use to illustrate the prescriptive methodology in Gutman and Thomas' form of deliberative democracy. It was tough (as the topic indicates) among our (apparently) fairly homogenous "leftist" group, which I think indicates less our lack of disagreement on important issues and more the intensity of taboo and risk-taking involved in airing genuine disagreements.

Scott must have zoned out because he asked at one point, "Is this for real?" :-) Stephen

I've got to take a whole new critical look at Tom Atlee's stuff now that this class has severely problematized "deliberative democracy". Maybe I'm just gaining clarity on the aspects of this that have always made me a bit squidgy. (Or I'm identifying another way in which I've been a naive dupe, sigh!)

Here's the latest from Tom, comments on an article from The Observer, called "Kicking the Six Figure Habit":

They make no bones about being prescriptive and laying out the principles and values that "should" inform deliberation. I agree with many, if not all of them, but doubt everyone does, or would, or even should. My agreement is probably based upon (emanates from?) a subjectivity similar to theirs, but I don't think I want everyone I interact with to be boilerplated along "my" lines (! Horrors!)

While I am attracted to the idealism and possibility in Habermas (as I understand the distillation of his views, having not yet squeezed him in ~ even via Bryan's audio link), what a bland, dull, and monotonous mode of production.

I am intrigued, however, by the chart G&T have put together on p. 53, contrasting prudence, reciprocity, and impartiality as principled (philosophical?) bases for approaching moral disagreement. The notable absence in sign language interpreter's code of ethics (in the US) of any mention of "impartiality" has been a gap that has drawn my attention for a variety of reasons, but this reading has me wondering if there is an even deeper debate between/among members of the Deaf community and sign language interpreters - one which challenges the basic assumptions embodied in an "impartial" base. Deaf people have overtly questioned this as a different cultural value, but I hadn't yet come across an alternative. I think the notion of reciprocity might do it ~ being as it already is a noted and notable intra-group value of American Deaf Culture. The premises and assumptions that accompany these three foundational bases (as laid out by G&T) open up terms for deliberation (!) that might actually move the institutionalizing forces of the RID (national certifying body) and NAD (nat'l advocacy organization for the Deaf) toward a mutually-satisfactory outcome.

So, I'm wondering if deliberation based on reciprocity is a contingent strategy or mode that needs to be responsive to the conditions and environment of a particular issue? It may, in fact, be quite well suited to some contexts, and inappropriate for others. G&T seem to propose it as the rubric for all political decisions. I think this is much too broad.

Stephen made a typical grand entrance, kvetching about the campus cop who hassled him en route. :-) He's also pulled his usual stunt of mixing us up with an undergrad (welcome Jamie! I'm sure you'll fit right in) and given us an impressive lot of books to read and ideas to ponder.

Viveca (pushing her statute of limitations, as she says), Donna, and Brian drove most of the discussion last night; usefully for me, as I became aware of some huge gaps in my basic knowledge. Just when am I supposed to read Habermas (I missed the recommended title, but I gather its 1200 pages, and he authored many pieces) and Hegemony and Socialist Strategy?

Meanwhile, I enjoyed Wolin's piece in Benhabib on "Fugitive Democracy." (PDF available for download - just search.) The concept of fugitive democracy is in many of his works.

What struck me is its resemblance to the conceptualization James and I have of "problematic moments" in which contesting/contrasting discourses emerge simultaneously in talk and a group must choose between recognition or repression.

Overall, everyone's voice got in at some point (a feature of Stephen's classes which I value highly) and I'm psyched. (I did squelch a desire to just let out a holler on a few different occassions.) :-)

Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards

These are creepy - they show how if you simply SAY things, repeatedly, and the media disseminates what you say, "reality" follows. :-(

Here's a few, click through to read them all:

1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.

104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.

65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.

This is an edited extract from "What We've Lost", by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September. ~ sent to me via email from Becky Townsend