Democracy, Rhetoric and Performance: November 2004 Archives

Stephen, it seems to me you're doing just fine with what you call my "non-answers' - you've had plenty to say about them! I appreciate that we can go at each other hard, isn't that your favorite Kenneth Burke phrase - "sparring without parting"?

I honestly don't know what you mean by an answer about my views on "human nature" that you "can use." Use for what? How? Are we even talking about/trying to get to the same thing? My students and I have been talking about how truth becomes "problematic" once one really engages others and has to take into account their perspectives, experience, bases of knowledge...what "truth" do you want to pin down? What kind of knowledge are you trying to generate? Or are you just yanking my chain? :-)

On Nov 28, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Donna Halper wrote:

"...how is it that some people, Burke and Perelman come to mind in addition to Levinas, seem to somehow refuse to give in to despair no matter what was going on around them? I wish I had that optimism-- or that sense of confidence that somehow things will get better..."

My opinion on human nature is that most of us make most of our decisions based on fear. I think we're conflicted about meeting our own needs and those of others; I think our current culture has us deeply, deeply trained to think about ourselves first - hence, anything that threatens - or appears to threaten - the self is a very powerful motivator. I don't think we're EITHER "essentially good" or "essentially bad". I think we are co-constructed (interpellated) into our morality and ethics just like any other "identity."

The challenge of "not rolling over" in the face of a reality that feels almost unbearable to many of us is to take the risk of putting ourselves on the line in ways that invite change. I *want* to be different tomorrow than I am today! If I can engage with others who feel the same, are compelled toward a similar - DIFFERENT! - future, are willing to engage and listen to the other side as we have done with each other in this class...then there might be hope of constructing an ideological narrative or grand myth that shifts the basis of debate away from fear to possibility.

There is no short-term solution, only short-term immediate actions that invoke a long-term solution.

I had to start taking notes when we got to Karl Marx. Did you know he was ìa middle-class guy in debt like everyone else?î Lived beyond his means, couldnít get it together. It was image. Pretense. Reminds me of Donnaís questions about Ö not Benjamin (heís the good guy). Heidegger. The philosopher who was a Nazi. ìLetís not look too much into stuff like that.î

Department politics: We're full of strong hard cutting edge folk shifted to the right. Sleeping Beauty and the AntiChrist. Who do you want to work with? Will they work with you?

Can we manage the coordination of meaning?

ìIts stupid to dismiss someone just because you donít like them.î ìIs it possible my reaction is different than everybody elseís? Is it possible?î

I want the coolish folk - those with some courage and a tad bit of the foolish.

I was thinking about the two movies, Huckabee's and Bleep, and what it is that makes people react so differently to them. Perhaps, its in the way they "structure" the message? Because I did read essentially the same message in both but they are packaged quite differently.

Huckabee's presents a mainly connected knowing view of the world, and Bleep is almost totally separate knowing.

At least someone is protesting somewhere. Thousands of someones, facing their own government's attempt to repress them (sound like the US? What *will*happen at the inauguration? Will protest be visible?)

Chileans mobilize. "We're not bomb throwers," she said. "We want to confront
APEC, but only in the realm of ideas and paradigms."

~ passed on by Ximena to the social justice listserv.

Welcome to democracy 101! I finally get it. Ok, yes, I feel a little bit like, duh. How many times has Stephen gone over this? :-) Balibar, however, makes it plain enough even for me, or perhaps its simply a matter of receptivity and timing. Maybe this time it will stick:

"two notions of the people: that which the Greek language and following it all political philosophy calls ethnos, the ëpeopleí as an imagined community of membership and filiation, and demos, the ëpeopleí as the collective subject of representation, decision making, and rights. It is absolutely crucial to understand the power of this double-faced construction ñ its historical necessity, to some degree ñ and to understand its contingency, its existence relative to certain conditionsî (2004:8).

Stephen, I was trying to find a definition of "the political" online and failed. Was this concept articulated by Mouffe or someone else? I'm remembering Shannon challenging you on this count in class....

Sidenote (for moi): In trying to find a definition of "the political" online, I came across this description of LaClaus & Mouffe's Discourse Analysis which looks quite important to me. :-) And this one by Mouffe on Wittgenstien (we have one similar for DRP but I don't think its the same).

In addition to grousing about the election results, there was a fair amount of humor in class last night. (And I like it that now I'm being directed what to record for the blog!) :-)

Donna was on a roll with witty characterizations and good humor. The joke that won the day had to do with her desire to see "an Orthodox Jewish player in Hasidic clothing who wins the game and then says to the media, 'Oy, I am so glad I dahvened (prayed) before the game! And now that we won, thank G-d, I am gonna go out and buy everybody bagels and lox!'"

Now that I'm becoming a Jon Stewart watcher (!), last night he said it was the first time he really "got" the culture wars. It really is about developing a system that can accommodate difference - the most radical alterity - those whose vision of what human culture ought to be is different than ours - the red states.

I want to disagree with Stephen's reactive insistence that we have to resort to the rhetoric of fear in order to sway those still "reachable" through various forms of communication. I want to contest his pronouncement, "Democracy is not possible." (Viveca's retort, "What about rhetoric and performance?" was a gem.) :-)