I’m thinking, only on p. 30, that it makes sense to me why so many intellectuals commit suicide. The quote by historian Douglass McKie suggests a hands-off policy from government toward business until business goes bad, when a moral discourse is invoked. The blatancy of fear-based policy decisions in the relations between nations is no less today than it was then.
I’m puzzled by this though: “The tension between the logics of negotiation and those of security/insecurity was too tangible to render credible the first efforts to construct a system for regulating international relations” (30). Meaning it was so real that it couldn’t be faced? Or accepted as requiring significant, deliberate, and direct mediation? I’m not disputing Mattelart‘s judgment, but wondering about the intensity of denial, and how that still plays out in so many ways and places.
There is an intellectual imperative to hold both the “bad” and the “good” in some kind of phenomenological tension in order to stay sane. For instance, the fact of so many agreements which do curb “the impulse to war” (27) countering the ways in which war is still an acceptable option for conflict resolution. But the depth of governmentalist hegemony is distressing. My naivete is shocking. What a sucker I’ve been for the discourses of western civilization and democracy ~ even as I constantly increase my knowledge of their duplicity I do still believe in human evolution as (at least potentially) ascendant…maybe that’s a different discourse altogether? I may have to learn better how to separate them, without going overboard into new ageism (which is equally susceptible to cooptation and misuse).
It looks like here’s a clip of Mattelart speaking at a conference; I can’t view it from my dial-up…