The Rhetoric of democracy

i wrote this for politics magazine, but they rejected/ignored my request to write for them.

The Rhetoric of democracy

It seems quite right that after the last few, and I say few, I mean long, years of political stagnation that our major broadcasters propose live debates as seen in the US presidential run-up. The conservatives and the liberal democrats seem all up for the fight, but Gordon is holding back, causing some strife for labour and political ammunition for the opposition. The debates are a move that would allows us to see up close the views of each leader.

The face off we see at prime ministers question times is an old joke, Gordon and Cameron a swords length apart; supported by their party with bouts of laughter, pointing fingers and waving papers, all red-faced, suit-clad politicians. It is defence and parry, block and retaliate. But the whole act seems without prestige, without the greatness and popularity of presidential debates.

The opportunity here is obvious; with decline of voter turnout political parties finally have the opportunity to revamp their electorate, to ignite another flame like the near 85% turnout of the 50’s. Questions that have been avoided find a new place under the burning spotlight and piercing camera. People can ask: Will you implement electoral reform? How are you tackling the economy? And what is your position on foreign affairs, Iran and so forth.

Mr Brown’s shunning of televised debates is likely a political move seeing he is at a low in some opinion polls. Gordon thinks this means he is somehow impaired [insert reference to one eye here]. The voice in his head must be telling him the nation would be laughing at him. As of Cameron and Nick Clegg, David is on a high and wants use this advantage to snatch the polls up. It’s a win-win for him, if Brown goes in David will demolish him (as he does at question time) if he doesn’t then he’ll chide him (as usual). Clegg is likely seeing an opening where he can voice himself and show he is a valid party leader worth voting for.

The debates would manifest a new dimension to British politics, the air of accountability, scrutiny and democracy. But at what cost? I’d say rhetoric and superficiality. The winner of the debates will be the best speaker not the best politician, the person who can be ambiguous but seem precise, the person who can make a fool of the other, the best presented and most well spoken. Obviously this strikes Gordon right off the list and places Cameron on a pedestal; he is a very powerful debater against the government at question time. Not to mention the amount of ammo that an incoming leader would have: thirteen years of New Labour initiatives to ridicule. The next general election win seems more like a default than a choice.

is this a truthful doctrine?

All social phenomena are a product of:

A= A persons existence (1)

B= Their environment (2)

(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*

*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.

Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,

It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:

X .a person’s perception of their existence within the environment

And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X

X. Social phenomena

Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.

This is my doctrine of existence.

The problem is that social phenomena (X) do not refer to themselves as subjective accounts. This difficulty is language, our perception (X) of reality doesn’t suggest subjectivity and thus our language doesn’t make that discrepancy. Language thus has no self referential gauge that points to words or ideas and indicates their validity to reality.

The outcome of this state of affairs, as our social evolution has progressed, is that our social phenomenon, our structures of organisation, morality and language do not take into account their foundations (A, B, X) and therefore their ultimately, restricted relationship with regards to actual reality.

It is as though progress has thought that there is an A and there is a B. The existence of X is negligible. Or we could say, and then a single perception (X) and it (X) is right. X somehow reflects some objective and tangible ideology or claim to truth.

The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.

It is essential that our accounts of reality (X) assert themselves as subjective accounts in B.

Foucault's bio power

Foucault writes of the “soul” as a reality which transcends the impermanent body. The body is subject to devises of power which target the soul as static state of being in one body to the next. This is bio power.

The reason for this, Foucault writes, is because:

“it is produced permanently around, on, within the body by the functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished…on those one supervises, trains and corrects,” and goes onto say “…the historical reality of this soul, which unlike the soul represented in Christian theology, is not born into sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision and constraint…it is the element in… effects of a certain type of power and the reference of a certain type of knowledge, the machinery by which the power relations give rise to a possible corpus of knowledge… on this reality reference, various concepts have been constructed and domains of analysis carved out: psyche, subjectivity, personality consciousness etc.”

The soul is focused on bodies, producing a self

“But let there be no misunderstanding: it is not that a real man, the object of knowledge… has been substituted for the soul…a ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him into existence”

Artefacts of bio power exist in the conditioning of the “self”, the “soul”, in social relations because of the machinery of power focusing on the soul. We as these permanent “selves” and permanent “identities” are solidified in time. Our whole social structures are base on constructed contracts of being and how we should be.

In example:

The contract of “friendship” assumes certain parameters of action which delineate the scope of action. “One”, that permanent “self”, must respect them, be a subject to them. He should not lie, under the assumption of the construction of honesty, which was agreed in this vice of “friendship”. We reproduce the same social relation again and again.

The teacher as a “teacher” assumes the “pupil” wants to learn while the pupil as a “pupil” is assumed to want to learn. The relationship is finite focusing on the self as a static identity. The whole education system lines up bodies and treats them the same, as though we had a soul.

We will continue to do this by our expansion of knowledge, of power. I feel as though this relates to my truth doctrine. It is not as though we have some real gauge of morality or of right, nor does our language even grasp reality. Any attempt at such a project leads to more canons of bio power constraining us, the doctrine shows that much.

Quotes taken from: Foucault Discipline and punish - the birth of prisons PG: 29-30

Is God worthy of worship?

This is an interesting question.

If someone believes god exists, surely they would conclude that god is not worthy of worship.
The gap between the way the world could be as opposed to how it is, is vast. Assuming that world is better than this world.

I'd conclude no.

A thought on ethical language

I'd say ethical language is a complete accident.
We are able to use the words "right" and "wrong" in the sense of physical phenomena, whether relating to one another e.g. it is right that leaves come from trees/bushes etc. Or with objective observations- that when when you drop something gravity causes it to fall.

But the mistake is when we apply those words to concepts other than physical phenomena or objective observation.

Language has rules, but this distinction is not one of them.

Ethical language, therefore, will undoubtedly be a struggle of ideology.

This considered.

Culture, whether ours or others, is terribly blinding.

A FB convo on islam

I think the UK gov't was wrong in not letting the danish MP show his documentary on Islam. The text is startling.The koran is the text to which it refers.

Her:

fuck islam! bunch o boming twats

6 hours ago ·

Me:

Not all muslims want to bomb people. don't be so narrow minded.
I'm going to show you here the issues.

Ireland for instance.
... See More
There are many groups who are considered terrorist all over the world. liberation army.. revoloutionary struggle.
mostly these are against capitalism, topdown organiszation, globalization (esp. corporate/economic)

Islam as a religion makes up just about a quarter of the worlds population & thier belief systems are very different.
Religion is the main issue, but it is very rooted in the culture, far more so than ours.

Plus mohammed as a prphet (unlike jesus) didn't teach us to be critical of law.
islam's laws thefore are considered tantamount to many muslims.

The other main issue comes from culture as well, look at what middle eastern countries have had to deal with over the last 100 years of foriegners declaring war and killing muslims... gulf, lebansese civil war invasion of iraq... and this is over the last 30 years... with constant western intervention.
aside from the military problems...there are economic issues
there have been repeated accusations of corporations taking advantage of lax social protection & exploiting the middle easts resources... which is thier main souce of natural wealth and what would allow them to become a power near ours (pending on how well they use it)

on top of that western banks have been imposing their will in forcing middle eastern countries to reform thier economies (FORCING)
E.G. on this sustainable economics website they point out:
"The World Banks and IMF’s interrelationship, financial opportunism, corporate mandate and US backing is best exemplified by their economic occupation of Iraq. Since the occupation began, Iraq’s entire economy has been fashioned by the IMF and World Bank to suit (mainly US) foreign investors and corporate interests."
source: http://www.stwr.org/imf-world-bank-trade/decommissioning-the-imf-world-bank-and-wto.html

Wake up and smell the hegemony.

We are manipulated and controlled by a predatory and ultimately destructive economy and a democracy with little real participation. (an oxymoron that is)

What is going on with terrorism is not so much justified... but understandable.
it represents a cry out for recognition that self determination is important.

Her:
yea i didnt read a word of that.
islam is a fucked up religion, they burn the women, the bomb every other fucker that dont agree with them, I hate them all and they get the fuck out of this country...

Me:

It sounds to me you'd rather be ignorant to save you narrow world-view.
>99% and above are not terrorists. Or misogynists to any reprehensible degree.

her:

yes i would rather be narrow minded than be on a plane with a paki and a big looking bag.

I think the issue of islam is much more complex than "a paki and a big looking bag" or "islam is a fucked up religion"

never mind.

I think the whole issue over in the middle east will really kick off soon.. maybe years though.

Xmas... nice.

A short one methinks.
i really dislike Christmas...

If it's not the consumerism.

It's the obligation.

If it's not the Christian tones.

It's the fakeness.

No really, seriously, it strikes me as peculiar, the whole behaviour.

I want family. I want support. I want love.
I want us to realise the key rationalization that should occur (that there should even be a rationalization of our behaviour) is that we should be coming together for the better.
Not for products. Not for our behaviour to be central to capital.

Apologies for the dark tone.
But i'm sure you can agree on some points.

On the plus. It's bright, it's festive and it does bring people together.
Just, perhaps, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way!

LOVE TO ALL.
have a happy xmas.