This is a small note on my experience of reading.
No matter what i read, I'll gain some sense of it. Even if this "sense" is not in the spirit of what is written, what the author intends. The open ended nature of textual discourse, -the phenomenon of the subjective- means that no matter what is read it is full of meanings- intended or not. I read passages and even when i don't understand, the thoughts that come of it are meaningful, they lead on into different thoughts and etcetera. Much of the breadth that occurs in reading is this phenomena.
This is more obvious, and intended, in some respects, with fiction. However, for non-fiction the experience is the same. If you read, and you don't understand, the thought processes that ensue are as valuable as the intended meaning of what is written.
That is all i have to say.
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Monday, 6 September 2010
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
The Idea of an Alternative
I’ve always flirted with the idea of existing in a totally new way. Zizek has pointed out that there is no real, visible alternative to global capitalism and that “There is a real possibility that the main victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself, insofar as its inability to offer a viable global alternative”. It is of huge importance that there is not a palpable opposition to capitalism. It is not as though the current framework for existence was planned with any precision; it is mostly arbitrary and damaging. So we can’t just sit here and assume that this is the way we should live, or that it can, “on its own” get better. But I don’t think there can be a unified response, a unified “viable global alternative”, a cogent agreement between strands of thought and people; there are disagreements at all levels.
I feel as some of these obstacles stem from the problem of language, that is, there is no necessary relationship between the words we use and the phenomena it describes- its truth. So we can say what we like, red is green, and nothing apart from reason (in this example) can tell the difference. The left, or whoever, can lay down their narratives on how to create the best society, and we are none the wiser that it’ll work, or that what they say describes reality at all. This is typically a problem for the Idea of communism- we’ll never know ‘till we try.
If we expand this idea, this “Problem of Language”, we get a much wider scope of the notion of cultural hegemony. The discourses that shape and weave our lives together are just one “package” (you could say) of a description of events and have no necessary correlation to what is going on. In this way we are blinded of the alternative version. For instance, gay marriage and Islamic law- one enables marriage as a viable option for two consenting couples, while Islamic Law rejects the notion of homosexuality. Cultural hegemony via the problem of language is manifested the discourses we use by virtue of their complete ignorance to truth. This means we don’t need some grand socio-political propaganda machine like the media, we are it. Not to play down the media’s role, after all they do a lot to sustain current discourses. It is from cultural hegemony that we should understand the prevalence of a lack of a "viable... alternative". And this plays out clearly when it concerns a unified response.
Another issue which in many ways is embedded in the problem of language but expresses itself differently, are the conceptions we have of the scope or area of change, or the institutions by which it could be precipitated or, in the more likely sense, negotiated. “The Government”, be it democratic or authoritarian is just one example of an idolized concept in politics and a failed institution to arbitrate national, regional and global politics. It some how, though, remains and would likely be the institution that would invoke this so called “viable global alternative” and it raises the issue of our inability to autonomously determine the answers to questions that tear at our most fundamental assumptions of how to conduct our political space or how to run an economy. Indeed, another example would be money, this concept, when articulating alternatives, is likely to embed itself as a useful part of our current framework. How would a unified response occur if the discourses used to construct such an alternative are flawed.
That which works to undermine our treasured discourses is sidelined or seldom even mentioned. There is a point where we can say that the lack of a "viable... alternative" is not so much sidelined or purposely not mentioned: there are to few alternative discourses to choose from in the public conciousness or space. This resonates the new-speak of 1984, how would one know they were oppressed if they had no concept or word for freedom. People don't have alternatives discourses at hand to re-evaluate their lives or the global political space. And therein lies the greater problem, the greatest barrier to change in a huge, revolutionary way, is our selves; not that we openly accept that or that we are conscious of it, or that we care.
As I said before, the hegemony we experience (the prevailing discourses we use to describe our reality) is subject to the Problem of language: no internal reference point for truth. Not only does this make the choice of discourse rather arbitrary, additionally, prevailing discourses, by virtue of them prevailing, sustain themselves in our use of them. This is a problem when we understand that the Viable Alternative must appear as a discourse, it must appear in public conciousness and fight to stay. When it appears, it will do so in an oppositional stance, on these terms how would a discourse sustain itself, if it speaks out and against our current framework from where does it receive it's strength?
It should be a huge concilation to many that despite these structural barriers i have listed we still have the idea of change- at least, some of us do. The agreement we should make is not the form of political organization that takes us away from capitalism, not the end result: after capitalism but the idea of change itself. The form of political organisation that precipitates "after" is one of many. As i have suggested, we cannot engineer a society because of the multiplicity of ideas but we can try to begin anew. This is not the end and not the best form of organization, but it's an attempt. It represents, in a very real way (although i'd like to say, symbolically) our self determination.
Here i am trying to reflect in simpler terms Zizeks notion of the Communist Idea- "one should 'begin from the beginning' not from the peak one may have successfully reached in the previous effort" echoing Lenin. Or, Badiou's Communist hypothesis; that we should "help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis come into being". Yet i would erase from this passage the words "communism" and read again. The "idea", the "hypothesis" is what we should hold onto and manifest into a locomotive for change.
If there is no possibility in a unified response, as i feel, then there semi autonomous groups attempting to carve out alternatives and we must wait for the "idea/hypothesis" some public consciousness, awareness and i hope a yearning, for change.
I feel as some of these obstacles stem from the problem of language, that is, there is no necessary relationship between the words we use and the phenomena it describes- its truth. So we can say what we like, red is green, and nothing apart from reason (in this example) can tell the difference. The left, or whoever, can lay down their narratives on how to create the best society, and we are none the wiser that it’ll work, or that what they say describes reality at all. This is typically a problem for the Idea of communism- we’ll never know ‘till we try.
If we expand this idea, this “Problem of Language”, we get a much wider scope of the notion of cultural hegemony. The discourses that shape and weave our lives together are just one “package” (you could say) of a description of events and have no necessary correlation to what is going on. In this way we are blinded of the alternative version. For instance, gay marriage and Islamic law- one enables marriage as a viable option for two consenting couples, while Islamic Law rejects the notion of homosexuality. Cultural hegemony via the problem of language is manifested the discourses we use by virtue of their complete ignorance to truth. This means we don’t need some grand socio-political propaganda machine like the media, we are it. Not to play down the media’s role, after all they do a lot to sustain current discourses. It is from cultural hegemony that we should understand the prevalence of a lack of a "viable... alternative". And this plays out clearly when it concerns a unified response.
Another issue which in many ways is embedded in the problem of language but expresses itself differently, are the conceptions we have of the scope or area of change, or the institutions by which it could be precipitated or, in the more likely sense, negotiated. “The Government”, be it democratic or authoritarian is just one example of an idolized concept in politics and a failed institution to arbitrate national, regional and global politics. It some how, though, remains and would likely be the institution that would invoke this so called “viable global alternative” and it raises the issue of our inability to autonomously determine the answers to questions that tear at our most fundamental assumptions of how to conduct our political space or how to run an economy. Indeed, another example would be money, this concept, when articulating alternatives, is likely to embed itself as a useful part of our current framework. How would a unified response occur if the discourses used to construct such an alternative are flawed.
That which works to undermine our treasured discourses is sidelined or seldom even mentioned. There is a point where we can say that the lack of a "viable... alternative" is not so much sidelined or purposely not mentioned: there are to few alternative discourses to choose from in the public conciousness or space. This resonates the new-speak of 1984, how would one know they were oppressed if they had no concept or word for freedom. People don't have alternatives discourses at hand to re-evaluate their lives or the global political space. And therein lies the greater problem, the greatest barrier to change in a huge, revolutionary way, is our selves; not that we openly accept that or that we are conscious of it, or that we care.
As I said before, the hegemony we experience (the prevailing discourses we use to describe our reality) is subject to the Problem of language: no internal reference point for truth. Not only does this make the choice of discourse rather arbitrary, additionally, prevailing discourses, by virtue of them prevailing, sustain themselves in our use of them. This is a problem when we understand that the Viable Alternative must appear as a discourse, it must appear in public conciousness and fight to stay. When it appears, it will do so in an oppositional stance, on these terms how would a discourse sustain itself, if it speaks out and against our current framework from where does it receive it's strength?
It should be a huge concilation to many that despite these structural barriers i have listed we still have the idea of change- at least, some of us do. The agreement we should make is not the form of political organization that takes us away from capitalism, not the end result: after capitalism but the idea of change itself. The form of political organisation that precipitates "after" is one of many. As i have suggested, we cannot engineer a society because of the multiplicity of ideas but we can try to begin anew. This is not the end and not the best form of organization, but it's an attempt. It represents, in a very real way (although i'd like to say, symbolically) our self determination.
Here i am trying to reflect in simpler terms Zizeks notion of the Communist Idea- "one should 'begin from the beginning' not from the peak one may have successfully reached in the previous effort" echoing Lenin. Or, Badiou's Communist hypothesis; that we should "help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis come into being". Yet i would erase from this passage the words "communism" and read again. The "idea", the "hypothesis" is what we should hold onto and manifest into a locomotive for change.
If there is no possibility in a unified response, as i feel, then there semi autonomous groups attempting to carve out alternatives and we must wait for the "idea/hypothesis" some public consciousness, awareness and i hope a yearning, for change.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Capitalism: Murder, Slavery and Vandalism.
I have a problem understanding the moral outrage at murder, slavery and vandalism- but the blindness to structural processes of capitalism. aka: what's pretty much built in. To not draw issue with these processes is typically picking and choosing what to care about and what to ignore. These processes influence, produce and regulate our actions.
The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?
The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.
Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.
The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)
By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.
I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.
The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?
The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.
Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.
The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)
By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.
I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Capitalism and Freedom
There is little connection, if any, to these two words acting as a title. Capitalism, does not necessitate, freedom. Both Fukuyama and Milton Friedman figured that capitalist markets are the purest expression of freedom - at least, as far as we can deduce. Friedman for his defence of a free market in promoting freedom, and Fukuyama for a market as an End State to humanity.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Language and educational performance.
I almost misspelt and published "performance" missing the N. We'd have a case of perfor-mace, like i could spray it in your eyes and, yes, i do believe you performance would be lowered. Sadly this post is not about macing people, although i think that might a be a fun topic.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
Monday, 7 June 2010
Competitative Markets, A Fault In Design?
This idea is not mine and although i haven't read any literature about it, no doubt someone has been able to illustrate this faaaaar clearer than me:
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
Monday, 29 March 2010
is this a truthful doctrine?
All social phenomena are a product of:
(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:
And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X
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.
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.
The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
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.
“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
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Beware Social Networking!
Haha, the title. Like "beware of the dog"... of terrorism... of paedophilia.
I don't really mean it. Well, i don't mean it like that, of course i mean it- i wrote it.
Anyway.
Facebook, twitter, skype, bebo, myspace or what have you. Those sites where users connecting using their details, often as themselves. I'd beware them.
For two reasons.
I'll express the first as a maxim:
"the greater the integration of a persons authentic profile into a social networking domain, the higher the potential for a 'big brother'"
What i mean to say is that, the more people on social networking sites the greater the ability for people to be seen by anyone anonymous...
By anonymous, im lying.
If the government just took all it's files and shoved their names into these sites, many a thing could be done! For those with little imagination: terrorist profiling (something i noticed the Americans are doing), catch tax frauds, find out those who are committing benefit fraud, under age drinkers, track your friends (so if they commit crime you may be indited) and the list will go on.
A point to note: Xbox will provide facebook, twitter and last fm. It will soon occur through other mediums, television?
The second point, with the looming "big brother" as the first,
Corporate profiling. It occurs now, it's not harmful, corps. with a product need to find their target audience.You like stuff... Your friends also like stuff, and their friends friends like stuff.
Corps wanna sell you stuff.
Effective profiling may be achieved by marking, social groups, genders, geography, schools affiliation, event affiliation - to sell you a product.
I have my problems with this, namely that i don't like the current scheme of consumerism... i think that may relate to my angers over money, and i don't think our current ecological climate can cope- who knows.
Case and point. I think my main worry is the use of social networking information by the police. I want them to catch murders, rapists, tax evaders (but do i? Considering that the gov't put greater tax on people earning 50K than they do on corporations on 50mil...) I do not however agree with many of the laws that exist or the method we use on "criminals".
have a nice day =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)