Subject: Re: Zapatistas and drugs (belated reply)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:57:01 -0700


Andrew Robison said (and Shawn replied):
>
> > I happen to think that discourse often operates with implicit or
> > unstated assumptions which may even be unconscious, but which are
> > demonstrably present in the way arguments are constructed.  The
> > implicit exclusion of the"abnormal" from "community" is one such
> > unconscious implication.
>
> If there is an authoritarianism, or normalist will-to-exclude, that
is
> "demonstrably present" in my position, then feel free to demonstrate
it.
> So far you are just projecting your unwillingness or inability to
imagine
> voluntary constraints onto an argument with very different premises.
>
> BTW, the appeal to "unconscious implications," as if you know better
than
> your opponents what they "really mean" *always* indicates a
willingness
> to engage the other as less-than-equal. Don't be surprised if such
> arrogance doesn't win you any friends or sympathetic listeners.
>

i don't ever recall having said this before, but i think foucault
could be helpful here (there, that didn't hurt as much as i thought it
might).  i think that Andrew is essentially stating his thesis, at
least as i understand it.  foucault noted that the institutions of
modernity have translated the "saint - sinner" dichotomy of the
pre-industrial world view into the "normal - abnormal" standard of the
modern era.  since the hallmark of the modern state and economic
institutions has been to count and discriminate to an ever greater and
more sophisticated degree, then ever more graduated degrees of
"normality" have been inflicted upon us in our schools, workplaces,
etc.  (Recall my point from a long ago post that if there really are
1.6 million women in the class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, then
that means that TWO PERCENT of the entire female workforce in amerika
has worked or is working for this one megacorp.  fucking amazing).

how's that for a foucauldian paragraph?

anyway, while i'm pretty damn sympathetic to Andrew and Michel's
point, i think that Shawn is making a more salient observation about
the more pragmatic task of building and maintaining community in this
nasty old world, what with it being full of meanies and republicans
and all.  a worthy task, since we may be watching the beginning of the
breakdown of social cohesion in north american society.  we've created
the most atomized, disassociated society in human history and i think
it may be capable of perversions that make the twentieth century
appear in retrospect as a golden age.  so community might be a good
thing to build.

the circle is broken, no shit, and the center ain't gonna hold.

roger