Subject: Re: the latest in propaganda... Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:59:05 +0800 Steve/All > "oidentified as the common. The extreme form of this expropriation of the > Common is the spectacle, that is, the politics we live in. But this also > means that in the spectacle our own linguistic nature comes back to us > inverted. This is why (precisely because what is being expropriated is > the very possibility of a common good) the violence of the spectacle is > so destructive; but for the same reason the spectacle retains something > like a positive possibility that can be used against it..." (P80) I have been flicking through some Bourdieu and with regards to 'habitus' it seems the structural components of subjecthood (as per laclou and moufe's conception of a two tiered 'subject') can only function effectively if we do not think about the specific sociocultural conditions or contexts of their production and existence: "the forgeting of history that history itself produces" (the logic of practice 56). Perhaps the 'governmentality' of the processors/possessors of power stems from a certain forgetting? A kind of total propaganda, the kind that produces internal contradictions because the not-not-knowing of forgetting leaves questionable voids. Propaganda isn't about the spread of information rather power is generated by mistakingly believing propaganda is either information or mis-information when it is non-information. Us aussies recently received the PM's anti-terrorist package in the mail. I can only cringe when thinking about the 'security' people must be feeling everytime they fetch a coldie whilst watching the cricket and look at the 'security' fridge magnet they received in the parcel. This package was sent out to everyone home. (I do not have one as I joined in the 'return to sender' protest.) Bourdieu writes the below: "The fundamental law of beauraucratic apparatuses is that the apparatus gives everything (including power over the apparatus) to those who give it everything and expect everything from it because they themselves have nothing or are nothing outside it." (language and symbolic power 216) Which reminds me of my most favourite passage from D&G: "[I]n the so-called modern or rational state, everything revolves around the legislator and the subject. The state must realize the distinction between the legislator and the subject under formal conditions permitting thought, for its part, to conceptualize their identity. Be obedient always. The better you obey, the more you will be master, for you only be obeying pure reason, in other words yourself." (Nomadology 42-3). How successful can the process of non-information be? I am not sure which knowledge will be legitimated by the currently unfolding events, with the rise of the middle-class as the only 'legitimate' class everyone will probably be thinking the same thoughts regardless. Maybe, if the forgetful remember and the non-apparent becomes apparent, this will be a good thing? Wishful thinking... Glen.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005