Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 22:19:15 +0100 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: [SA] Battle of the Media Hugh/all laughs. good especially pointed metaphors, given the circumstances. Yes it's true Blair and Bush talking ultimately to themselves having forgotton that God is dead, and the only lions left have to be caged for their own protection... But remember Hugh, sometime soon the sheriff will be calling on Bush and Blair - not tomorrow but between the years 2011 and 2020...even over the images of the dead the thought makes me smile regards steve hbone wrote: >Steve/All > >Pretty good analysis. > >But justification, and all those dead philosophers don't affect the facts. > >GWB is on a hotline to GOD. > >The US of A is the lion. The justification is law of the jungle. > >The lion lawfully claims the lion's share of the kill because no one can >oppose him. > >Same with GWB. > >regards, >Hugh > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> >To: "Situation Analysis: Forum for Critical Thought and Current Affairs" ><SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-jiscmail.ac.uk>; <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> >Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:16 AM >Subject: Re: [SA] Battle of the Media > > > > >>Colin/all >> >>It is clearer now that the primary difference between the positions we >>propose is around the notion of justification and the extent to which >>the coalition leaders of the neo-colonial adventure can perhaps be made >>to suffer as a consequence of thier decisions and actions. >> >>Justification first - the justifications used by the coalition leaders >>have been pragmatic and contingent, the difficulties they encounter are >>that because of the pragmatism which makes any justification problematic >>- the justification/judgement is defined as a state of affairs of which >>it is meaningful to ask whether it is true or false. The justification >>that states that the neo-colonialist adventure is intended to 'free >>Iraqis' makes the moral goal of the adventure extremely public. Whilst >>it is possible if not more probable to believe that the neo-colonial >>adventure is likely to resemble the Algerian neo-colonial adventure, as >>Lyotard writes of it, in our post-modern world the reality is that it is >>more important to integrate the Iraqi state into the globalised economy >>("capitalise Iraq") rather than to make it a client state of the USA. >>Hence it is unlikely that a 'Battle for Baghdad' will happen resembling >>the extraordinary 'Battle for Algiers' of the 50s. During the heat of >>the anti-colonial actions it is easy to forget the actual nature of the >>neo-liberal and globalised economy.... >> >>Caveat second: one of the ambigious moments that resulted from the last >>gulf war was the introduction of socerignty into the notion of the >>"police actions" - what is critical to remember, especially as we go >>through this farcical repeat of the exercise, is that this was not a >>mere specular and ideological mystification intended to conceal the >>"real plan". Rather it was literally believed to be true - they believed >>then as now that they were establishing a new and better world order - >>part pax americana part new globalisation. The critical point to note is >>that it was only able to be carried out, then as now, by introducing the >>notion that the war was a police action, for only through doing this >>could the suspension of the principle of immunity of the head of state >>from prosecution be enabled - brand them as a criminal and yoiu can try >>them, if they are not criminalised you cannot. Prior to this event >>(1990) the declaration of war did not in any sense mean the suspension >>of this principle - the industrialised mass murder of the Armenians in >>the early part of the 20th C did not automatically implicate the Turkish >>head of state. What happens now is that to justify the war the enemy, >> must be excluded from humanity, made sub-human and then made into a >>crimkinal. At this point a police operation, a postmodern war can then >>take place. The justification as to whether a criminal justifies this >>treatment can be interrogated - is it true or false? Now obviously the >>justification cannot be made obligitory as it is made solely from a >>position of power. (What would we do without Hegel at this point) - the >>resultant war can with impunity remove the criminal head of state and >>slaughter the civilians around him, contrary to the pronblems that >>France and the UK used to have in the colonial days... >> >>What Blair and Bush(2) have realised which Bush(1) did not is that in >>the mad colonial rush to criminalise Hussain, criminalisation can be >>turned against them. There is no head of state who is not potentially a >>criminal... Today you may be a head of state - tomorrow you may be on >>trial as the justifications used fall apart under scrutiny and the body >>count is analysed. In this sense then and thinking of Debord's actual >>understanding of the spectacle - it's clear that the risk for Blair and >>Bush(2) is that the spectacle as media cannot be assumed to protect >>them. In which case the moral and ethical argument is extremely >>important - not because of the immeidtae impact but rather for the >>possibility that criminality is just around the corner... just an >>ethical definition away >> >> >> >>regards >>steve >> >>Colin Wright wrote: >> >> >> >>>Steve, >>> The thing about the moral/ethical arguments against war, >>>instinctively >>>powerful though they are, is that they are just as easily mobilizable >>>by the >>>pro-war camp: after all, the liberal rhetoric about 'freeing' the Iraqi >>>people as a gesture of humanitarian largesse -though it seems to US so >>>disgustingly hypocritical - is the dominant justification which the US >>>and >>>UK now use, and which is actually persuading some people. We both know >>>that >>>colonial ventures have always deployed this sleight of hand, which >>>includes >>>the assumption/assertion that 'our' morals are better than 'theirs' ( a >>>deeply Christian, and condescending, refrain related to that of Christ >>> >>> >on > > >>>the cross: 'they know not what they do'). The point is this, that the >>>structure of the moral argument is promiscuous, lending itself just as >>>much >>>to pro- as to anti-war discourses, and we cannot therefore rely on it >>>in any >>>intrinsic sense. This is why I was suggesting the ambiguity of the word >>>'justification'. It is difficult to accept (and I am not at all sure >>>that I >>>do), but if 'right' and 'wrong' are to an important extent matters of >>>opinion which are geographically and culturally circumscribed, then >>>'justification' becomes, as you suggest, a hegemonic process. In cold, >>>harsh >>>reality, the only 'ethical' or 'moral' argument that might dissuade >>>the more >>>militant American citizens of the folly of this war, would be the >>>death not >>>so much of innocent Iraqi citizens, but of their own people - and this >>>was >>>of course the source of the resistance to Vietnam. >>> The horrible thing about the violence of war, particularly in the >>>context of a 'bellum justum' (which all wars I guess claim to be), is >>>that >>>it immediately forces a means-ends rationality: for those who believe >>>that >>>the ultimate outcome of this conflict in Iraq will be a humanitarian >>>good, >>>even photos of children killed by coalition bombs may not be enough to >>>derail their conviction. The pain caused by such images can always, at >>>least >>>potentially, be sublated to 'collateral damage', and the viewer might >>>even >>>feel like they are heroically enduring this discomfort for the pure >>>good to >>>come (another thoroughly Christian trope, that of the suffering martyr). >>>After the fact of the war having started, such photograps can still >>>POTENTIALLY feed into a view of human life which is quantitative, not >>>qualitative: the photograph rightly asks of the war's supporters, 'how >>>many >>>innocent civilians should die like this before the end of toppling >>> >>> >Saddam > > >>>ceases to be worth these grisly means'? Of course, those orchestrating >>>the >>>action do not think in quite these terms, or rather they filter them >>>through >>>the lense of PR: their version of the same question would be, 'how many >>>people can VISIBLY die before I start to loose domestic support for this >>>action so completely that I cannot even govern my own country'? Add to >>>this >>>the crucial problem of being able to even see these properly troubling >>>images because of a hegemonic media - and this was the point which began >>>this thread - and 'justification' starts to seem diametrically opposed >>> >>> >to > > >>>anything we might optimistically call Justice. >>> All of which sounds decidedly cynical, and it is, but (with Ernesto >>>Laclau), if the media is a hegemonic construct, then it will be >>>constitutively incapable of suturing itself, and there will always be >>>room >>>for reconfigured 'logics of equivalence'. We just need to decide the >>> >>> >best > > >>>way of going about that task. >>>Best, >>>Colin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-KROKODILE.CO.UK> >>>>Reply-To: "Situation Analysis: Forum for Critical Thought and Current >>>> Affairs" <SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK> >>>>To: SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK >>>>Subject: Re: [SA] Battle of the Media >>>>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:40:06 +0100 >>>> >>>>Colin/Andy >>>> >>>>Can you clarify the issue of justification "Setting aside some >>>>transcendental ethical absolute, the scary thing is that this war not >>>>only can be justifified it is being justified" - surely it is only from >>>>an ethical/moral and political position that the war can be argued >>>>against for what other denial of the wars validity works. I am assuming >>>>however that an anti-colonialist position is a non-transcendental >>>>ethical position. >>>> >>>>Personally I differ in that I think Bush is perfectly eloquent - but it >>>>is an american designed eloquence where blair, like thatcher before >>>> >>>> >him, > > >>>>has a british designed and constructed eloquence. >>>> >>>>Doesn't the issue of the media as you are writing it require something >>>>akin to an understanding founded on a hegemonic understanding? >>>> >>>>regards >>>>steve >>>> >>>>Andy Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Colin >>>>> >>>>>I have a few queries: >>>>> >>>>>1) Isn't the notion of "armchair regiment" just negative speculation - >>>>>if you like, the notion itself comes from a "safe distance" of >>>>>generalisation about the 'masses' (whoever they are, if they are >>>>>identifiable, esp. as "unwitting dupe")? >>>>> >>>>>2) Where you say "it's up to us to be as proactive as possible in >>>>>seeking out different viewpoints, and in trusting none of them" - but >>>>>isn't there a sense where this 'proactivity', however minimally, >>>>>requires a certain 'trust' in at least one viewpoint, or style (e.g., >>>>>insofar as we would read an article in the newspaper and think "yeah, >>>>>I like that" or "hmm... I don't think so...")? >>>>> >>>>>3) Where you say "one need only listen to Bush to know that eloquence >>>>>has nothing to do with it" - could this not be turned on its head to >>>>>say "one need only listen to Bush to know that eloquence has >>>>>everything to do with it"? The former seems from traditional Marxism, >>>>>whereas the latter seems more from poststructuralism (I myself side >>>>>more with p-s). >>>>> >>>>>All the best >>>>> >>>>>Andy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>>Send music and picture to your friends with MSN Messenger. Download it >>>>>FREE here. <http://g.msn.com/8HMSENUK/2743> >>>>>__________________________________ >>>>> >>>>>If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to >>>>>LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: >>>>>SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>__________________________________ >>>> >>>>If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to >>>>LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: >>>>SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS >>>> >>>> >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________ >>>Surf together with new Shared Browsing >>> >>> >>> >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/browse&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=74&DI=1059 > > >>>__________________________________ >>> >>>If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to >>>LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: >>>SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
HTML VERSION:
Steve/All Pretty good analysis. But justification, and all those dead philosophers don't affect the facts. GWB is on a hotline to GOD. The US of A is the lion. The justification is law of the jungle. The lion lawfully claims the lion's share of the kill because no one can oppose him. Same with GWB. regards, Hugh ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- Original Message ----- From: <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> To: "Situation Analysis: Forum for Critical Thought and Current Affairs" <SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-jiscmail.ac.uk>; <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [SA] Battle of the MediaColin/all It is clearer now that the primary difference between the positions we propose is around the notion of justification and the extent to which the coalition leaders of the neo-colonial adventure can perhaps be made to suffer as a consequence of thier decisions and actions. Justification first - the justifications used by the coalition leaders have been pragmatic and contingent, the difficulties they encounter are that because of the pragmatism which makes any justification problematic - the justification/judgement is defined as a state of affairs of which it is meaningful to ask whether it is true or false. The justification that states that the neo-colonialist adventure is intended to 'free Iraqis' makes the moral goal of the adventure extremely public. Whilst it is possible if not more probable to believe that the neo-colonial adventure is likely to resemble the Algerian neo-colonial adventure, as Lyotard writes of it, in our post-modern world the reality is that it is more important to integrate the Iraqi state into the globalised economy ("capitalise Iraq") rather than to make it a client state of the USA. Hence it is unlikely that a 'Battle for Baghdad' will happen resembling the extraordinary 'Battle for Algiers' of the 50s. During the heat of the anti-colonial actions it is easy to forget the actual nature of the neo-liberal and globalised economy.... Caveat second: one of the ambigious moments that resulted from the last gulf war was the introduction of socerignty into the notion of the "police actions" - what is critical to remember, especially as we go through this farcical repeat of the exercise, is that this was not a mere specular and ideological mystification intended to conceal the "real plan". Rather it was literally believed to be true - they believed then as now that they were establishing a new and better world order - part pax americana part new globalisation. The critical point to note is that it was only able to be carried out, then as now, by introducing the notion that the war was a police action, for only through doing this could the suspension of the principle of immunity of the head of state from prosecution be enabled - brand them as a criminal and yoiu can try them, if they are not criminalised you cannot. Prior to this event (1990) the declaration of war did not in any sense mean the suspension of this principle - the industrialised mass murder of the Armenians in the early part of the 20th C did not automatically implicate the Turkish head of state. What happens now is that to justify the war the enemy, must be excluded from humanity, made sub-human and then made into a crimkinal. At this point a police operation, a postmodern war can then take place. The justification as to whether a criminal justifies this treatment can be interrogated - is it true or false? Now obviously the justification cannot be made obligitory as it is made solely from a position of power. (What would we do without Hegel at this point) - the resultant war can with impunity remove the criminal head of state and slaughter the civilians around him, contrary to the pronblems that France and the UK used to have in the colonial days... What Blair and Bush(2) have realised which Bush(1) did not is that in the mad colonial rush to criminalise Hussain, criminalisation can be turned against them. There is no head of state who is not potentially a criminal... Today you may be a head of state - tomorrow you may be on trial as the justifications used fall apart under scrutiny and the body count is analysed. In this sense then and thinking of Debord's actual understanding of the spectacle - it's clear that the risk for Blair and Bush(2) is that the spectacle as media cannot be assumed to protect them. In which case the moral and ethical argument is extremely important - not because of the immeidtae impact but rather for the possibility that criminality is just around the corner... just an ethical definition away regards steve Colin Wright wrote:Steve, The thing about the moral/ethical arguments against war, instinctively powerful though they are, is that they are just as easily mobilizable by the pro-war camp: after all, the liberal rhetoric about 'freeing' the Iraqi people as a gesture of humanitarian largesse -though it seems to US so disgustingly hypocritical - is the dominant justification which the US and UK now use, and which is actually persuading some people. We both know that colonial ventures have always deployed this sleight of hand, which includes the assumption/assertion that 'our' morals are better than 'theirs' ( a deeply Christian, and condescending, refrain related to that of Christonthe cross: 'they know not what they do'). The point is this, that the structure of the moral argument is promiscuous, lending itself just as much to pro- as to anti-war discourses, and we cannot therefore rely on it in any intrinsic sense. This is why I was suggesting the ambiguity of the word 'justification'. It is difficult to accept (and I am not at all sure that I do), but if 'right' and 'wrong' are to an important extent matters of opinion which are geographically and culturally circumscribed, then 'justification' becomes, as you suggest, a hegemonic process. In cold, harsh reality, the only 'ethical' or 'moral' argument that might dissuade the more militant American citizens of the folly of this war, would be the death not so much of innocent Iraqi citizens, but of their own people - and this was of course the source of the resistance to Vietnam. The horrible thing about the violence of war, particularly in the context of a 'bellum justum' (which all wars I guess claim to be), is that it immediately forces a means-ends rationality: for those who believe that the ultimate outcome of this conflict in Iraq will be a humanitarian good, even photos of children killed by coalition bombs may not be enough to derail their conviction. The pain caused by such images can always, at least potentially, be sublated to 'collateral damage', and the viewer might even feel like they are heroically enduring this discomfort for the pure good to come (another thoroughly Christian trope, that of the suffering martyr). After the fact of the war having started, such photograps can still POTENTIALLY feed into a view of human life which is quantitative, not qualitative: the photograph rightly asks of the war's supporters, 'how many innocent civilians should die like this before the end of topplingSaddamceases to be worth these grisly means'? Of course, those orchestrating the action do not think in quite these terms, or rather they filter them through the lense of PR: their version of the same question would be, 'how many people can VISIBLY die before I start to loose domestic support for this action so completely that I cannot even govern my own country'? Add to this the crucial problem of being able to even see these properly troubling images because of a hegemonic media - and this was the point which began this thread - and 'justification' starts to seem diametrically opposedtoanything we might optimistically call Justice. All of which sounds decidedly cynical, and it is, but (with Ernesto Laclau), if the media is a hegemonic construct, then it will be constitutively incapable of suturing itself, and there will always be room for reconfigured 'logics of equivalence'. We just need to decide thebestway of going about that task. Best, ColinFrom: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-KROKODILE.CO.UK> Reply-To: "Situation Analysis: Forum for Critical Thought and Current Affairs" <SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK> To: SITUATION-ANALYSIS-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [SA] Battle of the Media Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 10:40:06 +0100 Colin/Andy Can you clarify the issue of justification "Setting aside some transcendental ethical absolute, the scary thing is that this war not only can be justifified it is being justified" - surely it is only from an ethical/moral and political position that the war can be argued against for what other denial of the wars validity works. I am assuming however that an anti-colonialist position is a non-transcendental ethical position. Personally I differ in that I think Bush is perfectly eloquent - but it is an american designed eloquence where blair, like thatcher beforehim,has a british designed and constructed eloquence. Doesn't the issue of the media as you are writing it require something akin to an understanding founded on a hegemonic understanding? regards steve Andy Clark wrote:Colin I have a few queries: 1) Isn't the notion of "armchair regiment" just negative speculation - if you like, the notion itself comes from a "safe distance" of generalisation about the 'masses' (whoever they are, if they are identifiable, esp. as "unwitting dupe")? 2) Where you say "it's up to us to be as proactive as possible in seeking out different viewpoints, and in trusting none of them" - but isn't there a sense where this 'proactivity', however minimally, requires a certain 'trust' in at least one viewpoint, or style (e.g., insofar as we would read an article in the newspaper and think "yeah, I like that" or "hmm... I don't think so...")? 3) Where you say "one need only listen to Bush to know that eloquence has nothing to do with it" - could this not be turned on its head to say "one need only listen to Bush to know that eloquence has everything to do with it"? The former seems from traditional Marxism, whereas the latter seems more from poststructuralism (I myself side more with p-s). All the best Andy.------------------------------------------------------------------------Send music and picture to your friends with MSN Messenger. Download it FREE here. <http://g.msn.com/8HMSENUK/2743>__________________________________ If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS__________________________________ If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS_________________________________________________________________ Surf together with new Shared Browsinghttp://join.msn.com/?page=features/browse&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=74&DI=1059__________________________________ If you wish to leave this list at anytime simply send an email to LISTSERV-AT-JISCMAIL.AC.UK with the following command as your message: SIGNOFF SITUATION-ANALYSIS