Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 10:55:41 +1000 (EST) From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller-AT-uws.edu.au> Subject: Re: Counter Reformation... G'day Steve, > Your understanding is clearer could you clarify a bit further in what > you mean by 'sloganism' and 'avataristic' - as it is not clear what > this might mean. Esepcially given that it suggests that elsewhere the > politics might be different than this - perhaps you could clarify > exactly would this be ? I was summising Bourdieu when he said the below: Bourdieu: In official politics it appears in any case only as theatre. Freedom, equality, fraternity are all invoked, but these are slogans. In reality politicians have given free rein to globalization. They shamelessly avail themselves of a vocabulary of freedom and well-being for all. Thereby they submit themselves and their citizens to economic powers which have been freed from their fetters. However I was twisting it slightly to suggest that social issues (I said 'left politics', I meant the politics surrounding those issues that have traditionally been seen as 'left') are played out through recourse to the slogans sprouted by conservatives (of the 'centre' parties) who are mere avatars. They are virtual politicians, in the sense that they are able to induce affective responses in people (yeah freedom! yeah equality! yeah fraternity!), but such induction doesn't translate into a politics that gives such avataristic sloganism any extension into the actual. Such 'slogans' are like over night branded products cooked up by speech writers so that the punters can 'buy' into the sensibility that best suits them. Like two cogs, or better, like the branded slogan is the ground that comes up to meet the running foot of the populace. This is where the ground is! The ground has to be in the right place and must have the right texture to compliment the runner. Feel good virtual politics! Where is the feel bad actual politics? A classic example would have been the 'boat people' 'issue' that was staged during the last Aussie federal election. I think both the major parties were interested in seducing voters by informing the voters what they 'wanted' to hear and then giving it to them. It was a bloody farce! Ciao, Glen. -- PhD Candidate, Centre for Cultural Research University of Western Sydney
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005