Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:23:04 -0500
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: relativism


Doug wrote:
>Except that relativism and the ruling class have a rather problematic
>relationship, with the guardians of public virtue pushing the canon and
>moral certainty, and trying to silence the pointy-headed relativists as
>silly and dangerous.

That's the way the 'debate' gets staged. But it is not pomo academics alone
that are relativist. Relativism is a *default* mode of thinking for the
majority of people in America now. It's a way of avoiding serious debates,
evading truth, deferring action, foreclosing a possibility of change, and
hence preempting possible disappointment. It's a mode of thinking (or more
accurately *feeling*) for people who do not have courage and confidence to
think of themselves as historical agents. That's the danger of relativism
(especially in the American mix of postmodernism and neoliberalism).

But as I said in my first post on this, I think of relativism as a *morbid
symptom* of crisis--a *danger* as well as a sign of *opportunity*. It does
show that even the ruling class PR people do not have enough confidence to
say that the other side is simply wrong or untrue or to be ignored. The
secure bourgeoisie do not need a relativist defense. Cynical Reason looks
the most powerful at its weakest, when it doesn't even bother to make
decent attempts at explanation and legitimation, because it has *power*,
but also because there is *no* way of coming up with decent "scientific"
explanations.

About the authoritarian populism of Cynical Reason, we must, however,
recognize  a *kernel of truth* in allegations that environmentalism is a
middle-class thing. Off the list, I was talking with Michael Hoover, and he
wrote of a depressing example of Florida spending $91 million to buy
farmland that has been polluting a lake. The "buyout will displace several
thousand minority farmworkers," and "the folks who lobbied most fiercely
for the buyout were a group of middle-class homeowners whose equity stood
to benefit greatly from the value-adding environmental cleanup of the
lake." (My apologies to Michael for quoting his comments from a private
message without permission. But they are too good to be kept to myself.)

In my view, environmentalism under capitalism is a mixed blessing. The only
kind of environmentalism under capitalism I can wholeheartedly endorse is
the one that struggles against environmental racism and for worker safety.
This is another reason that motivates me to look forward to revolution and
communist society.

>This reminds me of a discussion we had here awhile
>back, on just what was bourgeois about ludic postmodernism - there's
>nothing terribly playful about the ruling class, is there? Relativism and
>the ludic are products of bourgeois society, but not necessarily of the
>bourgeoisie itself.

To recap, I do *not* see playfulness in the relativism of ruling-class PR
men. I simply see their *inability* to come up with even remotely
convincing explanations and legitimations as well as their *power* not to
give a damn about it. Hence my interpretation that this is a sign of
crisis--a danger as well as a sign of opportunity. It's up to us to seize
the moment and turn it into a true opportunity for social transformation.
That's why I made reference to Machiavelli.

Yoshie

P.S. It is up to you to decide whether my analysis is an exercise in
dialectics or wishful thinking.




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---