File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/97-04-23.123, message 76


From: LeoCasey-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 07:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: M-TH: Re: The Buffalo Parody?


I admit that, having a life, I have neither the time nor the inclination to
wade through much of what the Buffalo comrades write. What is suprising,
however, is that no one on the list has considered that they might be
engaging in a parody -- a mocking of the expressive style of a certain social
group (Net obsessed Marxist-Leninist), with a highly superfacial
appropriation of the most obscure forms of linguistic and semiotic analysis.
(The most advanced form of "bourgeois thought": thank god, that Michael
Eisner gave Derrida his start!) Maybe Thaxis is the _Social Text_ of the
internet, and Doug Henwood its Stanley Aronowitz (what a deliciously evil
thought). Now I know that sheer volume might lead an observer to conclude
that only someone who believed he was engaged in a serious enterprise could
dedicate so much time to it, but remember (1) we are talking about graduate
students, a certain strata of which would do anything to avoid work on the
doctoral dissertation; (2) how can you parody the obsessed without mimicing
the obsession?

Anyway, this is about as much sense as I can make of this weeks long
exchange.

If anyone remembers the days when the Buffalos first arrived on the scene, I
objected to a particularly silly analogy in which Laclau and Mouffe were
compared to the infamous Judge Bork. Justin replied that he did think Bork
was a "radical democrat" in the sense that Bork was a believer in the radical
supremacy of majority rule over all minority rights. (It's all in my personal
random access memory now, so I hope I do no violence, semiotically wise of
course, to his position.) I have two problems with that position: (1) I
suppose that that one could argue this position if one accepted the
classically Rousseauian position that democracy was defined as all form (the
general will, whatever its particular expression might be at a moment), and
no content. (And, of course, even Rousseau drew a distinction between the
general will and the will of all.) But this is not the position accepted by
most democratic, much less radical democratic, theorists. Virtually all --
and especially Laclau and Mouffe -- would insist upon some substance to
democracy: not only a conception of individual and minority rights, but also
some notions of a fair and open political process (which entail such things
as freedom of expression and political equality). Thus, even if Bork were a
Rousseauian, I don't know how accurate an impresion it leaves to describe
that position as 'radical democratic'. (2) But I am not even convinced that
Bork's judicial theology of 'original intentions' (the conceptual foundation
of which was largely purloined, by the way, from the Straussians) is
Rousseauian. Yes, Bork is a great supporter of majority rule on questions of
cultural conflict (gay rights, abortion, affirmative action). But take him
out to the backhouse of economic issues, and he becomes a great libertarian,
with individual property rights taking precedence over all sense of majority
rule and the common good. Thus, Bork must have been delighted with the recent
decision in US v. Lopez, in which the Court struck down a federal law
prohibiting the carrying of guns onto school campuses on the grounds that the
commerce clause did not give the federal government the jurisdiction to
intervene on this matter. While this may seem an arcane point of law,
consider that the commerce clause has been the constitutional foundation for
most federal labor legislation, environmental protection legislation and
civil rights legislation since the Supreme Court's turn half-way through the
New Deal. While this new trend might be defended as the restoration of
'states rights' (a cause championed in the past, along with the militias, by
some of our ... well, less discerning, list members), and relegated to the
arena of federalism, make no mistake that the effect would be to undermine
the whole foundation of most post-New Deal legislation which has protected
workers' rights, provided whatever protection there is for the environment,
and established civil rights protections in the 'free market'. For all of
these reasons, therefore, I insist that despite 'democracy' being one of
those essentially contested concepts in which theorists and practitioners
attempt to pour their own concepts, it really makes little sense -- in terms
of understanding the thrust of his judicial philosophy -- to call Bork a
"radical democrat."



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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005