Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:58:32 -0600 (CST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?eduardo=20enriquez?= <eduardofenriquez-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Ebert: "The Knowable Good"


 --- Amy Patterson
<amy.patterson-AT-student.adelaide.edu.au> escribió: > 

> and a diversity of perspectives and analysis is of
> vital importance. if everyone was
> writing from an economically focussed perspective,
> it would not only be limiting, but
> also
> very, very boring.

well i wasnt arguing for diamat or something yet
political, social and economic power tend to converge
in what is called the bourgoise-meaning that class
which has control over means of production and which
erected the current political and cultural structures
for the purpose of reproducing the system of private
property and accumulation. so its not as simple as
saying "economically focussed perspective" its rather
more the structures erected to support the current
social system. if one then will go on to critizise the
culture of modernity, which is the age which we live
in, we are speaking basically about the age of
capitalism since modernity is indeed the cultural form
of that social system. i dont know if its "boring" or
not yet we find that world leaders, parlamentaries,
high bureaucrats, intellectuals and corporation
executives all tend to come from an specific social
layer. indeed the middle classes or the bourgoise,
meaning people with an access to capital whether small
or large and also people in white collar positions. so
if one wants to analyse the current cultural forms one
finds how they are affected by the homogenization of
capital of culture through whats called "culture
industries" such as tv, movies, pop music,
advertizement and as well as the education system
which mainly is inspired by enligtenment humanist
ideals (indeed bourgoise ideals). and indeed since
capital has always been transnational, one thus can
understand hibridity of modern forms at times in
specific places coexisting with cultural forms of not
so modern provenience or of subcultures and even
contuercultures critical of current society.

> there's no need to resort to name-calling (i think
> "bourgoise libertarian" qualifies, in
> this context) just because someone's work doesn't
> speak directly to your own interests.
> 

when one says "bourgoise" is not like one is saying
"asshole" or something. one is just meaning that if
for example a certain discourse is said to be
"bourgoise" indeed tends to be discourse which has in
its content a clear tendency to defend and support the
interests of individualism, personal liberty, self-
sufficiency, autonomy usually againts collective
forces and within the context of modernity which is
the cultural form of capitalism since it is the forms
of life needed for people desiring freedom from old
forces limiting the individualistic pursuance of
fortune, adventure and power usually againts
collectivisms of any kind be it religion, socialism or
even anarchism. in politics and economics this point
of view is called liberalism and indeed tends to be
located within middle classes. indeed pretty much the
kind of values post-structuralism has critizised in
the works of people like derrida, foucault, deleuze
and guattari, bataille, and of course also
structuralism of people like lacan, althusser, levi
strauss, etc. indeed the critique of the modern I. 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com