(no subject)
Wow, it seems like the pop culture and mainstream media have recently cultivated an acute interest in saving the world. Live 8 (get it, like “aid” but directed at the G8!) being televised globally and raising millions of… umm…wait….you mean they aren’t even raising any money? At least that decadent egomaniacal shitfest that was the original live aid raised over 100 mil. But this time around Bono and co. merely aim to bring “awareness” to the “plight” of Africa and to pressure the G8 to approve a far reaching debt relief plan. I am all for debt relief but I cant help but feel that something isn’t quite right with this whole idea. Some of the wealthiest people in the world stage a global concert showcasing their compassion and social awareness and treating the world to some truly “powerful music”. Isn’t there just a dose of cultural superiority going on here? The continent that gave the world Fela Kuti is going to be saved by Bon Jovi and Destiny’s Child? Oh cynical me, who I am really to chastise them? After all, they have “been there and seen the children”. Even with Beyonce’s eyes-opened do-gooder cred fully established, it still seems tremendously ironic and perhaps fortunate that most of the folks at the receiving end of live 8’s flaccid world-saving penis don’t have television sets with which to experience this extravaganza of global harmony and good will. If I was African and Bono came to my village Id throw what little dirt-like morsels I called my dinner at those ostentatious fly-specs we would no doubt be wearing and then ask him about the state of this multimillion dollar Dublin manor and what he has been bouncing to on his custom U2 I pod. [note: if this is pre ’89 Bono we are talking about the above statement is void so as to honor the Joshua Tree and War albums]
Ok, I am about to get a little more serious here, but before I do I just need to tell Paul McCartney that although he was part of the greatest band ever he has run the whole anthemic Hey Jude train into the ground. Give it up.
In my analysis, the problem here lies mostly with the well-intentioned if complacent and wholly inadequate philosophical foundation (or lack thereof) of the first-world conception of the third world (consider the condescension in these names) and the accompanying neo-liberal benefactorship proposed as a solution to the problem of poverty (the conception of which is also wildly off-mark).
Here is an anecdote to illustrate. Last semester in my photography class we took a trip to the wonderful Center for Create Photography at UA. While viewing a collection of photos taken in the 70’s of mostly Hispanic people at a border town in Texas, the instructor posed the ever-perilous question “what are these about?”. While the scenes in the photos where largely, though not exclusively, taken in sub-middle class settings, the mood was enigmatic and the work seemed chiefly concerned with the idiosyncrasy of everyday life. The class, overwhelmingly agreed that the photos were “about poverty”. Herein lies the problem: the pervading ethics of neo-liberal “humanitarianism” insists on view perceived subjects of “poverty” (itself a skewed and wholly relative concept in this instance seem through the lens of the affluent west) as defined primary by their poverty. In the case of the series of photos, the majority of the class saw the people in the pictures as dots on an equilibrium grid of socio-economic phenomena, and thus not primary as humans. The third world is seen almost primarily through an arrogant lens of pity which sees only the “need” and supposed “lack” of the “circumstance”, never the intrinsic human freedom which transcends situational construction (i.e. Sartre’s notion of “absolute freedom”). Or worse, the poor are seem as overflowing with “humanity” because they ‘like…umm…smile and stuff even though they are poor.’ This dehumanizing “ethics” places a backasswards emphasis on perceived victimhood as human qualifier and assumes that material wealth is a requisite for a fulfilled life.
In conjunction with live 8, CNN is airing a special called “Can They be Saved” about African poverty. Now I haven’t seem this, but the title alone is offensive and indicative of the problem I am trying to sort though here. Lets look at all these 4 little words presuppose:
1. Africans need saving (i.e. Africans are not just hungry and fucked by the world economy, no no no, there is something deeper, their souls are fundamentally wrong, no one deserves to live like that [their lives are thus worthless], yes, yes, they need “saving”)
2. CNN and the West are the ones to save them (i.e. if the task of “saving” these people from their wretched existence is even possible it must be of course those of us at CNN [owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world] and the rest of the affluent first-world who are the only ones up to the challenge qua out super-humanity derived from material wealth)
3. We in the West are not the problem (i.e. the systems of market capitalism, the global economy, and their players are not only not the cause of the problem, but in fact are the only hope for African “salvation”)
This is the other side of the live 8 issue. Besides the inherent dehumanized conception of the poor, there is a blanket refusal to consider the systems of power and the super-rich as complicit in the problem. Thus, Bono is free to give a portion of his absurd earnings to charity and assume the self-satisfied posture of the benefactor and never have to question his relation to the power structure. Therefore, Bono doesn’t have to worry about the morality of his dealings with the Mac/Apple, his mansion, or his service-rendered as do-good poster boy to the Bush administration and the G8. In fact, the status quo is completely safe from any sort of indictment here. Live 8 need pay no attention to the rampant materialism of the West or the lifestyle of its participants. It only need politely ask the power structure (which of course is itself totally not involved in the creation of poverty) for a little favor. When and if the G8 concedes, they come out looking like shinning humanitarians and la solidaridad is out the window.
Ok, this rant is getting a little scattered.
Quick! Bat signal the French!
Here in no certain order are a series of excerpts from the contemporary philosopher Alain Badiou’ excellent book “Ethics”. Hopefully he can better synthesize some of these ideas…
Most of these statements address the prevailing conception of “ethics” , usually with regard to “human rights”, “humanitarianism”, and the “other” (i.e. third world).
“The return of the old doctrine of the natural rights of man is obviously linked to the collapse of revolutionary Marxism, and all of the forms of progressive engagement it inspired. In the political domain, deprived of any collective political landmark, stripped of any notion of the ‘meaning of history’ and no longer able to expect or hope for a social revolution, many intellectuals, along with much of public opinion, have been won over by the logic of a capitalist economy and a parliamentary democracy. In the domain of Philosophy they have rediscovered the of the ideology constantly defended by their former opponents: humanitarianism, individualism, and the liberal defense of rights against constraints imposed by organized political engagement. Rather than seek out the terms of a new politics of collective liberation, they have, in sum adopted as their own the established principles of the western order.”
“We have seem that ‘ethics’ subordinates the identification of the subject to the universal recognition of the evil that is done to him. Ethics thus defines man as a victim…[in the pervading ethics] Man is that being which is capable of recognizing himself as a victim.”
“Who can fail to see that in our humanitarian expeditions, interventions, embarkations of charitable legionaries, the subject presumed to be universal is split? On the one side is the victims, the haggard animal, exposed on television screens. On the other is the side of the benefactors, conscience and the imperative to intervene. And why does this splitting assign the same roles to the same sides? Who cannot see that this ethics which rests of the misery of the world hides, behind its victim-man, the good man? Since the barbarity of the situation is considered only in terms of ‘human rights’ …it is perceived that , from the heights of our appearent civil peace, as the uncivilized that demands of the civilized a civilizing intervention. Every intervention in the name of a civilization requires an initial contempt for the for the situation as a whole, including its victims. And this is why the reign of ‘ethics’ coincides, after decades of courageous critiques of colonialism and imperialism, with todays sordid self-satisfaction in the West, with the insistent argument according to which the misery of the third world is the result of its own incompetence, in short, of its sub-humanity.”
It should also be said that the prevailing ideology views evil as the fundamental a priori existent, from which good is only derived via the absence of evil. ‘Human rights” are only rights from evil. For examples the rights from hunger or from violence. Thus, Good only comes from the absence of evil. The is no conception of a fundamental existent good, no humanity, no dignity.
I think I have gone on far too long now but I would be remiss not to include some vision of a positive alternative to this mess. Once, while deep in rural Mexico, while sleeping on cement floors and eating from the kindness of strangers, I met a woman. There was nothing seemingly abnormal about her, she dressed and spoke like everyone else, fit in with whatever schema of the third world you might envision. But as I spoke to her in my broken Spanish I found out that she had once made the arduous border crossing in the deserts of California and eventually made it to Los Angles. After a struggle she was able to get on her feet there and created her very own American life. But there was a nagging dissatisfaction, she had more food and money than she ever did in Mexico but she was not content. After a few years she chose to leave the life she had been taught to dream for. She returned to rural Mexico and told me that though she was again “poor”, she was the happiest that she had ever been, reunited with her community, a sense of authentic experience, and the collective identity and sense of human beauty and glory free from rampant materialism and superficiality.
Goodnight to you Live 8.
Please engage me on this.
In other news, those who attended the Make Believe show a few weeks ago many be interested to know that Nate Kinsella (drums) has allegedly been arrested in Alabama for indecent exposure, a felony in the state.
Recording is a blast and I would post pictures if I could figure out how to do it. If the label will pay for a sting section I will have a conniption fit.
When looking at a building, one must see not the only the edifice, but simultaneously its destruction and possible reconstructions. Everyday, every building. Forever and Forever and Forever. Phoenix you are not very good at this right now. Speak up.
Ok, I am about to get a little more serious here, but before I do I just need to tell Paul McCartney that although he was part of the greatest band ever he has run the whole anthemic Hey Jude train into the ground. Give it up.
In my analysis, the problem here lies mostly with the well-intentioned if complacent and wholly inadequate philosophical foundation (or lack thereof) of the first-world conception of the third world (consider the condescension in these names) and the accompanying neo-liberal benefactorship proposed as a solution to the problem of poverty (the conception of which is also wildly off-mark).
Here is an anecdote to illustrate. Last semester in my photography class we took a trip to the wonderful Center for Create Photography at UA. While viewing a collection of photos taken in the 70’s of mostly Hispanic people at a border town in Texas, the instructor posed the ever-perilous question “what are these about?”. While the scenes in the photos where largely, though not exclusively, taken in sub-middle class settings, the mood was enigmatic and the work seemed chiefly concerned with the idiosyncrasy of everyday life. The class, overwhelmingly agreed that the photos were “about poverty”. Herein lies the problem: the pervading ethics of neo-liberal “humanitarianism” insists on view perceived subjects of “poverty” (itself a skewed and wholly relative concept in this instance seem through the lens of the affluent west) as defined primary by their poverty. In the case of the series of photos, the majority of the class saw the people in the pictures as dots on an equilibrium grid of socio-economic phenomena, and thus not primary as humans. The third world is seen almost primarily through an arrogant lens of pity which sees only the “need” and supposed “lack” of the “circumstance”, never the intrinsic human freedom which transcends situational construction (i.e. Sartre’s notion of “absolute freedom”). Or worse, the poor are seem as overflowing with “humanity” because they ‘like…umm…smile and stuff even though they are poor.’ This dehumanizing “ethics” places a backasswards emphasis on perceived victimhood as human qualifier and assumes that material wealth is a requisite for a fulfilled life.
In conjunction with live 8, CNN is airing a special called “Can They be Saved” about African poverty. Now I haven’t seem this, but the title alone is offensive and indicative of the problem I am trying to sort though here. Lets look at all these 4 little words presuppose:
1. Africans need saving (i.e. Africans are not just hungry and fucked by the world economy, no no no, there is something deeper, their souls are fundamentally wrong, no one deserves to live like that [their lives are thus worthless], yes, yes, they need “saving”)
2. CNN and the West are the ones to save them (i.e. if the task of “saving” these people from their wretched existence is even possible it must be of course those of us at CNN [owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world] and the rest of the affluent first-world who are the only ones up to the challenge qua out super-humanity derived from material wealth)
3. We in the West are not the problem (i.e. the systems of market capitalism, the global economy, and their players are not only not the cause of the problem, but in fact are the only hope for African “salvation”)
This is the other side of the live 8 issue. Besides the inherent dehumanized conception of the poor, there is a blanket refusal to consider the systems of power and the super-rich as complicit in the problem. Thus, Bono is free to give a portion of his absurd earnings to charity and assume the self-satisfied posture of the benefactor and never have to question his relation to the power structure. Therefore, Bono doesn’t have to worry about the morality of his dealings with the Mac/Apple, his mansion, or his service-rendered as do-good poster boy to the Bush administration and the G8. In fact, the status quo is completely safe from any sort of indictment here. Live 8 need pay no attention to the rampant materialism of the West or the lifestyle of its participants. It only need politely ask the power structure (which of course is itself totally not involved in the creation of poverty) for a little favor. When and if the G8 concedes, they come out looking like shinning humanitarians and la solidaridad is out the window.
Ok, this rant is getting a little scattered.
Quick! Bat signal the French!
Here in no certain order are a series of excerpts from the contemporary philosopher Alain Badiou’ excellent book “Ethics”. Hopefully he can better synthesize some of these ideas…
Most of these statements address the prevailing conception of “ethics” , usually with regard to “human rights”, “humanitarianism”, and the “other” (i.e. third world).
“The return of the old doctrine of the natural rights of man is obviously linked to the collapse of revolutionary Marxism, and all of the forms of progressive engagement it inspired. In the political domain, deprived of any collective political landmark, stripped of any notion of the ‘meaning of history’ and no longer able to expect or hope for a social revolution, many intellectuals, along with much of public opinion, have been won over by the logic of a capitalist economy and a parliamentary democracy. In the domain of Philosophy they have rediscovered the of the ideology constantly defended by their former opponents: humanitarianism, individualism, and the liberal defense of rights against constraints imposed by organized political engagement. Rather than seek out the terms of a new politics of collective liberation, they have, in sum adopted as their own the established principles of the western order.”
“We have seem that ‘ethics’ subordinates the identification of the subject to the universal recognition of the evil that is done to him. Ethics thus defines man as a victim…[in the pervading ethics] Man is that being which is capable of recognizing himself as a victim.”
“Who can fail to see that in our humanitarian expeditions, interventions, embarkations of charitable legionaries, the subject presumed to be universal is split? On the one side is the victims, the haggard animal, exposed on television screens. On the other is the side of the benefactors, conscience and the imperative to intervene. And why does this splitting assign the same roles to the same sides? Who cannot see that this ethics which rests of the misery of the world hides, behind its victim-man, the good man? Since the barbarity of the situation is considered only in terms of ‘human rights’ …it is perceived that , from the heights of our appearent civil peace, as the uncivilized that demands of the civilized a civilizing intervention. Every intervention in the name of a civilization requires an initial contempt for the for the situation as a whole, including its victims. And this is why the reign of ‘ethics’ coincides, after decades of courageous critiques of colonialism and imperialism, with todays sordid self-satisfaction in the West, with the insistent argument according to which the misery of the third world is the result of its own incompetence, in short, of its sub-humanity.”
It should also be said that the prevailing ideology views evil as the fundamental a priori existent, from which good is only derived via the absence of evil. ‘Human rights” are only rights from evil. For examples the rights from hunger or from violence. Thus, Good only comes from the absence of evil. The is no conception of a fundamental existent good, no humanity, no dignity.
I think I have gone on far too long now but I would be remiss not to include some vision of a positive alternative to this mess. Once, while deep in rural Mexico, while sleeping on cement floors and eating from the kindness of strangers, I met a woman. There was nothing seemingly abnormal about her, she dressed and spoke like everyone else, fit in with whatever schema of the third world you might envision. But as I spoke to her in my broken Spanish I found out that she had once made the arduous border crossing in the deserts of California and eventually made it to Los Angles. After a struggle she was able to get on her feet there and created her very own American life. But there was a nagging dissatisfaction, she had more food and money than she ever did in Mexico but she was not content. After a few years she chose to leave the life she had been taught to dream for. She returned to rural Mexico and told me that though she was again “poor”, she was the happiest that she had ever been, reunited with her community, a sense of authentic experience, and the collective identity and sense of human beauty and glory free from rampant materialism and superficiality.
Goodnight to you Live 8.
Please engage me on this.
In other news, those who attended the Make Believe show a few weeks ago many be interested to know that Nate Kinsella (drums) has allegedly been arrested in Alabama for indecent exposure, a felony in the state.
Recording is a blast and I would post pictures if I could figure out how to do it. If the label will pay for a sting section I will have a conniption fit.
When looking at a building, one must see not the only the edifice, but simultaneously its destruction and possible reconstructions. Everyday, every building. Forever and Forever and Forever. Phoenix you are not very good at this right now. Speak up.