Perhaps while most people are controlled by the panopticon effect, these
Hilton girls are protected by it. It seems that they have a right to do
anything outrageous as long as it entertains everyone who is watching. What
is it about them that enables this to happen, or perhaps it is everything
about them. They are presented to the world as having so much that they are
unreal or imperceivable to most people. So, perhaps if you want to assume
unreasonbly selfish rights you need to position yourself as being
increadibly priviledged. I wonder if that is what some leaders do to
attract and retain followers. By assuming such an aura power is attracted
and naturally flows through you.
Does this make sense to anyone??
>From: "David McInerney" <borderlands@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Difficulty thinking of power as something which is not
>possessed, accumulated ..
>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:37:58 +1030
> > paris hilton and her mate on 'A simple Life' openly steal a birdhouse
> > shop (putting it on their 'boss's account at the store) when confronted
> > laugh it off - not only do they think they have rights, they know they
> > 'rights' -they can (and do) buy their way out of trouble. They actually
> > understand they will never be 'in trouble'. For the millions who watched
> > this in America and Australia isn't it easier to see those two, no
> > how idiotic, as possesing power they themselves will never 'have'?
>The attitude of these women is certainly repugnant. The show does,
>bring into relief why, like the 'dutiful slave', real employees do not
>behave as they do, and that the relations of power - here we can say, of
>domination - are based in the 'freedom' of the worker to sell his/her
>labour-power, as Marx suggested. It also reminds me of Balibar's analysis
>of Spinoza in _Spinoza and Politics_, where natural right is coextensive
>with power/capacity to act.
What's your house worth? Click here to find out: