>But Quetzil's position was that he didn't know enough about adult-child
>sex or clitoridectomy to act either to promote those customs or to
>suppress them. To say that he's acting by his 'inaction' - i.e. he's
>allowing these practices to continue - is true.
But they exist, they go on, and Quetzil, you and I bear a reponsiblity for
them. If _we_ let them happen, _we_ have let them happen, just as much as if
I stand by and passively watch my partner kill one of our children, I would
be considered reponsible. Inaction may be the most universal form of action
and issues of geographical location do nothing to let us of the hook, IMHO.
They merely provide a rationalisation of our inaction
>
>This is not what I was saying. Of course if you are rich you are in a
>position to prevent other people's poverty, and if you fail to do so then
>that is your action. But this is not analogous to preventing
>clitoridectomy or murder, both of which are intentional acts done by
>other people.
Of course the analogy holds. If you have the power to stop these practices
then why not? Poverty, environmental degradation etc., all occur due to the
intentional acts of persons. There is no logical difference between the two
examples.
>Although those who failed to prevent the holocaust might have been able
>to had they tried, those who actively took part in it were those who made
>it happen.
This just seems naive to me. It rests on a very individualistic-atomistic
notion of responsibility. Those that let it happen, let it happen.
> Also, how can
>> you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
>> why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
>> becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
>> however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
>> status-quoist.
>
>By default indifference position I mean that most people do not make
>conscious efforts to influence the course of the majority of the world's
>events. For example, I have done nothing to discourage the conflict in
>the former Yugoslavia, nor have I attempted to stop the building of the
>Newbury bypass. The list even of political events that I have not tried
>to influence is endless.
Again, I think this is naive. It nicely positions you as only complicit in
acts you deem to be responsible, easily eliding your/my responsibility for
events wider than one's primary horizon. Had everyone who cared enough done
more about Yugoslavia and the Newbury bypass then maybe, just maybe, things
might have turned out differently. We didn't and we got/get the world we
create.
> As for Quetzil being status-quoist, I think he would dispute that.
I'm sure he would. But I think that this is where a lot of the critiques of,
what I will call poststructuralism, hit the nail on the head. Inaction is a
form of action. Not to criticise and act to remove a set of existing
practices means that those practices endure: the existing practices that is.
This is status-quoist, by default.
Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------