What is all of this business about intentionality? I thoughtmost of us had moved
away from a sovereign model of power in which a few individualswho posess power
consciously oppress the rest who do not.
I strongly doubt that anyone makes economic policy with the conscious intention
of causing more poverty. I would agree that poverty does RESULT from certain
conservative economic practices which have become more frequent recently.
However, the people who lobby for or who institute such policies are undoubtedly
doing so because they truly believe a certain type of discourse abotu the
"goddness" of free market systems, or meritocracy or even the creation of jobs
"trickle down" economics. IF I (and I am an outsider to the discourse of the
right) perceive that
people are increasingly being thrown into poverty
by certain corporate actions or by political policies, certainly most of the
corporate CEOs or the politicians would not agree with me. Instead, they would
see uneducated poor people who had failed to "invest in their own futures" or
to "take advantage of opportunities offered to them." I can (and do) attempt to
interrupt the smooth flow of conservative discourse justifying their policies,
but even there am flying by the seat of my pants, not knowing what the result of
my actions (if any) will be. Is that intentional action in reaction to
intentional action? Have we brought back agency, or am I misreading the
conversation. (I admit to having skimmed some of the letters.)
Clitoridectomy is another complicated issue. As a woman coming from a culture in
which such a practice is not "normal" I greatly appreciate being physically
"intact" and find such a practice abhorrent. However, some of the arguments I
have read against clitoridectomy look like they assume that people from cultures
in which it is "normal" are doing it primarily to "disable" women, and
underrstand the practice in terms which would seem familiar to comprehensible to
us. They also sound like stopping it is a relatively simple matter. In fact (and
like Quetzil I am far from an "expert" in this area) as far as I understand, it
is a practice which has deep social and spiritual significance, which is
undertaken out of love for the woman or small girl on whom the surgery is
performed, and involves making her an integral part of society as well as
eligible for marriage in parts of the world in which women still have few
economic options outside of marriage. In fact I know Africans who I otherwise
consider "progressive" or even "pro-feminist" who either defend this practice
for members of their own culture only, or remain neutral on the topic. The fact the RESULTS of this surgery are
to my mind (and that of most people raised in my culture the RESULTS of this
procedure are loathesome and disbling has nothing to do with the INTENTIONS of
the parents and/or relatives who submit their girls or young women to this act.
Clitoridectomy IS a fascinating topic to discuss in terms of intention and
result, but not when the discussion is based on the presumption of shared values
which do not exist.
Another interesting topic to discuss in this vein might be individuals who
commit what we, as outsiders consider "war crimes" because they have created a
community of discourse which justifies this behavior. In most cases they were
not raised to commit this type of act. At the same time they are different from
the lone criminal. As one Serb father said on National Public Radio "I don't
know what happened. I didn't raise my son to be a racist, a murderer, or a
rapist, but because of this war he has become one." People like his son were
raised with different values. What are their "intentions" when committing war
crimes?
These questions are important for discussing agency, but let's not pretend that
we can decide right or wrong in some simple manner by second guessing other
people's "intentions."
away from a sovereign model of power in which a few individualswho posess power
consciously oppress the rest who do not.
I strongly doubt that anyone makes economic policy with the conscious intention
of causing more poverty. I would agree that poverty does RESULT from certain
conservative economic practices which have become more frequent recently.
However, the people who lobby for or who institute such policies are undoubtedly
doing so because they truly believe a certain type of discourse abotu the
"goddness" of free market systems, or meritocracy or even the creation of jobs
"trickle down" economics. IF I (and I am an outsider to the discourse of the
right) perceive that
people are increasingly being thrown into poverty
by certain corporate actions or by political policies, certainly most of the
corporate CEOs or the politicians would not agree with me. Instead, they would
see uneducated poor people who had failed to "invest in their own futures" or
to "take advantage of opportunities offered to them." I can (and do) attempt to
interrupt the smooth flow of conservative discourse justifying their policies,
but even there am flying by the seat of my pants, not knowing what the result of
my actions (if any) will be. Is that intentional action in reaction to
intentional action? Have we brought back agency, or am I misreading the
conversation. (I admit to having skimmed some of the letters.)
Clitoridectomy is another complicated issue. As a woman coming from a culture in
which such a practice is not "normal" I greatly appreciate being physically
"intact" and find such a practice abhorrent. However, some of the arguments I
have read against clitoridectomy look like they assume that people from cultures
in which it is "normal" are doing it primarily to "disable" women, and
underrstand the practice in terms which would seem familiar to comprehensible to
us. They also sound like stopping it is a relatively simple matter. In fact (and
like Quetzil I am far from an "expert" in this area) as far as I understand, it
is a practice which has deep social and spiritual significance, which is
undertaken out of love for the woman or small girl on whom the surgery is
performed, and involves making her an integral part of society as well as
eligible for marriage in parts of the world in which women still have few
economic options outside of marriage. In fact I know Africans who I otherwise
consider "progressive" or even "pro-feminist" who either defend this practice
for members of their own culture only, or remain neutral on the topic. The fact the RESULTS of this surgery are
to my mind (and that of most people raised in my culture the RESULTS of this
procedure are loathesome and disbling has nothing to do with the INTENTIONS of
the parents and/or relatives who submit their girls or young women to this act.
Clitoridectomy IS a fascinating topic to discuss in terms of intention and
result, but not when the discussion is based on the presumption of shared values
which do not exist.
Another interesting topic to discuss in this vein might be individuals who
commit what we, as outsiders consider "war crimes" because they have created a
community of discourse which justifies this behavior. In most cases they were
not raised to commit this type of act. At the same time they are different from
the lone criminal. As one Serb father said on National Public Radio "I don't
know what happened. I didn't raise my son to be a racist, a murderer, or a
rapist, but because of this war he has become one." People like his son were
raised with different values. What are their "intentions" when committing war
crimes?
These questions are important for discussing agency, but let's not pretend that
we can decide right or wrong in some simple manner by second guessing other
people's "intentions."