On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, mitchell wilson wrote:
> we both know that the best way to end the american consumer's
> bloodthirst for cheap goods is to show them via the television the
> horrid conditions of those who are exploited by their mindless economic
> participation. unfortuanately most people have the memory of a rusted
> trap that never quite catches anything. but this doesn't mean that
> because of their ephemeral feelings that culture is based on killing.
> rather it means that that kind of person has been politcally and
> emotionally disconnected from the world, from other societies and their
> cultures.
On the whole I agree with you although some cultures are based very
directly and unapologetically on killing. My comments had nothing to do
with Foucault and I suppose that they had everything to do with the fact
that on Sunday a student was brutally murdered on the campus where I work
(last a year a student of mine murdered two other people), that there were
more political murders at Shobashobane and more taxi murders over the
weekend, that there is currently an inquest into the Shell House Shootings
of 1994, that the Truth Commission means that South African news bulletins
are filled, day after day, with the murder and torture of the last 20 years,
that refugees from Central Africa continue to arrive in my city etc, etc,
etc.
When you live in Africa (or I imagine the third world generally) the
political complacency of much of the first world is infuriating because so
much of the first world's wealth was (and continues to be) based on
exploitation, because the cold war devastated countries like Mozambique
and Angola (it left them with more landmines than people) and simply
because the crisis of Africa is so profound. South Africa, Mozambique and
Uganda seem be on the up and up but in much of the continent people are
getting poorer, life expectancies are going down, social instituions are
crumbling etc, etc.
When you live in a country like England it is easy to be proud of the
British Museum, Salisbury Cathedral etc, etc but for an African these
places are vile - they drip with blood. Yes, you are right that the
people who like these places don't see them for what they are because
certain people are invisible or dehumanised to them. Most cultures are
not based on the direct and dirty business of murder. But when they are
based on nostalgia for, or dreams of, imperial glory - fetishisation of
the milititary or even the instrumentalisation of "free trade" (It's
ironic that in South Africa "gat" is street slang for a gun) the
known *causes* of murder or reduced life expectancy or increased infant
mortality are the basis for important parts of culture. What is
significant to me is that very few people are interested in challenging
the institutions and structures which do not hold life sacred.
Yes most humans don't have a bloodlust but most humans also don't care
about the "other" or the "hidden." To me this means that while culture is
not based on the action of killing it is based on a disregard for the well
being and life of people who don't have the access to the humanising
mechanisms of dominant cultures. In other words I agree with your view
that we do tend to hold the lives of those in our broad communities sacred
but I am arguing that we keep access to that community pretty tightly
closed and hence our culture is based on the sort of stratification and
exclusion which allows some lives to be worth nothing beyond what they
can do to profit and loss. It is therefore indirectly based on a
tolerance of murder as an economic strategy.
But this has nothing to do with Foucault so maybe we should get back on
track.
In future I'll try not to let my personal experiences encourge me to make
(spontaneous) comments which have nothing to do with Foucault.
Richard
Durban
> we both know that the best way to end the american consumer's
> bloodthirst for cheap goods is to show them via the television the
> horrid conditions of those who are exploited by their mindless economic
> participation. unfortuanately most people have the memory of a rusted
> trap that never quite catches anything. but this doesn't mean that
> because of their ephemeral feelings that culture is based on killing.
> rather it means that that kind of person has been politcally and
> emotionally disconnected from the world, from other societies and their
> cultures.
On the whole I agree with you although some cultures are based very
directly and unapologetically on killing. My comments had nothing to do
with Foucault and I suppose that they had everything to do with the fact
that on Sunday a student was brutally murdered on the campus where I work
(last a year a student of mine murdered two other people), that there were
more political murders at Shobashobane and more taxi murders over the
weekend, that there is currently an inquest into the Shell House Shootings
of 1994, that the Truth Commission means that South African news bulletins
are filled, day after day, with the murder and torture of the last 20 years,
that refugees from Central Africa continue to arrive in my city etc, etc,
etc.
When you live in Africa (or I imagine the third world generally) the
political complacency of much of the first world is infuriating because so
much of the first world's wealth was (and continues to be) based on
exploitation, because the cold war devastated countries like Mozambique
and Angola (it left them with more landmines than people) and simply
because the crisis of Africa is so profound. South Africa, Mozambique and
Uganda seem be on the up and up but in much of the continent people are
getting poorer, life expectancies are going down, social instituions are
crumbling etc, etc.
When you live in a country like England it is easy to be proud of the
British Museum, Salisbury Cathedral etc, etc but for an African these
places are vile - they drip with blood. Yes, you are right that the
people who like these places don't see them for what they are because
certain people are invisible or dehumanised to them. Most cultures are
not based on the direct and dirty business of murder. But when they are
based on nostalgia for, or dreams of, imperial glory - fetishisation of
the milititary or even the instrumentalisation of "free trade" (It's
ironic that in South Africa "gat" is street slang for a gun) the
known *causes* of murder or reduced life expectancy or increased infant
mortality are the basis for important parts of culture. What is
significant to me is that very few people are interested in challenging
the institutions and structures which do not hold life sacred.
Yes most humans don't have a bloodlust but most humans also don't care
about the "other" or the "hidden." To me this means that while culture is
not based on the action of killing it is based on a disregard for the well
being and life of people who don't have the access to the humanising
mechanisms of dominant cultures. In other words I agree with your view
that we do tend to hold the lives of those in our broad communities sacred
but I am arguing that we keep access to that community pretty tightly
closed and hence our culture is based on the sort of stratification and
exclusion which allows some lives to be worth nothing beyond what they
can do to profit and loss. It is therefore indirectly based on a
tolerance of murder as an economic strategy.
But this has nothing to do with Foucault so maybe we should get back on
track.
In future I'll try not to let my personal experiences encourge me to make
(spontaneous) comments which have nothing to do with Foucault.
Richard
Durban