On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> John,
>
> Sorry but maybe I'm missing a fundamental point here but the question of
> transgression can't simply be reduced to the identification of a limit and
> the hypothetical posing of ways of transgressing that limit. For example,
>
> >(A) Limit: Women are (ideally) perfectly proportioned sexual objects who
> >nevertheless find their sexuality constrained and shaped by the fashion
> >industry.
> >
> >Transgression: Burning bras at the Miss America pageant
>
> No, I say women are not to burn their bras. Women are to stay at home, be
> good little wifes etc.
>
> But I am guilty of transgressing your attempt to burn your bra. how are to
> mediate this conflict?
[end snippet from Colin]
Marx says where equal rights conflict, force decides.
Why would anyone want to mediate the conflict? The whole point is not to
mediate anything but to contrast one's own mode of being with that of
others. "Here you are all you pretty anorexic women all painted with your
asses taped up so they look nice and tight for your leering judges -- and
what do we do? No bra! Breasts flopping all over the place. Flesh
everywhere, completely unorganized. No makeup. And here now I'm burning a
bra! That's right, turn your camera over here!"
> On what sort of ethical basis are we to proceed?
> Knowing the limit and the transgression merely tells us that about which we
> are in conflict. This we know. But even worse, if you continue to burn your
> bras, your are guilty of transgressing my wish limit of wanting you to stop
> this practice.
We are not to proceed on an ethical basis, or a normative basis, precisely
because the people burning the bras are attempting to create a new
normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
norms. When you're trying to create new modes of being, it makes no sense
to appeal to ethical norms that refer back to previously established modes
of being. You won't find the resources there you need for opposition.
>
> The problems proliferate when one moves from this example, which is not
> trivial, to one such as infantcide. Here the question of a
> limit/transgression dialectic comes up against the rock of 'why should we
> care about babies being killed?'
Are there conditions under which you would condone the killing of babies?
I remember someone telling me about a movie concerning the Algerian
resistance against French occupation. I think that was the context. An
undercover freedom fighter has just placed a bomb in the officer's tent,
and is calmly walking away while the clock ticks down to explosion. As she
leaves, she sees a couple of beautiful, curly-haired toddlers unsteadily
making their way to the officers' tent, slurping away at a lovely ice
cream cone. She keeps walking.
--John
> John,
>
> Sorry but maybe I'm missing a fundamental point here but the question of
> transgression can't simply be reduced to the identification of a limit and
> the hypothetical posing of ways of transgressing that limit. For example,
>
> >(A) Limit: Women are (ideally) perfectly proportioned sexual objects who
> >nevertheless find their sexuality constrained and shaped by the fashion
> >industry.
> >
> >Transgression: Burning bras at the Miss America pageant
>
> No, I say women are not to burn their bras. Women are to stay at home, be
> good little wifes etc.
>
> But I am guilty of transgressing your attempt to burn your bra. how are to
> mediate this conflict?
[end snippet from Colin]
Marx says where equal rights conflict, force decides.
Why would anyone want to mediate the conflict? The whole point is not to
mediate anything but to contrast one's own mode of being with that of
others. "Here you are all you pretty anorexic women all painted with your
asses taped up so they look nice and tight for your leering judges -- and
what do we do? No bra! Breasts flopping all over the place. Flesh
everywhere, completely unorganized. No makeup. And here now I'm burning a
bra! That's right, turn your camera over here!"
> On what sort of ethical basis are we to proceed?
> Knowing the limit and the transgression merely tells us that about which we
> are in conflict. This we know. But even worse, if you continue to burn your
> bras, your are guilty of transgressing my wish limit of wanting you to stop
> this practice.
We are not to proceed on an ethical basis, or a normative basis, precisely
because the people burning the bras are attempting to create a new
normative space, one not captured or even addressed by the current ethical
norms. When you're trying to create new modes of being, it makes no sense
to appeal to ethical norms that refer back to previously established modes
of being. You won't find the resources there you need for opposition.
>
> The problems proliferate when one moves from this example, which is not
> trivial, to one such as infantcide. Here the question of a
> limit/transgression dialectic comes up against the rock of 'why should we
> care about babies being killed?'
Are there conditions under which you would condone the killing of babies?
I remember someone telling me about a movie concerning the Algerian
resistance against French occupation. I think that was the context. An
undercover freedom fighter has just placed a bomb in the officer's tent,
and is calmly walking away while the clock ticks down to explosion. As she
leaves, she sees a couple of beautiful, curly-haired toddlers unsteadily
making their way to the officers' tent, slurping away at a lovely ice
cream cone. She keeps walking.
--John