Vunch challengs us to think about
'the problems of massive high school dropping-out', and 'so much
violence in the first place'
In talking about human beings we have this strange romantic notion of
what is normal. We imagine an idyllic condition and think that is
standard for human beings and somehow we are currently off the gold
standard as it were. It may well be that the massive high school
not-dropping-out of a previous era ( when? ) was the oddity, not present
conditions. and anyway, is attendance at high school an indication of
the health of a society or simply its prosperity or rate of
unemployment?
I am as much against violence as anyone, indeed my life has been
seriously affected by it, but I would challenge anyone who thinks that
violence isn't the norm in our society. Indeed Foucault examines
Clausewitz's aphorism that war is diplomacy by other means, and reverses
it: diplomacy/law is war by other means: the bottom line is who can
hurt who more. He says that the law is ultimately founded on the ability
to kill. (Power/knowledge, two lectures, I think) I think what is the
recent difference is the media attention to forms of violence among the
poor, and there potential for affecting the not-poor. Most crimes are
committed by the poor against the poor, and these are not frankly what
schools or vigilante societies worry about. But the threat to people of
property is heavily played up.
The emphasis on dropping out/crime/unemployment amounts to a kind of
package of goods which young people particularly are being sold in order
to keep them in line, under supervision in schools, or jobs, and has an
impact on parents and teachers as they struggle to help their little
charges avoid a fate worse than death. In fact when I reflect on the
phrase I just used, the process is exactly the same as the Victorian way
of keeping women under control by the threat of exclusion.
I think that perhaps what is new is the effect of technology; where once
young working class men could be effectively reduced in number - and
had some value to their society/govt - by sending them off to war, the
existence of nuclear weapons makes this an unattractive option, so these
poor sods have no use at all. Factory owners usually prefer women
because they are more docile and cheaper. We have a high suicide rate
for young males, but the effect on the problem is minimal. Maybe Dean
Swift had the right idea.
Nesta
'the problems of massive high school dropping-out', and 'so much
violence in the first place'
In talking about human beings we have this strange romantic notion of
what is normal. We imagine an idyllic condition and think that is
standard for human beings and somehow we are currently off the gold
standard as it were. It may well be that the massive high school
not-dropping-out of a previous era ( when? ) was the oddity, not present
conditions. and anyway, is attendance at high school an indication of
the health of a society or simply its prosperity or rate of
unemployment?
I am as much against violence as anyone, indeed my life has been
seriously affected by it, but I would challenge anyone who thinks that
violence isn't the norm in our society. Indeed Foucault examines
Clausewitz's aphorism that war is diplomacy by other means, and reverses
it: diplomacy/law is war by other means: the bottom line is who can
hurt who more. He says that the law is ultimately founded on the ability
to kill. (Power/knowledge, two lectures, I think) I think what is the
recent difference is the media attention to forms of violence among the
poor, and there potential for affecting the not-poor. Most crimes are
committed by the poor against the poor, and these are not frankly what
schools or vigilante societies worry about. But the threat to people of
property is heavily played up.
The emphasis on dropping out/crime/unemployment amounts to a kind of
package of goods which young people particularly are being sold in order
to keep them in line, under supervision in schools, or jobs, and has an
impact on parents and teachers as they struggle to help their little
charges avoid a fate worse than death. In fact when I reflect on the
phrase I just used, the process is exactly the same as the Victorian way
of keeping women under control by the threat of exclusion.
I think that perhaps what is new is the effect of technology; where once
young working class men could be effectively reduced in number - and
had some value to their society/govt - by sending them off to war, the
existence of nuclear weapons makes this an unattractive option, so these
poor sods have no use at all. Factory owners usually prefer women
because they are more docile and cheaper. We have a high suicide rate
for young males, but the effect on the problem is minimal. Maybe Dean
Swift had the right idea.
Nesta