In re Pinochet:
What is subjective about throwing people out of airplanes? Sewing live
rats into teenage girls' vaginas? Running a government that not only
allows but practices torture and murder?
On what basis are we to be nonjudgemental of the United States' role in
propagating these acts? Of International Telephone and Telegraph?
Call me old fashioned, ladies, gentlemen, Foucauldians all, but the
problem is in my view not the problematic of "judging" Pinochet but how
incomplete holding the old man accountable now without further holding
responsible those who brought him to power (we know, don't we, what
power is?), those who kept him in power, and those who debate the fate
of the man (the potential execution of a man ready to die naturally
anyway) when similar "crimes," if that is what we call torture and the
forcible ending of human life, are almost ubiquitous on planet Earth.
Whether the origins of the phenomena are culturally specific or no, the
question is a little bogus when we consider that the usual villain in
these critiques--the West--foisted its culture upon the colonies, which
covered the whole of the globe. Part of that culture was the forcible
suppression of dissent. Another part included the seeds, however poorly
fertilized, of respect for human "rights." How easy for us to smirk in
defense of Pinochet et al with assaults on the "peace corps" mentality
symbolized by the second, while neglecting that the first, as practiced
under the names "Asian values," "South American values," etc. is just as
western. The difference, it would appear, is rather artificial between,
say, Giuliani's NY and Park's Singapore. What's the difference between
Stalin and Pinochet? Millions of American dollars. Some of us went to
college because our folks invested in ITT. We bring the devil (forgive
me....) to power, wait until he has taken his country (which we sure
thought we owned when we toppled Allende's democratically-elected
government--whose legitimacy may or may not have been questionable, but
which was unquestionably greater than that of his successor, Pinochet,
but for the Macchiavellian proclivities of certain interests.
Doctors, heal thyselves!
TschuB,
Matt
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Nov 16 07:57:01 1998
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id JAA54964 for foucault-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998
09:54:18 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender
to owner-foucault@localhost using -f
>Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu (gabriel.cc.emory.edu
[170.140.1.30]) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP
id JAA30894 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998
09:54:11 -0500
>Received: from emory.edu (slafoun.dialup.emory.edu [170.140.244.102])
> by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08930
> for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:54:09
-0500 (EST)
>Message-ID: <36503E50.BCB1870E@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:01:37 -0500
>From: Sheila LaFountain <slafoun@xxxxxxxxx>
>Organization: Emory University
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Pinochet and disappeared (now nihilism)
>References:
<Pine.GSO.4.05.9811141019470.19114-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<364DDFF8.C18D0B04@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <364F5B1A.1346E547@xxxxxxxxx>
<364F84CE.502639F@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>kjrufo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Sheila LaFountain wrote:
>> > ;-))) I'm more interested for the moment in how your email
(indirectly)
>> > fosters pollution.
>> Seriously? My email a) uses electricity, which is currently fueled
by burning finite
>
>Okay but isn't it the paradigm of information technology that allows
you
>"trace" sources of responsibility and "figure out" outcomes? I took
D&P
>and other of Foucault's work to be about the fact that this seems to be
>how the techne of our age works. It provides the basis for our
"feeling"
>right or providing a "sense" that justice is in fact being done. But
>what would another paradign tell us instead? To be sure we can pledge
a
>desire for social justice with but sometimes it is difficult to tell
>the difference between help, harm, justice, revenge, progress. Some
>might say that email is progress over lack of communication and using
>trees for writing letters on paper products. Perhaps email would keep
>kids off the streets and out of drugs and killing one another. Maybe
>email would make them mad enough to go out and find the meany who wrote
>the flame and teach him a thing or two. Your suggestion that there are
>sometimes unintended outcomes is a good point.
>
>>
>> I guess that to me we are always in the middle, since the middle is
as subjective a place in
>> which to finf (define) oneself as is the outside. Apart from that, I
don't understand
>> exactly what you're asking here... If you're supposing that
knowledge of potential
>> consequences are ultimately unknowable, I imagine that almost
everyone would agree. I'm
>> really just interested in opinions as to what to do from the
standpoint of justice given our
>> limitations and the elusive and often counterproductive ideal of
social justice. Are we to
>> abandon notions of justice, dance around the historical object
through redefinition, or
>> plunge ahead nonetheless, knowing that we can't know the potential
outcome? Thoughts on
>> that?
>Do plunge ahead with the best of intentions.
>
>>
>> > Is there someone who might give us a foucauldian analysis of what's
>> > going on/been going on in chile by those people who've actually
been
>> > there and know something about what's going on? That would be a
very
>> > interesting read.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, though I fear the recent emails about the need for prolonged
study make a prolonged
>> analysis unlikely.
>Perhaps but there are a number of excellent Foucauldians on this list
>that would be glad to take good information coming out of the country
>and spontaneously analyze it.. at least I think it's a good bet but you
>just never know.
>
>s
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
What is subjective about throwing people out of airplanes? Sewing live
rats into teenage girls' vaginas? Running a government that not only
allows but practices torture and murder?
On what basis are we to be nonjudgemental of the United States' role in
propagating these acts? Of International Telephone and Telegraph?
Call me old fashioned, ladies, gentlemen, Foucauldians all, but the
problem is in my view not the problematic of "judging" Pinochet but how
incomplete holding the old man accountable now without further holding
responsible those who brought him to power (we know, don't we, what
power is?), those who kept him in power, and those who debate the fate
of the man (the potential execution of a man ready to die naturally
anyway) when similar "crimes," if that is what we call torture and the
forcible ending of human life, are almost ubiquitous on planet Earth.
Whether the origins of the phenomena are culturally specific or no, the
question is a little bogus when we consider that the usual villain in
these critiques--the West--foisted its culture upon the colonies, which
covered the whole of the globe. Part of that culture was the forcible
suppression of dissent. Another part included the seeds, however poorly
fertilized, of respect for human "rights." How easy for us to smirk in
defense of Pinochet et al with assaults on the "peace corps" mentality
symbolized by the second, while neglecting that the first, as practiced
under the names "Asian values," "South American values," etc. is just as
western. The difference, it would appear, is rather artificial between,
say, Giuliani's NY and Park's Singapore. What's the difference between
Stalin and Pinochet? Millions of American dollars. Some of us went to
college because our folks invested in ITT. We bring the devil (forgive
me....) to power, wait until he has taken his country (which we sure
thought we owned when we toppled Allende's democratically-elected
government--whose legitimacy may or may not have been questionable, but
which was unquestionably greater than that of his successor, Pinochet,
but for the Macchiavellian proclivities of certain interests.
Doctors, heal thyselves!
TschuB,
Matt
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Nov 16 07:57:01 1998
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id JAA54964 for foucault-outgoing; Mon, 16 Nov 1998
09:54:18 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender
to owner-foucault@localhost using -f
>Received: from gabriel.cc.emory.edu (gabriel.cc.emory.edu
[170.140.1.30]) by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP
id JAA30894 for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998
09:54:11 -0500
>Received: from emory.edu (slafoun.dialup.emory.edu [170.140.244.102])
> by gabriel.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA08930
> for <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:54:09
-0500 (EST)
>Message-ID: <36503E50.BCB1870E@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:01:37 -0500
>From: Sheila LaFountain <slafoun@xxxxxxxxx>
>Organization: Emory University
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Pinochet and disappeared (now nihilism)
>References:
<Pine.GSO.4.05.9811141019470.19114-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<364DDFF8.C18D0B04@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <364F5B1A.1346E547@xxxxxxxxx>
<364F84CE.502639F@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>kjrufo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Sheila LaFountain wrote:
>> > ;-))) I'm more interested for the moment in how your email
(indirectly)
>> > fosters pollution.
>> Seriously? My email a) uses electricity, which is currently fueled
by burning finite
>
>Okay but isn't it the paradigm of information technology that allows
you
>"trace" sources of responsibility and "figure out" outcomes? I took
D&P
>and other of Foucault's work to be about the fact that this seems to be
>how the techne of our age works. It provides the basis for our
"feeling"
>right or providing a "sense" that justice is in fact being done. But
>what would another paradign tell us instead? To be sure we can pledge
a
>desire for social justice with but sometimes it is difficult to tell
>the difference between help, harm, justice, revenge, progress. Some
>might say that email is progress over lack of communication and using
>trees for writing letters on paper products. Perhaps email would keep
>kids off the streets and out of drugs and killing one another. Maybe
>email would make them mad enough to go out and find the meany who wrote
>the flame and teach him a thing or two. Your suggestion that there are
>sometimes unintended outcomes is a good point.
>
>>
>> I guess that to me we are always in the middle, since the middle is
as subjective a place in
>> which to finf (define) oneself as is the outside. Apart from that, I
don't understand
>> exactly what you're asking here... If you're supposing that
knowledge of potential
>> consequences are ultimately unknowable, I imagine that almost
everyone would agree. I'm
>> really just interested in opinions as to what to do from the
standpoint of justice given our
>> limitations and the elusive and often counterproductive ideal of
social justice. Are we to
>> abandon notions of justice, dance around the historical object
through redefinition, or
>> plunge ahead nonetheless, knowing that we can't know the potential
outcome? Thoughts on
>> that?
>Do plunge ahead with the best of intentions.
>
>>
>> > Is there someone who might give us a foucauldian analysis of what's
>> > going on/been going on in chile by those people who've actually
been
>> > there and know something about what's going on? That would be a
very
>> > interesting read.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, though I fear the recent emails about the need for prolonged
study make a prolonged
>> analysis unlikely.
>Perhaps but there are a number of excellent Foucauldians on this list
>that would be glad to take good information coming out of the country
>and spontaneously analyze it.. at least I think it's a good bet but you
>just never know.
>
>s
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com