Ian:
sorry for the misquotation, and for using the word "silly".
part of the problem is, I think, a lack of information. If you have access to the
views of people close to the Kosovo scene that are not making it into the western
media, this obviously places you in a different position.
But on the question of dilemmas: I once heard Richard Bernstein tell a story to
Jacques Derrida, after Derrida had presented a portion of his then new book
"spectres of Marx" , something about an old labor activism song which goes "which
side are you on boys, which side are you on". Derrida insisted that he was on
the side of "life" ? well, almost always. A beautiful moment between a
pragmatist and a deconstructionist.
I tend to agree with bernstein. at a certain point, the reality of the situation,
and the immediate dilemmas posed by present
problems require us to say which side we are on, even though we may know that this
reduction (either /or) is, in fact a reduction of more complex relations and
contradictions This is not to suggest that we "shut down", but that we form what
I believe to be sound positions based on what we know?human rights should be an
international concern, and Serb repression should be stopped, with military force,
if need be.
I am completely willing to revise the position based on more information (which I
hope Ian will provide), but I think sometimes circumstances are either/or.
Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
> > .... the bombing of a police center and the hunting down of all
> >policing apparatus is hardly helping with internal policing matters. This
> >analysis betrays an orthodoxy to leftist skepticism, and a willingness to
> >search out the concealed agenda, but it is, I think, silly.
>
> Silly being of course the most violent word you could use: not 'misguided',
> 'partial', 'worrying', 'challenging'. It has to be "silly"--like being
> mad; easily dismissed, without thought.
>
> >Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
> >complicated
>
> I didn't say this, Tony did. I'm not just making theoretical leaps, by the
> way. I'm receiving information everyday from colleagues in Albania and
> Macedonia which actively contradicts what we're hearing about the bombing
> of police buildings and the "hunting down of all policing apparatus". I'm
> not looking for conspiracies--heaven, I'm looking for things to be more
> simple; but events are not turning out that way.
>
> >Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
> >complicated that very occassionally the good guys are really more or less
> >good (at least as far as immediate decision making goes), and that all of our
> >penetrating critique is not really very useful, at least not on this issue.
>
> again, is this ironic? Are you serious? We just switch off I guess?
>
> >The stubborn reluctance to accept either/or dilemmas, and the insistence that
> >there are always deeper, more sinister processes at work is an orthodoxy that
> >sometimes has to be dispensed with.
>
> I agree. But when events themselves are so insane do we read sanity into them?
>
> >sometimes its important to argue pragmatism over deconstruction.
>
> and sometimes pragmatism is complicit with genocide.
> ______________________________________________
> Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute for International Studies
> Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
>
> tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
>
> "Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
> because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
> important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
> speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
>
> - Gilles Deleuze, 1985
>
> http://www.powerfoundation.org
--
____________________________
Sam Binkley
Department of Sociology, New School University
65 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003
Address: PO Box 20202, New York, NY 10009
phone: (212) 420 9425 web: http://www.erols.com/sbinkley/
sorry for the misquotation, and for using the word "silly".
part of the problem is, I think, a lack of information. If you have access to the
views of people close to the Kosovo scene that are not making it into the western
media, this obviously places you in a different position.
But on the question of dilemmas: I once heard Richard Bernstein tell a story to
Jacques Derrida, after Derrida had presented a portion of his then new book
"spectres of Marx" , something about an old labor activism song which goes "which
side are you on boys, which side are you on". Derrida insisted that he was on
the side of "life" ? well, almost always. A beautiful moment between a
pragmatist and a deconstructionist.
I tend to agree with bernstein. at a certain point, the reality of the situation,
and the immediate dilemmas posed by present
problems require us to say which side we are on, even though we may know that this
reduction (either /or) is, in fact a reduction of more complex relations and
contradictions This is not to suggest that we "shut down", but that we form what
I believe to be sound positions based on what we know?human rights should be an
international concern, and Serb repression should be stopped, with military force,
if need be.
I am completely willing to revise the position based on more information (which I
hope Ian will provide), but I think sometimes circumstances are either/or.
Ian Robert Douglas wrote:
> > .... the bombing of a police center and the hunting down of all
> >policing apparatus is hardly helping with internal policing matters. This
> >analysis betrays an orthodoxy to leftist skepticism, and a willingness to
> >search out the concealed agenda, but it is, I think, silly.
>
> Silly being of course the most violent word you could use: not 'misguided',
> 'partial', 'worrying', 'challenging'. It has to be "silly"--like being
> mad; easily dismissed, without thought.
>
> >Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
> >complicated
>
> I didn't say this, Tony did. I'm not just making theoretical leaps, by the
> way. I'm receiving information everyday from colleagues in Albania and
> Macedonia which actively contradicts what we're hearing about the bombing
> of police buildings and the "hunting down of all policing apparatus". I'm
> not looking for conspiracies--heaven, I'm looking for things to be more
> simple; but events are not turning out that way.
>
> >Why not just say, as Ian does, that this situation is really not so
> >complicated that very occassionally the good guys are really more or less
> >good (at least as far as immediate decision making goes), and that all of our
> >penetrating critique is not really very useful, at least not on this issue.
>
> again, is this ironic? Are you serious? We just switch off I guess?
>
> >The stubborn reluctance to accept either/or dilemmas, and the insistence that
> >there are always deeper, more sinister processes at work is an orthodoxy that
> >sometimes has to be dispensed with.
>
> I agree. But when events themselves are so insane do we read sanity into them?
>
> >sometimes its important to argue pragmatism over deconstruction.
>
> and sometimes pragmatism is complicit with genocide.
> ______________________________________________
> Ian R. Douglas | Watson Institute for International Studies
> Brown University, Box 1831, Providence, RI 02912 USA
>
> tel: 401 863-2420 fax: 401 863-2192
>
> "Foucault's death was something terrible, not only
> because Foucault died, but because France lost a very
> important presence who caused imbeciles to hesitate to
> speak out, knowing that Foucault was there to respond."
>
> - Gilles Deleuze, 1985
>
> http://www.powerfoundation.org
--
____________________________
Sam Binkley
Department of Sociology, New School University
65 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003
Address: PO Box 20202, New York, NY 10009
phone: (212) 420 9425 web: http://www.erols.com/sbinkley/