some reflections on alternatives (not exactly Foucault or Habermas, or
anyone else in particular, but questions between them and others):
The refusal to accept the possibility of a realisable macro-politics is
disappointing but realistic, perhaps even cynical, in its conclusions. If
cynicism, is its realism an inability to resist its own reality?
The acceptance of this possibility, of at least attempting the
macro-political, contains a naivety which nonetheless may also be realistic,
as long as it does not confuse its reality with something that actually
exists or could exist. If it ever made this mistake, how would it not end in
cynicism?
What would it mean to strive for a perfection that was impossible, that does
not exist, that has no place? or Can self-mastery master itself so that it
will never fail under its own terms?
If the status quo offered itself in the garb of redemption, which is what
neoliberalism does when it imposes itself as a finality of global
proportions, then it suggests that there is nothing left to do, except
perhaps, long hours of mundane detail. How would this nothing be done? Who
would do it (would they be payed?), who would be its we?
I can't go on...
or
What is to be done?
Perhaps the devil is always in the detail, no matter what the initial
strategy. What sounds good to begin with, a sure winner, ends in doubt and
confusion. And the cycle begins again... fate or the impossible, or perhaps,
a Third Way? Which way would that be?
Sebastian