on 12/16/00 11:19 AM, Ed Rocket at ed_rocket@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Capitalism is the use of money for the purpose of accumulating more money.
It is? I think I may say capital rather than money and then reframe that in
terms of the movement of flows and the need to code every part of society
and the manner in which it produces.
> Money is pure exchange value, with no inherent use value.
Exactly the instance of coding that allows capitalism to operate -
separating "exchange value" from "use value" in such a way that productivity
and failure to produce (or be of use) appear to be separate functions.
> Similarly, the purpose of consuming information in an entertainment culture
> is . . . to consume information.
For what purpose? Given your differentiation it seems that such a purpose
would be needed.
Perhaps it is the consumption of information in order to restore meaning to
such a mess of capital?
> Entertainment seeks only to draw the
> viewer's attention. But human attention is such that it is most easily
> retained by moving images or "novelty". Thus entertainment is a perpetual
> flow of novel images; like money, entertaining images never rest in any
> final meaning (signified-referent) or telos. Entertainment is the endless
> play of signifiers of deconstruction/postmodernism/poststructuralism.
> Postindustrial capitalism has given information enormous monetary value.
> Thus capitalism merges with entertainment and the signifier disengaged from
> any referent.
> Academia is not immune from this process. On the contrary,
> academics are highly privileged members of the upper class (in terms of
> income, academics are upper middle income; in terms of power, influence,
> autonomy and status, they are upper class/ruling class). They thus have a
> vested interest in the status quo, which is that of a post-modern,
> post-industrial captalism. Hence, education has been reduced to postmodern
> entertainment.
>
Not to disagree with the possibility of such, but instead the empirical
proof. Since when are professors upper class? Particularly ones that are
generally considered "post-modern" -- generally relegated to "minor"
universities (meaning less recognized though of no less value, really) --
how is it that they have massive influence or political clout?
More importantly, what makes you think that they have interest in the status
quo? What makes you think that even capitalism has interest in the status
quo? If things stay the same people being to realize that everything sucks.
The endless play of signifiers upon signifieds can only continue if change
occurs.
What has education ever been aside from entertainment?
What makes you think that academics cannot be anti-academy?
Your distinctions seem to create a division between theory and practice that
refuse to recognize intellectual protest (particularly important given your
emphasis on intellectual's influence) as a valid means of political action.
Such a division seems dangerous in the sense that it restricts new forms of
action (and change) to ways that we currently know - ways that have been
defined by you as embracing the status quo and refusing to change.
Then where do we go from here now that you've limited all possibilities so
that they are no longer possible?
> Foucault is of interest not because of any post-structuralist epistemology
> he may harbor, but because he sheds light on modern institutions of power
> and on the structure of power in a modern society.
Which is clearly distinct. I'm glad that you've drawn this dichotomy and
explained to me how I think and act and why I have interest in Foucault.
Speaking of neurosis, what better way could there be to convince individuals
to be comfortable in their place (and to find their inner-fascism and be
lead) than to destroy forums of resistance?
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> Capitalism is the use of money for the purpose of accumulating more money.
It is? I think I may say capital rather than money and then reframe that in
terms of the movement of flows and the need to code every part of society
and the manner in which it produces.
> Money is pure exchange value, with no inherent use value.
Exactly the instance of coding that allows capitalism to operate -
separating "exchange value" from "use value" in such a way that productivity
and failure to produce (or be of use) appear to be separate functions.
> Similarly, the purpose of consuming information in an entertainment culture
> is . . . to consume information.
For what purpose? Given your differentiation it seems that such a purpose
would be needed.
Perhaps it is the consumption of information in order to restore meaning to
such a mess of capital?
> Entertainment seeks only to draw the
> viewer's attention. But human attention is such that it is most easily
> retained by moving images or "novelty". Thus entertainment is a perpetual
> flow of novel images; like money, entertaining images never rest in any
> final meaning (signified-referent) or telos. Entertainment is the endless
> play of signifiers of deconstruction/postmodernism/poststructuralism.
> Postindustrial capitalism has given information enormous monetary value.
> Thus capitalism merges with entertainment and the signifier disengaged from
> any referent.
> Academia is not immune from this process. On the contrary,
> academics are highly privileged members of the upper class (in terms of
> income, academics are upper middle income; in terms of power, influence,
> autonomy and status, they are upper class/ruling class). They thus have a
> vested interest in the status quo, which is that of a post-modern,
> post-industrial captalism. Hence, education has been reduced to postmodern
> entertainment.
>
Not to disagree with the possibility of such, but instead the empirical
proof. Since when are professors upper class? Particularly ones that are
generally considered "post-modern" -- generally relegated to "minor"
universities (meaning less recognized though of no less value, really) --
how is it that they have massive influence or political clout?
More importantly, what makes you think that they have interest in the status
quo? What makes you think that even capitalism has interest in the status
quo? If things stay the same people being to realize that everything sucks.
The endless play of signifiers upon signifieds can only continue if change
occurs.
What has education ever been aside from entertainment?
What makes you think that academics cannot be anti-academy?
Your distinctions seem to create a division between theory and practice that
refuse to recognize intellectual protest (particularly important given your
emphasis on intellectual's influence) as a valid means of political action.
Such a division seems dangerous in the sense that it restricts new forms of
action (and change) to ways that we currently know - ways that have been
defined by you as embracing the status quo and refusing to change.
Then where do we go from here now that you've limited all possibilities so
that they are no longer possible?
> Foucault is of interest not because of any post-structuralist epistemology
> he may harbor, but because he sheds light on modern institutions of power
> and on the structure of power in a modern society.
Which is clearly distinct. I'm glad that you've drawn this dichotomy and
explained to me how I think and act and why I have interest in Foucault.
Speaking of neurosis, what better way could there be to convince individuals
to be comfortable in their place (and to find their inner-fascism and be
lead) than to destroy forums of resistance?
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004