This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ali:
Thanks for the further clarifications of your interpretation of =
nationalism. We have the happy result of finding convergence on most of =
the key issues raised in the thread. You raise additional issues and =
connections that seem to mark sharper disagreements.
I will not pursue these differences to any depth since I doubt that they =
have much bearing on how either of us would use Foucault -- although =
there may be methodological issues I am missing. A few provocations may =
be in order, however.
1) You may use the conception of "imperialism" as narrowly as you like, =
but your narrowing leaves me uneasy. When I use the notion of an =
"empire," I want to include among my cases the ancient empires of the =
Athenians, Romans and Aztecs. Your conception of imperialism would =
exclude these cases. Of course, we could focus on "modern" empires, but =
that would leave at least three outstanding issues for me. a) we would =
need to clarify a conception of "modernity" and relate it to other key =
terms with which we have been conjuring -- the west, nationalism, and =
capitalism. b) I do not want to proceed with an a priori conviction that =
there is a huge behavioral gap between modern and ancient empires. I =
suspect that there is much in the behavior of modern imperialists that =
would not have surprised Thucydides in the least. c) We cannot presume =
an a priori connection between capitalism and modern imperialism either. =
I think that the Soviet Union was an empire.
2) I am skeptical of the continuing value of Lenin's (or Hobson's) =
analysis of imperialism. The thesis that advanced capitalist nations =
must export their surplus goods to "underdeveloped" parts of the world =
is consistently belied by the trading patterns of advanced =
post-industrial economies. The bulk of their trade is internal to those =
economies. What credibility remains of Lenin's theory relates to the =
"extraction" thesis maintaining that advanced economies buy off their =
working classes by extracting resources generated by third world labor. =
(That is the part of Lenin's analysis stressed by dependency theorists.) =
There are many problems with the extraction thesis, but the most obvious =
problems relate to oil. Postindustrial economies (especially the U. S. =
economy) are top-heavy with auto related employment. They are also =
heavily dependent on foreign resources that they are not in a position =
to extract. Furthermore, postindustrial economies are increasingly =
service/information driven relying on resources that are not extracted =
from "underdeveloped" countries. Finally, in some cases, imperialist =
behavior does not appear to have extractive motivations. As an example =
Puerto Rico has always required a net outflow of U. S. resources.=20
I realize that these comments are underdeveloped and hardly decisive. I =
only want to indicate the direction of my skepticism.
3) The relationship between capitalism and westernization seems to me =
more contingent than you allow. Entertaining the possibility that the =
relationship is contingent allows us to ask empirical questions about =
the extent that Japan and Singapore are 'western."
Thanks for all of your interesting comments and clarifications.
Larry
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Ali Rizvi=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Cc: m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Genetic Fallacy
(sorry guys i have to send it again for obvious reasons)
Larry
=20
Thanks for your very balanced and indeed very thoughtful reply. I see =
the following comments as signs of your magnanimity:
I still do not see a great gulf between your thoughts and mine. A few =
additional comments may offer some clarification and, perhaps, serve to =
sharpen some minor differences.
=20
I think without the attitude shown in these lines no fruitful debate =
would be possible. Few comments that were stimulated by reading your =
mail are presented below.
=20
=20
1) What you have said about generalisation and related matters is =
all well taken. I agree with it totally. In fact your allusion to the =
constitutive role of generalisation with reference to Foucault is worthy =
of further consideration. In fact few people seem to bother about this =
aspect of Foucault since it does not lend itself easily to free play =
scenarios being fabricated in the wake of the so called liberation from =
the iron cage of subject etc. As a good Kantian Foucault never discounts =
the role of necessity in human life and human societies and systems. The =
only difference is that for Foucault as against Kant this necessity is =
historical and not transcendental and hence (in principle) tanscendable. =
Foucault never downplayed the terrifying power of necessity over human =
life despite his insistence on transformation etc. This is the fact of =
life, which cannot be wished away thorough imaginaries of free plays of =
symbols. Hence when Foucault was rejecting repressive hypothesis people =
were wrong to think that he was rejecting the existence of misery, far =
from it. He was only rejecting the mode in which this misery is =
normally explained. He was offering and alternative and better way to =
explain our miserable present.=20
2) I think in this context your reference to Connolly is very =
relevant. It is because of not realising the fact that there is such a =
thing as historical necessity that many people do not take identities =
and their power over human societies seriously. Consequently they can =
commit easily to Hayekian sort of semi naturalism whereby they can =
imagine different sorts of new ideologies evolving through different =
societies on their own accord like grass grows in a land after rain. =
They do not seem to realise that the process of transition from one =
society to the other is an active process; it does not happen by itself, =
it needs agency. And when we raise the question of agency in modern =
times how can we shy away from imperialism and its role?
3) To come to the question of imperialism. For me there is no =
non-modern imperialism. But this is not due to any essentialism but due =
to how I define imperialism. My definition of imperialism is fairly =
close to Lenin, although I think the exploitative nature of imperialism =
is exaggerated in the Marxist analysis at the expense of the value side =
of imperialism. To sustain itself for long imperialism does not need =
only exploitation but value change in colonies so that its rule should =
transit from the phase of the imposition of discipline to that of =
self-discipline. Hence I see imperialism and capitalism as necessarily =
related to each other. This is because of the definition of imperialism, =
which is defined in terms of capitalism and its requirements. But I do =
not see such a necessary relationship between nationalism and =
imperialism. We all know that capitalism is global today; it has =
transcended its national phase (economically but not politically yet). =
However, in its initial phase capitalism has been dependent upon nation =
states and nationalism and its power. If Mercantilism was an important =
phase of Capitalism how can one ignore the importance of national state =
in the emergence and development of early capitalism. Similarly the =
phase of colonial conquest and after the colonial period the emergence =
and development of Fordist capitalist regime was dependent, at least, =
very significantly upon nation state and nationalism. But the question =
of the relation between nationalism and capita! lism is still a =
contingent and historical question as against the question of relation =
between capitalism and imperialism. The question whether nationalism =
could have developed without capitalism, or whether capitalism could =
have developed without nationalism are all conjectures, since we can not =
understand the categories of capitalism and nationalism without =
reference to history. There is no trans historical understanding of =
nationalism or capitalism available simply because we are historical =
beings.=20
4) Now to turn to the more difficult questions of how one can =
measure westernisation of any society etc. and whether modernisation in =
both of its senses (i.e. technological sense and value sense) can be =
pursued without westernisation etc are difficult questions. They are =
difficult questions because they involve much more complex questions =
than we normally seem to think. I think they at least depend upon and =
involve three further questions. a) the question of what one means by =
westernisation, modernisation and also whether one deem them as =
beneficial or not. b) If the process of empirical research inevitably =
involves selection, and if we have learnt from Foucault that to include =
is necessarily to exclude as well then the question of selection itself =
involves the question of standards of selections which is obviously a =
value question c) and most important the strategic interest. The =
question whether Japan should be dubbed as a western society or a =
society, which is essentially a Japanese society, which has =
nevertheless, some surface resemblance with (say) American society, is =
above all a strategic question, the answer to which will depend on the =
strategic interests of the researcher. Whether I want to see Kurdish =
society as an Islamic society tied mainly to its Islamic roots or =
whether I want to see Kurdish society as a developed society advanced =
and civilised in the manner of the developed countries of todays world =
or whether I want it to return to its pre Islamic past etc, these sort =
of strategic choices normally determine the selection process in =
empirical research and manoeuvring process that is afterwards is! dubbed =
as interpretation. Thus these questions (how the level of westernisation =
of a society can be measured) can be answered, they are empirical =
questions but ultimately based on value presuppositions and strategic =
intents. That is why they are so difficult questions and so contentious =
too.=20
5) Finally your following comments that One can be a partisan of =
a nation without dreaming of paradise, seems to be perfectly right as =
far as they just point to a possibility since there is no contradiction =
in terms involved here. But if we relate to the reality of modern =
nationalism it is hard to sustain. Can you think that nations can be =
mobilised in modern times, or built without the projects of the might =
and welfare of the nation? This for me is another way of saying that no =
nation state or nationalism can survive in modern times without being =
capitalist. A non-capitalistic nation state is for me contradiction in =
terms in todays world. Not logical contradiction but historical =
contradiction.=20
=20
=20
I hope at least some of it makes sense.
=20
regards
ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Ali:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for the further clarifications of your =
interpretation=20
of nationalism. We have the happy result of finding convergence on most =
of the=20
key issues raised in the thread. You raise additional issues and =
connections=20
that seem to mark sharper disagreements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I will not pursue these differences to any depth =
since I doubt=20
that they have much bearing on how either of us would use Foucault -- =
although=20
there may be methodological issues I am missing. A few provocations may =
be in=20
order, however.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1) You may use the conception of "imperialism" as =
narrowly as=20
you like, but your narrowing leaves me uneasy. When I use the notion of =
an=20
"empire," I want to include among my cases the ancient empires of =
the=20
Athenians, Romans and Aztecs. Your conception of imperialism would =
exclude these=20
cases. Of course, we could focus on "modern" empires, but that would =
leave at=20
least three outstanding issues for me. a) we would need to clarify a =
conception=20
of "modernity" and relate it to other key terms with which we have been=20
conjuring -- the west, nationalism, and capitalism. b) I do not want to =
proceed=20
with an a priori conviction that there is a huge behavioral gap between =
modern=20
and ancient empires. I suspect that there is much in the behavior of =
modern=20
imperialists that would not have surprised Thucydides in the least. c) =
We cannot=20
presume an a priori connection between capitalism and modern imperialism =
either.=20
I think that the Soviet Union was an empire.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2) I am skeptical of the continuing value of Lenin's =
(or=20
Hobson's) analysis of imperialism. The thesis that advanced capitalist =
nations=20
must export their surplus goods to "underdeveloped" parts of the world =
is=20
consistently belied by the trading patterns of advanced post-industrial=20
economies. The bulk of their trade is internal to those economies. What=20
credibility remains of Lenin's theory relates to the "extraction" thesis =
maintaining that advanced economies buy off their working classes by =
extracting=20
resources generated by third world labor. (That is the part of Lenin's =
analysis=20
stressed by dependency theorists.) There are many problems with the =
extraction=20
thesis, but the most obvious problems relate to oil. Postindustrial =
economies=20
(especially the U. S. economy) are top-heavy with auto related =
employment. They=20
are also heavily dependent on foreign resources that they are not in a =
position=20
to extract. Furthermore, postindustrial economies are increasingly=20
service/information driven relying on resources that are not extracted =
from=20
"underdeveloped" countries. Finally, in some cases, imperialist behavior =
does=20
not appear to have extractive motivations. As an example Puerto Rico has =
always=20
required a net outflow of U. S. resources. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I realize that these comments are underdeveloped and =
hardly=20
decisive. I only want to indicate the direction of my =
skepticism.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3) The relationship between capitalism and =
westernization=20
seems to me more contingent than you allow. Entertaining the possibility =
that=20
the relationship is contingent allows us to ask empirical questions =
about the=20
extent that Japan and Singapore are 'western."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for all of your interesting comments and=20
clarifications.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Larry</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Ali=20
Rizvi</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=3Dm_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx";>m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 20, 2001 =
7:48 AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Genetic =
Fallacy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P> (sorry guys i have to send it again for obvious reasons)</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">Larry<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Thanks =
for your=20
very balanced and indeed very thoughtful reply. I see the following =
comments=20
as signs of your magnanimity:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I still =
do not see=20
a great gulf between your thoughts and mine. A few additional comments =
may=20
offer some clarification and, perhaps, serve to sharpen some minor=20
differences.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I think =
without the=20
attitude shown in these lines no fruitful debate would be possible. =
Few=20
comments that were stimulated by reading your mail are presented=20
below.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">1)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">What you =
have said=20
about generalisation and related matters is all well taken. I agree =
with it=20
totally. In fact your allusion to the constitutive role of =
generalisation with=20
reference to Foucault is worthy of further consideration. In fact few =
people=20
seem to bother about this aspect of Foucault since it does not lend =
itself=20
easily to free play scenarios being fabricated in the wake of the so =
called=20
liberation from the iron cage of subject etc. As a good Kantian =
Foucault never=20
discounts the role of necessity in human life and human societies and =
systems.=20
The only difference is that for Foucault as against Kant this =
necessity is=20
historical and not transcendental and hence (in principle) =
tanscendable.=20
Foucault never downplayed the terrifying power of necessity over human =
life=20
despite his insistence on transformation etc. This is the fact of =
life, which=20
cannot be wished away thorough imaginaries of free plays of symbols. =
Hence=20
when Foucault was rejecting repressive hypothesis people were wrong to =
think=20
that he was rejecting the existence of misery, far from it.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He was only rejecting =
the mode=20
in which this misery is normally explained. He was offering and =
alternative=20
and better way to explain our miserable present. =
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">2)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I think =
in this=20
context your reference to Connolly is very relevant. It is because of =
not=20
realising the fact that there is such a thing as historical necessity =
that=20
many people do not take identities and their power over human =
societies=20
seriously. Consequently they can commit easily to Hayekian sort of =
semi=20
naturalism whereby they can imagine different sorts of new ideologies =
evolving=20
through different societies on their own accord like grass grows in a =
land=20
after rain. They do not seem to realise that the process of =
transition<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>from one society to =
the other is=20
an active process; it does not happen by itself, it needs agency. And =
when we=20
raise the question of agency in modern times how can we shy away from=20
imperialism and its role?</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">3)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">To come =
to the=20
question of imperialism. For me there is no non-modern imperialism. =
But this=20
is not due to any essentialism but due to how I define imperialism. My =
definition of imperialism is fairly close to Lenin, although I think =
the=20
exploitative nature of imperialism is exaggerated in the Marxist =
analysis at=20
the expense of<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>the =
value side of=20
imperialism. To sustain itself for long imperialism does not need only =
exploitation but value change in colonies so that its rule should =
transit from=20
the phase of the imposition of discipline to that of =
self-discipline.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Hence I see imperialism and =
capitalism=20
as necessarily related to each other. This is because of the =
definition of=20
imperialism, which is defined in terms of capitalism and its =
requirements. But=20
I do not see such a necessary relationship between nationalism and=20
imperialism. We all know that capitalism is global today; it has =
transcended=20
its national phase (economically but not politically yet). However, in =
its=20
initial phase capitalism has been dependent upon nation states and =
nationalism=20
and its power. If Mercantilism was an important phase of Capitalism =
how can=20
one ignore the importance of national state in the emergence and =
development=20
of early capitalism. Similarly the phase of colonial conquest and =
after the=20
colonial period the emergence and development of Fordist capitalist =
regime was=20
dependent, at least, very significantly upon nation state and=20
nationalism.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But the =
question of=20
the relation between nationalism and capita! lism is still a =
contingent and=20
historical question as against the question of relation between =
capitalism and=20
imperialism. The question whether nationalism could have developed =
without=20
capitalism, or whether capitalism could have developed without =
nationalism are=20
all conjectures, since we can not understand the categories of =
capitalism and=20
nationalism without reference to history. There is no trans historical =
understanding of nationalism or capitalism available simply because we =
are=20
historical beings. </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">4)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Now to =
turn to the=20
more difficult questions of how one can measure westernisation of any =
society=20
etc. and whether modernisation in both of its senses (i.e. =
technological sense=20
and value sense) can be pursued without westernisation etc are =
difficult=20
questions. They are difficult questions because they involve much more =
complex=20
questions than we normally seem to think. I think they at least depend =
upon=20
and involve three further questions. a) the question of what one means =
by=20
westernisation, modernisation and also whether one deem them as =
beneficial or=20
not. b) If the process of empirical research inevitably involves =
selection,=20
and if we have learnt from Foucault that to include is necessarily to =
exclude=20
as well then the question of selection itself involves the question of =
standards of selections which is obviously a value question c) and =
most=20
important the strategic interest. The question whether Japan should be =
dubbed=20
as a western society or a society, which is essentially a Japanese =
society,=20
which has nevertheless, some surface resemblance with (say) American =
society,=20
is above all a strategic question, the answer to which will depend on =
the=20
strategic interests of the researcher. Whether I want to see Kurdish =
society=20
as an Islamic society tied mainly to its Islamic roots or whether I =
want to=20
see Kurdish society as a developed society advanced and civilised in =
the=20
manner of the developed countries of todays world or whether I want it =
to=20
return to its pre Islamic past etc, these sort of strategic choices =
normally=20
determine the selection process in empirical research and manoeuvring =
process=20
that is afterwards is! dubbed as interpretation. Thus these questions =
(how the=20
level of westernisation of a society can be measured) can be answered, =
they=20
are empirical questions but ultimately based on value presuppositions =
and=20
strategic intents. That is why they are so difficult questions and so=20
contentious too. </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">5)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Finally =
your=20
following comments that One can be a partisan of a nation without =
dreaming of=20
paradise, seems to be perfectly right as far as they just point to a=20
possibility since there is no contradiction in terms involved here. =
But if we=20
relate to the reality of modern nationalism it is hard to sustain. Can =
you=20
think that nations can be mobilised in modern times, or built without =
the=20
projects of the might and welfare of the nation? This for me is =
another way of=20
saying that no nation state or nationalism can survive in modern times =
without=20
being capitalist. A non-capitalistic nation state is for me =
contradiction in=20
terms in todays world. Not logical contradiction but historical =
contradiction.=20
</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I hope at =
least some=20
of it makes sense.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">ali<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV><BR clear=3Dall>
<HR>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp";>http://explorer.msn.com</=
A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60--
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ali:
Thanks for the further clarifications of your interpretation of =
nationalism. We have the happy result of finding convergence on most of =
the key issues raised in the thread. You raise additional issues and =
connections that seem to mark sharper disagreements.
I will not pursue these differences to any depth since I doubt that they =
have much bearing on how either of us would use Foucault -- although =
there may be methodological issues I am missing. A few provocations may =
be in order, however.
1) You may use the conception of "imperialism" as narrowly as you like, =
but your narrowing leaves me uneasy. When I use the notion of an =
"empire," I want to include among my cases the ancient empires of the =
Athenians, Romans and Aztecs. Your conception of imperialism would =
exclude these cases. Of course, we could focus on "modern" empires, but =
that would leave at least three outstanding issues for me. a) we would =
need to clarify a conception of "modernity" and relate it to other key =
terms with which we have been conjuring -- the west, nationalism, and =
capitalism. b) I do not want to proceed with an a priori conviction that =
there is a huge behavioral gap between modern and ancient empires. I =
suspect that there is much in the behavior of modern imperialists that =
would not have surprised Thucydides in the least. c) We cannot presume =
an a priori connection between capitalism and modern imperialism either. =
I think that the Soviet Union was an empire.
2) I am skeptical of the continuing value of Lenin's (or Hobson's) =
analysis of imperialism. The thesis that advanced capitalist nations =
must export their surplus goods to "underdeveloped" parts of the world =
is consistently belied by the trading patterns of advanced =
post-industrial economies. The bulk of their trade is internal to those =
economies. What credibility remains of Lenin's theory relates to the =
"extraction" thesis maintaining that advanced economies buy off their =
working classes by extracting resources generated by third world labor. =
(That is the part of Lenin's analysis stressed by dependency theorists.) =
There are many problems with the extraction thesis, but the most obvious =
problems relate to oil. Postindustrial economies (especially the U. S. =
economy) are top-heavy with auto related employment. They are also =
heavily dependent on foreign resources that they are not in a position =
to extract. Furthermore, postindustrial economies are increasingly =
service/information driven relying on resources that are not extracted =
from "underdeveloped" countries. Finally, in some cases, imperialist =
behavior does not appear to have extractive motivations. As an example =
Puerto Rico has always required a net outflow of U. S. resources.=20
I realize that these comments are underdeveloped and hardly decisive. I =
only want to indicate the direction of my skepticism.
3) The relationship between capitalism and westernization seems to me =
more contingent than you allow. Entertaining the possibility that the =
relationship is contingent allows us to ask empirical questions about =
the extent that Japan and Singapore are 'western."
Thanks for all of your interesting comments and clarifications.
Larry
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Ali Rizvi=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Cc: m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: Genetic Fallacy
(sorry guys i have to send it again for obvious reasons)
Larry
=20
Thanks for your very balanced and indeed very thoughtful reply. I see =
the following comments as signs of your magnanimity:
I still do not see a great gulf between your thoughts and mine. A few =
additional comments may offer some clarification and, perhaps, serve to =
sharpen some minor differences.
=20
I think without the attitude shown in these lines no fruitful debate =
would be possible. Few comments that were stimulated by reading your =
mail are presented below.
=20
=20
1) What you have said about generalisation and related matters is =
all well taken. I agree with it totally. In fact your allusion to the =
constitutive role of generalisation with reference to Foucault is worthy =
of further consideration. In fact few people seem to bother about this =
aspect of Foucault since it does not lend itself easily to free play =
scenarios being fabricated in the wake of the so called liberation from =
the iron cage of subject etc. As a good Kantian Foucault never discounts =
the role of necessity in human life and human societies and systems. The =
only difference is that for Foucault as against Kant this necessity is =
historical and not transcendental and hence (in principle) tanscendable. =
Foucault never downplayed the terrifying power of necessity over human =
life despite his insistence on transformation etc. This is the fact of =
life, which cannot be wished away thorough imaginaries of free plays of =
symbols. Hence when Foucault was rejecting repressive hypothesis people =
were wrong to think that he was rejecting the existence of misery, far =
from it. He was only rejecting the mode in which this misery is =
normally explained. He was offering and alternative and better way to =
explain our miserable present.=20
2) I think in this context your reference to Connolly is very =
relevant. It is because of not realising the fact that there is such a =
thing as historical necessity that many people do not take identities =
and their power over human societies seriously. Consequently they can =
commit easily to Hayekian sort of semi naturalism whereby they can =
imagine different sorts of new ideologies evolving through different =
societies on their own accord like grass grows in a land after rain. =
They do not seem to realise that the process of transition from one =
society to the other is an active process; it does not happen by itself, =
it needs agency. And when we raise the question of agency in modern =
times how can we shy away from imperialism and its role?
3) To come to the question of imperialism. For me there is no =
non-modern imperialism. But this is not due to any essentialism but due =
to how I define imperialism. My definition of imperialism is fairly =
close to Lenin, although I think the exploitative nature of imperialism =
is exaggerated in the Marxist analysis at the expense of the value side =
of imperialism. To sustain itself for long imperialism does not need =
only exploitation but value change in colonies so that its rule should =
transit from the phase of the imposition of discipline to that of =
self-discipline. Hence I see imperialism and capitalism as necessarily =
related to each other. This is because of the definition of imperialism, =
which is defined in terms of capitalism and its requirements. But I do =
not see such a necessary relationship between nationalism and =
imperialism. We all know that capitalism is global today; it has =
transcended its national phase (economically but not politically yet). =
However, in its initial phase capitalism has been dependent upon nation =
states and nationalism and its power. If Mercantilism was an important =
phase of Capitalism how can one ignore the importance of national state =
in the emergence and development of early capitalism. Similarly the =
phase of colonial conquest and after the colonial period the emergence =
and development of Fordist capitalist regime was dependent, at least, =
very significantly upon nation state and nationalism. But the question =
of the relation between nationalism and capita! lism is still a =
contingent and historical question as against the question of relation =
between capitalism and imperialism. The question whether nationalism =
could have developed without capitalism, or whether capitalism could =
have developed without nationalism are all conjectures, since we can not =
understand the categories of capitalism and nationalism without =
reference to history. There is no trans historical understanding of =
nationalism or capitalism available simply because we are historical =
beings.=20
4) Now to turn to the more difficult questions of how one can =
measure westernisation of any society etc. and whether modernisation in =
both of its senses (i.e. technological sense and value sense) can be =
pursued without westernisation etc are difficult questions. They are =
difficult questions because they involve much more complex questions =
than we normally seem to think. I think they at least depend upon and =
involve three further questions. a) the question of what one means by =
westernisation, modernisation and also whether one deem them as =
beneficial or not. b) If the process of empirical research inevitably =
involves selection, and if we have learnt from Foucault that to include =
is necessarily to exclude as well then the question of selection itself =
involves the question of standards of selections which is obviously a =
value question c) and most important the strategic interest. The =
question whether Japan should be dubbed as a western society or a =
society, which is essentially a Japanese society, which has =
nevertheless, some surface resemblance with (say) American society, is =
above all a strategic question, the answer to which will depend on the =
strategic interests of the researcher. Whether I want to see Kurdish =
society as an Islamic society tied mainly to its Islamic roots or =
whether I want to see Kurdish society as a developed society advanced =
and civilised in the manner of the developed countries of todays world =
or whether I want it to return to its pre Islamic past etc, these sort =
of strategic choices normally determine the selection process in =
empirical research and manoeuvring process that is afterwards is! dubbed =
as interpretation. Thus these questions (how the level of westernisation =
of a society can be measured) can be answered, they are empirical =
questions but ultimately based on value presuppositions and strategic =
intents. That is why they are so difficult questions and so contentious =
too.=20
5) Finally your following comments that One can be a partisan of =
a nation without dreaming of paradise, seems to be perfectly right as =
far as they just point to a possibility since there is no contradiction =
in terms involved here. But if we relate to the reality of modern =
nationalism it is hard to sustain. Can you think that nations can be =
mobilised in modern times, or built without the projects of the might =
and welfare of the nation? This for me is another way of saying that no =
nation state or nationalism can survive in modern times without being =
capitalist. A non-capitalistic nation state is for me contradiction in =
terms in todays world. Not logical contradiction but historical =
contradiction.=20
=20
=20
I hope at least some of it makes sense.
=20
regards
ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Ali:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for the further clarifications of your =
interpretation=20
of nationalism. We have the happy result of finding convergence on most =
of the=20
key issues raised in the thread. You raise additional issues and =
connections=20
that seem to mark sharper disagreements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I will not pursue these differences to any depth =
since I doubt=20
that they have much bearing on how either of us would use Foucault -- =
although=20
there may be methodological issues I am missing. A few provocations may =
be in=20
order, however.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1) You may use the conception of "imperialism" as =
narrowly as=20
you like, but your narrowing leaves me uneasy. When I use the notion of =
an=20
"empire," I want to include among my cases the ancient empires of =
the=20
Athenians, Romans and Aztecs. Your conception of imperialism would =
exclude these=20
cases. Of course, we could focus on "modern" empires, but that would =
leave at=20
least three outstanding issues for me. a) we would need to clarify a =
conception=20
of "modernity" and relate it to other key terms with which we have been=20
conjuring -- the west, nationalism, and capitalism. b) I do not want to =
proceed=20
with an a priori conviction that there is a huge behavioral gap between =
modern=20
and ancient empires. I suspect that there is much in the behavior of =
modern=20
imperialists that would not have surprised Thucydides in the least. c) =
We cannot=20
presume an a priori connection between capitalism and modern imperialism =
either.=20
I think that the Soviet Union was an empire.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2) I am skeptical of the continuing value of Lenin's =
(or=20
Hobson's) analysis of imperialism. The thesis that advanced capitalist =
nations=20
must export their surplus goods to "underdeveloped" parts of the world =
is=20
consistently belied by the trading patterns of advanced post-industrial=20
economies. The bulk of their trade is internal to those economies. What=20
credibility remains of Lenin's theory relates to the "extraction" thesis =
maintaining that advanced economies buy off their working classes by =
extracting=20
resources generated by third world labor. (That is the part of Lenin's =
analysis=20
stressed by dependency theorists.) There are many problems with the =
extraction=20
thesis, but the most obvious problems relate to oil. Postindustrial =
economies=20
(especially the U. S. economy) are top-heavy with auto related =
employment. They=20
are also heavily dependent on foreign resources that they are not in a =
position=20
to extract. Furthermore, postindustrial economies are increasingly=20
service/information driven relying on resources that are not extracted =
from=20
"underdeveloped" countries. Finally, in some cases, imperialist behavior =
does=20
not appear to have extractive motivations. As an example Puerto Rico has =
always=20
required a net outflow of U. S. resources. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I realize that these comments are underdeveloped and =
hardly=20
decisive. I only want to indicate the direction of my =
skepticism.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3) The relationship between capitalism and =
westernization=20
seems to me more contingent than you allow. Entertaining the possibility =
that=20
the relationship is contingent allows us to ask empirical questions =
about the=20
extent that Japan and Singapore are 'western."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for all of your interesting comments and=20
clarifications.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Larry</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Ali=20
Rizvi</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=3Dm_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx";>m_pbr@xxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 20, 2001 =
7:48 AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Genetic =
Fallacy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P> (sorry guys i have to send it again for obvious reasons)</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">Larry<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Thanks =
for your=20
very balanced and indeed very thoughtful reply. I see the following =
comments=20
as signs of your magnanimity:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I still =
do not see=20
a great gulf between your thoughts and mine. A few additional comments =
may=20
offer some clarification and, perhaps, serve to sharpen some minor=20
differences.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I think =
without the=20
attitude shown in these lines no fruitful debate would be possible. =
Few=20
comments that were stimulated by reading your mail are presented=20
below.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">1)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">What you =
have said=20
about generalisation and related matters is all well taken. I agree =
with it=20
totally. In fact your allusion to the constitutive role of =
generalisation with=20
reference to Foucault is worthy of further consideration. In fact few =
people=20
seem to bother about this aspect of Foucault since it does not lend =
itself=20
easily to free play scenarios being fabricated in the wake of the so =
called=20
liberation from the iron cage of subject etc. As a good Kantian =
Foucault never=20
discounts the role of necessity in human life and human societies and =
systems.=20
The only difference is that for Foucault as against Kant this =
necessity is=20
historical and not transcendental and hence (in principle) =
tanscendable.=20
Foucault never downplayed the terrifying power of necessity over human =
life=20
despite his insistence on transformation etc. This is the fact of =
life, which=20
cannot be wished away thorough imaginaries of free plays of symbols. =
Hence=20
when Foucault was rejecting repressive hypothesis people were wrong to =
think=20
that he was rejecting the existence of misery, far from it.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He was only rejecting =
the mode=20
in which this misery is normally explained. He was offering and =
alternative=20
and better way to explain our miserable present. =
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">2)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I think =
in this=20
context your reference to Connolly is very relevant. It is because of =
not=20
realising the fact that there is such a thing as historical necessity =
that=20
many people do not take identities and their power over human =
societies=20
seriously. Consequently they can commit easily to Hayekian sort of =
semi=20
naturalism whereby they can imagine different sorts of new ideologies =
evolving=20
through different societies on their own accord like grass grows in a =
land=20
after rain. They do not seem to realise that the process of =
transition<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>from one society to =
the other is=20
an active process; it does not happen by itself, it needs agency. And =
when we=20
raise the question of agency in modern times how can we shy away from=20
imperialism and its role?</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">3)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">To come =
to the=20
question of imperialism. For me there is no non-modern imperialism. =
But this=20
is not due to any essentialism but due to how I define imperialism. My =
definition of imperialism is fairly close to Lenin, although I think =
the=20
exploitative nature of imperialism is exaggerated in the Marxist =
analysis at=20
the expense of<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>the =
value side of=20
imperialism. To sustain itself for long imperialism does not need only =
exploitation but value change in colonies so that its rule should =
transit from=20
the phase of the imposition of discipline to that of =
self-discipline.<SPAN=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Hence I see imperialism and =
capitalism=20
as necessarily related to each other. This is because of the =
definition of=20
imperialism, which is defined in terms of capitalism and its =
requirements. But=20
I do not see such a necessary relationship between nationalism and=20
imperialism. We all know that capitalism is global today; it has =
transcended=20
its national phase (economically but not politically yet). However, in =
its=20
initial phase capitalism has been dependent upon nation states and =
nationalism=20
and its power. If Mercantilism was an important phase of Capitalism =
how can=20
one ignore the importance of national state in the emergence and =
development=20
of early capitalism. Similarly the phase of colonial conquest and =
after the=20
colonial period the emergence and development of Fordist capitalist =
regime was=20
dependent, at least, very significantly upon nation state and=20
nationalism.<SPAN style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But the =
question of=20
the relation between nationalism and capita! lism is still a =
contingent and=20
historical question as against the question of relation between =
capitalism and=20
imperialism. The question whether nationalism could have developed =
without=20
capitalism, or whether capitalism could have developed without =
nationalism are=20
all conjectures, since we can not understand the categories of =
capitalism and=20
nationalism without reference to history. There is no trans historical =
understanding of nationalism or capitalism available simply because we =
are=20
historical beings. </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">4)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Now to =
turn to the=20
more difficult questions of how one can measure westernisation of any =
society=20
etc. and whether modernisation in both of its senses (i.e. =
technological sense=20
and value sense) can be pursued without westernisation etc are =
difficult=20
questions. They are difficult questions because they involve much more =
complex=20
questions than we normally seem to think. I think they at least depend =
upon=20
and involve three further questions. a) the question of what one means =
by=20
westernisation, modernisation and also whether one deem them as =
beneficial or=20
not. b) If the process of empirical research inevitably involves =
selection,=20
and if we have learnt from Foucault that to include is necessarily to =
exclude=20
as well then the question of selection itself involves the question of =
standards of selections which is obviously a value question c) and =
most=20
important the strategic interest. The question whether Japan should be =
dubbed=20
as a western society or a society, which is essentially a Japanese =
society,=20
which has nevertheless, some surface resemblance with (say) American =
society,=20
is above all a strategic question, the answer to which will depend on =
the=20
strategic interests of the researcher. Whether I want to see Kurdish =
society=20
as an Islamic society tied mainly to its Islamic roots or whether I =
want to=20
see Kurdish society as a developed society advanced and civilised in =
the=20
manner of the developed countries of todays world or whether I want it =
to=20
return to its pre Islamic past etc, these sort of strategic choices =
normally=20
determine the selection process in empirical research and manoeuvring =
process=20
that is afterwards is! dubbed as interpretation. Thus these questions =
(how the=20
level of westernisation of a society can be measured) can be answered, =
they=20
are empirical questions but ultimately based on value presuppositions =
and=20
strategic intents. That is why they are so difficult questions and so=20
contentious too. </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; =
mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in"><SPAN=20
lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt">5)<SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> =20
</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">Finally =
your=20
following comments that One can be a partisan of a nation without =
dreaming of=20
paradise, seems to be perfectly right as far as they just point to a=20
possibility since there is no contradiction in terms involved here. =
But if we=20
relate to the reality of modern nationalism it is hard to sustain. Can =
you=20
think that nations can be mobilised in modern times, or built without =
the=20
projects of the might and welfare of the nation? This for me is =
another way of=20
saying that no nation state or nationalism can survive in modern times =
without=20
being capitalist. A non-capitalistic nation state is for me =
contradiction in=20
terms in todays world. Not logical contradiction but historical =
contradiction.=20
</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">I hope at =
least some=20
of it makes sense.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">regards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"BACKGROUND: white"><SPAN lang=3DEN-GB=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: =
Tahoma">ali<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV><BR clear=3Dall>
<HR>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp";>http://explorer.msn.com</=
A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C113B7.E167BE60--