>There is something odd about chastising "Americans" for arrogance and
>then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
>for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
>thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
>be to rethink foreign policy.
I was aware that I was leaving myself open to this kind of criticism
when I made my remarks. However I would like to say a few things
here. The US (unlike Afghanistan which is of course *more* than open
to criticism!) is currently the most powerful country -economically,
militarily and culturally in the world arena. It also purports to
play a world leadership role. This has very practical effects on
those living in other countries which those living in the US might
not be aware of. Just to use the example of even a 1st world country
like Australia - since the Bush administration came into power the
Australian dollar has plummeted on the world market making it
difficult for ordinary people to travel out of the country and making
American as well as other imported goods (of which there are many)
very expensive. Australian cinemas and tv channels are flooded with
American films and tv shows and have been for years. The Prime
Minister was in the US last week when everything happened to ratify a
military treaty with the US. (He had to return home without doing
this). Australians are affected by US leadership, foreign policy and
culture at a very practical day to day level in ways they can't
escape.
One can also draw attention to the impact of English language culture
in non English speaking countries. Given these circumstances, the
rest of the world watches anxiously during US elections to see what
political leadership is voted in and hopes that the response of that
leadership on the world stage will be enlightened and moderate. Bush
appears to have toned down some of his initial remarks which is a
relief to the many people who are very worried about the potential
for world conflict in response to recent events. One of the few
avenues of influence non Americans have in these contexts is to open
questions for discussion. (terrorism is not power - it is about
violence and the limits of power - Foucault makes a clear distinction
here) If one country is able to exercise as much power as the US is,
the rest of the world is quite within its rights to raise questions
for discussion about its foreign policy, civic education and
electoral systems. Indeed I think these questions should be discussed
in relation to *every* society and not necessarily just by members of
those societies. No society is exempt from criticism.
The US also claims to be a democracy and much has been made of this
during recent events. One notes however that only a small percentage
- 30% (does anyone have the right figures here?) - of the potential
voting public actually voted in the last presidential elections and
then there was the saga over the vote counting... What are we to make
of this disjunction between the rhetoric and the practice?
>
>The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
>is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
>decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
>similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
>harbored by a host country.
I agree with you on this and offer a useful citation from Foucault
here. I still think in the interests of the avoidance of global
conflict that a distinction does need to be made. Even if terror
potentially lies at the heart of the state power, one needs to limit
this tendency and not respond with terror to terror in escalating
spirals. Foucault remarks 'In a more general way, terror is revealed
as the most fundamental mechanism of the dominant class in the
exercise of its power, its domination, its power of persuasi0n and
its tyranny'. (1976) 'Le savoir comme crime', in Dits et Ecrits, t.
III. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. p.83.
At 21:24 +0200 14/9/01, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>I don't think elections have anything to do with it.
snip
>To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
>respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less
>hypocrite and
>less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
>others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
>sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
>think the change has to come from education..
I agree change has to come from education and educated people are in
a better position to vote for more enlightened leaders who can play
their part in contributing to the reduction of levels of hatred and
exploitation of human beings in every country.
I would like to make a final comment on the inspiring courage and
hard work of all the rescue workers, fireman and doctors and others.
As one journalist remarked it draws attention, particularly within
the context of budget cuts, to how heavily the rest of the social
body relies on these infrastructures in these situations. To bring in
the Foucauldian connection here - check out Foucault's excellent
short review of a book on firefighters and their social role (1975)
'Un pompier vend la mèche', in Dits et ecrits, Paris: Gallimard,
1994, t.II, pp. 698-702.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
************************************************
>then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
>for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
>thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
>be to rethink foreign policy.
I was aware that I was leaving myself open to this kind of criticism
when I made my remarks. However I would like to say a few things
here. The US (unlike Afghanistan which is of course *more* than open
to criticism!) is currently the most powerful country -economically,
militarily and culturally in the world arena. It also purports to
play a world leadership role. This has very practical effects on
those living in other countries which those living in the US might
not be aware of. Just to use the example of even a 1st world country
like Australia - since the Bush administration came into power the
Australian dollar has plummeted on the world market making it
difficult for ordinary people to travel out of the country and making
American as well as other imported goods (of which there are many)
very expensive. Australian cinemas and tv channels are flooded with
American films and tv shows and have been for years. The Prime
Minister was in the US last week when everything happened to ratify a
military treaty with the US. (He had to return home without doing
this). Australians are affected by US leadership, foreign policy and
culture at a very practical day to day level in ways they can't
escape.
One can also draw attention to the impact of English language culture
in non English speaking countries. Given these circumstances, the
rest of the world watches anxiously during US elections to see what
political leadership is voted in and hopes that the response of that
leadership on the world stage will be enlightened and moderate. Bush
appears to have toned down some of his initial remarks which is a
relief to the many people who are very worried about the potential
for world conflict in response to recent events. One of the few
avenues of influence non Americans have in these contexts is to open
questions for discussion. (terrorism is not power - it is about
violence and the limits of power - Foucault makes a clear distinction
here) If one country is able to exercise as much power as the US is,
the rest of the world is quite within its rights to raise questions
for discussion about its foreign policy, civic education and
electoral systems. Indeed I think these questions should be discussed
in relation to *every* society and not necessarily just by members of
those societies. No society is exempt from criticism.
The US also claims to be a democracy and much has been made of this
during recent events. One notes however that only a small percentage
- 30% (does anyone have the right figures here?) - of the potential
voting public actually voted in the last presidential elections and
then there was the saga over the vote counting... What are we to make
of this disjunction between the rhetoric and the practice?
>
>The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
>is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
>decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
>similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
>harbored by a host country.
I agree with you on this and offer a useful citation from Foucault
here. I still think in the interests of the avoidance of global
conflict that a distinction does need to be made. Even if terror
potentially lies at the heart of the state power, one needs to limit
this tendency and not respond with terror to terror in escalating
spirals. Foucault remarks 'In a more general way, terror is revealed
as the most fundamental mechanism of the dominant class in the
exercise of its power, its domination, its power of persuasi0n and
its tyranny'. (1976) 'Le savoir comme crime', in Dits et Ecrits, t.
III. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. p.83.
At 21:24 +0200 14/9/01, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>I don't think elections have anything to do with it.
snip
>To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
>respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less
>hypocrite and
>less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
>others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
>sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
>think the change has to come from education..
I agree change has to come from education and educated people are in
a better position to vote for more enlightened leaders who can play
their part in contributing to the reduction of levels of hatred and
exploitation of human beings in every country.
I would like to make a final comment on the inspiring courage and
hard work of all the rescue workers, fireman and doctors and others.
As one journalist remarked it draws attention, particularly within
the context of budget cuts, to how heavily the rest of the social
body relies on these infrastructures in these situations. To bring in
the Foucauldian connection here - check out Foucault's excellent
short review of a book on firefighters and their social role (1975)
'Un pompier vend la mèche', in Dits et ecrits, Paris: Gallimard,
1994, t.II, pp. 698-702.
--
Clare
************************************************
Clare O'Farrell
email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
************************************************