Acronyms and Republicanism

I find the thing about acronyms interesting (and Foucauldian), since it is
obvious that by using an acronym one excludes those who cannot understand
it. Of course, defenders will argue that the is utility in the brevity of
acronyms. Seems to me the important issue is that all specialised discourses
involve new terms, and acronyms are today simply the most common form of
The Australian Republicanism argument I think is factually specious.
Australians in my experience hardly ever mention the monarchy; they talk
about the woman whose head is on their coins as 'the Queen of England'. The
dominant discourse in Australian society if anything today occludes the
British 'heritage' of the country. The monarchy was retained in the
referendum on the issue because of what Australian thought of the proposed
alternative, not because their discourses are bound up with the monarchy -
that is as close to politological 'fact' as you get. It doesn't even seem to
me that the national discourse of Britain involves the monarchy much
On the possibility of removing oneself from one's culture/discourse see 104.
Réponse à une question.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lionel Boxer" <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: Problematizing

> I think this is true:
> >From: Cordelia Chu <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
> >2) and if it is possible to remove (or to some extend remove) oneself
> >his
> >own culture/ discourse - would that make the person a threat to the
> >society,
> >since he is no longer disciplined and controlled by the governing agent?
> I have tried breaking the use of organisational acronyms - replacing them
> with the full words that make up the acronym. Those who have invested
> in learning the acronyms do appear to be threatened by that sort of
> behaviour. They may even perceive that they do not control you if you do
> not speak with their acronyms. It would be an interesting thing to study.
> The Australian republican movement has failed in this regard by not
> a viable alternative to the dominant discourse of Australian society.
> is a strong national discourse based on constitutional monarchy and people
> are afraid of losing their identity. Without something of equally
> symbolism people will refuse to let it go. I cannot imagine anything as
> strong as the current constitutional monarchy - you would end up with
> something as shallow as the US Presidential system; Americans are the
> biggest enthusiasts for UK monarchy anywhere. In the 1970s The Duke of
> Edinburgh told Canadians, 'I feel like a dog when I go to the USA, "they
> to me "come here Prince, sit there Prince" '. I suppose I find that
> because I am trapped by the dominant discourse.
> My discourse is a threat to republicans as much as their discourse is a
> threat to me.

Partial thread listing: