I'd have to second Mark's comments here about the referendum. The debate
previous to the referendum produced a constitutional alternative that people
didn't want, and that was the whole objective as far as the monarchists were
concerned. The issue was a lack of faith in politicians, not a love for the
royal family and their flunkeys.
A lot of people in the UK don't like the royal family either. The order of
the leech ... great album, that.
A "viable" alternative is one that can overpower the existing one in a
favourable conjuncture. People can think outside of the monarchy but it
just hasn't happened yet. It's not as if there is an "Australian mind" or a
"British mind" or even an "English mind" ... all of these societies are
divided on this question (and many others), and at certain times it seems to
be in the foreground, at others it fades into the background.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: 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
> neologism.
> 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
> anymore.
> On the possibility of removing oneself from one's culture/discourse see
104.
> Réponse à une question.
> XmarkX
>
>
> ----- 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
> from
> > >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
> time
> > 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
> offering
> > a viable alternative to the dominant discourse of Australian society.
> There
> > is a strong national discourse based on constitutional monarchy and
people
> > are afraid of losing their identity. Without something of equally
> powerful
> > 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
> say
> > to me "come here Prince, sit there Prince" '. I suppose I find that
> amusing
> > 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.
previous to the referendum produced a constitutional alternative that people
didn't want, and that was the whole objective as far as the monarchists were
concerned. The issue was a lack of faith in politicians, not a love for the
royal family and their flunkeys.
A lot of people in the UK don't like the royal family either. The order of
the leech ... great album, that.
A "viable" alternative is one that can overpower the existing one in a
favourable conjuncture. People can think outside of the monarchy but it
just hasn't happened yet. It's not as if there is an "Australian mind" or a
"British mind" or even an "English mind" ... all of these societies are
divided on this question (and many others), and at certain times it seems to
be in the foreground, at others it fades into the background.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:14 PM
Subject: 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
> neologism.
> 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
> anymore.
> On the possibility of removing oneself from one's culture/discourse see
104.
> Réponse à une question.
> XmarkX
>
>
> ----- 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
> from
> > >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
> time
> > 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
> offering
> > a viable alternative to the dominant discourse of Australian society.
> There
> > is a strong national discourse based on constitutional monarchy and
people
> > are afraid of losing their identity. Without something of equally
> powerful
> > 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
> say
> > to me "come here Prince, sit there Prince" '. I suppose I find that
> amusing
> > 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.