Hi Margot,
> paris hilton and her mate on 'A simple Life' openly steal a birdhouse from
a
> shop (putting it on their 'boss's account at the store) when confronted
they
> laugh it off - not only do they think they have rights, they know they
have
> 'rights' -they can (and do) buy their way out of trouble. They actually
> understand they will never be 'in trouble'. For the millions who watched
> this in America and Australia isn't it easier to see those two, no matter
> how idiotic, as possesing power they themselves will never 'have'?
The attitude of these women is certainly repugnant. The show does, perhaps,
bring into relief why, like the 'dutiful slave', real employees do not
behave as they do, and that the relations of power - here we can say, of
domination - are based in the 'freedom' of the worker to sell his/her
labour-power, as Marx suggested. It also reminds me of Balibar's analysis
of Spinoza in _Spinoza and Politics_, where natural right is coextensive
with power/capacity to act.
DM
> paris hilton and her mate on 'A simple Life' openly steal a birdhouse from
a
> shop (putting it on their 'boss's account at the store) when confronted
they
> laugh it off - not only do they think they have rights, they know they
have
> 'rights' -they can (and do) buy their way out of trouble. They actually
> understand they will never be 'in trouble'. For the millions who watched
> this in America and Australia isn't it easier to see those two, no matter
> how idiotic, as possesing power they themselves will never 'have'?
The attitude of these women is certainly repugnant. The show does, perhaps,
bring into relief why, like the 'dutiful slave', real employees do not
behave as they do, and that the relations of power - here we can say, of
domination - are based in the 'freedom' of the worker to sell his/her
labour-power, as Marx suggested. It also reminds me of Balibar's analysis
of Spinoza in _Spinoza and Politics_, where natural right is coextensive
with power/capacity to act.
DM