[iDC] (no subject) - ethics

Tue Dec 18 23:03:07 UTC 2007

What I find most problematic about Mark's post is the suggestion that,  
on the one hand, iDC has a techno-apologist quality, promotes  
"academic profiteering", and has many members who "risk hypocrisy"....  
I don't necessarily disagree with the diagnosis of my own behaviour,  
but.... while the post intimates that, on the other hand iDC should,  
somehow, be activated in the service of "the political", through  
collective action. Yet Mark has essentially told the group it is not  
good enough, or political enough.

So what happens, does a light bulb suddenly come on and we all wake up  
and go "gee, I've been risking hypocrisy all this time and I've never  
realised it! Thanks Mark!" and begin the global political  
interventions that have been sitting there waiting for us to  
collectively work on, while we've been distracted by bourgeois ideology?

Or would we say that the task of activating the political is a bit  
more complicated, because at each moment it is the ethical  
relationship with one's collaborators which can either increase or  
decrease the feeling of collectivity, and thus the action performed?  
In that sense, there is nothing "pure" about the ethical tradition  
(especially when reading it through the feminist ethical tradition).  
It is precisely concerned with reality - the reality between us - and  
not with the idea of politicised social change which occurs at some  
point in the future if we all sign up to the programme.

Enough people on this list have been involved with enough activist  
politics to know the futility of vanguardism. The suspension of the  
ethical in the name of the political is precisely this: ignore how I  
am relating to you right now because in the future it will be  
different if we change what is "out there." But we are all already (in  
our own ways, as Ryan suggests, and possibly quite incompatibly)  
involved in our own "out theres". So let's not forget what happens in  
here.

Cheers,

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net

On 19/12/2007, at 7:13 AM, Ryan Griffis wrote:

> On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:00 AM, idc-request at mailman.thing.net wrote:
>
>>  "Is our primary mission as artists [people] to produce commerce
>> fitting monuments to ourselves, or is it to use art to help bring
>> ethics into the picture?" --
>>
>> would have to substitute "ethics" with, "politics."
>>
>> Politics requires something much more demanding that mere "good
>> values." It means strategic and tactical "actions" that might not
>> conform to the purities of "ethics."
>>
>> Thus, Q.E.D., ethics can aid and abet conservative politics. MoveOn,
>> Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, etc. all continue to support "lesser of
>> evil" voting, which only maintains the status quo. They steal
>> "progressive" "values" and mainstream them in support of the
>> Democratic party..... A hopelessly naive form of reactionary
>> politics, and a form of passivity that maintains the status quo.
>>
>> This is counter-intuitive for those who are wrapped up in
>> "bourgeoise" ideology, which has been the target of most of the
>> theorists that many on this list ascribe to: Foucault, Delueze, etc.
>> etc. Which is to say, many on this list risk hypocrisy.
>
> i'm totally on board with Mark's response to Luis' provocation...
> replacing "ethics" with "politics" is no mere semantic feat indeed
> (ethics is an entirely conservative discourse in my estimation).
> However, at the risk of sounding an apologist myself... i'm weary of
> the drive to eliminate the "hypocrisy" of being "wrapped up in the
> 'bourgeoisie' ideology". Those contradictions run so deep and are so
> complicated that to call for some kind of ideological purity for
> those existing in a ecology that is so contaminated is little more
> than ideological grand standing. Don't get me wrong - i think
> pointing to contradictions is useful and a necessary tool in critical
> change. There are so many tactics and efforts needed, some of which
> are going to be carried out under less than ideal circumstances and
> with less than "pure" intentions.
> Again, i don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't be critical of this,
> but that trying to eliminate "bourgeois" motivations as such might be
> a mistake in that it creates an atmosphere of false purity and
> asceticism, which can be less than productive for action across
> constituencies, which i think many would agree is necessary. A real
> critique of compromise and democracy (ala R. Deutsche's
> "agoraphobia") might be necessary.
> Personally, i don't look to lists for direct action or even really
> engaged political discussion, although the thoughts and ideas that
> come through them make their way into my contributions in arenas
> where i think those more direct discussions occur (generally in more
> localized, face-to-face forums).
> i certainly don't have any answers, just some doubtful questions. i
> also don't think action begins with answers, so there you go.
> Just some quick thoughts in response.
> best,
> ryan
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

--
http://www.dannybutt.net