[iDC] (no subject) - ethics

Wed Dec 19 05:25:24 UTC 2007

Ryan, Danny, Luis, et. al.:

I would sum the problems of both Ryan and Danny by linking them to  
one of the difficult stances in critical theory (the deconstructivist  
pov of Spivak and Gilroy in particular)  and other identity politics  
discourses: the danger on the one hand of identitarianism, which in  
effect,  is synonymous with libertarian individualism – the false  
ideology of every person for themselves as long as no harm is done to  
others – the legacy of the Enlightenment. Everything is OK as long as  
all are equal according to the rules of the system – which in effect  
shields the far more important problem – that the system is a system  
of injustice, oppression, environmental suicide, etc, etc. [There has  
been a massive “scale shift” in the politics of crisis production.  
Hello?!] Identitarianism is the sacred “ethical” heart of capitalist  
liberalism Much identity politics of this sort leads to a stalemate  
“ethics” akin to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It is an ethics of  “  
difference tolerance,” which is a far cry from an ethics of  
engagement, even if it’s agonistic, which on the whole it can only  
be. The entire politics of the “other” on the other hand, is based on  
a socialist ethics that is in fact, communitarian of one type or  
another, and in place of “identity” substitutes the complete  
antithesis of “identity,” – its impossibility. It finds fault with  
the 70’s rallying slogan: the personal is political, because of its  
inevitable [political] slide into identitarianism. This is not arcane  
philosophizing, but constitutes the very secular political heart that  
aims to build a socialist democracy “against” liberal democracy and  
the dark side of capitalism it shelters at all costs.  Paul Gilroy in  
Against Race, 2000, posed a challenge to Spivak’s strategic  
essentialism and suggested instead, strategic universalism. He takes  
this line because he among many others see that the identity politics  
of “multiculturalism” has crashed and burned, leading only to  
continued atomization of the political by ceding identity to  
separatist forces and further marginalization. [A political, real  
world analog at the level of the state can be seen in the debate of 2- 
state and 1-state solutions to the Palestine-Israel horrific situation.]

My response to Luis is based in that context. And I think it is long  
overdue to bring such criticism “home,” to this “social formation” of  
online collective, though non-collaborative, discourse that takes as  
its primary agenda, the potential of technology for radical social  
change. When does the “warm and fuzzy” iDC “inside” join up with the  
“cold and geno-eco-cidal” outside?

I bracketed the term “bourgeois” precisely because of is its  
flatulence, if you will. Yet, it still holds a discourse aura of it  
owns that continues to be provocative, and to that degree, a cue to  
complicity – which is where the ethical and the political cleave. IDC  
is a thoroughly “bourgeois” “in here” and “out there.” Where are the  
discussions of race here? [As Paul Miller occasionally has lamented.]  
What is the racial makeup of the participants of this list? A great  
deal of excellent dialog takes place here. But, the rhetoric of “new  
media,” which is so often “social,” doesn’t in the end, take  
seriously, here, the implications of its own conclusions. Social  
media leads to radical social change. Yet, does it? I took Luis’s  
post as a challenge to exactly this internal contradiction.

I am in no way calling for some kind of detestable “ideological  
purity.” I’m suggesting that an “ideological” purity does exist in  
latent fashion on this list unless there is, as Luis has brought  
forward, self-critique imbedded in the discussion here, in a  
theoretical way relative to the “entity” that iDC in fact, IS. Where  
is the discussion of the metadata of ethics and politics of iDC?

Jeffrey put it succinctly: “But why just substitute politics for  
ethics? rather than seeing politics as ethics...Which I think you are  
suggesting.”

Which is precisely why I’m “trashing” Amy Goodman…. – don’t get me  
wrong – I agree that she is an amazing journalist. But she shuttles  
“progressives” back into the Democratic machine when she advocated  
for the “safe state” voting strategy, as she did in 2000 and 2004.  
[US politics for those not of the US]

In this same way, I am, as Danny has put it, saying that this group  
is in fact, “not good or political enough.” I do believe that. And I  
point that finger at myself as well. [Though, I have suggested here  
in the past ways to turn the collective intelligence here into a  
“problem solving” resource. If open source can solve technical  
problems, why can’t “we,” solve social ones?] But that is certainly  
not news, is it? Danny goes on to say of ethics:

“[Ethics] 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.”

This is exactly what is not good or political enough. What is more  
crucially necessary than ever, is, a program of collective action for  
SOME future. If a social imaginary that looks to a viable future is  
denied, as Danny denies it, in favor of a false sense of some kind of  
individualist “reality between us,” but which is based on the false  
consciousness of identity politics formed in a non-corporeal virtual  
discourse zone, then there will be no future. Period. And this is the  
deep problem of the complicity between identity politics and  
liberalism that is the predominant ideology of iDC contributors, in  
my assessment, after following the discussions here for quite a while  
now.

As Jeffrey implies, but doesn’t state explicitly, the identity of  
politics and ethics is another way to raise Reich’s formulation of  
the problem reformulated by Deleuze and Guatarri: why do people  
desire their own oppression? The “proper” name of this desire is  
“liberalism” and “identitarianism.”

Why do “progressive” US voters continue hopelessly to vote for  
“lesser evil” candidates instead of electing Ralph Nader or Cynthia  
McKinney, who have enormous experience and hold, and have worked  
relentlessly for, and even succeeded in creating, the values that  
they say they believe in?

[The main argument is: because it will be so much worse than….. this  
a completely spurious argument when the actual details are examined.]

so, many thanks to Luis. I’ll respond to your message next.

mark

On Dec 18, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Danny Butt wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20071218/e0c50521/attachment-0001.htm 