Last night, after seeing Dirty Wars, a documentary on J. Scahill’s book, which catalogs his findings regarding various ‘obscene’ military programs that go far beyond the pale of what is normally considered acceptable and justified given the extant ‘threats’ to freedom that exist. The movie was engaging and well-paced; the major critique I had was one that another uttered, what a girl I met there named Emma observed: that, in spite of its effective representation of particular instances involving recent wars, it’s completely silent on the historical trend of which this is only a singular instance and small part. Notably, there is complete omission and mum-wording about US support for and intervention into various Latin American states at different stages in the history of the region. Imperialism is as American as apple pie, and as much a part of our relations with external countries as any other method or technique. I firmly assent to her observation and feel this would’ve solidified and generalized some of the overly particular claims implied or advanced in the film.
Although the film was interesting, it sparked an even more engaging conversation, one that prompted me to return to reading books that I haven’t in some time now. In conversation with some old friends and some new friends, we spoke of what could be done given the prevailing conditions of oppression and domination. As is often the case, one almost immediately put forth the option of revolution, which is always frustrating to me. It’s obvious and easy to say such a thing and not at all interesting or helpful to any project of actually conceiving of steps to take to address concrete problems. This stuck with me, and makes me realize that I probably can’t learn much from them as far as my own knowledge of my particular area of interest goes. But having this conversation did remind me of this, but how I may go about pursuing them is still up in the air.
Two areas of concern stayed with me as I left the bar yesterday evening, along with a feeling of fallenness and a general sense that my opinions and observations were falling on deaf, unappreciative ears, or perhaps just those that didn’t know how to listen to and incorporate what I was saying into their world views, which is something I should consider more strongly as well. The first regards violence. Often, advocates of revolution express (often naive) willingness to stomach and tolerate violence for some higher purpose or goal. Such a promise of one’s body and others’ bodies has a kind of profound and dramatic cast of high-stakes to it, that the prevailing conditions are so unconscionably intolerable that they can no longer be stomached. But I think that such claims often lack the kind of support or justification I feel they need. And they are often redolent of hot-headedness as much as anything else. My own hesitation with violence, in contrast, resides in a deep investiture of trust in Arendt’s observations both on the trauma of various wars and failures of economic planning and the fact that violence itself is just not productive, only destructive. If we hope to create revolution, then it must mainly be based on a kind of democratic polity that represents a kind of power in discourse and dialogue. As well, given the high-stakes of advanced military technologies, so much more killing is possible; though Baudrillard might contest my claim in arguing the strength of the signal such technologies send and how they actually prevent the actual use of them. This aside, violence should not be taken lightly, and this is why I want to say that I’m against it on principle. Perhaps I could find a situation where I would think it acceptable and even preferred. But generally, unless there is a categorical decision to eliminate this option entirely, then what happens is we must trust those making the decision to judge the ends appropriate for such means. And this decision is normally not opened to many, as it should, and it often lends itself to the influence of many other interests, some perhaps monied, which may see benefit to the adoption and implementation of such policies. In any event, this is why I somewhat-firmly claim a non-violent position, and I depart from Chomsky here. Permitting violence at all lends itself to a means-ends calculation that may not satisfy general desires of what is actually permitted. And again we are removed from the political process.
It is at this point that my second major contribution enters. In turning the conversation to matters of political engagement and apathy, I highlighted the importance of ideology, of those aspects of our lives that reinforce our positions in a given political economy and entrench us in our daily habits and the justness of our routine and contributions to reproducing capitalism. This point, too, fell on deaf ears, and they seemed entirely uninterested in pursuing or following the point. In pursuit of developing today, I went back and read sections in Boltanski and Chiapello’s The New Spirit of Capitalism to think on these ideas more, and I encountered some worthwhile thoughts to meditate on. Boltanski proposes a new way of understanding ideology, different even from a marxist one but compatible with what I was trying to get at yesterday. In discussing ideology, I wanted to stress how such a semiological system of justification is tied up with personal conflicts over what is worth one’s own work and contribution. That is, I want to grant what marxists often do not and that is each person has a need to feel their work is worthwhile further than just what they can get back in profit or self-aggrandizement. This is one of the driving arguments of the book, reminiscent of A. Smith and the theoretical construction of the invisible hand. Basically ‘the hand’ gave people this sense that they could work and live and their contributions would in a roundabout way turn into general social welfare and betterment. This is exactly the kind of legitimation that Boltanski was referring to and what I tried to get at last night, or at least in part. Additionally, I wanted to discuss the significance of studying works of entertainment and what they teach us about what is acceptable and worth our own commitments of time. In any case, B’s observations are profound because they humanize even the capitalist, and recognize that they too are caught in this system, and in a way left precarious but still see it is a preferred to other systems. In so doing, he also implies that, once they no longer feel such things, there may be potential for change. Even Marx didn’t so far as to say this, or at least as far as my knowledge of his work goes. But it is nonetheless an important consideration, something to remember.
These were the two main points I was trying to make during the course of the conversation, and what I feel activists and marxists need to hear, to understand that they are working with people too and people that deserve consideration, as selfish as they may be in many instances. But the fact I wasn’t heard wasn’t the only reason I left the conversation a little upset. I think, in the short time knowing her, I’d developed a minute crush on the girl, and I felt my own lack of recognition was somehow tied up in such interest, in some way or another. As well, I think I really can only be around people in such situations for around 2 hours or so before feeling awkward and needing my to return to hole to read again. Oh, the habits I’ve developed…
In any event, another day has finished, and another is to come…
Bearer of Pity 