Monday, December 18, 2006

A couple of very interesting links here:

http://www.policyreview.org/aug02/harris.html

"My first encounter with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.

My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.

It was not your garden-variety fantasy of life as a sexual athlete or a racecar driver, but in it, he nonetheless made himself out as a hero — a hero of the revolutionary struggle. The components of his fantasy — and that of many young intellectuals at that time — were compounded purely of ideological ingredients, smatterings of Marx and Mao, a little Fanon and perhaps a dash of Herbert Marcuse.

For want of a better term, call the phenomenon in question a fantasy ideology — by which I mean, political and ideological symbols and tropes used not for political purposes, but entirely for the benefit of furthering a specific personal or collective fantasy. It is, to be frank, something like “Dungeons and Dragons” carried out not with the trappings of medieval romances — old castles and maidens in distress — but entirely in terms of ideological symbols and emblems. The difference between them is that one is an innocent pastime while the other has proven to be one of the most terrible scourges to afflict the human race. "

________________________________________

When postmodern thinkers wish to communicate about the possibilities of contemporary thinking, they speak today about the disappearance of the difference between being and appearance. Human reality, according to them, has taken on increasingly the form of an artificial construction, so that traditional differences between reality and fiction, truth and simulation, or art and technology have more and more been leveled. [...]

This then leads to a further claim: modern thinking "has since Kant moved closer and closer to the insight that the grounding of what we call reality is based on fiction. Reality proved increasingly not to be constituted as 'realistic' but as 'aesthetic'. Where this insight has been accepted-and it is widespread today-aesthetics loses the character of a specialized discipline and becomes a general medium for understanding reality."

http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hrp/issues/2000/Feger.pdf

1 comment:

longge said...

http://bagbagbag.blog.friendster.com/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=9715d439df4c43cb9c7bfa1ef661cb20&plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=9715d439df4c43cb9c7bfa1ef661cb20
http://www.iblogporn.com/bagbagbag/
http://bagbagbag.insanejournal.com/
http://bagbagbag.inube.com/
http://www.blog.myinetplace.com/bagbagbag/
http://bagbagbag.mysexylog.com/
http://www.momsbuzz.com/blogs/bagbagbag/
http://blog.studyquest.net/blog/1494
http://bagbagbag.us.splinder.com/
http://phlog.net/bagbagbag