Conference I am co-organizing next March. Please distribute as you desire.
The 2008 UC Irvine Visual Studies Graduate Student Association Conference
February 29 – March 1
In the most literal sense, “the street” denotes a passageway that connects various points in space. However, a quick catalog of the phrase in everyday language reveals that “the street” is a dynamic social and symbolic space, an intersection of public and private interests that are often difficult to isolate. For example, “the street” does not only refer to a thoroughfare but also denotes the place where one lives. This relationship prompts the phrase “my street,” which connotes a community affected through ownership, and links its author to a greater metropolis at the same time that it embeds him or her in place as owner and agent. In this sense the street also represents the confrontation of a sense of place and the codes of public policy, thereby pointing to a larger interpenetration of the public and the private that lies at the core of this elusive space. In other instances the phrase transcends space altogether, referring instead to a mode of existence that is independent of site specificity. In this capacity “the street” is used to convey authenticity as in “receiving one’s education from the street” or in being “from the street,” a usage that usually implies an opposition to artificial or abstract representations of reality. While these examples make clear that “the street” often functions in opposition to a privileged class, it is, in practice, precisely that space which refuses class distinction by forcing interactions among diverse social groups. This interaction is itself as diverse as the space in which it takes place as one may address the street with the apathy of the flâneur or with the fervor of political protest.
We seek papers, projects, or organized panels from a variety of disciplines and approaches all of which address and expand upon the many layers of meaning that constitute this rich object of study. Please submit abstract (250 words) and c.v. to thestreetconference@gmail.com by Dec. 1, 2007 for consideration.
Fields of interest may include:
The 40th anniversary of May '68
Limits of 'the public' in a surveillance society
Public infrastructure and urban planning
Protest on the global street
Globalization and Wall Street
Benjamin’s Arcades Project
Advertising and public displays of consumption
Homelessness and nomadism
Situationism and the practice of the Derive
Public performance and the choreography of the street
GPS, G-Maps and virtual negotiations
The simulated street of the Sims and Second Life
Car crashes, accidents and public fatality
9.19.2007
8.28.2007
I don't need your charity!
Another thing I was wondering about, DM, is that you keep mentioning "charity" in your comments to the last post, which you also mentioned in regards to Rorty earlier, and I'm wondering, who said anything about charity, anyways? Is this the neo-Marxist pejorative for liberal redistributive policies?
Charity is, of course, the right wing answer to poverty: No need for the government to help the poor, churches will take care of them, thousand points of light and all that. But it's not an argument that I've ever really seen made by the progressive left.
Typically, the arguments made for redistribution of income/efforts to decrease inequality are that I see getting made are:
1. A social justice argument: The wealth of this country isn't the sole result of any individual capitalist or manager's decisions. Whatever wealth they make is made possible by the people who do the work and all the people (teachers, policemen, construction workers, etc) who make this a functioning society with educated citizens, (mostly) fairly enforced laws and solid infrastucture. Without this social capital, capitalism wouldn't be able to function, so whatever wealth is created needs to be shared by everyone that made it possible.
2. A social compact/fraternity argument: We're all Americans, part of a community, and just like a family has obligations to care for the other members of their family as members of that family, so too all Americans have obligations to care for other Americans as members of their community. A lot of us progressives would like to see that sense of community eventually extended to all people in the world, obviously a tall, maybe impossible, order. And...
3. a utilitarian argument (the flip side of the social justice argument): Society functions better when inequality is minimized and you don't have some groups resenting the wealth or opportunities of others and possibly plotting to take that wealth by force; business does better and more innovation occurs when you've got a healthy, happy, well educated population; it's more cost effective to pay for health care, education, etc. up front for everyone than to pay to incarcerate people, treat the diseases of poverty, etc. down the road.
Of these, I think that the first comes pretty close to saying the same thing, in the end, as your description of Marx in your comment on the last post. While it arrives at this conclusion somewhat differently, the conclusion is still that the capitalist is not entitled to the value created by the laborer. The second argument comes closest to being "charity" but also has, I think, the strongest emotional appeal. This is important as the more we think of and feel ourselves to be "all in this together," the harder it is to think of ourselves as isolated individuals competing for limited resources and thus entitled to whatever we can acquire through this struggle. The third argument has the advantage of being empirically verifiable in a lot of ways: We can actually do research that shows how redistributing resources leads to less crime, greater productivity, better health, etc. down the line.
I don't know how you would evaluate these arguments "on the basis of the degree to which they eliminate the exploitative relationship between owner and worker" but I think that they provide a solid basis on which to argue and develop policies against inequality in our society without bringing in Marx and all the negative baggage that Marxism carries with it. Which, again, is why I'm still unclear on what, exactly, Marx is supposed to provide that I can't get elsewhere.
Charity is, of course, the right wing answer to poverty: No need for the government to help the poor, churches will take care of them, thousand points of light and all that. But it's not an argument that I've ever really seen made by the progressive left.
Typically, the arguments made for redistribution of income/efforts to decrease inequality are that I see getting made are:
1. A social justice argument: The wealth of this country isn't the sole result of any individual capitalist or manager's decisions. Whatever wealth they make is made possible by the people who do the work and all the people (teachers, policemen, construction workers, etc) who make this a functioning society with educated citizens, (mostly) fairly enforced laws and solid infrastucture. Without this social capital, capitalism wouldn't be able to function, so whatever wealth is created needs to be shared by everyone that made it possible.
2. A social compact/fraternity argument: We're all Americans, part of a community, and just like a family has obligations to care for the other members of their family as members of that family, so too all Americans have obligations to care for other Americans as members of their community. A lot of us progressives would like to see that sense of community eventually extended to all people in the world, obviously a tall, maybe impossible, order. And...
3. a utilitarian argument (the flip side of the social justice argument): Society functions better when inequality is minimized and you don't have some groups resenting the wealth or opportunities of others and possibly plotting to take that wealth by force; business does better and more innovation occurs when you've got a healthy, happy, well educated population; it's more cost effective to pay for health care, education, etc. up front for everyone than to pay to incarcerate people, treat the diseases of poverty, etc. down the road.
Of these, I think that the first comes pretty close to saying the same thing, in the end, as your description of Marx in your comment on the last post. While it arrives at this conclusion somewhat differently, the conclusion is still that the capitalist is not entitled to the value created by the laborer. The second argument comes closest to being "charity" but also has, I think, the strongest emotional appeal. This is important as the more we think of and feel ourselves to be "all in this together," the harder it is to think of ourselves as isolated individuals competing for limited resources and thus entitled to whatever we can acquire through this struggle. The third argument has the advantage of being empirically verifiable in a lot of ways: We can actually do research that shows how redistributing resources leads to less crime, greater productivity, better health, etc. down the line.
I don't know how you would evaluate these arguments "on the basis of the degree to which they eliminate the exploitative relationship between owner and worker" but I think that they provide a solid basis on which to argue and develop policies against inequality in our society without bringing in Marx and all the negative baggage that Marxism carries with it. Which, again, is why I'm still unclear on what, exactly, Marx is supposed to provide that I can't get elsewhere.
8.20.2007
One more go-round, re: Secularism?
I'm guessing the secularism debate here has mostly run its course. If anyone is interested in reviving it, though, this article by Mark Lilla, a humanities prof. at Columbia from the New York Times magazine, while not without its faults, is a decent, very quick overview of the history of church-state separation in the west and some current challenges it faces. It touches briefly on what I see as one of the biggest problems with mixing politics and religion: Religion is most compelling when it's least democratic.
Describing the mild-mannered Protestantism dominant in Germany in the late 1800s, Lilla states: "Liberal theology had begun in hope that the moral truths of biblical faith might be intellectually reconciled with, and not just accommodated to, the realities of modern political life. Yet the liberal deity turned out to be a stillborn God, unable to inspire genuine conviction among a younger generation seeking ultimate truth." This younger generation, especially after the pointless slaughter of World War I, "...craved a more robust faith, based on a new revelation that would shake the foundations of the whole modern order...When faith in redemption through bourgeois propriety and cultural accommodation withered after the Great War, the most daring thinkers of the day transformed it into hope for a messianic apocalypse — one that would again place the Jewish people, or the individual Christian believer, or the German nation, or the world proletariat in direct relation with the divine."
While the situation today is nowhere near as grave as in 1920s Europe, we're still stuck, as I've said before, with a bland, vague "faith" on the one hand and an intolerant, authoritarian fundamentalism on the other. When I think about what religious belief does for people then the fundamentalist or apocalyptic version makes more sense as religion to me (and apparently I'm not the only one as Evangelical and Pentacostal churches are winning converts away from Catholicism and mainline Protestantism all over the world, and Islamic fundamentalism is gaining on its mellower forms), but as a model for governing a diverse, modern society they're horrible.
Describing the mild-mannered Protestantism dominant in Germany in the late 1800s, Lilla states: "Liberal theology had begun in hope that the moral truths of biblical faith might be intellectually reconciled with, and not just accommodated to, the realities of modern political life. Yet the liberal deity turned out to be a stillborn God, unable to inspire genuine conviction among a younger generation seeking ultimate truth." This younger generation, especially after the pointless slaughter of World War I, "...craved a more robust faith, based on a new revelation that would shake the foundations of the whole modern order...When faith in redemption through bourgeois propriety and cultural accommodation withered after the Great War, the most daring thinkers of the day transformed it into hope for a messianic apocalypse — one that would again place the Jewish people, or the individual Christian believer, or the German nation, or the world proletariat in direct relation with the divine."
While the situation today is nowhere near as grave as in 1920s Europe, we're still stuck, as I've said before, with a bland, vague "faith" on the one hand and an intolerant, authoritarian fundamentalism on the other. When I think about what religious belief does for people then the fundamentalist or apocalyptic version makes more sense as religion to me (and apparently I'm not the only one as Evangelical and Pentacostal churches are winning converts away from Catholicism and mainline Protestantism all over the world, and Islamic fundamentalism is gaining on its mellower forms), but as a model for governing a diverse, modern society they're horrible.
8.14.2007
Debating Policy
DM thinks it’d be helpful to discuss the actual policy proposals on poverty of some of the Democratic candidates as a way of both seeing what the mainstream left has to offer and to compare it to possibly more dramatic neo-Marxist ideas…well, John Edward’s poverty policy is here and here’s his page on “Working Families,” which covers labor policies. There’s also relevant policy stuff on the website under the several other headings as well. Obama’s (not as detailed) policy page on poverty is here . This is the most relevant page off of Hillary’s website, which seems to focus at least as much on her record as her proposals, which I suppose is fitting given that a big part of her campaign narrative is that she's one of the most experienced candidates in the field. Debate on some of these proposals can be found here and here; this is, I think, an interesting and relevant way of comparing the candidates. I didn’t find as much on Hillary or Obama’s domestic policy proposals, which is probably partly due to their not offering up as much in the way of concrete proposals and partly due to the fact that policy doesn’t get discussed nearly as much as the “horserace” between the candidates. Anyways, that was also after a not very exhaustive search. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who knows how to use Google, so feel free to waste your own damn time and add to the links I’ve provided.
Anyways, while I’m not opposed to discussing and comparing the candidate’s policy programs on poverty or any other topic, there are some real limitations to the usefulness of that discussion. For one, as you’ll see if you read the campaign websites above, the level of vagueness and generality is kept pretty high. In part this is to keep from giving your opponents anything too concrete to use against you. Then there’s the fact that a lot of what matters in a given policy is going to be the fine print, the technical details regarding funding, implementation, etc. that only professionals in the field (or people with far too much time on their hands) can really sort through. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable and interested in this stuff, but I still can’t really make much sense of the advantages or disadvantages of the different health care proposals, for example. Like most people in this situation, I turn to the opinion of those who spend more time thinking about these things than me who seem to share my values and get things right more often than not. Another limitation to the policy debate is that while the President proposes what he or she’d like to see happen, it’s up to the congress to actually write the law putting the policy into effect, and a lot can happen at this level to alter the fine points of a policy. Democrats most likely won’t have a filibuster proof majority in the next congress, so they’ll have to make compromises with Republicans to get any bills passed. So with all that in mind, I think that looking at a candidates policy proposals tell us more about where their priorities and values are than what will actually become law if they’re elected, which is fine: knowing a candidates priorities and values--and whether they have the competence to enact their agenda--is probably worth almost as much as a set of detailed proposals anyway.
Anyways, while I’m not opposed to discussing and comparing the candidate’s policy programs on poverty or any other topic, there are some real limitations to the usefulness of that discussion. For one, as you’ll see if you read the campaign websites above, the level of vagueness and generality is kept pretty high. In part this is to keep from giving your opponents anything too concrete to use against you. Then there’s the fact that a lot of what matters in a given policy is going to be the fine print, the technical details regarding funding, implementation, etc. that only professionals in the field (or people with far too much time on their hands) can really sort through. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable and interested in this stuff, but I still can’t really make much sense of the advantages or disadvantages of the different health care proposals, for example. Like most people in this situation, I turn to the opinion of those who spend more time thinking about these things than me who seem to share my values and get things right more often than not. Another limitation to the policy debate is that while the President proposes what he or she’d like to see happen, it’s up to the congress to actually write the law putting the policy into effect, and a lot can happen at this level to alter the fine points of a policy. Democrats most likely won’t have a filibuster proof majority in the next congress, so they’ll have to make compromises with Republicans to get any bills passed. So with all that in mind, I think that looking at a candidates policy proposals tell us more about where their priorities and values are than what will actually become law if they’re elected, which is fine: knowing a candidates priorities and values--and whether they have the competence to enact their agenda--is probably worth almost as much as a set of detailed proposals anyway.
6.12.2007
Richard Rorty, R.I.P.
Richard Rorty has been my favorite philosopher for a while now, probably dating back to when I first read Achieving Our Country when it came out in the late ‘90s. At the time I was finding myself increasingly frustrated and unhappy with the postmodernist/cultural studies/academic leftist thought that I’d been really enamored of as an undergraduate. In that book Rorty showed me that you could criticize that strain of thought, and the sort of political paralysis it seemed to have led to on the left, without abandoning the postmodernist insights (truth as socially constructed, distrust of “metanarratives”) that I think do have real value. Rorty’s commitment to a pragmatic, reformist liberalism has been a real inspiration to me and, as I think most of my posts here show, my political views. I’d highly recommend that book to anyone here; I’d love to get a discussion of it going and would happily loan my copy out to any of the LA crew if they’re interested…more practically, there’s this essay online, which is a pretty good summation of his later political thinking, touches directly on a lot of the discussions we’ve been having here recently and, as with everything he wrote, is a model of clear, unpretentious prose. I'd love to hear your comments on it...
6.04.2007
More Thoughts on Secularism
I've had a chance to read a bit more of that Connolly book. I'm not sure if it is really worth reading unless you have a strong interest in political philosophy. Anyway, I need to return the book to the library tomorrow and I thought I would do my best to sum up his argument against secularism. I still haven't read the whole thing, but I think I at least have a grasp on his basic argument, and it may generate some interesting discussion.
Connolly traces the history of secularism back to Tocqueville, Kant, Mill, and Rawls and then uses Habermas as a more contemporary example of a seculuar position. His argument, as I understand it, is that early secularists in the West insisted on a separation of religious and political forms of argument, but they did so with the assumption that political and social life would always be guided by a shared sense of Christian values. From this perspective secularism is only possible when everyone shares a common set of values. Early secularists argued that without shared values to replace a connection with organized religion, then politics would devolve into endless conflicts that could never be solved. Habermas does not assume that public life will always be guided by Christian values. I'm a little hazy on this, but it seems that Habermas pushes for discussion and debate that is based in reason and particular types of communicative practice.
Connolly's critique of the early sense of secularism is that it assumes that politics are guided by a relatively narrow set of values. Clearly we live in a diverse world that cannot be understood based on only one set of values. From the early secularist perspective it seems that those who do not possess Christian values are unable to participate in politics. However, the more contemporary Habermasian approach does not really solve this problem. There is still the problem of how to deal with those who believe politics should be influenced by religion. Are they simply not allowed to participate in political life because their beliefs are based in faith rather than reason? For Connolly, a non-secular politics is not necessarily dominated by religion, and certainly not any particular religion. Rather it is a politics that is open to various faith based forms of reasoning and argument.
It seems that there is tendency on the part of the left to push for the elimination of religious arguments from political thought. On the radio this morning I heard Bush giving a speech in the Czech Republic in which he says something about "freedom" being granted to us by our "maker" and that it is a "true expression of the soul" or something like that. My initial reaction was to question what "maker" he is talking about and to wonder if non-Christian souls are also expressed through freedom. However I'm not sure if my instinct to critique the presence of religious thought in a political speech is very useful. The current secular state seems to produce policies that are based in the religious rhetoric at the same time that it denies any relationship with religion. One solution to this problem is to eliminate religious based arguments. Perhaps they would be replaced with empirically based reasoning. Another solution would be to accept that multiple forms of belief and reasoning will always exist and to try to create space for all of them in the construction of policy.
I am still in the process of thinking through all of this and I would welcome some input from you folks. Should non-secular forms of thought provide a basis for political decision making? If so (at this point I'm answering yes to the first question), how would this work?
Connolly traces the history of secularism back to Tocqueville, Kant, Mill, and Rawls and then uses Habermas as a more contemporary example of a seculuar position. His argument, as I understand it, is that early secularists in the West insisted on a separation of religious and political forms of argument, but they did so with the assumption that political and social life would always be guided by a shared sense of Christian values. From this perspective secularism is only possible when everyone shares a common set of values. Early secularists argued that without shared values to replace a connection with organized religion, then politics would devolve into endless conflicts that could never be solved. Habermas does not assume that public life will always be guided by Christian values. I'm a little hazy on this, but it seems that Habermas pushes for discussion and debate that is based in reason and particular types of communicative practice.
Connolly's critique of the early sense of secularism is that it assumes that politics are guided by a relatively narrow set of values. Clearly we live in a diverse world that cannot be understood based on only one set of values. From the early secularist perspective it seems that those who do not possess Christian values are unable to participate in politics. However, the more contemporary Habermasian approach does not really solve this problem. There is still the problem of how to deal with those who believe politics should be influenced by religion. Are they simply not allowed to participate in political life because their beliefs are based in faith rather than reason? For Connolly, a non-secular politics is not necessarily dominated by religion, and certainly not any particular religion. Rather it is a politics that is open to various faith based forms of reasoning and argument.
It seems that there is tendency on the part of the left to push for the elimination of religious arguments from political thought. On the radio this morning I heard Bush giving a speech in the Czech Republic in which he says something about "freedom" being granted to us by our "maker" and that it is a "true expression of the soul" or something like that. My initial reaction was to question what "maker" he is talking about and to wonder if non-Christian souls are also expressed through freedom. However I'm not sure if my instinct to critique the presence of religious thought in a political speech is very useful. The current secular state seems to produce policies that are based in the religious rhetoric at the same time that it denies any relationship with religion. One solution to this problem is to eliminate religious based arguments. Perhaps they would be replaced with empirically based reasoning. Another solution would be to accept that multiple forms of belief and reasoning will always exist and to try to create space for all of them in the construction of policy.
I am still in the process of thinking through all of this and I would welcome some input from you folks. Should non-secular forms of thought provide a basis for political decision making? If so (at this point I'm answering yes to the first question), how would this work?
5.22.2007
Moral Dilemma
I’ve recently encountered a personal problem that I could use some advice on and it relates to issues of politics and values that we’ve been discussing. I’ve been approached by CENTRA, a private company that works for the US military, to edit a “smart card” that they are distributing to Marines in Ethiopia. A smart card provides basic cultural information that is intended to facilitate interactions between marines and Ethiopians (see: http://www.mediafire.com/?ezznyjz1n3d for more details). My understanding is that US marines are advising the Ethiopian military concerning their recent invasion of Somalia. Essentially the Ethiopian government has been roped into fighting our war on terror in exchange for our ignoring their human rights abuses and importation of weapons from North Korea. I oppose the US military presence in the Horn of Africa for a number of reasons that I can go into in more detail if you’re interested.
So, clearly there is good reason not to participate in this project. On the other hand, the marines will be in Ethiopia regardless of what I do. Perhaps by getting involved in the production of information that will guide the actions of the marines I can reduce the damage done by their presence. It is debatable how much these cards actually could have an influence the behavior of marines, but assuming that they have at least some impact I think it is reasonable to assume they could do some good.
By participating in this project would I be legitimizing a military action that I strongly oppose?
Does the possibility of shaping marine views of Ethiopians in a direction of my choosing outweigh this possibility?
Will the impact of these smart cards be so negligible that it doesn’t really matter what I do?
I’m not sure if this is relevant but CENTRA has offered to pay me $500 for what would amount to at most one day of work.
I look forward to your advice.
So, clearly there is good reason not to participate in this project. On the other hand, the marines will be in Ethiopia regardless of what I do. Perhaps by getting involved in the production of information that will guide the actions of the marines I can reduce the damage done by their presence. It is debatable how much these cards actually could have an influence the behavior of marines, but assuming that they have at least some impact I think it is reasonable to assume they could do some good.
By participating in this project would I be legitimizing a military action that I strongly oppose?
Does the possibility of shaping marine views of Ethiopians in a direction of my choosing outweigh this possibility?
Will the impact of these smart cards be so negligible that it doesn’t really matter what I do?
I’m not sure if this is relevant but CENTRA has offered to pay me $500 for what would amount to at most one day of work.
I look forward to your advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)