Comments on: Baudrillard, Ward Churchill, and Žižek http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/ Theory, Terror, Dystopia Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:09:03 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: campagnolo http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-185 campagnolo Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:20:49 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/#comment-185 For Hammad's post, a link. http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html Yes this is sensationalist journalism, but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it for that. There is constantly a push by elements in society to criminalize objection. What are these elements? I think it would be reductive to dismiss them immediately as conservative, and totalitarian because of the connotation of those words. I think it has a little to do with the very conception of freedom. I think it is interesting to consider civil liberties in a different light. The U.S. bill of rights is guarantee of our most precious and important "freedoms" which will not impinged by the government (which are inalienable, immortal, and godgiven, yet require incredible feats of addition, subtraction and interpretation). I think these generally come to form the basis of freedom in the conception of a young American mind (through education, ISA's, RSA's or whatever means you want to posit). This is in itself contradictory, because looked at another way they are the restriction of freedom. In order to guarantee these liberties the state must restrict freedoms. Freedom of violence, freedom of discrimination, freedom of oppressive action basically. Now no one really complains about these restrictions in the abstract, but once policy makers begin a process of deconstruction breaking down terms and meanings how they want you run into trouble. I think this is where you run into what I would distill as the basis of neo-conservative ideology, which contends that the assurance of liberty requires more restriction of freedom. This is complicated. Look at affirmative action. Is it ensuring liberty for African Americans in statistically leveling the playing field, or is it restricting freedom in disallowing employers from making individual choices on who to hire. For me its obviously doing both, and thats the conundrum that makes rally cries for either political party as a champion of rights or freedom as very superficial. So where do terrorism and utopia fit in? I am not sure, I think we have pretty safely established that like freedom utopia and dystopia are inherently mixed. Personally I think discussion of cyclical u/dystopia's is a little off, as any solution has its own particular malady. Within one is inevitably the other. I think Zizek presents an enticing alternative which disconnects concepts of freedom from happiness, and even happiness from itself. I am still digesting it though. I think he is on to something important when he talks about happiness as the cessation of desire. It is interesting to think about it in the context of our capitalist critique that desire is unending--that wants are relative, there is no end point for production and consumption because people will always want more then their neighbor, and that omnipresent inequality will ensure that this never stops. I think this is an interesting article to read to contextualize ideas, in a more digestible, if uncritical prose. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/68043/ I disagree with the idea that a perfect totalitarian state would result in the cessation of desire. I think his metaphors are a little abusive. I'm sure a good comment could change my mind though. For Hammad’s post, a link.

http://www.newstarget.com/022308.html

Yes this is sensationalist journalism, but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it for that. There is constantly a push by elements in society to criminalize objection. What are these elements? I think it would be reductive to dismiss them immediately as conservative, and totalitarian because of the connotation of those words.

I think it has a little to do with the very conception of freedom. I think it is interesting to consider civil liberties in a different light.

The U.S. bill of rights is guarantee of our most precious and important “freedoms” which will not impinged by the government (which are inalienable, immortal, and godgiven, yet require incredible feats of addition, subtraction and interpretation).

I think these generally come to form the basis of freedom in the conception of a young American mind (through education, ISA’s, RSA’s or whatever means you want to posit).

This is in itself contradictory, because looked at another way they are the restriction of freedom. In order to guarantee these liberties the state must restrict freedoms. Freedom of violence, freedom of discrimination, freedom of oppressive action basically. Now no one really complains about these restrictions in the abstract, but once policy makers begin a process of deconstruction breaking down terms and meanings how they want you run into trouble. I think this is where you run into what I would distill as the basis of neo-conservative ideology, which contends that the assurance of liberty requires more restriction of freedom.

This is complicated. Look at affirmative action. Is it ensuring liberty for African Americans in statistically leveling the playing field, or is it restricting freedom in disallowing employers from making individual choices on who to hire. For me its obviously doing both, and thats the conundrum that makes rally cries for either political party as a champion of rights or freedom as very superficial.

So where do terrorism and utopia fit in? I am not sure, I think we have pretty safely established that like freedom utopia and dystopia are inherently mixed. Personally I think discussion of cyclical u/dystopia’s is a little off, as any solution has its own particular malady. Within one is inevitably the other.

I think Zizek presents an enticing alternative which disconnects concepts of freedom from happiness, and even happiness from itself. I am still digesting it though. I think he is on to something important when he talks about happiness as the cessation of desire. It is interesting to think about it in the context of our capitalist critique that desire is unending–that wants are relative, there is no end point for production and consumption because people will always want more then their neighbor, and that omnipresent inequality will ensure that this never stops.

I think this is an interesting article to read to contextualize ideas, in a more digestible, if uncritical prose.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/68043/

I disagree with the idea that a perfect totalitarian state would result in the cessation of desire. I think his metaphors are a little abusive. I’m sure a good comment could change my mind though.

]]> By: pink martini http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-182 pink martini Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:54:53 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/#comment-182 I agree with professor pollack's idea that Baudrillard does not necessarily express the idea that America "asked for" 9/11 and find the notion that hegemonic power would always provoke the wish for destruction fascinating. To answer the last question the post asks, I believe that a perfect totalitarian society would equal a dystopia because dystopian characteristics are embedded in the very nature of such a society. On the other hand, an imperfect totalitarian society, one that has "gone wrong," too, is a dystopia. Finally, the vision of happiness as knowledge forgone I have encountered in Westerners' comments about life in the countries in the Socialist Bloc: "You are happy because you don't know how miserable you are." I would agree that a relationship between happiness and knowledge exists and would admit that there are instances when one wishes to remain ignorant for his/her happiness' sake. I agree with professor pollack’s idea that Baudrillard does not necessarily express the idea that America “asked for” 9/11 and find the notion that hegemonic power would always provoke the wish for destruction fascinating.

To answer the last question the post asks, I believe that a perfect totalitarian society would equal a dystopia because dystopian characteristics are embedded in the very nature of such a society. On the other hand, an imperfect totalitarian society, one that has “gone wrong,” too, is a dystopia.

Finally, the vision of happiness as knowledge forgone I have encountered in Westerners’ comments about life in the countries in the Socialist Bloc: “You are happy because you don’t know how miserable you are.” I would agree that a relationship between happiness and knowledge exists and would admit that there are instances when one wishes to remain ignorant for his/her happiness’ sake.

]]> By: manayo http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-181 manayo Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:43:29 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/#comment-181 Bouncing off Hammad's comment, the term 'terrorist' becomes even more precarious. Many current and historical conflicts have occurred because a group of people or a nation disagreed with "the current administration's actions." Flipping the coin, does that administration venture into terrorism when they seek to silence those voices of dissent? I don't think V's comment in "Vendetta"; "governments should be afraid of their people" is a call for anarchy; he was saying that government's should answer to, respond to, and act upon the wishes of its their citizens. Isn't that what they're there for? Following Žižek’s logic (according to my reading), if happiness is the betrayal/cessation of desire, there are very many happy people in this world. If lack of desire is dystopic, then nations under oppressive governments are utopias; they are the true possessors of desire. And no nation that has not balanced desire and happiness has truly achieved utopia. Freedom (of thought/speech/nationality/worship/sexuality/xyz) seems to be the primary indicator of utopian society. But Freedom can be both an elusive thing, and an incredibly effective opiate of the masses. Dystopia is a much greater part of global society than we may realise. Bouncing off Hammad’s comment, the term ‘terrorist’ becomes even more precarious. Many current and historical conflicts have occurred because a group of people or a nation disagreed with “the current administration’s actions.” Flipping the coin, does that administration venture into terrorism when they seek to silence those voices of dissent?

I don’t think V’s comment in “Vendetta”; “governments should be afraid of their people” is a call for anarchy; he was saying that government’s should answer to, respond to, and act upon the wishes of its their citizens. Isn’t that what they’re there for?

Following Žižek’s logic (according to my reading), if happiness is the betrayal/cessation of desire, there are very many happy people in this world. If lack of desire is dystopic, then nations under oppressive governments are utopias; they are the true possessors of desire. And no nation that has not balanced desire and happiness has truly achieved utopia. Freedom (of thought/speech/nationality/worship/sexuality/xyz) seems to be the primary indicator of utopian society. But Freedom can be both an elusive thing, and an incredibly effective opiate of the masses. Dystopia is a much greater part of global society than we may realise.

]]> By: hammad http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-180 hammad Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:19:38 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/#comment-180 The idea of “you are either with 'us' or with the terrorists” reminds me a lot of McCarthyism in the 1950’s (you are either with 'us' or with the communists). I think both statements are close-minded and fail to recognize that there may be a middle ground. In fact, I would say that most citizens embody some sort of a middle ground. For example, opinion polls now show that the majority of the US populous is against and critical of the war in Iraq. But this does not mean that they are terrorists. On the contrary, these are concerned citizens who are voicing opinions against the government’s actions. These people would like to see some sort of progress in American foreign policy. I feel that individuals generally recognize the triumphs of the democratic, capitalist system here in the United States. But recognition and appreciation does not equate to subservience and blindly following or agreeing with those in charge. If that were the case, would there be any incentive for progress? In addition, questioning authority's actions hardly makes one a terrorist, unless of course we as a society choose to expand the boundaries of the term “terrorist” to include those people who disagree at all with the current administration’s actions. The idea of “you are either with ‘us’ or with the terrorists” reminds me a lot of McCarthyism in the 1950’s (you are either with ‘us’ or with the communists). I think both statements are close-minded and fail to recognize that there may be a middle ground. In fact, I would say that most citizens embody some sort of a middle ground. For example, opinion polls now show that the majority of the US populous is against and critical of the war in Iraq. But this does not mean that they are terrorists. On the contrary, these are concerned citizens who are voicing opinions against the government’s actions. These people would like to see some sort of progress in American foreign policy. I feel that individuals generally recognize the triumphs of the democratic, capitalist system here in the United States. But recognition and appreciation does not equate to subservience and blindly following or agreeing with those in charge. If that were the case, would there be any incentive for progress? In addition, questioning authority’s actions hardly makes one a terrorist, unless of course we as a society choose to expand the boundaries of the term “terrorist” to include those people who disagree at all with the current administration’s actions.

]]> By: katie http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/comment-page-1/#comment-178 katie Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:36:15 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english67f07/2007/11/26/baudrillard-ward-churchill-and-zizek/#comment-178 I figure I'll take a stab at your last question. Is a "perfect totalitarian society" a dystopia? I believe that yes, the two terms are synonymous. In order for perfection to rule, freedom must be limited, and I feel that this is one of the most obvious signs of a dystopia. Of course, in all civilizations, freedoms are limited to a certain extent, certain actions are forbidden, &c, but freedom of thought is always preserved. In a perfect totalitarian society, Žižek calls for ignorance, and deception. This limits an individual's freedom of thought too much. While I understand that in our society, we are often kept in the dark about government decisions, we are still at least given more information (thank you, media), and the freedom to make our own decisions based on this information. In a dystopia, this information is generally hidden away, quite often under the guise of Žižek's "protective ignorance." In 1984, for instance, the actual truth of the situation was constantly changing, and double think was required to create the ignorance demanded in the people. In Brave New World, specified knowledge, and scientific curiosity were discouraged, in an effort to preserve the dystopian society. In this way, I feel that a "perfect totalitarian society," necessarily founded on protective ignorance is virtually analogous with dystopia. I figure I’ll take a stab at your last question. Is a “perfect totalitarian society” a dystopia? I believe that yes, the two terms are synonymous. In order for perfection to rule, freedom must be limited, and I feel that this is one of the most obvious signs of a dystopia. Of course, in all civilizations, freedoms are limited to a certain extent, certain actions are forbidden, &c, but freedom of thought is always preserved. In a perfect totalitarian society, Žižek calls for ignorance, and deception. This limits an individual’s freedom of thought too much. While I understand that in our society, we are often kept in the dark about government decisions, we are still at least given more information (thank you, media), and the freedom to make our own decisions based on this information. In a dystopia, this information is generally hidden away, quite often under the guise of Žižek’s “protective ignorance.” In 1984, for instance, the actual truth of the situation was constantly changing, and double think was required to create the ignorance demanded in the people. In Brave New World, specified knowledge, and scientific curiosity were discouraged, in an effort to preserve the dystopian society. In this way, I feel that a “perfect totalitarian society,” necessarily founded on protective ignorance is virtually analogous with dystopia.

]]>