Just trying to be provocative, but, (and this could be a critique (or an interpretation) of the comments) maybe that's no longer a very useful political mechanism. Dave is closest to what I was thinking, not that I was thinking much; just a gut reaction to what struck me as a self-serving attempt at political "dialogue". If you want to take it to some sort of larger issue, then it's a notion that I've been nursing for some time, which is that subversion as such is no longer an appropriate strategy. I'm coming at this from an art-world viewpoint, but even that language is all mixed up with the sad tale of 20th century "Marxism" et al, and constitutes a sort of vulgar political dialectics. If we're really serious about things like "Partnership", or the "Return of the Goddess", or the "Archaic Revival", or "Gylany", or replacing competition with cooperation, or however else you want to phrase the transformation we'd like to see take place, then we don't help the situation by trying to bring out the worst in our "enemies" (who actually share plenty of common ground with us). Sticking flowers in a soldier's gun was an inspired gesture; the present example is just ego: knock this chip off my shoulder.
gylany? is that where leprechauns are from?
I didn't see Hudson's statement to Bush as a Jerry Rubin-like tactic designed to smoke out arrogant behavior, but rather a case of "What do you say if you get a chance to speak to someone in power?" He said what he believed, and this was the result. Then, once that's happened, does he tell the story or doesn't he? He chose to tell it, as modestly as possible; he didn't (and doesn't) strike me as a jerk.
Yes, Alex, I agree. There is a strange logic to the parasite. Subverting a program has the vexing requirement of relying on the very program which is to be subverted. Probably you're right and it is better just to pay this sort of thing no mind and get on with the more important business at hand.
The problem, I guess, is that ignoring Bush won't make him go away (for another 3 years or so, at least.) Of course, paying attention won't make him go away either, so I'm sort of stuck there. And worse, even when he does go away, there's somebody else just like him to step in.
I used to read a lot of this woman, Avital Ronell, and she was involved with this problem of trying to go beyond mere subversion. She thought (I think) that we need a radical break, a rupture, in order to move beyond this "reactive, mimetic, and regressive posturing" which I think is something like the problem you are referring to.
"A thinker" Flaubert said, "should have neither religion nor fatherland nor even any social conviction. Absolute scepticism."
Still, my emotions often seem to over ride my better judgement, and probably that's not always bad. I'm no democrat (or republican) but I'll most likely continue to take a small laugh at G.W.B.'s expense when I get the chance. Not that her story was particularly funny, but I could see the image of him standing there with that mask-like campaign look plastered on his face while saying something nasty under his breath. That's good for a chuckle. If he didn't look so much like Alfred E. Neuman when I picture him in my mind the whole thing might even serve to humanize him a bit.
Maybe humor can be a mini-rupture which allows you to subvert without getting caught up?
Can I still get a res at Gylany? 8:30?
Damn strange, last night I had a dream in which I met George W. Bush and told him that I thought he was doing a lousy job as president. I think remember that I called him a dope.
OK, I admit it, Madame Bovary is me.
But I do think this is a "big idea". It's still inchoate, maybe more a vision than an idea. That's why we can only see a rupture, rather than a path from here to there. Still, we gotta try. I was taught the subversive strategy in art school, and you can be sure that once it's reached that point, it's over. What started as a formal observation of the way in which art styles change became a prescription, demanding constant change, even if based on nothing but reaction. The result was a lot of really boring, academic art, which lead to a real reaction, which produced even worse art. Much the same with politics. Marx's critique rings as true as ever, but the prescription derived from it failed. At least in the art world not so many people get killed in the process.
I believe in humor, but the funniest jokes are always at our own expense.
|
- alex 7-19-2001 7:47 pm
gylany? is that where leprechauns are from?
- dave 7-19-2001 11:14 pm [add a comment]
Yes.
- alex 7-20-2001 12:04 am [add a comment]
I didn't see Hudson's statement to Bush as a Jerry Rubin-like tactic designed to smoke out arrogant behavior, but rather a case of "What do you say if you get a chance to speak to someone in power?" He said what he believed, and this was the result. Then, once that's happened, does he tell the story or doesn't he? He chose to tell it, as modestly as possible; he didn't (and doesn't) strike me as a jerk.
- tom moody 7-19-2001 11:29 pm [add a comment]
is time to start drinking yat ?
- bill 7-19-2001 11:32 pm [add a comment]
Yes, Alex, I agree. There is a strange logic to the parasite. Subverting a program has the vexing requirement of relying on the very program which is to be subverted. Probably you're right and it is better just to pay this sort of thing no mind and get on with the more important business at hand.
The problem, I guess, is that ignoring Bush won't make him go away (for another 3 years or so, at least.) Of course, paying attention won't make him go away either, so I'm sort of stuck there. And worse, even when he does go away, there's somebody else just like him to step in.
I used to read a lot of this woman, Avital Ronell, and she was involved with this problem of trying to go beyond mere subversion. She thought (I think) that we need a radical break, a rupture, in order to move beyond this "reactive, mimetic, and regressive posturing" which I think is something like the problem you are referring to.
Still, my emotions often seem to over ride my better judgement, and probably that's not always bad. I'm no democrat (or republican) but I'll most likely continue to take a small laugh at G.W.B.'s expense when I get the chance. Not that her story was particularly funny, but I could see the image of him standing there with that mask-like campaign look plastered on his face while saying something nasty under his breath. That's good for a chuckle. If he didn't look so much like Alfred E. Neuman when I picture him in my mind the whole thing might even serve to humanize him a bit.
Maybe humor can be a mini-rupture which allows you to subvert without getting caught up?
Can I still get a res at Gylany? 8:30?
- jim 7-20-2001 12:08 am [add a comment]
Damn strange, last night I had a dream in which I met George W. Bush and told him that I thought he was doing a lousy job as president. I think remember that I called him a dope.
- steve 7-20-2001 12:18 am [add a comment]
i think youre having al gores dreams. was tipper there?
- dave 7-20-2001 12:22 am [add a comment]
OK, I admit it, Madame Bovary is me.
But I do think this is a "big idea". It's still inchoate, maybe more a vision than an idea. That's why we can only see a rupture, rather than a path from here to there. Still, we gotta try. I was taught the subversive strategy in art school, and you can be sure that once it's reached that point, it's over. What started as a formal observation of the way in which art styles change became a prescription, demanding constant change, even if based on nothing but reaction. The result was a lot of really boring, academic art, which lead to a real reaction, which produced even worse art. Much the same with politics. Marx's critique rings as true as ever, but the prescription derived from it failed. At least in the art world not so many people get killed in the process.
I believe in humor, but the funniest jokes are always at our own expense.
- alex 7-20-2001 12:59 am [add a comment]