A debate has been brewing over the last few weeks between myself and a colleague of mine on the nature of 'truth' and reality and its extension to environmental advocacy strategies. This debate has been especially interesting, picking up from my post on Manuel DeLanda earlier this month and leading most recently to a comment, which I highly recommend reading, available here. The following is a response to that posting, along with a summary reiteration of my earlier position.
I appreciate the simplification of my point - which I wouldn't call 'postmodernist' as much as a position within 'Critical Theory' - but I think what I was trying to get at was missed in the process. Fundamentally, the two positions you are describing involve truth claims about the world, and it is precisely this that I want to think critically about. First, I’ll explain my ‘philosophical’ (or methodological) position on this, then my ‘political’, and finally, bring the two together.
The points that Manuel DeLanda uses to justify his realism, and the ones you bring up in your posting, are inevitably anthropocentric, as is my own position. But they are also anthropomorphic, something I want to explicitly argue against. Let me ask a simple question - 'What is Art?' Is it art when it appears on a tableau? When it involves patterns? When it is 'consciously' or 'deliberately' created? These are extremely biased questions about what is essentially an anthropocentric concept to begin with. We, socially subjectively, define the limits of what "art" is and determine what qualifies and what does not. DeLanda imputes a thoroughly human (and likely culturally specific) understanding of 'art' onto the birds in his example to make a point about the realm of humans - a blatant display of anthropomorphism. In contrast, I argue that any definitive claims about realms outside the human experience are necessarily anthropomorphic, and thus we should readily disclose that position, instead of making and hiding human concepts, values and beliefs in the secure sphere of a higher authority ('nature'). This is ultimately a question of power: to what extent are aspects of humanity immutable - that is, 'natural'? To what extent do our social institutions, practices and norms, beliefs and values have objectively independent manifestations outside of humanity?
This has important implications for the various politics that we are constantly engaged in, especially the current struggle over human ecology. But I look to history to determine how we might frame and shape it. Marxists and Anarchists have long sought to reorient the terms of their debates with their political opponents by freeing it from the realm of humans, thereby gaining legitimacy and authority to carry out their various projects. In these cases, it was partly idealism, stemming from a higher religious authority, that spurred them to embrace the kind of realism that Mao and Lenin were thinking of when they argued that the dialectic contradiction was an essential characteristic of every unit of matter in the universe. Kropotkin tirelessly appealed to the natural world to shore up support for the ideas that mutual aid institutions are a natural part of humanity, against the realism of disfigured Darwinists.
This is an appealing strategy for political action, since it appears to be the ‘easy way out’. By establishing a truth claim that supports your political values, you only need to extend that truth claim to dominate all others, and defend it vigorously against future competing truth claims. Conversely, by orienting human questions around human values, you condition yourself to an endless and grueling battle to assert the "hegemony" (used loosely) of certain values - a constant flux of power-laden ideas, unanchorable within our social vortex. We know the story of the former strategy - realism was coopted (and significantly placed on a pedestal) by those who used it to hide a different set of values within the absolute truths of our time. Pertaining to ecology, realism proved to be highly amenable to the transformation that 'the Great Chain of Being' was to undergo with the loss of its Christian foundations. Carried on in the tradition of Western science, and aided and abetted by scientific Marxism at every turn, what many environmentalists struggle so hard against today has its genesis in the tradition of realism.
Concerning environmental advocacy, the reorientation of debates away from instrumental rationality, though an extremely difficult task, is both necessary and desirable. But how this is done is perhaps my political point of contention. Using realism to achieve this goal - by exclaiming that, objectively, every aspect of non-human nature is "good, in and of itself" - does nothing to challenge the power structure of the human belief system, and is almost certainly to lead to the eventual resurgence of instrumental rationality. In political terms, what is needed is not a change in the government of the governance of the ecological debate, but a regime change that transforms the foundational elements of the way truths are constructed in society.
Thus, I see the philosophical component of environmental advocacy as inextricably intertwined with the political projects that make it up. However, my point was fundamentally missed by equating anthropocentrism with cost-benefit instrumental rationality and with postmodernism (it is not through discourse that we can only understand the world, but as humans, only in human terms, terms which may be fundamentally experiential and non-discursive). What Weber meant by instrumental rationality, and as Habermas has subsequently developed, is not that the the act of valuation is free of 'ends'. I value a tree because it fulfills a psychological and emotional function of my humanity, not because it will become a chair I will sit on. Rather, it is the kind of thought (and really valuation, but a critique of Weber will have to wait), now commonly associated with 'cost-benefit analyses' that need to be rejected. This is inescapably anthropocentric, just as all human action must be - after all, Weber's typology aimed to describe 'social' action. But claiming that this is something that must be 'avoided' only furthers the false dichotomy that 'humans' and 'nature' are separate entities. Rather, it is the combination of anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism with instrumental rationality that needs to be rethought.
All variants of realism seek to covertly extend human values onto nature, thereby claiming an objectively independent basis for their values, which mask the power that they wield. In seeking to circumvent anthropocentrism, we will only further entrench it in the structure of our knowledge systems, something that has been done for far too long in the academy and in 'Western' society. Rather we should embrace our anthropocentrism, and recognize that the range of values and possible actions that we can engage in are endless. This may be a gruelling and thankless task - defeatists might say impossible - but if we are to challenge the Enlightenment project that threatens the world, our world, we must attack it at its roots. Usurpation ultimately never cuts the head off the king. It only holds the place until another usurper, preaching a different message, comes along.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Four Messages about Life from Spiderman 3
There is no shortage of movies indirectly (or directly) tackling the central themes of the political economic culture of the United States. I had the displeasure of watching Spiderman 3 the other night and found it to participate in the indoctrination of the American populace, alongside more prominent recent releases such as 300. Granted the entire Marvel genre has a storied history of nationalism alongside the appeal to the rebelliousness of teenagers, but Spiderman 3 reeks of pure Hollywood baloney.
The theme of the film - though it doesn't become clear until quite late, with the numerous plot developments the director crams in - is the 'choices we must make'. This is by now a tired story, and I always wonder, how many times can it get rehashed for mass consumption before people get sick and tired of it, or the additional cost of tacking on SFX filler gets to be too much? We all have the ability to bring out the good and bad within us, and so we must choose between the right and wrong, the good and evil, in life. Ok, this doesn't sound all that bad, if slightly boring - but what kind of choices are good, and what are bad? Let us examine the characters, somewhat shallowly, to find some hints.
Peter Parker is, as usual, the classic representation of the American dream. He is a nobody trying to make a name for himself in the big city. Of course, he must 'take his lumps' as he works his way up the career ladder to (eventual) success. His alter-ego, Spiderman, is also the same icon of the selfless man, giving all for fellow citizen, community, city and country - in his spare leisure time, of course. The third film stays true to this, but introduces a few variants: Parker becomes increasingly egoistic and cocky about his alter-ego, especially after the scene were the strange space-goo lands on earth, and this leads to obvious problems in his personal life. Message #1: "practice humility, or else you'll piss people off" - ok, not a terrible lesson to have kids learn.
But of course, an illegal alien arrives, in the form of an "oily" goo from space, which supposedly amplifies peoples character traits. When Spiderman is temporarily 'infected', he becomes quite - well, you'll have to watch the movie to see just what he becomes. Skip ahead to the arrival of Venom, and we see just what this alien oil is all about. Venom is the epitome of what the "foreign temptation" can do for you: bring success quickly, but ultimately corrupt who you really are. Eddie, Peter Parker's real-life enemy, is first infected, then actively embraces this "foreign temptation" as it is passed from Spiderman in, of all places, a church. The oily goo is a placeholder for a number of different symbols, but the Islamic connotation is strong. It cannot stand the sound of church bells, which is ultimately the way to defeat it. Other potential candidates are illegal aliens, due to its origins, and non-christian 'carnal passions', due to the effects that it has on people (makes them feel 'so good', leads to extensive dating, etc.). Message #2: Resist "foreign temptations" that will ultimately corrupt your true American spirit. Hmmm.
The other major enemy, the Sandman, is quite enigmatic. On the one hand, he represents the elusive Arab terrorist, always looking for money to fund his unknown plots, and able to disappear with ease. But as the movie develops, we see that this is not the main intention of the director. Instead, Flint Marko is a symbol of the wrong choices otherwise good Americans can make. Flint explains near the end of the movie that he only got involved with crime to be able to buy the medicine his daughter desperately needed for an operation. Clearly, this is the wrong thing to do. In the end, Marko's character is forgiven by Spiderman, though he is wrought with anguish, repentance, and doomed to live a solitary life, as if he were dead. Message #3: "Even if your intentions are good, it's best to avoid all of the problems associated with crime. Suck it up, and hope your child pulls through. Or lobby the Democrats to pass a universal healthcare bill".
The final character is a villain who becomes an ally. Harry represents the capitalist elite in American society. While his father was driven by a quest for greed and personal glory that ultimately led him to wage a war on the American way of life, Harry's character in Spiderman 3, bridges the gap to aid Spiderman in his efforts to conquer the foreign presence. Message #4: "Capitalism may have screwed you over in the past, but when it comes to keeping out foreign influences in order to protect America, you can count on it. Oh, and it may help you save something else too:
The supporting character, Mary Jane, is the purpose of all this manly jockeying and flexing of muscles. She is constantly used by one enemy after the other to attack Peter "where it hurts most: his heart". Clearly, we must fight for our wives (and mothers - don't forget Aunt May) if the fight for our country is to have any meaning. Much more could be said about the gender roles in Spiderman 3, but I'll leave that for the comments.
The theme of the film - though it doesn't become clear until quite late, with the numerous plot developments the director crams in - is the 'choices we must make'. This is by now a tired story, and I always wonder, how many times can it get rehashed for mass consumption before people get sick and tired of it, or the additional cost of tacking on SFX filler gets to be too much? We all have the ability to bring out the good and bad within us, and so we must choose between the right and wrong, the good and evil, in life. Ok, this doesn't sound all that bad, if slightly boring - but what kind of choices are good, and what are bad? Let us examine the characters, somewhat shallowly, to find some hints.
Peter Parker is, as usual, the classic representation of the American dream. He is a nobody trying to make a name for himself in the big city. Of course, he must 'take his lumps' as he works his way up the career ladder to (eventual) success. His alter-ego, Spiderman, is also the same icon of the selfless man, giving all for fellow citizen, community, city and country - in his spare leisure time, of course. The third film stays true to this, but introduces a few variants: Parker becomes increasingly egoistic and cocky about his alter-ego, especially after the scene were the strange space-goo lands on earth, and this leads to obvious problems in his personal life. Message #1: "practice humility, or else you'll piss people off" - ok, not a terrible lesson to have kids learn.
But of course, an illegal alien arrives, in the form of an "oily" goo from space, which supposedly amplifies peoples character traits. When Spiderman is temporarily 'infected', he becomes quite - well, you'll have to watch the movie to see just what he becomes. Skip ahead to the arrival of Venom, and we see just what this alien oil is all about. Venom is the epitome of what the "foreign temptation" can do for you: bring success quickly, but ultimately corrupt who you really are. Eddie, Peter Parker's real-life enemy, is first infected, then actively embraces this "foreign temptation" as it is passed from Spiderman in, of all places, a church. The oily goo is a placeholder for a number of different symbols, but the Islamic connotation is strong. It cannot stand the sound of church bells, which is ultimately the way to defeat it. Other potential candidates are illegal aliens, due to its origins, and non-christian 'carnal passions', due to the effects that it has on people (makes them feel 'so good', leads to extensive dating, etc.). Message #2: Resist "foreign temptations" that will ultimately corrupt your true American spirit. Hmmm.
The other major enemy, the Sandman, is quite enigmatic. On the one hand, he represents the elusive Arab terrorist, always looking for money to fund his unknown plots, and able to disappear with ease. But as the movie develops, we see that this is not the main intention of the director. Instead, Flint Marko is a symbol of the wrong choices otherwise good Americans can make. Flint explains near the end of the movie that he only got involved with crime to be able to buy the medicine his daughter desperately needed for an operation. Clearly, this is the wrong thing to do. In the end, Marko's character is forgiven by Spiderman, though he is wrought with anguish, repentance, and doomed to live a solitary life, as if he were dead. Message #3: "Even if your intentions are good, it's best to avoid all of the problems associated with crime. Suck it up, and hope your child pulls through. Or lobby the Democrats to pass a universal healthcare bill".
The final character is a villain who becomes an ally. Harry represents the capitalist elite in American society. While his father was driven by a quest for greed and personal glory that ultimately led him to wage a war on the American way of life, Harry's character in Spiderman 3, bridges the gap to aid Spiderman in his efforts to conquer the foreign presence. Message #4: "Capitalism may have screwed you over in the past, but when it comes to keeping out foreign influences in order to protect America, you can count on it. Oh, and it may help you save something else too:
The supporting character, Mary Jane, is the purpose of all this manly jockeying and flexing of muscles. She is constantly used by one enemy after the other to attack Peter "where it hurts most: his heart". Clearly, we must fight for our wives (and mothers - don't forget Aunt May) if the fight for our country is to have any meaning. Much more could be said about the gender roles in Spiderman 3, but I'll leave that for the comments.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Down the Yellow Brick Road, One Last Time
I've long been in private discussions over the relationship between 'free/fair' markets, the validity of gold as a potential currency, and the role of government intervention in markets, and so this post may appear slightly out of context, but it is a response to comments made by Chris Powell of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA). The article is available here: http://www.gata.org/node/5654
The folks at GATA are not necessarily conspiratorial kooks, as they have been pejoratively described. Rather, they are ultra-right wing 'free' marketeers leading an ignorant, misguided, and manipulated - though passionate - segment of the middle-class, nostalgic for the bygone days of pre-73'. Just like, and yet opposite, their counterparts in dominant orthodox economics departments worldwide, they lead those desperate to believe the utopian call for 'free markets' by creating a conspiracy out of what is an obvious and very well-known fact: central banks do intervene and is an explicit part of their mandate.
Where this becomes especially manipulative is when the Midas-wannabes at GATA allege that the actions of all the world's central banks are aimed at the "price suppression of gold". Either this is extreme ignorance demonstrating a thorough lack of understanding about the way global prices operate in a semi-floating exchange rate system, an inane ego-mania that is likely what warrants GATA being branded 'conspiracy theorists', or most likely, a rhetorical tactic to simplify a complex (though unfair) global economy for mass public consumption which masks the elite interests that it truly serves.
The main objective of central banks (dealing with fiat currency) worldwide is to maintain the stability of their currencies, and thus national economies, in the pursuit of various distributions and allocations of wealth in society. These objectives can vary drastically, but usually aim to dampen business cycles by bailing out uber-capitalist bankers, and inducing certain consumer behaviours (in investment for example) by setting interest rates and adjusting the money supply. We can, and should, dispute who is served most by this system (consider for example, that the vast majority of bankers have obtained a safety blanket in the current sub-prime debacle while unlucky home buyers declare bankruptcy by the thousands), but we should also note that the ability to adjust the money supply somewhat arbitrarily provides a modicum of support for workers and consumers who would otherwise be flattened in the event of an exogenous shock (say a shortage in staple foods, driving up prices).
The price of currencies and commodities in this mixed or 'managed float' exchange system are mostly set by independent and institutional investors, and supposedly reflect their confidence in those currencies (though much currency trading is predatory, irrational and of course, speculative). The extent to which these currencies are impacted by this trading depends on the relative interest they attract in currency markets, and the strength of its central bank carrying out its 'management' of the price. Gold is viewed - although highly problematically - as an alternate 'safe-haven' to the US dollar, which has long maintained its hegemony in global currency markets, and thus as confidence in the US dollar declines, the Federal Reserve sells gold to buoy the price of the USD, just as Asian central bankers manage their USD reserves to set the prices of their currencies. That currencies and commodities are all interconnected in global markets is hardly a conspiracy - though some may wish to frame it that way.
Our current mixed exchange system (with the exception of a few fully-fixed, 'dollarized' economies) is the historical antecedent of the Bretton Woods system, which is itself the antecedent of a full gold standard system, explains the lingering cultural obsession with gold (which is as arbitrary as any finite, durable, and portable commodity), along with the irrational and naive nostalgia of those imagining a corruption-free and opulent 1920s. That is indeed true conservatism. Ironically, those clamoring loudest for a return to the "realities" of the gold standard, are those who undoubtedly benefited the most from the Keynesianism of the 50's and 60's - the so-called 'Golden Age', imperfect though it was. Where gold advocates are so far gone, however, is when they presume gold to be a "real" standard of value, unlike "false" fiat, seeking to secure some sort of false legitimacy. This masks the real point at issue - they are dissatisfied with the arbitrary hegemony of the USD (or the Euro, or Yen, etc.), which obviously does not benefit them directly as it does primary shareholders in the fiat system, and want to replace it with the equally arbitrary hegemony of gold. Thus, those who advocate the dissolution of the central banking system may drape their call in the language of the radical democratization of economic control, but what they are really advocating is a much darker minority class revolution against the current elite, and most certainly against the masses. It is no surprise then that major notable supporters of the gold standard are Ayn Randian Objectivists, Austrian School Economists and hard-line monetarists like Milton Friedman, conservative populist Ron Paul, and yes, even Alan Greenspan (and we know where his interests lie).
And that is really what the reification of gold is really about - the return to the gold standard - even if it is idealized as being controlled decentrally via the world price, rather than by a government of body of governments. It is gold that is true, and nothing else; gold that deserves to be hegemonic, and consequently, those that control it. It is, in the end, a utopian call for "free" markets, so akin to neoliberals, and so fundamentally ironical that it borders on farce, that is most deadly to the multidude of disenfranchised who would be told to "sink or swim". This class project has already been carried out too many times, and the story is always the same.
Supporters of gold must either admit their complicity in this class project, and engage in clear debates that will ultimately expose their true intentions, or accept that the price of gold is by no means an improvement over our current broken system. What is needed is progressive and pointed criticism of the current economic order, and suggestions towards a better and alternative future, not reactionary criticism that will ultimately work to entrench the current order, or worse, successfully push it further right. It's time to end this 'yellow brick road' fantasy, so emblematic of yet another manipulative fallacy, and finally focus on meeting the needs of all, so we can collectively explore our creative ingenuity.
The folks at GATA are not necessarily conspiratorial kooks, as they have been pejoratively described. Rather, they are ultra-right wing 'free' marketeers leading an ignorant, misguided, and manipulated - though passionate - segment of the middle-class, nostalgic for the bygone days of pre-73'. Just like, and yet opposite, their counterparts in dominant orthodox economics departments worldwide, they lead those desperate to believe the utopian call for 'free markets' by creating a conspiracy out of what is an obvious and very well-known fact: central banks do intervene and is an explicit part of their mandate.
Where this becomes especially manipulative is when the Midas-wannabes at GATA allege that the actions of all the world's central banks are aimed at the "price suppression of gold". Either this is extreme ignorance demonstrating a thorough lack of understanding about the way global prices operate in a semi-floating exchange rate system, an inane ego-mania that is likely what warrants GATA being branded 'conspiracy theorists', or most likely, a rhetorical tactic to simplify a complex (though unfair) global economy for mass public consumption which masks the elite interests that it truly serves.
The main objective of central banks (dealing with fiat currency) worldwide is to maintain the stability of their currencies, and thus national economies, in the pursuit of various distributions and allocations of wealth in society. These objectives can vary drastically, but usually aim to dampen business cycles by bailing out uber-capitalist bankers, and inducing certain consumer behaviours (in investment for example) by setting interest rates and adjusting the money supply. We can, and should, dispute who is served most by this system (consider for example, that the vast majority of bankers have obtained a safety blanket in the current sub-prime debacle while unlucky home buyers declare bankruptcy by the thousands), but we should also note that the ability to adjust the money supply somewhat arbitrarily provides a modicum of support for workers and consumers who would otherwise be flattened in the event of an exogenous shock (say a shortage in staple foods, driving up prices).
The price of currencies and commodities in this mixed or 'managed float' exchange system are mostly set by independent and institutional investors, and supposedly reflect their confidence in those currencies (though much currency trading is predatory, irrational and of course, speculative). The extent to which these currencies are impacted by this trading depends on the relative interest they attract in currency markets, and the strength of its central bank carrying out its 'management' of the price. Gold is viewed - although highly problematically - as an alternate 'safe-haven' to the US dollar, which has long maintained its hegemony in global currency markets, and thus as confidence in the US dollar declines, the Federal Reserve sells gold to buoy the price of the USD, just as Asian central bankers manage their USD reserves to set the prices of their currencies. That currencies and commodities are all interconnected in global markets is hardly a conspiracy - though some may wish to frame it that way.
Our current mixed exchange system (with the exception of a few fully-fixed, 'dollarized' economies) is the historical antecedent of the Bretton Woods system, which is itself the antecedent of a full gold standard system, explains the lingering cultural obsession with gold (which is as arbitrary as any finite, durable, and portable commodity), along with the irrational and naive nostalgia of those imagining a corruption-free and opulent 1920s. That is indeed true conservatism. Ironically, those clamoring loudest for a return to the "realities" of the gold standard, are those who undoubtedly benefited the most from the Keynesianism of the 50's and 60's - the so-called 'Golden Age', imperfect though it was. Where gold advocates are so far gone, however, is when they presume gold to be a "real" standard of value, unlike "false" fiat, seeking to secure some sort of false legitimacy. This masks the real point at issue - they are dissatisfied with the arbitrary hegemony of the USD (or the Euro, or Yen, etc.), which obviously does not benefit them directly as it does primary shareholders in the fiat system, and want to replace it with the equally arbitrary hegemony of gold. Thus, those who advocate the dissolution of the central banking system may drape their call in the language of the radical democratization of economic control, but what they are really advocating is a much darker minority class revolution against the current elite, and most certainly against the masses. It is no surprise then that major notable supporters of the gold standard are Ayn Randian Objectivists, Austrian School Economists and hard-line monetarists like Milton Friedman, conservative populist Ron Paul, and yes, even Alan Greenspan (and we know where his interests lie).
And that is really what the reification of gold is really about - the return to the gold standard - even if it is idealized as being controlled decentrally via the world price, rather than by a government of body of governments. It is gold that is true, and nothing else; gold that deserves to be hegemonic, and consequently, those that control it. It is, in the end, a utopian call for "free" markets, so akin to neoliberals, and so fundamentally ironical that it borders on farce, that is most deadly to the multidude of disenfranchised who would be told to "sink or swim". This class project has already been carried out too many times, and the story is always the same.
Supporters of gold must either admit their complicity in this class project, and engage in clear debates that will ultimately expose their true intentions, or accept that the price of gold is by no means an improvement over our current broken system. What is needed is progressive and pointed criticism of the current economic order, and suggestions towards a better and alternative future, not reactionary criticism that will ultimately work to entrench the current order, or worse, successfully push it further right. It's time to end this 'yellow brick road' fantasy, so emblematic of yet another manipulative fallacy, and finally focus on meeting the needs of all, so we can collectively explore our creative ingenuity.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Yeah MMP - No, You Don't Know Me
Well, as usual, this post is coming much too late. But, better late than never, and at least I can use this moment to make a foolish prediction before the votes are tabulated. MMP will not pass in Ontario tonight, but I, ever the optimist, think it will garner between 51 and 55% of the vote, probably on the lower end of that range. The reasons for this are diffuse: anti-MMP media coverage in the urban local media, and a poorly timed and planned public awareness campaign on one hand, and a sense of real excitement by all marginalized groups (left and ultra-right) in Ontario that this is a chance to make a real change on the other. I still haven't decided whether or not MMP will gain a simple majority in each riding - I have my doubts about some of the rural ridings in Ontario, since, unlike with STV in BC in 2005, outlying ridings aren't likely to benefit with MMP. Probably it will fail on both super majority requirements, though will get closer than most pundits are predicting.
Anyway, I want to use this time to clear up two major issues that have been flying around about MMP, which, as of yet, I haven't heard anyone explain adequately. The first regards the increase or decrease in accountability with the new system, the second is about the 'democratic' nature of open-list PR.
First, MMP does not produce more 'accountability', a loaded word if I ever heard one. The current FPTP system blends two distinct political identities into a singly vote - namely, the individual or 'personal' candidate identity, and the party identity. It is extremely unclear in most cases to any analyst or politician just what we are voting for when we go to the polls. Many people know extremely little about their individual candidate's biography or accomplishments and instead rely on cues from their party affiliation. Some people disdain party politics altogether and vote solely on the candidate's merit. Still more know a little bit of both and in many cases face an internal struggle of what identity to vote for - person or party. Such was the case in the 2004 federal election where many extremely popular candidates were thrown out because of their Liberal party affiliation.
What MMP does produce is the distinction and integrity of the votes cast (a form of accountability I suppose) so that we can single out each aspect of a given candidate's identity and engage in a more nuanced and complex selection process. This is why many proponents rightfully claim it is a more 'democratic' system, since the electoral process pays much closer attention to our personal preferences as political subjects. Actually, I kind of lied. MMP, as a mixed system, does not truly separate our preferences into two distinct camps. Instead, it keeps the muddled camp of personal candidate and party, and then adds a third camp for just the party affiliation. A much better system, though Utopian and impracticable given the historical evolution of the party system in Canada, would be to disallow party affiliations for individual candidates at the local level, and maintain provincial (or federal) parties. In any event, MMP in its proposed form is clearly better at capturing the diversity of people's political preferences than FPTP, and goes some 0f the way (though not far) in resolving Charles Lindblom's classic dilemma (see The Market System).
The second point regards the selection process of the party list system. Proponents of MMP somewhat erroneously claim that the new electoral system will immediately bring more diversity in candidates (i.e.: women, visible minorities). This is false, since the proposal of the Citizen's Assembly, to the best of my knowledge (though I haven't checked officially), does not clearly stipulate how nominations to the list will occur, only that the list must be made public some time before the election. Now, most reasonable analysts note that the process is likely to be the same as the current party nomination process, which isn't very democratic. There is one slight difference however that could make a big impact: the public scrutiny function.
Currently, party nominations occur completely behind closed doors, and when the official procedures are followed, a select minority of the party elite get to be part of the selection process. When a candidate is finally revealed to the public, in most cases, we have no knowledge of the wrangling that happened behind the scenes - the public is presented with a single candidate, take them or leave them. Because this process happens in diffuse ridings, most electors do not pay attention to other non-high profile candidates in other ridings. Since the homogeneity that one so often finds within a party's candidates is primarily decentralized and local, with no direct mechanism for concerned citizens in Toronto to raise eyebrows at the candidate selected in Kenora, it makes fingering a party's racism and sexism extremely difficult.
The list system forces the party to put its cards, so to speak, on the table in terms of what it stands for. Since everyone in the province will eventually vote for the candidate list, there is more 'accountability' to voters to justify why the composition of that list is the way it is. There is also a direct interest for provincial and national media to scrutinize the party lists, since it becomes a provincial issue. Rarely do media institutions beyond the local or urban criticize the nominee process, except in a general way that leads party leaders to blush, say 'oops', and move on with their rejection of diversity. To be clear, there is nothing in the electoral system that guarantees this process becomes more accountable. This is a cultural issue as much as it is geographic one. But I would argue that the format of this electoral system makes it easier to force parties to respond substantively to these issues. The empirics from other countries, for the most part, support this argument as well.
So, a futile post perhaps (though not as intellectual excercize), but at least it will be ready the next time we have to vote for electoral reform. In the meantime, cast your vote in the spectacle we call democracy, and hold on for your life for the next four years. The likely outcome on both the ballot and electoral reform are not likely to bode well for anyone that I would like to be reading this post.
Anyway, I want to use this time to clear up two major issues that have been flying around about MMP, which, as of yet, I haven't heard anyone explain adequately. The first regards the increase or decrease in accountability with the new system, the second is about the 'democratic' nature of open-list PR.
First, MMP does not produce more 'accountability', a loaded word if I ever heard one. The current FPTP system blends two distinct political identities into a singly vote - namely, the individual or 'personal' candidate identity, and the party identity. It is extremely unclear in most cases to any analyst or politician just what we are voting for when we go to the polls. Many people know extremely little about their individual candidate's biography or accomplishments and instead rely on cues from their party affiliation. Some people disdain party politics altogether and vote solely on the candidate's merit. Still more know a little bit of both and in many cases face an internal struggle of what identity to vote for - person or party. Such was the case in the 2004 federal election where many extremely popular candidates were thrown out because of their Liberal party affiliation.
What MMP does produce is the distinction and integrity of the votes cast (a form of accountability I suppose) so that we can single out each aspect of a given candidate's identity and engage in a more nuanced and complex selection process. This is why many proponents rightfully claim it is a more 'democratic' system, since the electoral process pays much closer attention to our personal preferences as political subjects. Actually, I kind of lied. MMP, as a mixed system, does not truly separate our preferences into two distinct camps. Instead, it keeps the muddled camp of personal candidate and party, and then adds a third camp for just the party affiliation. A much better system, though Utopian and impracticable given the historical evolution of the party system in Canada, would be to disallow party affiliations for individual candidates at the local level, and maintain provincial (or federal) parties. In any event, MMP in its proposed form is clearly better at capturing the diversity of people's political preferences than FPTP, and goes some 0f the way (though not far) in resolving Charles Lindblom's classic dilemma (see The Market System).
The second point regards the selection process of the party list system. Proponents of MMP somewhat erroneously claim that the new electoral system will immediately bring more diversity in candidates (i.e.: women, visible minorities). This is false, since the proposal of the Citizen's Assembly, to the best of my knowledge (though I haven't checked officially), does not clearly stipulate how nominations to the list will occur, only that the list must be made public some time before the election. Now, most reasonable analysts note that the process is likely to be the same as the current party nomination process, which isn't very democratic. There is one slight difference however that could make a big impact: the public scrutiny function.
Currently, party nominations occur completely behind closed doors, and when the official procedures are followed, a select minority of the party elite get to be part of the selection process. When a candidate is finally revealed to the public, in most cases, we have no knowledge of the wrangling that happened behind the scenes - the public is presented with a single candidate, take them or leave them. Because this process happens in diffuse ridings, most electors do not pay attention to other non-high profile candidates in other ridings. Since the homogeneity that one so often finds within a party's candidates is primarily decentralized and local, with no direct mechanism for concerned citizens in Toronto to raise eyebrows at the candidate selected in Kenora, it makes fingering a party's racism and sexism extremely difficult.
The list system forces the party to put its cards, so to speak, on the table in terms of what it stands for. Since everyone in the province will eventually vote for the candidate list, there is more 'accountability' to voters to justify why the composition of that list is the way it is. There is also a direct interest for provincial and national media to scrutinize the party lists, since it becomes a provincial issue. Rarely do media institutions beyond the local or urban criticize the nominee process, except in a general way that leads party leaders to blush, say 'oops', and move on with their rejection of diversity. To be clear, there is nothing in the electoral system that guarantees this process becomes more accountable. This is a cultural issue as much as it is geographic one. But I would argue that the format of this electoral system makes it easier to force parties to respond substantively to these issues. The empirics from other countries, for the most part, support this argument as well.
So, a futile post perhaps (though not as intellectual excercize), but at least it will be ready the next time we have to vote for electoral reform. In the meantime, cast your vote in the spectacle we call democracy, and hold on for your life for the next four years. The likely outcome on both the ballot and electoral reform are not likely to bode well for anyone that I would like to be reading this post.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Tragedy for the Commons
There's nothing quite like a brisk walk through the forest in autumn. The leaves displaying every hue of green, yellow, orange and red, and the crisp air make September through November the best time of year in Ottawa, in my opinion. But imagine my surprise when, in trying to access a particular entry point to Pinhey Forest off of Slack Road, I found the path barred and closed indefinitely. Now, this particular entry point happens to be on leased property, at the back of a Church to be precise, and I had a sneaking suspicion that the relatively new tenants of the building, Living Waters Christian Assembly, had something to do with it.
Let me say from the outset that I have no particular vendetta with any religious organization, except a general disdain for the hypocrisy of rhetoric and reality that the vast majority of these institutions perpetrate. I would like to say that evangelical groups do not make this list, led defiantly in the west by the Catholic Church, but unfortunately, those that I have observed are certainly card-carrying instigators of social oppression. In retrospect, my mistake was prejudging Living Waters, a faith I had hitherto heard nothing about, for rabid antisocial and exclusionary behavior. Nevertheless, I was certainly not incorrect in my rash presuppositions, and what follows is an account and analysis of a tragedy for the commons.
So, after finishing my walk via an access located 300m or so down Slack Road (which, repaved and speed limit increased, is living up to its earlier drag strip title - this safety reference just a nod to all those affronted by any deviation from legal orthodoxy), I returned home and decided I would finally follow through on some long-hidden and unknown interest in investigative journalism. I called up Ottawa's good friends, the NCC (National Capital Commission), to ask two questions: 1) when was this access point closed? and 2) why? The poor young girl who answered the phone on Thanksgiving Sunday afternoon clearly had no idea what I was talking about and told me about the temporary Greenbelt closures easily found on the website. I thanked her, and she told me to call the NCC corporate office on Tuesday to find out more.
I diligently did so, only to find that my poking around had already made it to the head of the Greenbelt, whom I was transferred to when I called. I reiterated my questions, and this time got an answer. The access was closed in September of 2006 in response to "off-hours access and illegal activity" that Living Waters brought to NCC's attention. As Lessee's of the land leading to the access point, Living Waters clearly had some weight to throw around in dictating NCC policies. When I asked whether or not any legal challenges were threatened if NCC did not act, the spokesperson became defensive arguing that "We responded to the demands because they were reasonable. Other community members raised questions and when we told them this they agreed with our decision" ... I was almost waiting for him to say "now why won't you?". Of course, I wasn't arguing against the decision on the phone, knowing just what good that would bring, but I could clearly sense some tension around this decision. So I left it at that, hung up, and started writing this entry.
Really, the quibble over the actual access itself is a moot point. Unless you have young children, or are afraid of cars speeding by you at 90km/h as you walk alongside the road, the 300m hike to the next entry point is not the end of the world (though the safety concern does indeed loom for parents with young children, or dogs). Rather my point of contention is over the espoused values and rhetoric of religious institutions in general, and specifically Living Waters, that are clearly out of sync with their daily practices. I quibble with the fact that this access point has been open at least (but more likely longer) for the past 20 years, with no complaints from the previous church tenant (maybe Anglican?), but has suddenly closed within two years of the new lessee taking up tenancy. I have a problem when the access of the majority is restricted due to the minority imposition of private proprietorship.
Are kids going and drinking in this forest after hours? Yes, of course. Many spots in that forest are hallowed grounds for the rites of passage of local youths who have been using it for at least 20 years. Will closing off that particular access point stop them from doing so? No, closing ALL access points will not stop them, and beyond recognizing that criminalizing major aspects of youth culture is both futile and regressive, and working to understand why this culture manifests itself in our society, there is not a whole lot about underage drinking that we can do. Religious institutions that preach community, love, respect and encourage diversity would do well to implement their rhetoric in practice, instead of engaging in xenophobia and religious jingoism while slowly pinching pennies from the in-group.
The main issue is that, in preaching to profess the words of Jesus (what happened to 'Love thy Neighbor' and 'Do Unto Others'?), Living Waters is actually engaging in belligerently antisocial and certainly anti-neighborly behavior. Even if these "off-hour" visitors were leaving beer bottles in their parking lot, does it make sense to barricade the property, mistakenly believing you can keep the infidels away from your flock? Wouldn't it be better to start a constructive dialogue with the community and invite local kids to alternative events on church property? Even a sign that says, 'please do not litter' might go a long way in reaching the eco-consciousness of suburban kids. In any event, there is no evidence that these people were doing anything of the sort anyway.
It is a tragedy for the commons, for the community, when the civic tone is changed for little purpose other than to assert private property rights and paranoid isolationism. If good communities are about trust, as Robert Putnam roughly argues, then this particular "assembly" is like the thief in the night. True, we may only lose a small amount in tangible terms - 300m along a barren road is not the worst inconvenience one could suffer, especially in light of the NCC's general plan to plow over the Greenbelt in favor of suburban housing - but the long term loss in active "community", in opportunities for relationships, dialogue, friendliness etc., will trickle down for years to come.
Let me say from the outset that I have no particular vendetta with any religious organization, except a general disdain for the hypocrisy of rhetoric and reality that the vast majority of these institutions perpetrate. I would like to say that evangelical groups do not make this list, led defiantly in the west by the Catholic Church, but unfortunately, those that I have observed are certainly card-carrying instigators of social oppression. In retrospect, my mistake was prejudging Living Waters, a faith I had hitherto heard nothing about, for rabid antisocial and exclusionary behavior. Nevertheless, I was certainly not incorrect in my rash presuppositions, and what follows is an account and analysis of a tragedy for the commons.
So, after finishing my walk via an access located 300m or so down Slack Road (which, repaved and speed limit increased, is living up to its earlier drag strip title - this safety reference just a nod to all those affronted by any deviation from legal orthodoxy), I returned home and decided I would finally follow through on some long-hidden and unknown interest in investigative journalism. I called up Ottawa's good friends, the NCC (National Capital Commission), to ask two questions: 1) when was this access point closed? and 2) why? The poor young girl who answered the phone on Thanksgiving Sunday afternoon clearly had no idea what I was talking about and told me about the temporary Greenbelt closures easily found on the website. I thanked her, and she told me to call the NCC corporate office on Tuesday to find out more.
I diligently did so, only to find that my poking around had already made it to the head of the Greenbelt, whom I was transferred to when I called. I reiterated my questions, and this time got an answer. The access was closed in September of 2006 in response to "off-hours access and illegal activity" that Living Waters brought to NCC's attention. As Lessee's of the land leading to the access point, Living Waters clearly had some weight to throw around in dictating NCC policies. When I asked whether or not any legal challenges were threatened if NCC did not act, the spokesperson became defensive arguing that "We responded to the demands because they were reasonable. Other community members raised questions and when we told them this they agreed with our decision" ... I was almost waiting for him to say "now why won't you?". Of course, I wasn't arguing against the decision on the phone, knowing just what good that would bring, but I could clearly sense some tension around this decision. So I left it at that, hung up, and started writing this entry.
Really, the quibble over the actual access itself is a moot point. Unless you have young children, or are afraid of cars speeding by you at 90km/h as you walk alongside the road, the 300m hike to the next entry point is not the end of the world (though the safety concern does indeed loom for parents with young children, or dogs). Rather my point of contention is over the espoused values and rhetoric of religious institutions in general, and specifically Living Waters, that are clearly out of sync with their daily practices. I quibble with the fact that this access point has been open at least (but more likely longer) for the past 20 years, with no complaints from the previous church tenant (maybe Anglican?), but has suddenly closed within two years of the new lessee taking up tenancy. I have a problem when the access of the majority is restricted due to the minority imposition of private proprietorship.
Are kids going and drinking in this forest after hours? Yes, of course. Many spots in that forest are hallowed grounds for the rites of passage of local youths who have been using it for at least 20 years. Will closing off that particular access point stop them from doing so? No, closing ALL access points will not stop them, and beyond recognizing that criminalizing major aspects of youth culture is both futile and regressive, and working to understand why this culture manifests itself in our society, there is not a whole lot about underage drinking that we can do. Religious institutions that preach community, love, respect and encourage diversity would do well to implement their rhetoric in practice, instead of engaging in xenophobia and religious jingoism while slowly pinching pennies from the in-group.
The main issue is that, in preaching to profess the words of Jesus (what happened to 'Love thy Neighbor' and 'Do Unto Others'?), Living Waters is actually engaging in belligerently antisocial and certainly anti-neighborly behavior. Even if these "off-hour" visitors were leaving beer bottles in their parking lot, does it make sense to barricade the property, mistakenly believing you can keep the infidels away from your flock? Wouldn't it be better to start a constructive dialogue with the community and invite local kids to alternative events on church property? Even a sign that says, 'please do not litter' might go a long way in reaching the eco-consciousness of suburban kids. In any event, there is no evidence that these people were doing anything of the sort anyway.
It is a tragedy for the commons, for the community, when the civic tone is changed for little purpose other than to assert private property rights and paranoid isolationism. If good communities are about trust, as Robert Putnam roughly argues, then this particular "assembly" is like the thief in the night. True, we may only lose a small amount in tangible terms - 300m along a barren road is not the worst inconvenience one could suffer, especially in light of the NCC's general plan to plow over the Greenbelt in favor of suburban housing - but the long term loss in active "community", in opportunities for relationships, dialogue, friendliness etc., will trickle down for years to come.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Nothing Like a Good Oxford-Style Debate
The Economist is launching a new gimmick set to start mid-October that asks participants to "take part in a severest contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress"- a debate, Oxford style.
Besides the obvious cultural bias built-in to the debate structure that favor any aversed in the Oxford Style, the English language, and Anglo-American society, there is a more sinister and clearly deliberate agenda being perpetuated by the Economist in this 'debate'.
The Economist allows web users to 'vote' on the proposition to be debated. This first round is about education, and the 'audience' has five positions to choose from. The phrasing of these propositions uses positive language in favor of the value assumptions of the Economist (namely free markets, competition, deregulation and the marketization of government, to name a few), which is likely to implant the 'correctness' of these positions in people's mind (not that most Economist readers need much convincing). As an example, one proposition states "This house believes that the 'digital divide' is a secondary problem in the educational needs of developing countries" - the authoritative language does not leave much room for debate.
Secondly, team debating has been done away with, and in its place two individuals will square off. What is especially interesting is that the Economist decides who will be debating, chosen from a panel of 'experts', and they will only release these names once the proposition has been chosen. Effectively, and likely, the Economist can mismatch the competition so that the proposition they support comes out on top. The audience is allowed to participate, but only secretively, and comments or questions will be screened by the moderator. These veto points simply turn the debate into a spectacle of capitalist power excercise through the assertion of Economist-friendly values.
In an age where 'full' democracy supposedly reigns, the Economist could open up the discussion to the general public at extremely low-cost. But they insist on staying true to their nineteenth century roots: the advancement of the capitalist project at all costs by continuing to hide behind prejudiced notions of 'intelligence' and 'ignorance'. Almost certainly, those who do not conform to the Economist's format - arguing for or against a proposition using a specific brand of western rationality enveloped in neoclassical economic theory - will be termed 'unworthy'. Pure intellectual theatre may certainly entertain an uncritical middle class, but it is hardly a debate in the real sense of the word.
So, in spite of the history of the Economist and everything it has stood for "journalistically" since its inception to the public discourse, I propose (somewhat laughably) that they use their vast resources to hold a true debate, one not confined to the "spirit of the Oxford" style, which really means controlling the limits of discussion within the narrow realm of 'acceptability'. In a society supposedly promoting 'liberalism', capitalist technocracy continually stands tall as a dominant ideal. If liberalism is truly an ideal, and not just rhetoic, the Economist should open this debate up to anyone and everyone who has an interest in contributing. The problem is, they might not be able to handle the results.
Besides the obvious cultural bias built-in to the debate structure that favor any aversed in the Oxford Style, the English language, and Anglo-American society, there is a more sinister and clearly deliberate agenda being perpetuated by the Economist in this 'debate'.
The Economist allows web users to 'vote' on the proposition to be debated. This first round is about education, and the 'audience' has five positions to choose from. The phrasing of these propositions uses positive language in favor of the value assumptions of the Economist (namely free markets, competition, deregulation and the marketization of government, to name a few), which is likely to implant the 'correctness' of these positions in people's mind (not that most Economist readers need much convincing). As an example, one proposition states "This house believes that the 'digital divide' is a secondary problem in the educational needs of developing countries" - the authoritative language does not leave much room for debate.
Secondly, team debating has been done away with, and in its place two individuals will square off. What is especially interesting is that the Economist decides who will be debating, chosen from a panel of 'experts', and they will only release these names once the proposition has been chosen. Effectively, and likely, the Economist can mismatch the competition so that the proposition they support comes out on top. The audience is allowed to participate, but only secretively, and comments or questions will be screened by the moderator. These veto points simply turn the debate into a spectacle of capitalist power excercise through the assertion of Economist-friendly values.
In an age where 'full' democracy supposedly reigns, the Economist could open up the discussion to the general public at extremely low-cost. But they insist on staying true to their nineteenth century roots: the advancement of the capitalist project at all costs by continuing to hide behind prejudiced notions of 'intelligence' and 'ignorance'. Almost certainly, those who do not conform to the Economist's format - arguing for or against a proposition using a specific brand of western rationality enveloped in neoclassical economic theory - will be termed 'unworthy'. Pure intellectual theatre may certainly entertain an uncritical middle class, but it is hardly a debate in the real sense of the word.
So, in spite of the history of the Economist and everything it has stood for "journalistically" since its inception to the public discourse, I propose (somewhat laughably) that they use their vast resources to hold a true debate, one not confined to the "spirit of the Oxford" style, which really means controlling the limits of discussion within the narrow realm of 'acceptability'. In a society supposedly promoting 'liberalism', capitalist technocracy continually stands tall as a dominant ideal. If liberalism is truly an ideal, and not just rhetoic, the Economist should open this debate up to anyone and everyone who has an interest in contributing. The problem is, they might not be able to handle the results.
Monday, October 1, 2007
On the Realism of Manuel DeLanda (and Gilles Deleuze)
Manuel DeLanda has often spoke at the European Graduate School as part of the Gilles Deleuze chair he holds there. The EGS publishes many of its lectures online, and a 2007 lecture DeLanda gave there dealing with Chapter 3 of Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus has made its way onto Youtube (for the lecture series, visit: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zqisvKSuA70&mode=related&search=).
The subject of this lecture dealt with Deleuze's interest in the animal world, and why humans concerned only with the human world must expand the scope of their interests to the the 'natural' world in order to more fully experience the richness of life. As DeLanda notes, we must "learn from the world itself", in order to ensure that our "pride of being human" doesn't prevent the deeper experiences we have when relating with our environments. In short, we must try to be "like rocks, or like birds". While I thoroughly agree with the principle of this position - that life itself should not, and cannot be limited to the human realm, that instead we must embrace the phenomenal diversity of the human experience - my point of critique is primarily methodological.
DeLanda begins by discussing 'expressivity' as a fundamental feature of the living and nonliving world. A crystal expresses its 'crystalness' regardless of human interaction when its molecules interact with light, when its molecules rest atop soil molecules, when it transforms the path of wind by its simple presence. This is a very attractive concept, and so encompassing (some might say 'totalitarian'), that it is hard to disagree with. Indeed, I don't wish to reject the concept of expressivity, if I do think the concept is a slightly clunky replacement for materiality. However, the use of 'expressivity' to account for this phenomena in ontology does imply, to me, something essential, something independent, something immanent.
And this is precisely what DeLanda states explicitly - he and Deleuze are realists precisely because they believe in the independence, one might say the isolation, of materiality. Things come from themselves, not from something else. It is hard to disagree with this point as well. We cannot say that the bourgeois make alienation, or that the sun makes cherry blossoms flower. To 'make' this extreme claim, one would have to tread towards dangerously close determinism. However, the other extreme (though not so distanced), that every aspect of materiality is independent and individual is equally worrisome. It is not an either/or question of ontology, but rather the space in between - the interactions, the interconnectedness, the inseparability of materiality.
This must apply to the human world as well, and therefore it is more than a little problematic to talk about these separate spheres of 'animal', 'plant', 'geologic' and 'human' as differentiated worlds (and within them, countless differentiations as well). They are deeply intertwined, contingent 'spheres'. And it is here where my point of contention with DeLanda (and probably, by extension, Deleuze) lies. I can accept this differentiation of ontology as existent, but this is where the ability to say more about our world, and indeed to experience that world, ends. The next step is a question of interpretation, and this is, since we are humans, a human endeavour.
It is easy to see how, through language, our interpretation of the world is constructed. But even our experiences, constantly vetted by our socialization, (or, if you prefer, environmentalization) and by our very 'humanity', are regulated in immensely complex and interdependent, but finite ways. Now, this is not to make a case for a highly complicated determinism. Rather it is to say that human action is contingent on the confluence of ontology and epistemology at any given moment. Thus, it is impossible, as humans, to talk about understanding the (non)lived experience of a crystal without referring to the contextuality of the human (but more often much more cultural, social, political and personal) experience.
One might present the teleological argument that humanity is full of potential that we must actualize, and I am not necessarily against this position directly. Human nature, the range of all possible human experience and expression is impossibly vast and entirely out the scope of my thinkable range to provide even a brief overview of it at this given moment, let alone at all temporal points. However, this vastness and the unpredictability of history makes these kinds of claims extremely difficult. It is always easy to look at an Oak tree and hold a seed and make the link, but much harder to predict from the seed what will emerge.
The point of all this is to say that the interconnections of our atoms that relate to form our psyches, whose manifestations relate to form our society which relate to form our humanity, which is itself only a small part of an interrelationship between our ecology, and so on, preclude us of making definite statements on the veracity of independent reality. What we are ultimately making statements about is our interpretation of this reality.
Thus, when DeLanda says "we must be more like a rock, or more like a bird", what he is really saying is "we must be more like our personal and social human interpretation of the expressivity of 'rockness'". This might be a moot point to some, but it is a debate that is laden with power. The knowledge that we create when we express our experiences affects us in very real ways but it can only ever explain the power relations that actually “do” the shaping of our realities, since it is a product of these relations themselves. Simply, there may be a “truth” existing in the world, an absolute form of 'rockness' independent of individual or social subjectivity – that is, traditionally ‘objective’ – but it is unimportant, since we can never know it because our understanding of it will always be mediated by our surroundings.
The subject of this lecture dealt with Deleuze's interest in the animal world, and why humans concerned only with the human world must expand the scope of their interests to the the 'natural' world in order to more fully experience the richness of life. As DeLanda notes, we must "learn from the world itself", in order to ensure that our "pride of being human" doesn't prevent the deeper experiences we have when relating with our environments. In short, we must try to be "like rocks, or like birds". While I thoroughly agree with the principle of this position - that life itself should not, and cannot be limited to the human realm, that instead we must embrace the phenomenal diversity of the human experience - my point of critique is primarily methodological.
DeLanda begins by discussing 'expressivity' as a fundamental feature of the living and nonliving world. A crystal expresses its 'crystalness' regardless of human interaction when its molecules interact with light, when its molecules rest atop soil molecules, when it transforms the path of wind by its simple presence. This is a very attractive concept, and so encompassing (some might say 'totalitarian'), that it is hard to disagree with. Indeed, I don't wish to reject the concept of expressivity, if I do think the concept is a slightly clunky replacement for materiality. However, the use of 'expressivity' to account for this phenomena in ontology does imply, to me, something essential, something independent, something immanent.
And this is precisely what DeLanda states explicitly - he and Deleuze are realists precisely because they believe in the independence, one might say the isolation, of materiality. Things come from themselves, not from something else. It is hard to disagree with this point as well. We cannot say that the bourgeois make alienation, or that the sun makes cherry blossoms flower. To 'make' this extreme claim, one would have to tread towards dangerously close determinism. However, the other extreme (though not so distanced), that every aspect of materiality is independent and individual is equally worrisome. It is not an either/or question of ontology, but rather the space in between - the interactions, the interconnectedness, the inseparability of materiality.
This must apply to the human world as well, and therefore it is more than a little problematic to talk about these separate spheres of 'animal', 'plant', 'geologic' and 'human' as differentiated worlds (and within them, countless differentiations as well). They are deeply intertwined, contingent 'spheres'. And it is here where my point of contention with DeLanda (and probably, by extension, Deleuze) lies. I can accept this differentiation of ontology as existent, but this is where the ability to say more about our world, and indeed to experience that world, ends. The next step is a question of interpretation, and this is, since we are humans, a human endeavour.
It is easy to see how, through language, our interpretation of the world is constructed. But even our experiences, constantly vetted by our socialization, (or, if you prefer, environmentalization) and by our very 'humanity', are regulated in immensely complex and interdependent, but finite ways. Now, this is not to make a case for a highly complicated determinism. Rather it is to say that human action is contingent on the confluence of ontology and epistemology at any given moment. Thus, it is impossible, as humans, to talk about understanding the (non)lived experience of a crystal without referring to the contextuality of the human (but more often much more cultural, social, political and personal) experience.
One might present the teleological argument that humanity is full of potential that we must actualize, and I am not necessarily against this position directly. Human nature, the range of all possible human experience and expression is impossibly vast and entirely out the scope of my thinkable range to provide even a brief overview of it at this given moment, let alone at all temporal points. However, this vastness and the unpredictability of history makes these kinds of claims extremely difficult. It is always easy to look at an Oak tree and hold a seed and make the link, but much harder to predict from the seed what will emerge.
The point of all this is to say that the interconnections of our atoms that relate to form our psyches, whose manifestations relate to form our society which relate to form our humanity, which is itself only a small part of an interrelationship between our ecology, and so on, preclude us of making definite statements on the veracity of independent reality. What we are ultimately making statements about is our interpretation of this reality.
Thus, when DeLanda says "we must be more like a rock, or more like a bird", what he is really saying is "we must be more like our personal and social human interpretation of the expressivity of 'rockness'". This might be a moot point to some, but it is a debate that is laden with power. The knowledge that we create when we express our experiences affects us in very real ways but it can only ever explain the power relations that actually “do” the shaping of our realities, since it is a product of these relations themselves. Simply, there may be a “truth” existing in the world, an absolute form of 'rockness' independent of individual or social subjectivity – that is, traditionally ‘objective’ – but it is unimportant, since we can never know it because our understanding of it will always be mediated by our surroundings.
The Social Costs of Technological Change
Here's a very brief addendum to the previous post:
The CCCE (Canadian Council of Chief Executives) released a report today calling for substantial absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that must be borne by all sectors (of industry and society). Basically, they are proposing a domestic emissions trading scheme similar to Kyoto, or else a carbon tax, which should be offset by other tax reductions. Though they utilize the language of collective responsibility and of immense sacrifice, what they are really seeking to do is preserve their existing profitability and the system that they depend on, while shirking the real brunt of the changes off them as much as possible. A capped emissions trading scheme that would begin to decrease greenhouse gasses, if we are to believe the rhetoric of Canadian corporations thus far, is just not possible in the time frame that scientists deem we must act within - that is, not possible if corporations are to keep their profits and share values more or less consistent. A carbon tax would simply offer corporations the option to download the tax onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. When we couple the carbon tax with a reduction in other forms of taxation (a necessary condition for the carbon tax according to the CCCE), namely the corporate tax rate, corporations could stand to improve their profitability. The CCCE says they are not proposing a carbon tax however, since it is unlikely that A) they would actually see an equal or greater reduction in other tax forms when all is said and done, and related to this, B) The PR cost of downloading the tax onto the consumer would be immense, and some portion of it would be non-transferrable, that is, captured by the firms.
Corporations will, at their leisure, undoubtedly change their production methods and technologies to cleaner and more efficient alternatives. This is the Schumpeterian idea of 'creative destruction' that neoliberals have played up so much for the las 30+ years. The question is, and which has been the defining question of our times, is who will bear the brunt of the research costs? The CCCE makes it crystal clear that "investing in technological innovation is the best way to bring about the cleaner technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions". And they point to the state-led federal and Alberta technology funds as the model for who should be doing the investing. Yet again, the distribution of the cost of progressive social change falls heavily on the individual taxpayer, while those who will gain the most from new technologies (in a financial sense) shirk almost all of the financial costs associated with it.
For the original policy report, see:
http://www.ceocouncil.ca/publications/pdf/test_14a7f87d43da18e574aa830d322a9cbe/Clean_Growth_ELI_Policy_Declaration_October_1_2007.pdf
For a CBC article summarizing the report, see:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/10/01/climateceo.html?ref=rss
The CCCE (Canadian Council of Chief Executives) released a report today calling for substantial absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that must be borne by all sectors (of industry and society). Basically, they are proposing a domestic emissions trading scheme similar to Kyoto, or else a carbon tax, which should be offset by other tax reductions. Though they utilize the language of collective responsibility and of immense sacrifice, what they are really seeking to do is preserve their existing profitability and the system that they depend on, while shirking the real brunt of the changes off them as much as possible. A capped emissions trading scheme that would begin to decrease greenhouse gasses, if we are to believe the rhetoric of Canadian corporations thus far, is just not possible in the time frame that scientists deem we must act within - that is, not possible if corporations are to keep their profits and share values more or less consistent. A carbon tax would simply offer corporations the option to download the tax onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. When we couple the carbon tax with a reduction in other forms of taxation (a necessary condition for the carbon tax according to the CCCE), namely the corporate tax rate, corporations could stand to improve their profitability. The CCCE says they are not proposing a carbon tax however, since it is unlikely that A) they would actually see an equal or greater reduction in other tax forms when all is said and done, and related to this, B) The PR cost of downloading the tax onto the consumer would be immense, and some portion of it would be non-transferrable, that is, captured by the firms.
Corporations will, at their leisure, undoubtedly change their production methods and technologies to cleaner and more efficient alternatives. This is the Schumpeterian idea of 'creative destruction' that neoliberals have played up so much for the las 30+ years. The question is, and which has been the defining question of our times, is who will bear the brunt of the research costs? The CCCE makes it crystal clear that "investing in technological innovation is the best way to bring about the cleaner technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions". And they point to the state-led federal and Alberta technology funds as the model for who should be doing the investing. Yet again, the distribution of the cost of progressive social change falls heavily on the individual taxpayer, while those who will gain the most from new technologies (in a financial sense) shirk almost all of the financial costs associated with it.
For the original policy report, see:
http://www.ceocouncil.ca/publications/pdf/test_14a7f87d43da18e574aa830d322a9cbe/Clean_Growth_ELI_Policy_Declaration_October_1_2007.pdf
For a CBC article summarizing the report, see:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/10/01/climateceo.html?ref=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)