this is certainly a compelling fragment, but it assumes one important point which I find unconvincing: that there is a place outside ideology. the 'element of truth' I would argue is precisely that place to take seriously as the place from which to elaborate a critique of ideology, to take it at its word and insist that the application of this element of truth be applied and attended to *without exception*. we already have our fingers caught in the gears. the 'element of truth' is surely the place of seduction, but this only shows that we require seduction in order to be engaged, and that we cannot all be engaged by recourse to 'this is good for capitalism' or 'this is good for US global domination'.
'the element of truth' not only threatens us with the risk of complicity, but also the ideology itself with ruin. hence, the most devastating possibility for 'western' govts is if people actually started believing the aim of stopping 'ethnic cleansing' and began applying it *without exception*.
we're in a dialectic, not autonomous I think.
Angela -----------------------------------------------------
>In his New York Press column this week, Chris Caldwell quotes "French art
>scholar and political scientist Alain Besancon," in his book Le Malheur Du
>Siecle, as saying:
>
>"In battling ideological regimes, the main thing is to refuse - without
>discussion - the description of reality that it proposes. You have to
stick
>to this line until the bitter end. Once you put your finger into the
>gearworks and grant that their description has an 'element of
>truth'...you're lost, and your political will can only respond with a
>falsified intelligence.... In ideology, the 'element of truth' that
>provides the seductive power is precisely the place of falsification - and
>the biggest falsehood of all."
>
>Doug
>