one of the unexamined myths of the left is that sacredness and myth are no no`s, indeed, that sacredness and myth can be eradicated from social life.
it is not clear to me exactly how one can actually do away with either. for one, the left has its own myths, heroes, and sacred icons. the response to the time survey and the "for what it's worth" thread exemplified that!
comparing the constitution to myths of blood and nation suggests that it performs the same function as myth. does it? if so, how and why? leaving aside the fact that the constitution is obviously a product of bourgeois liberalism, there is embedded in the idea of a 'constitution' that is worth salvaging: the constitution is made 'visible,' and one of its central tenants is that it is amenable to challenge and change.
sacredness and myth work in a rather different ways insofar as they tend to be unexamined. yet, the fact is, much of social life must remain unexamined and unquestioned most of the time. this is not necessarily a bad thing. the sacred within the context of modernity operates in an odd way. otoh, an iconic text such as the constitution is said to be something that ought not be left unexamined, taken-for-granted, or upheld as mythical or sacred. however, this very injunction is itself what is unexamined, taken-for-granted, mythical. this is precisely why there is a left and right and it is precisely through these shared, unquestioned assumptions that they/we can even have a debate over rights and the distribution of state power. it is only possible to have a debate, to even think that the dispute matters, if the disputants share this taken-for-granted and don't question it much of the time.
>Arguments from the Supreme Court on down to barstools are typically made by
>appeal to its authority.
in what sense is authority always and only a bad thing? authority is absolutely necessary in a highly complex society. all i can say is that i wish the sizzlean had been loyal to the authority of the 14th amendment the other night. the only way someone like me can protect myself from their abuse is precisely through appeal to this document.
the real problem is not the constitution. the real problem is that people *must* appeal to it because that is the only authority that they can point to. the real problem is the liberal conception of justice and the good life: 1. the state is essentially a neutral apparatus for adjudicating conflict that is said to inevitably erupt as individuals pursue their privately defined ends. liberals concede that no greater social body beyond the individual can legitimately determine what constitutes the good life because to do so would vitiate individual freedom. 2. the state is not an end in itself. while the state may legitimately ask citizens to sacrifice their interests for the greater good, it cannot expect citizens to sacrifice for the well-being of the state itself. nor can we expect that it should promote transcendent cultural values except the barest commitment to protect property and liberty seen as necessary but not sufficient to individual's ability to pursue their particular vision of the good.
as people became increasingly less capable of adjudicating competing understandings of the good, as traditional modes of wielding power breakdown and become illegitimate [don't get me wrong, this is progress], and in the absence of a healthy civil society and vibrant public sphere, people increasingly turn to the state in order to seek redress and make rights-based claims to protect their property and liberty. it is in this way that people increasingly insist on appealing to its authority because there is *nothing* else to appeal to. the production of this sort of divisiveness in the polity is not unlike the production of divisiveness among the working class. the divisiveness binds them even more tightly in the grip of the state as the final arbiter of rights based claims. the result: people increasingly relinquish their capacities for democratic self rule and look to the state to enforce, instantiate, or dismantle rights and create the necessary ethical-political order in response to competing interest group demands.
the libertarian faction of the right argues that the good life is not something that can be pursued at the level of the state. but what does the radical left offer? some ill-defended claim that it will all work out once we get rid of capitalism. and, if not that, then a sneer, an indefeasible claim that the question isn't even worth considering, and lots of talk about how its a product of bourgeois liberalism and always already suspect.
the liberal conception of the good life is an atomizing market model of justice (e.g., utilitarian ethics): let me keep my own and i will become, without a much effort, my brother's keeper. and, of course, as weber and the frankfurt boyz have taught us that the bureaucratized state, while a seemingly more objective mode of distributing authority, actually ensnares us in an iron cage of instrumental rationality which takes on a life of its own, a maze of rationality without reason.
and yet, is it enough to simply reject the liberal state as illegitimate? has anyone considered what the alternative might be? where can and should we pursue, in some collective sense, questions about what constitutes the good life? what might alternatives to the state be? where can we begin the task of asking these questions: what are the purposes of the good life? how ought we to live? what constitutes human life and why should we care about human life/lives? what does it mean to be selfish or unselfish? [cat & wojtek] to care for others or not and what are good reasons for doing so? [cat, woj, chaz] in what sense do people need recognition from others and how is that recognition best offered and received? is it always necessary?
[cat, kirsten, chuck miller]
ponderingly, kelley
who wishes to say to mr. static that i agree that i am a wanker. i think there are good and bad wankers; naturally i am among the former. i thank the god i don't believe in that i have the luxury of doing it. for many years i did not. i consider myself lucky to be able to think beyond the mere tasks of survival in order to consider things like the above. indeed, i often considered things like the above before i even got myself some alphabet soup to legitimate my wanking, but often lacked a community within which such questions were seen as worthwhile. this does not mean that i think practical life, work, play, the mundane but highly creative and rewarding tasks of even housework are somehow beneath me in the way that the Greeks saw wisdom as essentially something that could only be achieved once one had been released of the burdens of work. these questions, for me, emerge out of my experiences and encounters in my 'ordinary' life, relationships, work and, yes, even play. basketball is a fine example of watching how respect is commodified by young males in a zero sum game in which one has respect by wresting it away from others. talk about justice!
these questions are, for me, what make so much of life worth living. i've worked awfully hard to be in the position to pursue them and to carve out a community of friends i respect and admire who i find worth debating these questions with. perhaps you think that these are irrelevant to every day life. i think not. indeed, i suspect if you think about it you will see that everything i spoke to above is dealt with every single day by anyone, academic wanker or not.
remember: complaining about wanking is a form of wanking!