Kendall sent me this Friday afternoon in reply to my post:
[Off-list, I'm over quota.]
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:33:24PM -0400, Archer.Todd at ic.gc.ca wrote:
> Kendall wrote:
>
> You should read what I said more carefully. I was specifically talking
> > not about all workers or about society, but about progressive people
> > who are already predisposed to self-regulating their consumptive
> > practices based on their own moral reasoning.
>
> Kendall, I think, given what Carrol has written before, that Carrol's
> problem with your "moralizing" is that progressive actions on an
individual
> level are relatively meaningless given the power a mass movement would
have
> when acting on similar issues.
But that isn't true. They aren't, or shouldn't be, meaningless *to the individual*. And the consequences may be relatively small but are nonetheless real in the aggregate.
Replace 'morally unjustified suffering of animals' with 'oppression of women' and try to argue that what individual *men* do doesn't matter. That's just dumb.
Is the oppression of women a structural issue? Yes. Could it be attacked by a mass movement? Yes.
Does that let *me*, a man, off the hook so that the way I treat women doesn't matter morally or politically? No, of course not, that's an absurd suggestion.
Further, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, I wasn't making a moral *claim*, I was making a sociological observation about something that interests me as a leftist philosopher.
I suspect we'd get along better if Carrol would read more carefully what I actually *say*, as opposed to trying to make silly arguments about my *tone*.
> Kendall also wrote:
>
> It's further hard to see how I was attacking (irrespective of my
> intent or what I actually *said*) the "workers of the world"
>
> Again, I think what Carrol might have been attacking you for was your
> harping a bit too much on individual action. The general tone of your
words
> matched somewhat those of the bourgeois who insisted that the working
class
> could better itself if only it's members would go to church regularly, cut
> down on drinking, and bathed more often.
I was *harping*? My first post in weeks and that's *harping*?
Regardless of my *tone*, I wasn't talking about the working class. If one's view of the bourgeois is so massively expansive that *any* discussion -- of whatever tone -- of the actions of individuals is taken to be "harping a bit too much on individual action," then, I submit, that's *too* expansive.
Best, Kendall Clark
My reply goes like this:
But that isn't true. They aren't, or shouldn't be, meaningless *to the individual*. And the consequences may be relatively small but are nonetheless real in the aggregate.
I was talking relatively between an individual and a mass movement. An individual might find meaning in his/her actions and think them to be effective, but compared to the power of an organized mass movement, the individual's efforts would be largely for nought.
Replace 'morally unjustified suffering of animals' with 'oppression of women' and try to argue that what individual *men* do doesn't matter. That's just dumb.
Is the oppression of women a structural issue? Yes. Could it be attacked by a mass movement? Yes.
Does that let *me*, a man, off the hook so that the way I treat women doesn't matter morally or politically? No, of course not, that's an absurd suggestion.
You're right: that is an absurd suggestion, and I wasn't making it (nor, I suspect, was Carrol). What I am talking about is the relative efficacy of groups to individuals in working on certain projects at certain scales.
Regardless of my *tone*, I wasn't talking about the working class. If one's view of the bourgeois is so massively expansive that *any* discussion -- of whatever tone -- of the actions of individuals is taken to be "harping a bit too much on individual action," then, I submit, that's *too* expansive.
I know you weren't talking about the working class. My example was an attempt to demonstrate what I took to be a bit of a sanctimonious tone to your post. If I misread your tone, I do apologize.
Todd