> The language's ugliest word may well be 'structuration', but at least it
> reminds us that, just as our institutions reproduce and condition us, so
do
> we reproduce and condition them. Our discourse has nothing particular to
> offer on the matter of symptomology, and we'd look as disingenuous as
> Rumsfeld or Bush if we allowed ourselves to be dragged onto that turf (as
> the last week on LBO evinces, I think). We gotta talk pathology, I
reckon.
>
> That and radical surgery.
I agree with all this--but if there's a some kind of reciprocal causality between individuals and society, then not only is there no substrate, social or individual, but no surfaces either. Actual people and actual institutions are aspects of an ongoing process, and should be addressed in an equal, coordinated manner. So radical surgery must both cure--or excise--the diseased institutions that brought us to this point and also heal the pain felt by those affected by the attacks.
I don't want to start sniping over miniscule differences with someone else opposed to war and in favor of the same root and branch treatment of our ills, and since my political activity is pretty much nil (unless you count trying to persuade acquaintences and coworkers that the bombing is stupid and will bring us neither justice or safety), I'll just note that what disturbing to me about using the current situation for organizing isn't that people see it as an opportunity, but that nobody's saying what actual needs they meet for the people organized. If this is just thick-headedness on my part I apologize, but I still would like to know. -- Curtiss