The political arena has been made un-inhabitable through a basic (and Nazis) technique that is deeply related to ad hominem attacks. The technique shifts the terms of rhetorical confrontation from the ideal of an enlightened argument between political adversaries over how to change material conditions based on facts, to a pitched battle of values v. facts. With the introduction of values, most argument quickly leaves the terrain of fact behind and draws down on which of the two combatants are good or evil (the ad hominem part).
The Right has manufactured and promoted a value scheme that they claim represents Traditional America Values, and so any attack on their position is by default anti-American and therefore evil. The liberal progressives and the left continue their usual mode of critique of the status quo with more and more facts, reports, statistics and concrete descriptions of material conditions, but all to no avail. No statement of empirical fact can defeat a statement of value and no pronouncement on values will erase concrete facts because the two realms of discourse are rationally incommensurable.
We see this process or something similar to it, intuitatively used here on lbo over vegetarian diets. The arguments so far have made limited reference to human physiological facts and have tended toward a value laden discourse. There is the ever present possibility that the discussion could quickly descend down to an opposition of values: good v. evil. Plants = Good, Meat = Evil. (This is almost straight out of the Pythagorean school, despite the Enlightenment inspired anthropological nuances to naturalize it.)
Of course evil meat eating killers v good plant eating lovers of peace and harmony is a cartoon or theater. But it helps illustrate how political discourse is literally turned into a theater production.
[...]
full -- <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050829/018387.html>
=================================
And this is precisely the sort of thing Zizek focuses on, but his insights, I note, are often severely under-valued and dismissed by those who fancy themselves to wield facts as Thor swung mjolnir against Surtur in the final battle ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtur> ).
We have a weakness for theater in various forms; it's one of our fundamental requirements. Everyone loves a good story that places right and wrong in clearly opposite corners -- the less ambiguity the better.
People who understand theater, who effectively play to their audience (i.e. when in Poland use one set of reliable story props, in Thailand another, and so on) will always have a powerful weapon at their disposal in any contest of ideas. Our rationality only operates up to a certain point and not with consistent reliability. But our impressions, beliefs, hopes and fears are in an always on state, very durable even in the face of impressive counter-indications. For example, a rational critique of the "anti-terrorist" policy of positioning heavily armed men around valued buildings during football games, rock concerts and political conventions would reveal a long list of deeply embedded fallacies. But the 'show of force' is a powerful bit of theater, it makes us feel better; we silence our assessment and settle into a story conveyed (the strong man with a gun keeping the innocent safe) sense of safety.
The great irony -- perhaps the killing joke of humanity really -- is that we now face a set of problems that require a great deal of rational discourse. I needn't go into the list; every reasonably well read person will be familiar with it. But just as the complexity of our world system reaches a point where alert response is a necessity, we -- left and right -- retreat into political show business.
This is a very confusing moment to be sure. At least for me.
No doubt, by admitting this I'm creating an opening for all sorts of criticism centered around my failure to understand this or that simple solution.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Get outta that spaceship and fight like a man!"