> It's Laclau's "empty signifier", isn't it? On Reagan, I think. The most
> successful political gesture/figure has to be the emptiest, so it can
> filled
> up with as many meanings as possible.
>
> Anyway that's my three posts. Hi everyone, nice to be back.
>
> Catherine
>
> On Feb 6, 2008 7:41 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2008, at 3:24 PM, John Thornton wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe people mesmerized into euphoria over a completely vacuous speech
>> > isn't creepy but if felt that way to me.
>>
>> I suppose it has to be vacuous or they wouldn't be so moved. As Zizek
>> wrote in his analysis of Jaws, people have a million interpretations
>> of the symbolism of the shark. All of them are right, and all of them
>> are wrong, because the shark is what you wanted it to be. If it were
>> named, then it would drive people away. It's a lot like what J.D.
>> Lorenz said of Jerry Brown's rhetorical strategy: the point was to
>> create "an ambiance of possibility that gave the viewer space: space
>> to project his fondest wishes onto Jerry, space to identify with
>> Jerry...."
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>