> I would suggest returning to
> what I said earlier without your translations. You offer one of two
> choices, a sovereign individual who chooses or a sovereign system, which
> are in the end, two sides of the same coin. Social movements are not
> created by individuals who 'choose', invariably they are created
> collectively out of structures of subjection. (For instance, early gay
> rights movements draw their discourse from medical discourses of
> pathology.)
Did someone say social movements happen just because a bunch of people coincidentally make up their minds about an issue?
In any case, I don't know how this got turned into a debate about how social movements arise.That's wasn't the original question. The original question was: Miles/Carrol/Robert believe strongly that, say, exploitation should be abolished. Yet they insist that this conclusion has nothing to do with morality. So why abolish exploitation then? Miles at least acknowledged the question by refusing to answer it. What's the answer? And if there is no answer, how is that not the very definition of unreason?
SA