[lbo-talk] Am I or Am I Not Charlie?

Eubulides autoplectic at gmail.com
Thu Jan 8 20:19:06 PST 2015


Does not! 😙

On Thursday, January 8, 2015, JOANNA A. <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:


> Actually pubic engagement is a lot more fun than that....but agonistic
> engagement ignores the reality of class struggle. It is restricted to one
> class or the other.
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
> Dear All:
>
> I promised to do better . . .
>
> Since I last posted regularly, there has arisen the phenomena of Twitter,
> Instagram and what I call "spontaneous activism by iPhone" (SABiP)
>
> So now there is the meme (a term I learned from LBO back in the day) of "I
> am Charlie." But what exactly does it mean to be Charlie?
>
> I love satire -- Jonathan Swift is a diety to me. And Swift aimed satire
> at religion (despite - or maybe because of - being the Dean of St.
> Patrick's Cathedral). But Swift seemed to aim at the practices of people
> more than the people themselves. What/who was Charlie Hebdo satirizing --
> the practice/beliefs of Islam or the people themselves? Can such a
> distinction be made? Does it make a difference?
>
> On a more abstract level can people be separated from their practices?
> When I was younger I hated Gore Vidal for saying that there were no
> homosexuals, just homosexual acts, but now as I approach my dotage I have
> come to agree with him. In fact, I have a deep skepticism toward people who
> cannot separate themselves from their actions/beliefs, as if their actions
> were co-identical with themselves. I love Fassbinder movies, but do not
> take it personally if someone does not like them -- I do not feel
> personally affronted. I learned at LBO too about shifting from equality of
> opportunity to equality of outcome, with the latter being a better measure.
> So for me, what you believe is less interesting in a way than the results
> of your beliefs when they are put into action.
>
> I have been reading Chantal Mouffe - and her notion of agonistic pluralism
> intrigues me -- it holds that consensus is not the right goal (which my
> years in ACT UP taught me to be a highly elusive goal) -- that we are
> agonists with others who hold different views, but we must guard against
> agonism becoming antagonism and agonists being seen as enemies. The outcome
> is that pubic engagement is a series of agonistic encounters -- some of
> which are won and some lost -- but they are always up for being
> re-agonized. Two broad hitches in this approach are 1) are people who are
> poor at being agonists shut out from social decision-making processes; and
> 2) it requires people to be ever-vigilant in monitoring the processes of
> society (I am more concerned by #1 than #2 -- stirring the culturally
> narcotized is fun to me).
>
> But the "insult my beliefs/identity and you insult my very being" approach
> seems silly to me -- you can still possess passionate beliefs without
> adopting it. It may be my Buddhist practice of non-attachment has helped in
> this area (yeah - I am that Queer Buddhist Resister guy).
>
> So there are some jangled thoughts on a very cold day in NYC.
>
> Brian
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list