Charles
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:21 PM, magcomm <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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