[lbo-talk] Noticed an oddity

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

--- Sandy Harris <sandyinchina at gmail.com> wrote:

> Different language, ethnicity and culture, their own
> government.
> What happened to self-determination? Isn't it
> Tibetans who get
> to decide if they're part of China?

[WS:] Self-determination is a tricky concept.  It has
built in a fallacy that treats grous as if they were
single individulas.  

Self-determination makes perfect sense when applied to
individuals, because the entity that demands being
left alone from outside influence is the very same
entity that is to be left alone - the self in both
instances.  When it comes to groups, however, things
are becoming more and more tricky when the size of the
group increase.

Take for example 'self-determination'of the family
unit.  It is usually demanded by those who speak for
the whole group - such as the patriarch.  Nobody asks
children's opinion on the subject and nobody would
take that opinion seriously if offered. 
Self-determination in that context means that a person
claiming to be a "representive" of a group dem,ands
the right to do with that group as he pleases without
fearing out-group intervention.

While it can be said that a family unit has a certain
level of social integration that justifies 'speking
with one voice' which happened to be that of the head
of the househld - this is certainly nonsense when it
comes to larger groups, such as villages, tribes,
nations, etc.  In such situations, it invariably some
self-styled leader who posits himself as the only
legitimate spokesperson  for that group, presumably
expressing undivided desires and interests of the
entire group, and demanding that his role in that
group is not challenged by out-group influences.  

What I find disingenuous is that people who are eager
to dismiss claims of "national unity" when it comes to
Western societies - e.g. by pointing class, ethnic or
gender conflicts in such societies -  suddenly start
talking about "self-determination" of backward
non-Western societies as if they were undivided by any
class interests nations.  James Heartfield was right
on the target in his critique of romanticizing such
backward societies.  I would like to go a step further
and say that the notion of self determination, when
applied to groups and nations is always right wing and
reactionary, because it invariably implies the primacy
of national interests over all other interests and the
domination by an elite claiming to represent those
national interests.  This applies to all 'pet
nations'of Western intellectuals, be it Tibet,
Palestine, Kosovo, Chechnya, or Iran.

Wojtek



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping