Call it the hidden hand.When the narrative breaks down the ability to pull classic trump hands from the pile. This means of depicting the other as something suspicious; like turning over a rock with a stick and seeing what living low level organisms are clinging to its wet side.It often involves the demonization and dehumanization of groups, which further justifies attempts to civilize and exploit these”inferior” others. Whether its applied gender or politics, the objectification of the “gaze” is indeed hardball politics.
Katharine Wolfe: What does politics have to do with aesthetics? Surely, both politics and aesthetics are concerned with imagining, envisioning, and even creating, yet aren’t the kinds of things these fields of inquiry imagine, envision and create greatly disparate? Jacques Rancière argues that what is at stake in politics, just as it is in aesthetics, is the distribution of the sensible, and that politics happens not only through the disruption of a certain aesthetic organization of sense experience but through the eruption of a distinct aesthetics. ( Read More: http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=382
What we have now is a lack of a compelling narrative that permits a synthesis of several cultures under one nation state in America. What is possible is only a separate but equal; a form of willing segregation among mutually exclusive positions that are not able to reconcile themselves on fundamental differences without a cultural suicide and sacrifice on one side. But no one side can deliver the killer blow; it is sparring and parrying like Matisse and Picasso without a clear victor. The issue will then be divvying up the goodies so that each can evolve according to their principles. Both sides are guilty of spreading bad blood, though the Democrats, despite all the lip service to inclusiveness appear to engage in it much more, and couches it in the worst ideologies of white western liberalism.
Ultimately, but the GOP, Tea Party, and Democrats are not inherently evil.Its a question of vision, of ideal, of what they desire their country to be like; and these views are mutually exclusive, and in their present rudimentary form likely equally unworkable. The escalating rhetoric is the result of an incoherent narrative. This agonizing frustration is actually deep-rooted; one wonders if America is the stage of an ancient drama carried forth from Babylon or beyond that has never been resolved. That is, are today’s issues that beg questions not rather re-enactments and re-phrasings of old questions on human essence and origin, such as: where do we come from? What if we realize that we have always been creatures, errant souls without context, lacking reference? And if so, what is subsequently the meaning of a form of life that refers to a form of hegemony and a clear context? What are the choices? Why do we affirm identity yet flee to new ones? What is the significance of a life without signification? What is the politics of something that we are not able to grasp or understand, the politics of a life that is related to different contexts rather then being caught by one singular context? That is the present fallacy and source of frustration: defining the singular context.
This process demonstrates the power of narrative in politics. Narrative puts flesh on the bones of argument.The mutual accusations of hidden and secret agendas is a negative opinion and a presumption of a tragic ending, but it’s also an implied story,distilled down to basic abhorrance. The Democrats are nevertheless more adept at negative sloganeering and story-telling. The Republicans would like to evolve an equally catchy and hip emotional narrative covering Obama and Co. but seem to awkwardly misfire; and as such have to recycle the old ideas.
Poll question: Who Is A More Disgusting Human Being: Dick Cheney Or Gene Simmons?
…”I just watched Gene Simmons on the Henry Rollins Show. Is there anyone more obnoxious and hateful than Gene Simmons? Simmons’ interview on “Fresh Air” a few years ago proved that he was a disgusting slimeball, but my contempt for the SOB grows every time I see or hear him. Granted, Simmons isn’t as powerful as Cheney, nor as powerful as Simmons thinks that he is. But when you get right down to it, is Cheney really any more disgusting as a human being than Gene Simmons?…” Read More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105×6642819
“The notion of the nation state is intransigently embedded in the contemporary psyche. It stands in the way of many people imagining the coming ‘divorce’ and the ensuing glo
intertwined cultures. It is a good example of why the future is so rarely predicted correctly.The future violates the current world view and, consequently, even if it is accurately presented, the vast majority of people will simply reject it…. Michael Ferguson. read more: http://thefuture101.blogspot.com/
Obama, according to the rhetoric of the Right, is a flighty, cosmopolitan intellectual, untrustworthy and lacks red-blooded patriotism. In turn, Obama plays his own race card with flawless aplomb. Neitherleft or right has been able to construct a positive narrative. …..”Andrew Beckwith I do not view Cheney as a human being, Deborah” Michael Ferguson: A while back I said, “”Once again, I have had demonstrated to me that the most vulgar, hateful and condescending participants in a political dialogue will identify themselves as Liberal. This has nothing to do with whom I agree. I mostly agree with neither. But such vitriol is just not in order. The divorce is imminent.” I just don’t see the equivalent to this statement coming out of conservatives. He isn’t human? So, one step farther and it’s alright to kill him. I just don’t get it. Read More: http://thefuture101.blogspot.com/
A good narrative can be the key to political success but it does have its flaws. In our era, the great exemplar is Barack Obama, who wrote his own story, the “everyman can be president/ Horatio Alger with a rather tired and mediocre tale of a mixed-race boy from a broken marriage who succeeds through brains and character. That,and the electricity of his live performances, a master of rhetoric, carried him to a destiny that was almost inevitable.However, after the dust settled, and the lobbyists resumed their trade and it was business as usual; people began noticing that the narrative was losing its grip.
Although pundits in the liberal press were expressing dismay how Obama was shedding supporters, they really did not catch the dynamics about a president losing control of his own narrative; he can’t really take back a story that was not his to begin with, or one which political reality disrupted his fragile aesthetic. There is an imperceptible space between authenticity and rhetorical pose that seems indefinable for both parties. A willing delimitation of sense experience within which something must be perceived that cannot be perceived…..the narrative surrounding a politics of the sensible is not compelling.
David Brooks: “In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it. Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin….
…Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric…. These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html a
David Brooks: …Yet such is the state of things. We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons. I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html
Michael Ferguson: The grounds for divorce will be, obviously, irreconcilable differences. If you just listen to the public discourse in a detached sort of way, the similarities to a marriage immediately prior to its complete disintegration are unmistakable. That final stage, which sadly too many of us know, is the demonizing of the other party….Politics is the art of compromise. It is wrong to compromise one’s principles. America no longer shares a common body of principles. I am not saying that one is good and the other bad. The combatants hurl sufficient invective without contributions from me. I am saying that these differing principles inform the sides to mutually exclusive visions of a proper future….
…Further, principles inform us as to what constitutes a just body of laws. If the principles meaningfully differ, the apprehension of the justness of society differ. That is where they are. They undeniably have irreconcilable differences. Perhaps some feel that an accommodation can be forged out of the discord. Warring spouses sometimes think so, too. However, they are almost always, in the end, wrong.
Rather, with time, the adversaries will come to realize that either they split or the nation will devolve into a tyranny of the majority. As they march inexorably toward that realization the tone of the conversation will change. You’ve likely seen this in mortally wounded marriages. Without contrition, they stop fighting. They begin discussing practicalities. When I find evidence, I will let you know. Read More: http://thefuture101.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2011-02-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=14
Michael Ferguson:One group of Americans believe that the source of all ethical and moral principle are either expressed or derived from the Bible. Because of this ab…ortion and gay marriage, as two examples are fundamentally wrong. Yet one is legal and the other soon, it appears, will be. Another group of people are informed on matters of ethics and morals by the Humanist traditions, Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the extreme egalitarianism of Modern Social Liberalism. They consider the abridgment of access to abortion or gay marriage as a fundamental lack of parities of rights….
…There is no compromise. Compromise would be wrong. Since one’s sense of morality informs one as to the justness of laws, policies and programs, one side or the other must, in some ways, feel that they are living in an unjust society. Not in practice, but in principle.
The more you look into this the less sanguine one can be about eventual reconciliation. The technologies of the Internet, especially as they begin to be the portal to news, commentary and culture laden entertainment, will allow people to wrap themselves in a Cultural Coccoon creating an acceleration of cultural divergence. Read More: http://thefuture101.blogspot.com/
Katharine Wolfe:Yet the moment politics becomes possible is distinct from the moment politics erupts — politics is a much rarer thing than common sense or the institution of a community. For Rancière, politics is that rare event that occurs when the confluence between sanctioned dispositions to partake of the shared world and positions within the partition of the sensible is ruptured. Politics not only interrupts common sense but also erupts into the shared sensible world.
As the title suggests, The Politics of Aesthetics argues that the distribution of the sensible is an aesthetic enterprise, and what is at stake in any politics is aesthetics. Drawing this correlation between aesthetics and the distribution of the sensible and, ultimately, between aesthetics and politics requires a precise understanding of the term. Aesthetics is not any set of artistic practices nor is it the general theory that concerns these practices. Indeed, aesthetics for Rancière is not even a theory of sense experience at large. Rather, if the correlation between politics and aesthetics is to be exposed, Rancière insists aesthetics must be understood in the terms of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Read More: http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=382