A Justice Site
Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
Caliifornia State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: Seeptember 16, 2001
Latest Update: September 16, 2001
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
Sharing the SiteCopyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors: September 2001.
"Fair use" encouraged.
Sharing the Site
- You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard. Journal entry by Tina Juen
- We as a great nation must not stoop low like the terrorists to bomb innocent children and mothers. Journal entry by Nnamdi Ibechem, Soc. of Law, CSUDH
- The public simply does not know the complicated aspects of Central Asian history and the diverse roles America has played in recent events. by Robert Samuels
- Journal entry reportedly by a Lebanese, sent to one of the lists by an Israeli
The public simply does not know the complicated aspects of Central Asian history and the diverse roles America has played in recent events. by Robert Samuels
On Thursday, September 16, 2001, Robert Samuels posted to the list, Psychoanalysis of Culture and Scoiety:
What has always interested me about APCS is the effort to use intellectual tools to deal with concrete social issues. This goal has also been the greatest stumbling block for the group. Since many of us are academics, we are used to dealing with issues in a hypothetical and abstract realm. We are also used to dealing with social concerns without putting our cards on the table and endorsing specific social policies and personal actions. I can only speak for myself, and I do endorse the policy of actively pursuing terrorists and terrorism, but I do not think that we have to give up our critical faculties in order to support this mission. More importantly, we need to contextualize and historicize our policies and reactions because no one else seems to be doing this. It is not a question of liberal guilt and academic passivity: it is a question of injecting some realism and truth into the discourse. The public simply does not know the complicated aspects of Central Asian history and the diverse roles America has played in recent events. The media and public officials have simplified the issues to such a point that a real history lesson needs to be given to our country. For if Americans knew about the horrible consequences of the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan (for the Soviets, the people of Afghanistan, the region, the mass exodus to Pakistan, the destruction of the environment and economy in several countries, the proliferation of extremist hate organizations, etc.), the country would be more resistant to giving Bush carte blanche and calling this a war. Haven't we learned anything from Viet Nam? Please some one tell me who is the enemy exactly and what is our winnable strategy?One point, which some might call academic, but I think is essential: Television has been the major source of information for most Americans. I believe that in order to keep viewers watching, the media has acted in a dangerous manner by reporting false rumors and unsubstantiated reports. Think of the effect of ABC telling the American public that two more teams of hijackers have been arrested and there are two other teams still at large. Think of the effect of Fox reporting that over 20,000 people have died at the World Trade Centers. Think of the effect of the constant false reporting of saved firefighters and people located beneath the rubble. Shouldn't these horrific false reports be penalized? After all, in our media world, social belief is often constructed out of these mass messages. I for one intend to write letters to my local media to help expose some of these horrible abuses. Perhaps this is a very weak response but I think we must use our critical skills and not hide from making unpopular statements.
On the topic of Zizek, what has really concerned me about his recent work is his invocations of the ethics of self-sacrifice, the need for a fundamentalist politics, his attack on multicultural tolerance, and his endorsement of Christian Leninism. To tell you the truth, I think his arguments are quite difficult and are not a simple endorsement of fundamentalist suicide, but I wonder how they are interpreted by a less sophisticated audience. There is also the question of how he is able to re-use and recycle old arguments and apply them to new situations - as if his Hegelian negative dialectics is some abstract machine devouring every particular example. There is also the question of what it means to be a publishing machine and the complicity with late capitalism. Yet, still I find his work helpful in thinking through certain issues.
Finally, I am afraid that our list is devolving into a split discourse between those who call for an unconditional support of American Foreign policy and those who want to examine the implications of past and present actions. Perhaps we can use this split to talk to our colleagues and students about the complicated nature of politics and national action. I personally will not be intimidated into supporting a vague and destructive policy in an unconditional manner. I will also refuse to support Star Wars, the defunding of our social system, the cutting of taxes to the the wealthy, the throwing out of international law, and the destruction of civil liberties - all of these things have been called for by a chorus of politicians on the talk show circuit. I think liberals are being intimidated by a false logic of "you are either with us or against us." If we can't discuss these issues, who will? Yours, Bob Samuels
On Saturday morning, September 15, jeanne responded:
Robert Samuels,First, may I upload your post to my teaching site for the benefit of my students?
Second, I share your concerns. Actually, this list has offered me the most comforting aspect of this situation. It has remained largely sober and understanding. I have found that I share many of the feelings being expressed on both sides of the issue. I was grateful to see the American flags, while realizing the danger they represent to simplistic thinking. But TV is going on. People are responding on many, many levels, and I've been teaching my students that all those feelings are valid, then pleading for the social distance of theory to get us back on track. My students are responding gratefully. I'm having a hard time trying to keep up with their postings.
Maybe schizophrenic splitting is OK at a time like this, better than denying what we feel, and lots better than turning what we feel into what we condone?
jeanne curran
Sociology
California State University, Dominguez Hills