Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The blank spot on the map
As a freshman in college, I read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Like most people, it later helped me understand Apocalypse Now, but it (or rather, a very small part of it) also affected me much more deeply.
Conrad described the Congo as the "blank spot on the map." Of course, that was only true from the European perspective, but from that perspective it described one of the last remaining parts of the world for which the Europeans had little reliable information.
For four years, I pondered that concept, the blank spot on the map. There were not many unexplored places left-- there was a guidebook for everything. The best I could do, I figured, was a place where the information I did have was colored by ideology-- the Soviet Union. What I learned in school was that it was pure evil, and what they said about themselves described an unlikely paradise.
So, in 1985, I went to Moscow. It was a strange, scary, beautiful place. Part of what we had learned was true. People there were not free, as I had been told, but in a way that I hadn't imagined. Everywhere, there were watchers-- old women sitting outside apartment buildings, soldiers at intersections, men in suits near the official buildings... what took away freedom, as much as anything, was being observed all the time. It bore into me a central truth: That freedom and privacy are linked inextricably.
In that way, my trip to the heart of darkness was worth it, every bit.
What is it now? What is the blank spot on the map?
Comments:
<< Home
Heart of Darkness is one of my favorite books. So many good themes. But I like the interplay between light and darkness the best. Marlow's most iconic line for me is when they are first returning to the Thames and he comments that London too has been one of the dark places of the Earth, echoing the 74th Psalm ("the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty"): "this too has been one of the dark places of the Earth."
Like Kurtz in the Congo, or the British colonialism/imperialism, cruelty takes many forms and darkens the world every where we go.
In one sense, darkness is the inability to see, the absence of light, or the absence of the flow of information. What is in darkness is hidden. We might even say that it is "private," or unable to viewed. Kurtz's atrocities went unnoticed because he was deep within the "blank spot," where he was sheltered from the prying gaze of "civilization."
On the other hand, you point out adroitly that often times paternalism and "civilization" are the enemies of goodness by attempting to pull into the light of public scrutiny which ought not be there. Another favorite author of mine, Michael Moorcock, had this to say in the introduction to one of his novel collections:
"Paternalism and centralism, the bane of capitalist as well as socialist politics, are for the permanent enemy of democracy. It was my wariness of paternalism, especially as it is these days applied, which inspired [the Oswald Bastable] sequence. Paternalism (and its associated centralism) still deeply infects much of our modern political thinking. Apart from Prince Kropotkin, that most kindly of anarchist intellectuals, few of the great thinkers and artists of Wells' day (including Wells) perceived or wished to examine what Rosa Luxemburg was to perceive -- and for which she was attacked with brutal rhetoric by much of the orthodox left -- that their social solutions, however well-meant, however they hoped to achieve the millenium, to give self-respect to "minorities" and the poor, were always doomed while they kept to their prescriptions. Still later, Orwell was attacked by the left for pointing this out, and most recently, Andrea Dworkin has received similar criticism for refusing to accept the consensual, easier view.
If we continue to make any sort of social progress, I suspect that the political battle lines of the twenty-first century will not be between socialism and capitalism but democracy and paternalism. The answer to paternalistic socialism (characteristic of almost all socialist states) is not laissez-faire capitalism, or centralised corporatism or monetarism, with all their attendant ills and intrinsic injustices, but real equality under the law -- where all of us have equal voice, equal access to our democratic institutions and equal responsibility. Sadly, some of the democratic infrastructure in our society seems seriously under threat at present -- is often attacked in the name of freedom (by which is usually meant freedom of choice of washing powder or telephone company or porn video) -- and it is up to us, I think, to examine those institutions, remember why they were developed in the first place, and perhaps protect them." (Michael Moorcock, Lost Pines, Texas, 1994).
Like Kurtz in the Congo, or the British colonialism/imperialism, cruelty takes many forms and darkens the world every where we go.
In one sense, darkness is the inability to see, the absence of light, or the absence of the flow of information. What is in darkness is hidden. We might even say that it is "private," or unable to viewed. Kurtz's atrocities went unnoticed because he was deep within the "blank spot," where he was sheltered from the prying gaze of "civilization."
On the other hand, you point out adroitly that often times paternalism and "civilization" are the enemies of goodness by attempting to pull into the light of public scrutiny which ought not be there. Another favorite author of mine, Michael Moorcock, had this to say in the introduction to one of his novel collections:
"Paternalism and centralism, the bane of capitalist as well as socialist politics, are for the permanent enemy of democracy. It was my wariness of paternalism, especially as it is these days applied, which inspired [the Oswald Bastable] sequence. Paternalism (and its associated centralism) still deeply infects much of our modern political thinking. Apart from Prince Kropotkin, that most kindly of anarchist intellectuals, few of the great thinkers and artists of Wells' day (including Wells) perceived or wished to examine what Rosa Luxemburg was to perceive -- and for which she was attacked with brutal rhetoric by much of the orthodox left -- that their social solutions, however well-meant, however they hoped to achieve the millenium, to give self-respect to "minorities" and the poor, were always doomed while they kept to their prescriptions. Still later, Orwell was attacked by the left for pointing this out, and most recently, Andrea Dworkin has received similar criticism for refusing to accept the consensual, easier view.
If we continue to make any sort of social progress, I suspect that the political battle lines of the twenty-first century will not be between socialism and capitalism but democracy and paternalism. The answer to paternalistic socialism (characteristic of almost all socialist states) is not laissez-faire capitalism, or centralised corporatism or monetarism, with all their attendant ills and intrinsic injustices, but real equality under the law -- where all of us have equal voice, equal access to our democratic institutions and equal responsibility. Sadly, some of the democratic infrastructure in our society seems seriously under threat at present -- is often attacked in the name of freedom (by which is usually meant freedom of choice of washing powder or telephone company or porn video) -- and it is up to us, I think, to examine those institutions, remember why they were developed in the first place, and perhaps protect them." (Michael Moorcock, Lost Pines, Texas, 1994).
Jeez Lane! You sure make it hard to follow up!
One small correction of plot to your otherwise excellent post: Marlow doesn't say that line when they are first returning to the Thames; he had returned before the start of the novel. The "present" of the novel is a cruise that Marlow takes with several other Londoners, and after the first 10-20 pages (depending on your edition) of musing, he tells the fellow cruisers the story of his trip to Africa (it is never defined as the Congo in the book; we surmise that as readers from available historical info) to find Kurtz.
To respond to Prof. Osler's question slightly differently, I'd like to realign the question. The problem is less the concept of the "blank spot" (which, as you point out, is necessarily Euro-centric) and more the metaphor of the map. The idea that space is flat and has singular dimensions that we can "map" is what is most wrong.
To make this more clear (hopefully) and answer the question, I'd venture to say that A) the "blank spaces on the map", post-Freud and still true, are internal to all of us. Conrad was on to this, but still needed his spatial metaphor; now we know that there is so much within us that we do not and cannot understand. This was Chinua Achebe's response to Conrad -- 'the place of darkness is the racism within you, oh Mr. Conrad! Resolve that before you come colonizing someone else's country!' B) The "blank spaces on the map" are the constellated spaces all around the world where the underprivileged continue to slip beneath the eye of their governments. And here's where I'd take Osler's post most to task: while, if you are privileged, it is liberating to have privacy, if you are poor, your invisibility to your government (and the requisite benefits of citizenship -- justice, basic health and education provision, etc.) is the problem. I would say all your career's work is about making visible the invisible injustices of the American legal system, where race and class minorities are legislated into blank spaces. Their invisibility becomes even more problematic in the developing world, where the benefits of a national citizenship fail to be conferred, or (in the case of refugees, and Palestine (arguably refugees who barely fled)) there is no nation to confer citizenship and its requisite rights in the first place!
Jeez...those are some poorly written sentences! Hopefully there's a point in there somewhere.
One small correction of plot to your otherwise excellent post: Marlow doesn't say that line when they are first returning to the Thames; he had returned before the start of the novel. The "present" of the novel is a cruise that Marlow takes with several other Londoners, and after the first 10-20 pages (depending on your edition) of musing, he tells the fellow cruisers the story of his trip to Africa (it is never defined as the Congo in the book; we surmise that as readers from available historical info) to find Kurtz.
To respond to Prof. Osler's question slightly differently, I'd like to realign the question. The problem is less the concept of the "blank spot" (which, as you point out, is necessarily Euro-centric) and more the metaphor of the map. The idea that space is flat and has singular dimensions that we can "map" is what is most wrong.
To make this more clear (hopefully) and answer the question, I'd venture to say that A) the "blank spaces on the map", post-Freud and still true, are internal to all of us. Conrad was on to this, but still needed his spatial metaphor; now we know that there is so much within us that we do not and cannot understand. This was Chinua Achebe's response to Conrad -- 'the place of darkness is the racism within you, oh Mr. Conrad! Resolve that before you come colonizing someone else's country!' B) The "blank spaces on the map" are the constellated spaces all around the world where the underprivileged continue to slip beneath the eye of their governments. And here's where I'd take Osler's post most to task: while, if you are privileged, it is liberating to have privacy, if you are poor, your invisibility to your government (and the requisite benefits of citizenship -- justice, basic health and education provision, etc.) is the problem. I would say all your career's work is about making visible the invisible injustices of the American legal system, where race and class minorities are legislated into blank spaces. Their invisibility becomes even more problematic in the developing world, where the benefits of a national citizenship fail to be conferred, or (in the case of refugees, and Palestine (arguably refugees who barely fled)) there is no nation to confer citizenship and its requisite rights in the first place!
Jeez...those are some poorly written sentences! Hopefully there's a point in there somewhere.
# posted by 
: 8:20 AM
: 8:20 AM
But I suppose you wanted something more like: "Krgyzstan"? That's my other answer...Kyrgyzstan, and any other -stans I have to look up how to spell!
# posted by : 8:32 AM
: 8:32 AM
Mmm... meaty responses!
Lane, I'm going to have to find the book and read it again.
Septimus, I liked your first answer better.
I think, though, that the injustices I have tried to address have almost always in areas where government has interjected itself in a negative way into poor communities. Mass arrests, disproportionate incarceration-- that is hardly being ignored or invisible; rather, it is being scapegoated and punished. In my world, more precisely, it is a violation of the principle of federalism, in that much of the problem comes from the federal government micro-managing street-level crime in a given community, an area that is best left to state or local governments. (The Feds are better able to deal with international drug smuggling, but that is not what they spend their energy on or what I write about-- they go for the easier, low-hanging fruit).
Lane, I'm going to have to find the book and read it again.
Septimus, I liked your first answer better.
I think, though, that the injustices I have tried to address have almost always in areas where government has interjected itself in a negative way into poor communities. Mass arrests, disproportionate incarceration-- that is hardly being ignored or invisible; rather, it is being scapegoated and punished. In my world, more precisely, it is a violation of the principle of federalism, in that much of the problem comes from the federal government micro-managing street-level crime in a given community, an area that is best left to state or local governments. (The Feds are better able to deal with international drug smuggling, but that is not what they spend their energy on or what I write about-- they go for the easier, low-hanging fruit).
Sangala. We only know the half of the horrors being perpetrated there by Colonel Dubaku and his minions.
# posted by : 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
The concept of privacy and freedom being linked is the reason that I am horrified by facebook, myspace, and this new google tracker thing that tells your friends where you are all the time. Each of these technologies is creating a permanent log of user behavior in a server somewhere out of your control. We are self-sacrificing our privacy and, in turn, our freedom in exchange for some cheap "micro-publicity" and the need to be "connected." The constitution can't protect you from yourself.
# posted by : 11:32 AM
: 11:32 AM
Whoa great post . . . but I just landed in Miami for my beach vacation and these are WAAYYY too meaty for me to contemplate right now. My brain is more in cereal mode.
I'm sure there is a dark spot on the map, though, and judging by some of the recent news of horrors taking place in the Congo, I think that may once again be the dark spot. Or one of many dark spots.
I'm sure there is a dark spot on the map, though, and judging by some of the recent news of horrors taking place in the Congo, I think that may once again be the dark spot. Or one of many dark spots.
# posted by : 12:13 PM
: 12:13 PM
This economy is shocking to me and I think we are sort of in a way already IN a place that is not on the map. All of these foreclosures, job losses, the way no one can even get a job to even help get themselves out of trouble - I think we are there not a physical place on a map... but we are some place we have never been before in my lifetime.
The scariest thing is that I read yesterday at Dick Cheney is furious at Bush. Know why??? Because he like "broke the world?" nope because he refused to pardon Scooter Libby.
Hello???????? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
I doubt we have ever been HERE exactly before.
The scariest thing is that I read yesterday at Dick Cheney is furious at Bush. Know why??? Because he like "broke the world?" nope because he refused to pardon Scooter Libby.
Hello???????? HELLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO?
I doubt we have ever been HERE exactly before.
Anon 10:21 is right. That tiny African nation has been oppressed for far too long. It will be VERY intersting to see how the new administration deals with Sangala and its (sometimes weekly) recurring problems.
# posted by : 2:32 PM
: 2:32 PM
"real equality under the law -- where all of us have equal voice, equal access to our democratic institutions and equal responsibility."
Lane - what does this look like in a real sense? Do we all sit in front of computer screens and vote on every issue that comes up in society? Like, all the sudden I will get an Outlook alert that a vote on the 2010 budget will be held at 3 p.m. and I need to be logged in to the United States of Fairytales Website at the appropriate time in order to cast my vote, up or down on the budget?
I mean, I agree with you on a fundamental level, in that I think the more direct our democracy is the better off we are. Which is why I, like the prof., support strong federalism and decentralization. The more we put the decisions in the hands of small communities the closer we get to having the decisions made by the people themselves. Sadly, we have spent about 130 years moving away from that system, strengthening our federal government at the expense of local communities and state governments.
"The idea that space is flat and has singular dimensions that we can "map" is what is most wrong. "
Septimus - I guess the problem I have with this is that you assume that maps have no connection to reality. But aren't maps just a reflection of boundaries that existed as a result of tribal, ethnic, or religious affiliations for thousands of years before we began drawing maps? Sure, when there have been attempts to redraw maps it has ended poorly (the Congo being a perfect example, another being Iraq) but isn't that because we ignore the historical realities that created the original boundaries between people/tribes/ethnic groups/etc.? Maps are not a western creation or a creation of civilized society in general - maps are a reflection of reality.
"This economy is shocking to me and I think we are sort of in a way already IN a place that is not on the map...but we are some place we have never been before in my lifetime."
Tyd - seems to me that the recession of 1981-82 was worse than our current economic reality. More jobs were lost, as a percentage of the workforce, and the stock market took a more significant hit than it has in the last year. I agree, if you listen to Obama then this is the worst economy in the history of the galaxy. But, I'm not sure the numbers support that claim.
Does the fact that we know someplace is going through something horrifying but we ignore it make it a "dark spot"? I mean, educated people are fully aware of what is going on in places like the Sudan, but most choose to ignore it because the Sudan has no strategic importance to the western world. Is that sad, yes. But does it mean that there is something unknown about the Sudan? I don't think so.
I think the "dark spots" are the places where there is some control of information (like the former USSR that Osler discusses) such that getting a true picture of the country from the outside is almost impossible. North Korea, Iran, China...much is known about these places, but I think the information we get is filtered through such a heavy lens that it would be impossible to really know these countries, to have any understanding of the people or the culture or the government or whatever, without seeing it for yourself.
Lane - what does this look like in a real sense? Do we all sit in front of computer screens and vote on every issue that comes up in society? Like, all the sudden I will get an Outlook alert that a vote on the 2010 budget will be held at 3 p.m. and I need to be logged in to the United States of Fairytales Website at the appropriate time in order to cast my vote, up or down on the budget?
I mean, I agree with you on a fundamental level, in that I think the more direct our democracy is the better off we are. Which is why I, like the prof., support strong federalism and decentralization. The more we put the decisions in the hands of small communities the closer we get to having the decisions made by the people themselves. Sadly, we have spent about 130 years moving away from that system, strengthening our federal government at the expense of local communities and state governments.
"The idea that space is flat and has singular dimensions that we can "map" is what is most wrong. "
Septimus - I guess the problem I have with this is that you assume that maps have no connection to reality. But aren't maps just a reflection of boundaries that existed as a result of tribal, ethnic, or religious affiliations for thousands of years before we began drawing maps? Sure, when there have been attempts to redraw maps it has ended poorly (the Congo being a perfect example, another being Iraq) but isn't that because we ignore the historical realities that created the original boundaries between people/tribes/ethnic groups/etc.? Maps are not a western creation or a creation of civilized society in general - maps are a reflection of reality.
"This economy is shocking to me and I think we are sort of in a way already IN a place that is not on the map...but we are some place we have never been before in my lifetime."
Tyd - seems to me that the recession of 1981-82 was worse than our current economic reality. More jobs were lost, as a percentage of the workforce, and the stock market took a more significant hit than it has in the last year. I agree, if you listen to Obama then this is the worst economy in the history of the galaxy. But, I'm not sure the numbers support that claim.
Does the fact that we know someplace is going through something horrifying but we ignore it make it a "dark spot"? I mean, educated people are fully aware of what is going on in places like the Sudan, but most choose to ignore it because the Sudan has no strategic importance to the western world. Is that sad, yes. But does it mean that there is something unknown about the Sudan? I don't think so.
I think the "dark spots" are the places where there is some control of information (like the former USSR that Osler discusses) such that getting a true picture of the country from the outside is almost impossible. North Korea, Iran, China...much is known about these places, but I think the information we get is filtered through such a heavy lens that it would be impossible to really know these countries, to have any understanding of the people or the culture or the government or whatever, without seeing it for yourself.
# posted by : 3:32 PM
: 3:32 PM
Prof Osler:
Thanks for the vote of confidence; I wasn't sure if you asked this question with yesterday's tone, or intended it to go the heavy direction it did.
As for your response, I can only say, "interesting." Since most of my work is on the developing world, I think of the invisibility of marginalized "citizens" as arising from the government's inability or unwillingness to offer basic rights of citizenship. But I think you're right that in some cases the government (whether it be federal, state, or local) does take actions (e.g., allowing a mine to be excavated) that directly affect marginalized people, and so "interjects" itself into their lives. Whether it does so because it "sees" them and doesn't care, or whether it does so without seeing them, I'm not sure.
In the case of the U.S., what you say makes sense to me. I guess I was thinking that the injustices committed against them (b/c of federal laws) are invisible, and that your work makes them visible.
RRL:
Strong, three-pointed (or more) post. I guess my short answer would be, "no." The basic text is here is Anderson's _Imagined Communities_. The more nuanced answer would be that yes, maps are the reflection (I'd say "refraction") of a particular perspective of reality, and historically this was a European view of reality enforced into non-European spaces that were more fluid than Europe was at the time. This is not just a matter of European cartographers (and politicians) failing to accurately map the historical tribal, ethnic, and religious affiliations of their colonized spaces. It's a matter of the fluidity of tribal, ethnic, and religious spaces, and the rigidity of politically mapped spaces. The easy example here is the partition of British India into Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan -- nothing real about those borders historically.
Finally, even if at particular moments a border could be construed as realistically dividing human cultures (if I'm a Muslim who speaks Hindi and is married to a Brahmin Hindu...which side of the map do I jump onto?), it doesn't take into account time; rather maps freeze time, ignoring history and (attempting to) control future human movement.
Thanks for the vote of confidence; I wasn't sure if you asked this question with yesterday's tone, or intended it to go the heavy direction it did.
As for your response, I can only say, "interesting." Since most of my work is on the developing world, I think of the invisibility of marginalized "citizens" as arising from the government's inability or unwillingness to offer basic rights of citizenship. But I think you're right that in some cases the government (whether it be federal, state, or local) does take actions (e.g., allowing a mine to be excavated) that directly affect marginalized people, and so "interjects" itself into their lives. Whether it does so because it "sees" them and doesn't care, or whether it does so without seeing them, I'm not sure.
In the case of the U.S., what you say makes sense to me. I guess I was thinking that the injustices committed against them (b/c of federal laws) are invisible, and that your work makes them visible.
RRL:
Strong, three-pointed (or more) post. I guess my short answer would be, "no." The basic text is here is Anderson's _Imagined Communities_. The more nuanced answer would be that yes, maps are the reflection (I'd say "refraction") of a particular perspective of reality, and historically this was a European view of reality enforced into non-European spaces that were more fluid than Europe was at the time. This is not just a matter of European cartographers (and politicians) failing to accurately map the historical tribal, ethnic, and religious affiliations of their colonized spaces. It's a matter of the fluidity of tribal, ethnic, and religious spaces, and the rigidity of politically mapped spaces. The easy example here is the partition of British India into Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan -- nothing real about those borders historically.
Finally, even if at particular moments a border could be construed as realistically dividing human cultures (if I'm a Muslim who speaks Hindi and is married to a Brahmin Hindu...which side of the map do I jump onto?), it doesn't take into account time; rather maps freeze time, ignoring history and (attempting to) control future human movement.
# posted by : 4:34 PM
: 4:34 PM
Septimus:
Seems to me like those arguments are much more nuanced than the one sentence anti-mapping position you took earlier. Coincidentally, I tend to agree with you. Yes, maps don't account for fluidity. They are stale and stationary (for the most part) and reflect a snapshot of the world. What bothers me is the positions some criticisms of cartography take that maps are completely divorced from reality, which seems to ignore history completely.
That being said, maps aren't hegemonic or isolationist, people and governments are that way. Maps are an extension of human nature. That is ultimately the problem I have with the critiques of cartography or mapping. It seems to blame the wrong culprit. Maps don't make us go to war with our neighbors and don't make us exclude people from our countries, we wanted to do those things because it is in our basic nature and maps were created as a way of reflecting that basic human nature. The desire to describe things and own things.
Seems to me like those arguments are much more nuanced than the one sentence anti-mapping position you took earlier. Coincidentally, I tend to agree with you. Yes, maps don't account for fluidity. They are stale and stationary (for the most part) and reflect a snapshot of the world. What bothers me is the positions some criticisms of cartography take that maps are completely divorced from reality, which seems to ignore history completely.
That being said, maps aren't hegemonic or isolationist, people and governments are that way. Maps are an extension of human nature. That is ultimately the problem I have with the critiques of cartography or mapping. It seems to blame the wrong culprit. Maps don't make us go to war with our neighbors and don't make us exclude people from our countries, we wanted to do those things because it is in our basic nature and maps were created as a way of reflecting that basic human nature. The desire to describe things and own things.
# posted by : 4:53 PM
: 4:53 PM
Septimus:
Seems to me like those arguments are much more nuanced than the one sentence anti-mapping position you took earlier. Coincidentally, I tend to agree with you. Yes, maps don't account for fluidity. They are stale and stationary (for the most part) and reflect a snapshot of the world. What bothers me is the positions some criticisms of cartography take that maps are completely divorced from reality, which seems to ignore history completely.
That being said, maps aren't hegemonic or isolationist, people and governments are that way. Maps are an extension of human nature. That is ultimately the problem I have with the critiques of cartography or mapping. It seems to blame the wrong culprit. Maps don't make us go to war with our neighbors and don't make us exclude people from our countries, we wanted to do those things because it is in our basic nature and maps were created as a way of reflecting that basic human nature. The desire to describe things and own things.
Seems to me like those arguments are much more nuanced than the one sentence anti-mapping position you took earlier. Coincidentally, I tend to agree with you. Yes, maps don't account for fluidity. They are stale and stationary (for the most part) and reflect a snapshot of the world. What bothers me is the positions some criticisms of cartography take that maps are completely divorced from reality, which seems to ignore history completely.
That being said, maps aren't hegemonic or isolationist, people and governments are that way. Maps are an extension of human nature. That is ultimately the problem I have with the critiques of cartography or mapping. It seems to blame the wrong culprit. Maps don't make us go to war with our neighbors and don't make us exclude people from our countries, we wanted to do those things because it is in our basic nature and maps were created as a way of reflecting that basic human nature. The desire to describe things and own things.
# posted by : 4:54 PM
: 4:54 PM
Well, RRL, that wasn't my saying, but rather an author's I quoted. I too like the idea of direct democracy. In fact, I think it's the only morally-defensible political structure.
And I think that communities ought to have more control over things (like, say, the means of production!), but the problem with that is that certain communities of people don't like to play by the rules (e.g., I can't see my hometown having much to do with that silly separation of church and state thing, or my current community being too big on the 2nd Amendment). And such a regimented federal system can actually increase bureaucracy, require more oversight, yadda yadda yadda.
Stuff's complicated, but I don't see why in the modern age something like the USoF participatory democracy couldn't be feasible for certain federal issues. Instead of having a daily-voting schedule, a monthly or bi-monthly ballot could be taken if we (1) create permanent voting centers rather than relying on the volunteer/converted elementary school model we have now and (2) create a forum for public submission, critique and debate of proposals.
Still, Moorcock (who is a left-anarchist) points out that paternalism and centralism are often wed, and even those with benign or good intentions (the "orthodox (Socialist) left") can be counter-productive if they don't abandon the value-models of the earlier societies from which they come in the quest for equality. Moorcock and I are in agreement insofar as this goes; I just don't share his cynicism and pessimism that all progressive societies are fated to outlive their benefice and degrade into paternalism.
Ultimately, I think our politics has to evolve. I'm a fan of the morality of direct, participatory democracy, but I'm also a fan of the practicality and sense of representative republics. However, the models of Athens and pre-Christian Germania/Scandinavia and their things is proof that this can work within a society.
And I think that communities ought to have more control over things (like, say, the means of production!), but the problem with that is that certain communities of people don't like to play by the rules (e.g., I can't see my hometown having much to do with that silly separation of church and state thing, or my current community being too big on the 2nd Amendment). And such a regimented federal system can actually increase bureaucracy, require more oversight, yadda yadda yadda.
Stuff's complicated, but I don't see why in the modern age something like the USoF participatory democracy couldn't be feasible for certain federal issues. Instead of having a daily-voting schedule, a monthly or bi-monthly ballot could be taken if we (1) create permanent voting centers rather than relying on the volunteer/converted elementary school model we have now and (2) create a forum for public submission, critique and debate of proposals.
Still, Moorcock (who is a left-anarchist) points out that paternalism and centralism are often wed, and even those with benign or good intentions (the "orthodox (Socialist) left") can be counter-productive if they don't abandon the value-models of the earlier societies from which they come in the quest for equality. Moorcock and I are in agreement insofar as this goes; I just don't share his cynicism and pessimism that all progressive societies are fated to outlive their benefice and degrade into paternalism.
Ultimately, I think our politics has to evolve. I'm a fan of the morality of direct, participatory democracy, but I'm also a fan of the practicality and sense of representative republics. However, the models of Athens and pre-Christian Germania/Scandinavia and their things is proof that this can work within a society.
RRL:
Part the heavens...I think we agree. The arguments in the second post were more nuanced because I was pushed to take the ideas to that level.
As for your second para, I agree -- certainly. I would say the relationship between the map (the representation) and the people who make it (and their political motivations and applications) is more dialectical than unidirectional, but generally I agree. I'll have to cease our agreement with any use of the term "human nature"...don't buy that concept in the least...but otherwise, nice synthesis here.
Part the heavens...I think we agree. The arguments in the second post were more nuanced because I was pushed to take the ideas to that level.
As for your second para, I agree -- certainly. I would say the relationship between the map (the representation) and the people who make it (and their political motivations and applications) is more dialectical than unidirectional, but generally I agree. I'll have to cease our agreement with any use of the term "human nature"...don't buy that concept in the least...but otherwise, nice synthesis here.
# posted by : 12:41 AM
: 12:41 AM
I looked at some of Matt Rosencrans' "geek magazines" a few days ago, and they had an article on unexplored places. One of the few is a place called North Sentinel Island that is technically owned by India, but every exploration team sent there is greeted by a hail of arrows by the natives. Nobody has ever been past the shoreline, and it's a big island.
# posted by : 7:24 AM
: 7:24 AM
I just wanted to see if anybody else is amazed that English wasn't Joseph Conrad's first language. He didn't learn English until he was in his 20s, and he never lost his thick Polish accent.
Post a Comment
<< Home
