Democracy as Spectacle

[kallipolis]

I promised you guys a video, so here it is--another example of commodification. It's long, but you don't have to watch the whole thing to get the point. Hell, you may not have to watch any of it. I may have made my point already. (I had to go through several of these vids 'cause a lot of them are from kids.)



Now, I said I wanted to talk about dropping the mask of objectivity. While I think that analytical description and abstract theorizing may help us understand our situation, it shouldn't preclude praxis. Ones experience in putting the theory into practice needs to be used in reviewing the theory. This looped process refines both theory and practice. The idea that description and theory should be somehow "objective" is simply wrong. If it's of any use, it won't be "objective." One must exercise ones judging faculty in order to decide what actions to take. Often those judgments will be partisan. It will have an agonistic or even antagonistic structure, and I'm not sure that I really understand why kallipolis seems to find something objectionable in that.

That doesn't mean that matters of power and politics must be collapsed into the discourse of character. Judgment need not be about the particular people. It may stay on the level of policy. Giroux's article doesn't say an unkind word about Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, for example, but it does criticize their role in the creation of a culture of violence. There are moral judgments to be drawn, but they are primarily moral judgments about ourselves and about the way we see our society behaving and changing.

Giroux attempts to persuade his audience that he is objective by virtue of his excellent articulation of his opinions. In reality he is using his superior intellectual abilities to pour venom on those whom he views as the enemy.

I appreciate that he is does not permit his emotions to run riot, and raise the level of hysteria to where his prejudices become only too apparent and the argumentation is reduced to scoring points.

 

[BostonPirate]

Or as the article would have it, education moves out of the home and the classroom into a depersonalizing world. The Michael Savages and the Rush Limbaughs, the Jerry Springers and Hostel and commercials and eBaum's World become the educators.

Agreed. Americans have lost the ability to tell what an opinion is versus a fact. The ability or lack of, to openly question what you are told is the truth, to surrender to dogmatic ideology, and to accept what other people tell you so long as they agree.

Critical reasoning has been lost.

 

[construct]

Giroux attempts to persuade his audience that he is objective by virtue of his excellent articulation of his opinions. In reality he is using his superior intellectual abilities to pour venom on those whom he views as the enemy.

Well, yeah! I suppose you read the first two sentences, didn't you? Specifically, he referred to "the Bush administration" and "the Bush-Cheney regime." So I'd say he's pouring venom from the very start. Yes, he's partisan. You're right. There's no hiding it. Then tossing off a disclaimer, he plunges headlong into his post-structuralist analysis:

In pointing to a culture of cruelty, I am not employing a form of left moralism that collapses matters of power and politics into the discourse of character. On the contrary, I think the notion of a culture of cruelty is useful in thinking through the convergence of everyday life and politics, of considering material relations of power - the disciplining of the body as an object of control - on the one hand, and the production of cultural meaning, especially the co-optation of popular culture to sanction official violence, on the other. The culture of cruelty is important for thinking through how life and death now converge in ways that fundamentally transform how we understand and imagine politics in the current historical moment.

So his method is not only to examine the ephemeral artifacts of everyday life and popular culture but more importantly to relate them to political ideology. Any problems yet?

Once we've done all that, the question still remains. Should we name names? Do we even need to? (Maybe so in some circumstances.)

So, I guess I'm still wondering where the problem is.

 

[ThreeCrows]

Laika?

That's called plaigarism

http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2008/08/borderland-salo-1975/

almost verbatim, actually...

Hilarious and yet sad - Kuli caught him too and called him out. See post #41.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=349222

I wonder what more Laika can do to discredit himself?
Wikipedia? Really? At least steal and plagiarize from solid sources.

 

[JayHawk]

Agreed. Americans have lost the ability to tell what an opinion is versus a fact. The ability or lack of, to openly question what you are told is the truth, to surrender to dogmatic ideology, and to accept what other people tell you so long as they agree.

Critical reasoning has been lost.

I don't believe it is lost. I believe it is too easy to disregard thought. For the vast majority there exist no stimulus that will be harsh enough to make people step back and realize what is happening. However Jub is an example of both what you say AND independent thinking. SO it is not lost. Simply not employed by a good deal of people.

 

[Telstra]

I promised you guys a video, so here it is--another example of commodification. It's long, but you don't have to watch the whole thing to get the point. Hell, you may not have to watch any of it. I may have made my point already. (I had to go through several of these vids 'cause a lot of them are from kids.)



Now, I said I wanted to talk about dropping the mask of objectivity. While I think that analytical description and abstract theorizing may help us understand our situation, it shouldn't preclude praxis. Ones experience in putting the theory into practice needs to be used in reviewing the theory. This looped process refines both theory and practice. The idea that description and theory should be somehow "objective" is simply wrong. If it's of any use, it won't be "objective." One must exercise ones judging faculty in order to decide what actions to take. Often those judgments will be partisan. It will have an agonistic or even antagonistic structure, and I'm not sure that I really understand why kallipolis seems to find something objectionable in that.

That doesn't mean that matters of power and politics must be collapsed into the discourse of character. Judgment need not be about the particular people. It may stay on the level of policy. Giroux's article doesn't say an unkind word about Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, for example, but it does criticize their role in the creation of a culture of violence. There are moral judgments to be drawn, but they are primarily moral judgments about ourselves and about the way we see our society behaving and changing.

oh dear, the sound in the background is horrific.
Can you hear someone is dying breathing heavily.

I turned off afew minutes into it.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I'm really enjoying the depth of discussion, and perspectives here!

I have often felt that films which use shock value to drive home their agenda fail simply because the shocking scenes are so powerful that they divert attention from the real message which the film attempts to convey. The decline, and fall of the Italian Social Republic was one of moral decay rather than foregone military defeat as a result of being a German puppet state.

When I first read this piece by Giroux that's exactly what I took from it. Is that there seems to be a concerted effort, either consciously or subversively to focus on the shock value of things within our country, and by extension to dehumanize the "other" so as to not care when our elected representatives (both parties, either through apathy or direct will) do what they do to thwart the humanity of the "other."

kallipolis, you seem to be arguing that Giroux is no different than those who he's railing against in this piece.

Well, yeah! I suppose you read the first two sentences, didn't you? Specifically, he referred to "the Bush administration" and "the Bush-Cheney regime." So I'd say he's pouring venom from the very start. Yes, he's partisan. You're right. There's no hiding it. Then tossing off a disclaimer, he plunges headlong into his post-structuralist analysis <snip>

So his method is not only to examine the ephemeral artifacts of everyday life and popular culture but more importantly to relate them to political ideology. Any problems yet?

Once we've done all that, the question still remains. Should we name names? Do we even need to? (Maybe so in some circumstances.)

So, I guess I'm still wondering where the problem is.

I don't believe it is lost. I believe it is too easy to disregard thought. For the vast majority there exist no stimulus that will be harsh enough to make people step back and realize what is happening.

When might that happen? What film or piece of literature might come out and be produced that awakens the sleeping masses?

There appears to be little or no motivation, and if there were it seems to be thwarted at every turn by the "culture of cruelty."

However Jub is an example of both what you say AND independent thinking. SO it is not lost. Simply not employed by a good deal of people.

Yes, that's true but the same cruelty that can found in the comments that are left on everything from blogs, youtube, news articles, and other media outlets is also found here on JUB too.

There is so much that the Moderators of JUB do here, that if we're doing our jobs right, a vast majority of members never see what we see everyday back here.

And I think part of that cruelty is because of the anonymous nature of the internet, and how individuals can use an avatar or a screen name to hide behind just how cruel and sadistic that they can actually be.

Is it just an inherent part of human nature to be cruel when we have the feeling, or perception that we will in no way be held accountable for it?

Or as kallipolis pointed out in post #4:

Mr. Giroux is as guilty as are his imaginary enemies (The Republican, advance guard) when so conveniently packaging people into the good, and the bad as he relates to such easy characterisation of the worthiness of his fellow American. Two extremes, representing a mirror image.

I'd argue that Giroux is merely pointing out that we seem to lack some balance between cruelty and that of compassion, and that cruelty is winning out and is now prevalent in every aspect of our lives. Including here on JUB.

So long as we're talking about "us" we're okay, but so long as we're talking about "them" then "they" are sadistic?

Most individuals I think would never dream of treating another person that's directly in front of them in the same manner that they feel licensed to do when they're talking about some "static other."

 

[Telstra]

shit, i never heard of Pasolini’s Sodoma until this thread.
Its about torture in the most horrific way.

Is this legal on youtube or in adult film section ?
So in America or anyway else violence is fine but nudity is not ?

 

[rareboy]

Hilarious and yet sad - Kuli caught him too and called him out. See post #41.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=349222

I wonder what more Laika can do to discredit himself?
Wikipedia? Really? At least steal and plagiarize from solid sources.

Wow. Just wow.

I can't imagine that he could even show up here again after something like this.

Talk about sacrificing any shred of dignity at all.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm really enjoying the depth of discussion, and perspectives here!



When I first read this piece by Giroux that's exactly what I took from it. Is that there seems to be a concerted effort, either consciously or subversively to focus on the shock value of things within our country, and by extension to dehumanize the "other" so as to not care when our elected representatives (both parties, either through apathy or direct will) do what they do to thwart the humanity of the "other."

kallipolis, you seem to be arguing that Giroux is no different than those who he's railing against in this piece.


When might that happen? What film or piece of literature might come out and be produced that awakens the sleeping masses?

There appears to be little or no motivation, and if there were it seems to be thwarted at every turn by the "culture of cruelty."

Yes, that's true but the same cruelty that can found in the comments that are left on everything from blogs, youtube, news articles, and other media outlets is also found here on JUB too.

There is so much that the Moderators of JUB do here, that if we're doing our jobs right, a vast majority of members never see what we see everyday back here.

And I think part of that cruelty is because of the anonymous nature of the internet, and how individuals can use an avatar or a screen name to hide behind just how cruel and sadistic that they can actually be.

Is it just an inherent part of human nature to be cruel when we have the feeling, or perception that we will in no way be held accountable for it?

Or as kallipolis pointed out in post #4:

Quote: Mr. Giroux is as guilty as are his imaginary enemies (The Republican, advance guard) when so conveniently packaging people into the good, and the bad as he relates to such easy characterisation of the worthiness of his fellow American. Two extremes, representing a mirror image.

I'd argue that Giroux is merely pointing out that we seem to lack some balance between cruelty and that of compassion, and that cruelty is winning out and is now prevalent in every aspect of our lives. Including here on JUB.

So long as we're talking about "us" we're okay, but so long as we're talking about "them" then "they" are sadistic?

Most individuals I think would never dream of treating another person that's directly in front of them in the same manner that they feel licensed to do when they're talking about some "static other."

Henry Giroux's subtleness of expression can lull one into a false sense of security when believing that he is above the cruel rancour that so often masquerades as well considered opinion on JUB forums.

Moreover it could also be said that Giroux's appeal may be discovered in his (deceptive) manner of appearing to be objective, whereas his agenda is patently calculated to attract the more sophisticated anti Republican reader, (note: I have not said Democratic Party supporter) in search of a writer whose compositions appeal to their political outlook, and appear not to be divisive, rather pragmatic in their appeal to the reasonable, and moderate observer seeking consensus across the political spectrum.

Much can be said, and has been said of the obsessive, and highly defensive posters who spend so much time on these forums ridiculing those whom they deem worthy of their vitriolic displays of cruel rhetoric designed to humiliate those who attract their disfavour. We know who they are. I ignore them. I also appreciate that particular personality conditions are only too evident.

 

[kallipolis]

Hilarious and yet sad - Kuli caught him too and called him out. See post #41.
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=349222

I wonder what more Laika can do to discredit himself?
Wikipedia? Really? At least steal and plagiarize from solid sources.

Laika is young, inexperienced and passionate in defence of his political allegiances. His experiences here acts as a good teacher for all that he should not being doing, and what he needs to do. I also post here for this reason.

Experience teaches all of us that none is flawed.

I hope that Laika continues to post here with as much enthusiasm as he can muster to support his beliefs.

I would dread to think that this forum would be reduced to a gaggle of left wing obsessed, fanatics dedicated to ridiculing all and every body who dares to abuse their sense of importance as the oracles of all truth.

 

[ThreeCrows]

Laika is young, inexperienced and passionate in defence of his political allegiances. His experiences here acts as a good teacher for all that he should not being doing, and what he needs to do. I also post here for this reason.

Experience teaches all of us that none is flawed.

I hope that Laika continues to post here with as much enthusiasm as he can muster to support his beliefs.

I would dread to think that this forum would be reduced to a gaggle of left wing obsessed, fanatics dedicated to ridiculing all and every body who dares to abuse their sense of importance as the oracles of all truth.

Then you will be content with his lies, misdirection, and alarming accusations. Fine, good for you. You can call people out on their lies and you can hold them accountable. Learn this.

 

[kallipolis]

Well, yeah! I suppose you read the first two sentences, didn't you? Specifically, he referred to "the Bush administration" and "the Bush-Cheney regime." So I'd say he's pouring venom from the very start. Yes, he's partisan. You're right. There's no hiding it. Then tossing off a disclaimer, he plunges headlong into his post-structuralist analysis:



So his method is not only to examine the ephemeral artifacts of everyday life and popular culture but more importantly to relate them to political ideology. Any problems yet?

Once we've done all that, the question still remains. Should we name names? Do we even need to? (Maybe so in some circumstances.)

So, I guess I'm still wondering where the problem is.

I am not the poster who views Giroux's methodology as a problem.

To quote Giroux:

In pointing to a culture of cruelty, I am not employing a form of left moralism that collapses matters of power and politics into the discourse of character. On the contrary, I think the notion of a culture of cruelty is useful in thinking through the convergence of everyday life and politics, of considering material relations of power - the disciplining of the body as an object of control - on the one hand, and the production of cultural meaning, especially the co-optation of popular culture to sanction official violence, on the other. The culture of cruelty is important for thinking through how life and death now converge in ways that fundamentally transform how we understand and imagine politics in the current historical moment.

I have already stated that cruel rhetoric has a place when there is a need to challenge the comfort zone of many who choose to remain remote from the realities that face so many people who remain powerless in the face of apparent destitution.

Those who act as an apologist for Mr. Giroux might also consider that when a gifted writer employs cruel rhetoric such an adventure can prove a rewarding addiction that can become difficult to quit when the rewards are evidently apparent in the increasing numbers reading their compositions.

Cruel rhetoric pays handsomely when the reading audience howls for more blood.

 

[construct]

oh dear, the sound in the background is horrific.
Can you hear someone is dying breathing heavily.

I turned off afew minutes into it.

What you are hearing is mostly not really background noise. That is the sound of "3 guys 1 hammer." What you are hearing and what he is watching is a very, very brutal mutilation and murder on a snowy day in Ukraine. The video that became known as "3 guys 1 hammer" was made by a conspirator in the murder. The killers were in their early twenties. The victim was a 42-year-old cancer patient who had just recently relearned how to talk. He was on his way to visit his grandchildren when he was selected solely because he didn't look like he could put up much resistance.

I refer to it as an instance of commodification of the person because it went viral as a shock video like "2 girls 1 cup." People in the reaction videos often debate whether it is fake and end up comparing it to various other shock videos. Some find it not as bad as other shock videos that actually are fake.

shit, i never heard of Pasolini’s Sodoma until this thread.
Its about torture in the most horrific way.

Is this legal on youtube or in adult film section ?
So in America or anyway else violence is fine but nudity is not ?

Salò does have a fan-made trailer on YouTube, but that's all. It has never been banned in the U.S., and it has also never been rated, but it has been out of print for most of its life. It has been released on DVD twice by Criterion. Oh, and it contains quite a lot of sexualized nudity and some simulated sex.

It was banned in Australia until 1993 and then again from 1998-2010. It has an R18+ rating and may not be exhibited without an additional clip that sets the film in historical context. It is available in Australia uncensored on DVD.

 

[kallipolis]

Then you will be content with his lies, misdirection, and alarming accusations. Fine, good for you. You can call people out on their lies and you can hold them accountable. Learn this.

My approval, or disapproval is not the issue rather the willingness of a poster to post as they please, and then to take responsibility for their actions.

I will not act as a defender of misinformation, or disinformation - but also recognise that there are those posters whose more calculating, and sophisticated writing skills apply similar techniques that are not so easily apparent.

People should feel free to condemn themselves by virtue of their own words.

Laika is hardly likely to successfully pull the wool over the eyes over any regular poster.

I fail to see why so many people feel so concerned with Laika's poor writing skills and immature posts. He and his playmates are hardly a serious challenge to the rest of us.

 

[construct]

I am not the poster who views Giroux's methodology as a problem.

To quote Giroux:

In pointing to a culture of cruelty, I am not employing a form of left moralism that collapses matters of power and politics into the discourse of character. On the contrary, I think the notion of a culture of cruelty is useful in thinking through the convergence of everyday life and politics, of considering material relations of power - the disciplining of the body as an object of control - on the one hand, and the production of cultural meaning, especially the co-optation of popular culture to sanction official violence, on the other. The culture of cruelty is important for thinking through how life and death now converge in ways that fundamentally transform how we understand and imagine politics in the current historical moment.

I have already stated that cruel rhetoric has a place when there is a need to challenge the comfort zone of many who choose to remain remote from the realities that face so many people who remain powerless in the face of apparent destitution.

Those who act as an apologist for Mr. Giroux might also consider that when a gifted writer employs cruel rhetoric such an adventure can prove a rewarding addiction that can become difficult to quit when the rewards are evidently apparent in the increasing numbers reading their compositions.

Cruel rhetoric pays handsomely when the reading audience howls for more blood.

I see. So I guess we really aren't as far apart from each other on the general issues under discussion as we perhaps are on our evaluations of Giroux. Fine. I can live with that.

 

[ThreeCrows]

My approval, or disapproval is not the issue rather the willingness of a poster to post as they please, and then to take responsibility for their actions.

I will not act as a defender of misinformation, or disinformation - but also recognise that there are those posters whose more calculating, and sophisticated writing skills apply similar techniques that are not so easily apparent.

People should feel free to condemn themselves by virtue of their own words.

Laika is hardly likely to successfully pull the wool over the eyes over any regular poster.

I fail to see why so many people feel so concerned with Laika's poor writing skills and immature posts. He and his playmates are hardly a serious challenge to the rest of us.

I am not concerned with your approval nor disapproval. Should no one keep Laika in check or at least honest?

 

[kallipolis]

I am not concerned with your approval nor disapproval. Should no one keep Laika in check or at least honest?

That is why I have said that my approval, or disapproval is not the issue.

No one has suggested that Laika's posts should not be responded too.

 

[rareboy]

Laika is young, inexperienced and passionate in defence of his political allegiances. His experiences here acts as a good teacher for all that he should not being doing, and what he needs to do. I also post here for this reason.

Experience teaches all of us that none is flawed.

I hope that Laika continues to post here with as much enthusiasm as he can muster to support his beliefs.

I would dread to think that this forum would be reduced to a gaggle of left wing obsessed, fanatics dedicated to ridiculing all and every body who dares to abuse their sense of importance as the oracles of all truth.

reeeeeeeeeeeeealllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly?

I'll tell the grad students that next time that I find they are defending their right to be taken seriously when the plagiarize the work of others in making their arguments.

I have fired someone for plagiarizing, so you know where I stand on the issue.

This intellectual dishonesty is also an aspect of what I mean by the banality of the culture of cruelty and evil. You see someone young and passionate. I see something different. I see critical thought by the individual being replaced with the mindless parroting back of other's arguments as one's own position across the board. We see it daily on FOX when the 'talking points' that the bobbleheads are provided each morning are relentlessly used in every program that airs that day. One of the reasons that cruelty flourishes is that the masses start to let the psychopaths and sociopaths do the thinking and talking for them. It is how fascism at either end of the political spectrum works.

I think this is in part what Salo was about. How the abdication of original thought and individuals challenging the systemic orgy of cruelty by the Church and the State allowed events like the Holocaust and genocides to happen.

 

[ThreeCrows]

That is why I have said that my approval, or disapproval is not the issue.

No one has suggested that Laika's posts should not be responded too.

Have I suggested that? That is a very strong and very foolish claim.
I have called him a liar because he is one.

No one has suggested that Laika's posts should not be responded too.

He can defend himself. If he dares.