Ok, I'm in possession of a bit more time and I have to baby-sit my computer while it runs some stuff anyway, so here goes. I have a lot to catch up on, I know.
Dale wrote:
I can agree with the initial claim "Societies are manipulative. People are manipulative.". However, I don't see this as a justification to increase manipulation. So, while every society and person is manipulative to some extent, the issue is to what extent are they manipulative. And whether or not that manipulation is inherently bad. I have been arguing that manipulation under Capitalism is fundamentally destructive since it permeates our consciousness and alters our very being. Essentially it reduces the individual to a commodity, this in turn makes man non-dimensional by taking away that which makes her human. Also, as a strong advocate of critical pedagogy, I would further claim that the "critical knowledge" and "denial and rejection of the self" (going to need a little more explanation on exactly what that is) that you deem necessary under capitalism, is only accomplished by a select few (even then those aren't the one's who benefit under cap, rather deviate from it). From capitalist society comes the notion than the individual simply exists in the world and is not an active participant who can change it. I think this is essentially a true statement with introspective warrants. Just reflect on the common idea that it's not possible to alter our society or political systems (for example). I know that you could argue some do and therefore this is denied, however, most people maintain a fatalistic approach to society and more specifically capitalism. Now, I bring this up because it's a necessary component of self-actualization, the individual must recognize themselves as a being that exists a impacting force in the world and not simply one who just exists. If you want more explanation of that I'd be glad to oblige. (I'm assuming your be familiar with Freire since the education topic)
(I've added my own emphasis there, of course.)
I'd like you to tell me what "being" is, and how you believe people... a) gain, b) keep, and c) alter their knowledge of themselves.
My "being" is mostly "doing" or "not doing", as the case may be. I gained it through genetics and environment, then through sheer force of will and the little voice inside me that sees clearly even when bad things happen (Catholics call it "conscience", though I find that term to be full of latent manipulation.) Sometimes the voice is good. Today, it kept me utterly without reaction to a man who honked and made lewd gestures at me while I was waiting for the bus; Literally, the part of me that defies manipulation said, "huh, look at that." Later I was angry, of course, but I have the wisdom to see that anger does no good. (Until mothers and especially fathers teach their children otherwise, mean will continue to leer. In some cultures, of course, it's even encouraged.) Was I being insulted? Objectified? Used? I'm sure you could view it that way, yes. But
does it change who I am, or how I view myself? No. In fact, I'm quite sure I could either been ten times as attractive or ten times more like a hunk of ham in a grocery bag, and gotten the exact same reaction from that scumbag.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe there are manipulative and (by way of contrast) self-minding people in this world, irregardless of social arrangement? Yes, I know, you've told me that cap favor their proliferation. But what becomes of these people in a non-cap world? What do they do, where do they go? Do they suddenly become angels and live out their lives on a cloud of quiet mutually beneficial productivity? Tell me how your system (and I still don't get what comes after cap, btw -- I'm not convinced anything CAN) protects anyone from manipulation.
More Dale:
Rather, I extending things that are moral axioms based upon moral intuition, whose foundations are already adopted by society. I assume we can agree that there are certain immoral things that must be acknowledged, correct? (ie killing babies is bad). All I'm doing is placing unnecessary atrocities on the same moral axiom level (if that makes sense) as killing. I'm not saying that there isn't debate about the extension of these axioms simply that some morality must be acknowledged. (again it is not strict enforcement of a moral code). But let me examine your point further, why does moral constraint inherently infringe upon freedom? I could probably site some Locke here about the trading of freedom for liberties and how liberties are preferable, but I'll leave the card dumping to someone else. Basically though, I'm allowing for moral debate, I'm just extending the axioms on which that debate relies.
Yah. Obviously, I agree that there ARE moral axioms (curious that Rand liked that word a lot
). I think you missed my point, though. I'm not saying the axioms are necessarily bad; I'm saying that having them handed down from On High (which is literally how a good bulk of people in this world view the origin of morality) is a terribly dangerous precedent. Here, I'll put a cute phrase on it: "The unexamined life isn't worth a wooden nickle," because it too is a fraud -- a representation of goods as genuine, or valuable, when on closer inspection, the goods are sub-standard, shoddy, and inferior. And how does one pass off anything which is fraudulent, from money to handbags to, er, morals? Well, that takes Authority, does it? Be it the US Mint, or Prada, or Western Intuitive Ethics. You've got to pretend to be *something* that has "obvious" value in order to fool people, right? Cable tv and designer clothiers and every other modern consumer industry has it down pat: tell people the price of everything, and the value of nothing, and they will part with their hard earned cash. Fraudulent value statements, be they commercial, ethical, political, or social keep this country afloat. And you can't blame Ayn Rand for that; if you've ever read her (and have you?) you know that her longest novel
begins with a question flung at blind authority.
To elucidate the counter-manipulation theory which you and I seem to agree upon in principle but not practice: the trick, as taught by Manuel Smith in Systematic Assertiveness Therapy (a CBT technique) is to always ask "what" questions, not "why" questions, while being comfortable with the possibility that your "opponent", or "manipulator" may, in fact, have a point. The goal is to reach a detente in which your opponent no longer obstructs your desired course of action. In essence, the goal is to preserve and execute free will through probabilistic thinking. So:
What about Marxist/crit theory allows for deep questioning of the moral milieu?
Your analysis of football/lacrosse is interesting. If it's true, I'd say it's because people in the dominant modern culture like to watch what they believe to be ferocious competition. Half the time, of course, they are watching manufactured drama. And then I do blame it on the fact that they're being dumb consumers. I'm not even sure you can say that they like the dumb stuff because they're full of "pent up anti-cap frustration", either. Like the type you evidently get from toothpaste (?) I think it's something much more primal; some sort of reversion to watching to see which monkey will become dominant male, within your territory. And that, in and of itself, is probably a function of some psychological projection, but also some sort of submission; you're not out there fighting the good fight when you're watching football on tv.
And you're certainly right that I fall far, far, far outside the norm. And I know it. I don't take that as as a reason to knock cap, though. In your alternative (which, by the way, I'm not at all clear on... again,
what would it look like?) I'm not sure I'd have the option to BE competitive, or to reject the dominant social system (Marxism? Socialism? Big State Authoritarianism? Local tyranny of the unwashed hippies? lol...)
Dale one last time:
Just because one accepts a particular system doesn't mean that system's existence is justified. Sure, I buy technological things and in turn I am "rewarding" someone, but I'm forced to do so because of the system, not because I choose to. Also, lets look at the claim that people are rewarded for technological inventions or whatever, I think again you glaze over how exactly production works. Someone or a group of people create something normally under the employment of a company. The company then begins to manufacture that product and they themselves pocket the majority of the profit, NOT the creator/s. Again, I believe you have some obligation to show why it's at the very least permissible for this type of production to exist. Simply saying that we shouldn't have rigorous moral standards isn't sufficient to justify the existence of a system. No, my main critique is not in production, rather, it rests on capitalisms overall effect upon society, hence the previously attached rant.
The rant was very Socialist sounding, hence my assumption about your "moral authoritarianism." Sadly, I think the world may always have people being put out of their homes or begging for bread or dying in the street; conversely the world will always have people who live in a grotesque consumerist orgy-land. It's a normal distribution, like beauty or brains or anything else. Like it or not, we can't all be "perfect" ... whatever that means!
We'll let the rational man thing go, since you don't think it's a big deal.
And to clarify, it's not that I don't want rigorous moral standards; it's that I want equally vigorous constant criticism. If you want that too, then whoopee -- for once, we've spontaneously agreed on something. Again, though -- funny how that works, you being a gadget-buying member of society, and me being a non-ipod/non laptop, 4-year-old-still-functioning-flip-cell-phone owning outlier who hates consumerism but loves production-sided Cap.
But getting back to the system of rewards, I do beg to differ. People who innovate move up at their company, by making themselves integral to the company's success. And companies run on BRAINS, not brawn. People who can think and have up-to-date skills can be, and often threaten to become, mobile. Most people in the financial world, for instance, spend about ten or fifteen years of their career being kept in one place with incentives, or being lured to other places with... you guessed it... incentives. Don't like that example? Same happens for really good hair stylists.
Now, at Blackcat (Kevin, is it?): There's a practical option to living outside social norms, and I practice it. I don't consume as most people do. There's a whole population that's very similar to me: old people. You or they may claim that they can't see the tiny buttons on gadgets... but the reality is that they're also wise enough to know that
nobody every spent their way to prosperity. And if you look at the underlying statement there -- that production is more fundamental and critical than consumption - voila, you have... Cap.
Kevin, you rugged individualist you... have you ever chopped wood? Walked outside and picked your own meal from your backyard? Baked your own bread? Made your own soap, or candles, from a year's worth of collected fragments? Warmed yourself with only the fuel that your own hands carried and placed the summer before? Walked 8 miles in a day because you don't own a car? Hung a door, installed a floor, plastered a wall, painted everything in your household that didn't move? ... and have you done all that while (just a trifle!) earning a BA, then trying to your pre-med reqs out of the way? Come back when you have and we'll discuss my laissez-faire, self-actualization-precluding denial on a planet that, tonight, is cool and crisp just outside the heart of its greatest, most luxurious City.
I can usually get along with idealist Communists better than Socialists or Statists, on the premise that "you go your way, and I go mine" ... but darn! Ivory tower name dropping plus theory raises my hackles somethin' awful. I'll let you hash it out with Dale, though... I've just picked the only bone I have any lingering patience for, anyway, from your posts.
