I read this in my cultural anthropology textbook today:
"The amount of goods that the world's population consumed in the past 50 years equals what was consumed by all previous generations in human history." - page 98, Cultural Anthropology, fourth Canadian edition
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Naomi Klein against Apocalypticism? Part I
I have begun reading "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. As part of my reflection of Graham Ward's notions of the Body politic, particularly in "The Politics of Discipleship" and his reflection on constitutional monarchy, Francis Fukuyama's misguided liberal-democratic interpretation of Hegel and the necessity of some sort of monarchy I have often, in jest, suggested that the Lewis', the Canadian political family should be the Royal family replacing the current British one.
Naomi Klein, who's husband is Avi Lewis the son of Stephen Lewis, writes the following at the end of her introductory chapter:
"This desire for godlike powers of total creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions.. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments..that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world." (page 24)
These concluding remarks finish her discursive activity in the introduction; with frequent reference to neoliberal economists and policy-makers as 'fundamentalists', a quotation from Milton Friedman when he describes himself as "an old-fashioned preacher delivering a Sunday sermon", a quotation from a Republican congressman from Lousianna where in passing reference suggests that the events of Hurricane Katrina somehow was God-ordained in order to reform the education system in favour of the free-market and of course the quotation from Genesis 9 (the narrative of the global deluge) that begins the chapter. Even the title of the book suggests some sort of religious reference.
Klein, again "Rooted in Biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." (pg 23)
In her introduction Klein distances her position from a kind of 'unattainable purity' position of 'dangerous ideologies', such as but not exclusive to neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics. She gives a brief glimpse into her own political location, favouring among other things the disbelief that Markets are inherently violent (because she suggests that it is possible to have a market economy demands 'no such ideological purity') and supporting a somewhat Keynesian position of a mixed market, quasi-socialist state.
I would like the file a grievance of some-sort, but I will do it by telling a story that Klein narrates at the beginning of her introduction. Speaking about how these "Shock" capitalists were using the tragedy of Katrina in New Orleans one of the characters in Klein's story asks "Are they blind?". As in blind to the immense suffering of the impoverished citizens of New Orleans who have lost so much because of poor planning and terrible natural events.
"'A mother with two kids chimed in. 'No they're not blind, they're evil. They see just fine.' " (page 4)
That mother had the courage to label what it was that these people were doing. Evil. Now although I appreciate Klein's insistence that this ideology leads to violence I feel that universalizing the tendency that all notions of 'purity', essentialism or the absolute leads to violence is false. Not neccesarily more dangerous, although perhaps it is, but false.
With her journalistic efforts and crusades I am sure Klein would find herself agreeing that we have to be rational and not ideologues in our search for justice. But may I continue by adding in the words of Alasdair Macintyre "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"
With her support of diversity and her suggestion that perhaps some sort of 'free' market could exist she seeks co-existence with other communities with different belief systems. In evoking the communitarian discourse of Macintyre I am really asking if this contempt of things that are "contemptuos of pluralism" (page 23) really understands the meaning of difference, especially of different communties.
To take another angle her suggestion that 'purity' of ideology, belief or vision leads to violence seems to suggest she holds on to an 'ontology of violence' (Milbank). Such an ontology, as Milbank points out in "Theology and Social Theory", a book greatly influenced by Macintyre,is at the heart of classical liberalism, pragmatism, a little bit in Hegel and Marx, and certainly nihilism.
Now I believe co-existence is neccesary but "What existence? Which communities?" (Macintyre again), for the co-existence of Reformed and Anabaptist church in the Netherlands had very different views of what co-existence looks like, as the mainline Church-state relationship though in their refusal to be part of the state church as so non-conformist as to be dangerous to the state. Certain Islamic groups would have a view of co-existence, for example in the Ottoman empire Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to exist but with less privileges that the dominant cultural group. In Canada following the seven year's war a more positive situation arose where the french Catholics of New France and the british settlers and Loyalists were able to co-exist, with the establishment of the Quebec Act which guaranteed french cultural (read economic, legal, linguistic and religious) rights. But one must remember that at that time the Quebec act was so offensive to some of the Enlgish that it became part of the Intolerable Acts leading to the revolutionary war.
I think Klein must be clear that she is coming from a Non-Marxist Keynesian socialism which is a tradition in itself. It is not a universal view which hopes for peace in putting communities beside each other in co-existent pluralism but a particular view that may want to establish a happy faced hegemony over various traditions watering them down and making them the same. Sure there maybe Islam, or Christianity, or what have you, but they are really not Islam, Christianity or what have you in the traditional sense but simply historically cultured enclaves that have delayed degeneration as an imminent liberalism conquers all. Is this the End of History? Perhaps Klein is philosophically similair to her neoconservative (classically liberal) enemies in her refusing 'purity', or more outrightly particularity, she sets up a situation where her Keynesian politics 'consumes' other political and religious traditions.
If only she would come clearly out of the closet and like that mother label these other traditions as 'evil', or at least imperialistic.
Which brings me to the most important question for me: is it possible to have a tradition that is not imperialist? Outside of classical liberalism which paradoxically denies tradition yet produces similar 'Empire' can we have a tradition that is anti-imperial intrinsically? I will be honest I appeal the crucified God as the only honest way out of empire.
Part II of this post will deal with the biblical Apocalyptic as inherently anti-imperial, despite the distaste for it Klein displays in her introduction.
Also forgive the untideness of this post, I think I had go ideas but they did not really arrive on screen very well.
Naomi Klein, who's husband is Avi Lewis the son of Stephen Lewis, writes the following at the end of her introductory chapter:
"This desire for godlike powers of total creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions.. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture - a flood, a war, a terrorist attack - can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments..that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world." (page 24)
These concluding remarks finish her discursive activity in the introduction; with frequent reference to neoliberal economists and policy-makers as 'fundamentalists', a quotation from Milton Friedman when he describes himself as "an old-fashioned preacher delivering a Sunday sermon", a quotation from a Republican congressman from Lousianna where in passing reference suggests that the events of Hurricane Katrina somehow was God-ordained in order to reform the education system in favour of the free-market and of course the quotation from Genesis 9 (the narrative of the global deluge) that begins the chapter. Even the title of the book suggests some sort of religious reference.
Klein, again "Rooted in Biblical fantasies of great floods and great fires, it is a logic that leads ineluctably towards violence." (pg 23)
In her introduction Klein distances her position from a kind of 'unattainable purity' position of 'dangerous ideologies', such as but not exclusive to neoliberalism and the Chicago school of economics. She gives a brief glimpse into her own political location, favouring among other things the disbelief that Markets are inherently violent (because she suggests that it is possible to have a market economy demands 'no such ideological purity') and supporting a somewhat Keynesian position of a mixed market, quasi-socialist state.
I would like the file a grievance of some-sort, but I will do it by telling a story that Klein narrates at the beginning of her introduction. Speaking about how these "Shock" capitalists were using the tragedy of Katrina in New Orleans one of the characters in Klein's story asks "Are they blind?". As in blind to the immense suffering of the impoverished citizens of New Orleans who have lost so much because of poor planning and terrible natural events.
"'A mother with two kids chimed in. 'No they're not blind, they're evil. They see just fine.' " (page 4)
That mother had the courage to label what it was that these people were doing. Evil. Now although I appreciate Klein's insistence that this ideology leads to violence I feel that universalizing the tendency that all notions of 'purity', essentialism or the absolute leads to violence is false. Not neccesarily more dangerous, although perhaps it is, but false.
With her journalistic efforts and crusades I am sure Klein would find herself agreeing that we have to be rational and not ideologues in our search for justice. But may I continue by adding in the words of Alasdair Macintyre "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?"
With her support of diversity and her suggestion that perhaps some sort of 'free' market could exist she seeks co-existence with other communities with different belief systems. In evoking the communitarian discourse of Macintyre I am really asking if this contempt of things that are "contemptuos of pluralism" (page 23) really understands the meaning of difference, especially of different communties.
To take another angle her suggestion that 'purity' of ideology, belief or vision leads to violence seems to suggest she holds on to an 'ontology of violence' (Milbank). Such an ontology, as Milbank points out in "Theology and Social Theory", a book greatly influenced by Macintyre,is at the heart of classical liberalism, pragmatism, a little bit in Hegel and Marx, and certainly nihilism.
Now I believe co-existence is neccesary but "What existence? Which communities?" (Macintyre again), for the co-existence of Reformed and Anabaptist church in the Netherlands had very different views of what co-existence looks like, as the mainline Church-state relationship though in their refusal to be part of the state church as so non-conformist as to be dangerous to the state. Certain Islamic groups would have a view of co-existence, for example in the Ottoman empire Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to exist but with less privileges that the dominant cultural group. In Canada following the seven year's war a more positive situation arose where the french Catholics of New France and the british settlers and Loyalists were able to co-exist, with the establishment of the Quebec Act which guaranteed french cultural (read economic, legal, linguistic and religious) rights. But one must remember that at that time the Quebec act was so offensive to some of the Enlgish that it became part of the Intolerable Acts leading to the revolutionary war.
I think Klein must be clear that she is coming from a Non-Marxist Keynesian socialism which is a tradition in itself. It is not a universal view which hopes for peace in putting communities beside each other in co-existent pluralism but a particular view that may want to establish a happy faced hegemony over various traditions watering them down and making them the same. Sure there maybe Islam, or Christianity, or what have you, but they are really not Islam, Christianity or what have you in the traditional sense but simply historically cultured enclaves that have delayed degeneration as an imminent liberalism conquers all. Is this the End of History? Perhaps Klein is philosophically similair to her neoconservative (classically liberal) enemies in her refusing 'purity', or more outrightly particularity, she sets up a situation where her Keynesian politics 'consumes' other political and religious traditions.
If only she would come clearly out of the closet and like that mother label these other traditions as 'evil', or at least imperialistic.
Which brings me to the most important question for me: is it possible to have a tradition that is not imperialist? Outside of classical liberalism which paradoxically denies tradition yet produces similar 'Empire' can we have a tradition that is anti-imperial intrinsically? I will be honest I appeal the crucified God as the only honest way out of empire.
Part II of this post will deal with the biblical Apocalyptic as inherently anti-imperial, despite the distaste for it Klein displays in her introduction.
Also forgive the untideness of this post, I think I had go ideas but they did not really arrive on screen very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)