Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#41
01-07-2014
Default

Perhaps I wasn't clear before, so I'll post again in hopes you stop evading and link-dropping. I'm asking YOU to respond to what I'm saying. I'm not asking for links. I am asking you, in your own words to directly tell me how the top quote does not imply you view markets as the destroyer of civilizations. I'm sick of having to do all the work. If you haven't mastered the concepts enough to teach me why I am wrong when I say that Hayek can only be said to be misrecognizing only if the one accusing him of misrecognition views markets as the destroyer of civilizations, then you should just stop using the concepts until you have gained that ability.
-------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
here hayek is saying one thing in the context of a symbolic ceremony which awarded him with a symbol of prestige and humanitarian excellence (the Nobel), but his theory has done another in actuality (that is, literally, in practice, it has destroyed less-than-visible subsistence civilizations.)
and then

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neg rep from PM regarding my last post
the irony is that what you're saying in this post is precisely the reason why i created this thread to introduce you to the concept of habitus. you're projecting; *you've* already concluded "my conclusion".
Tell me how the top quote does not imply that you view markets as the destroyer of civilizations. To me, only if one embraces such a view does it make sense to say that Hayek is suffering from misrecognition in the quote from Hayek you posted. But, since you are more familiar with the term than me, perhaps there is another way, so let me know.
GT: Zyphex

Last edited by zyphex; 01-07-2014 at 06:20 PM.
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#42
01-07-2014
Default

no, you were clear, just a bit ridiculous and off the mark.

what i actually said was that "his theory" ("markets" as you're calling it now) but what's really neoliberalism "has [in actuality] destroyed less-than-visible subsistence civilizations." like the ogoni people's, which one of those links above (the wiki page to ogoni people) was included so as to make clear.

what i didn't say was that markets destroy civilizations.
that's now what you're saying i said.

either way, even granting that these two wordings say the same things (they don't [to be more accurate you should've said that i said "neoliberalism in actuality destroys less-than-visible subsistence civilizations", but even that doesn't do full justice to the point i'm making in the other thread]), all you're really saying now is that you're frustrated with me.

you've been overtly hostile and angry with me since at least the post where you say:
"Well that was a very clumsy and heavy-handed mischaracterization of the points I was actually making.

I don't know where the hell you get that I, or Mises...
"
(thereby also hilariously equivocating yourself with mises; read back through my post that you made this in response to for a good chuckle)



one of the more delicious ironies in your responses in toto and esp. your latest ones is that you've only been in here explaining misesian economic theory and linking back to mises' texts and alternately recommending hayek's texts.
but this is a thread about habitus. what you've been questioning is whether your deep-seated investments in your homeboy's economic theory are compatible with any understanding you can gain of bourdieu's notion of habitus.
and yet you're getting upset with me, now, for linking to texts which explain bourdieu's ideas and are avoiding even acknowledging the link which i've said helps explain the notion of misrecogniton and habitus. and you're getting upset with me for not reading your self-proclaimed homeboy's texts, which you're only even here to try testing for compatibility in the very first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 01-07-2014 at 06:35 PM.
Klima
Bold as Love
Klima's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 7,627
Subtract from Klima's ReputationAdd to Klima's Reputation Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Klima
#43
01-07-2014
Default

This is getting messy.

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM View Post
what you've been questioning is whether your deep-seated investments in your homeboy's economic theory are compatible with any understanding you can gain of bourdieu's notion of habitus.
Actually, this is spot on. And is where the problem lies.

Last edited by Klima; 01-07-2014 at 09:06 PM.
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#44
01-07-2014
Default

Klima, I'll show you messy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
no, you were clear, just a bit ridiculous and off the mark.

what i actually said was that "his theory" ("markets" as you're calling it now) but what's really neoliberalism "has [in actuality] destroyed less-than-visible subsistence civilizations." like the ogoni people's, which one of those links above (the wiki page to ogoni people) was included so as to make clear.

what i didn't say was that markets destroy civilizations.
that's now what you're saying i said.

either way, even granting that these two wordings say the same things (they don't [to be more accurate you should've said that i said "neoliberalism in actuality destroys less-than-visible subsistence civilizations", but even that doesn't do full justice to the point i'm making in the other thread]), all you're really saying now is that you're frustrated with me.
But the neoliberal utopia is "the pure and perfect market," as Bourdieu states. If Hayek's theory is neoliberalism as you state, then the theory in practice must be a movement towards "the pure and perfect market." If his theory destroys civilizations, then that is the same as saying the movement towards the pure and perfect market has destroyed civilization. That is, the expansion of markets is crippling to civilizations.

Civilizations have been crippled by the powers at be for a long, long time. The fact that you push the blame on neoliberalism is because of your desire to demonize those that you disagree with, most likely inculcated by the large effect Marx's teachings have had during your intellectual development. In any case, it was not neoliberalism that crippled the rich culture of the Aztecs, it was not neoliberalism that did away with all the civilizations who have been victims of conquest. Human violence, the confiscation and destruction of property, are things which have preceded the evil transnational corporations. Imperialism predates the corporation. The largest source of violence throughout history is found through the State, and with the express permission of the State. But let us blame neoliberalism, the great term used to paint supporters of the free market as corporatists who are in favor of letting corporations off the hook if they just happen to murder someone or destroy other's property in the pursuit of their profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
one of the more delicious ironies in your responses in toto and esp. your latest ones is that you've only been in here explaining misesian economic theory and linking back to mises' texts and alternately recommending hayek's texts.
but this is a thread about habitus. what you've been questioning is whether your deep-seated investments in your homeboy's economic theory are compatible with any understanding you can gain of bourdieu's notion of habitus.
and yet you're getting upset with me, now, for linking to texts which explain bourdieu's ideas and are avoiding even acknowledging the link which i've said helps explain the notion of misrecogniton and habitus. and you're getting upset with me for not reading your self-proclaimed homeboy's texts, which you're only even here to try testing for compatibility in the very first place.
Your OP quite clearly introduces habitus and references it as "an idea which deserves to be taken seriously in any explanation of social events, where economic explanations as such fail." It also is introduced in the OP as a challenge to the notion of people as rational actors.

My first post recognizes that habitus is indeed a useful concept. As economics appeared in the OP, I felt that it was not off-topic to discuss if the concept of habitus is compatible with mainstream and Austrian economic theory, theories which superficially posit that people act rationally.
I stated that perhaps I had read to far into your post when I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zyphex
Perhaps I am reading too far into this, but this seems possibly to allude to economic theory and habitus conflicting, at least in some cases. As such, my response was to say mainly that "no, they don't conflict."
And then you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
but you were in fact treating the idea as a critique of mises' thought, right off the bat. (this was of course my intention).
So, introducing the concept of habitus the way you did in the OP, you intended for me to treat habitus as a critique of Mises' thought...and now you are telling me that I have been so off-topic in discussing the relation between habitus and Mises' theory, something which you intended! What total shit.

I mean, let's look at it. If you didn't want to discuss Mises at all, why say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM View Post
tell me what mises means by 'rational' action, again?
and then after I post about how we might explore the difference in the way Mises uses the word "conscious" and Bourdieu uses the word "conscious," you say:
Quote:
i'll just say really quick, i really appreciate your latest post... and i think we're getting somewhere now; the debate is really an ontological one-- exciting!
Well holy shit, the rest of the thread became about the word "conscious" and then resulted in me defending the fact that Mises uses a separate definition and does not use the psychological definition that Bourdieu uses (and this is in response to questions and things brought up by Davo). But hey, the discussion on this topic went from "exciting!" to something terrible I did to derail your thread off-topic, as if you hadn't told me you were excitied to continue the discussion along the lines of evaluating how Mises and Bourdieu speak of "conscious" and the significance of such a difference.

I reiterate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
one of the more delicious ironies in your responses in toto and esp. your latest ones is that you've only been in here explaining misesian economic theory and linking back to mises' texts and alternately recommending hayek's texts.
but this is a thread about habitus.
is a bunch of horseshit.

And that's right, I haven't just linked to Mises' books in the way in which you link to a handful of articles in your posts here and in your Viennese Legacy. I actually try to explain. And when I want you to look at books, instead of just providing the link, I take the time to find sections of the book that I think would be most helpful. I don't just tell you "read this." I did not quote Hayek's work in anyway because my suggestion was offhand and not immediately relevant to the discussion (I didn't even demand you to read it, rather I let you know a book which discusses positivism and economics if you were interested).

---------------------------------------------------------------

And I don't care to respond to the rest of your trolls in your last post, but you have one thing right: I am frustrated. But why am I frustrated? You are right, the first time I got frustrated is when you put words in my mouth and said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
in other words, for you, we mustn't ask the question: but why do they want more of it?
I view you as smarter than that. When someone who is supposed to be smart makes such an obvious strawman, either it means he really isn't smart, he is being clumsy and heavy-handed, or he is no longer trying to argue or discuss in good faith, but rather is trying to disparage your position and make his discussant look foolish. Up to that point, I thought we were having an ok discussion and viewed each other as discussants, so I figured you were being "very clumsy and heavy-handed." But in retrospect, it seems to me that I went from being viewed as a discussant to an opponent who was to be made look foolish. My frustration continued when you pretty much reiterated
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
okay, so then for mises, you shouldn't ask the question of why since it is irrelevant in economic theory.
My first instinct was that you were being intentionally dull and difficult, but I realized it might be my own faulty interpretation, so my next post (my last post of real substantive discussion, or I guess what you want to call a non-discussion):
Quote:
Originally Posted by zyphex View Post
Maybe it's just the way you are wording this that is giving me grief...
I was also frustrated when you said:
Quote:
the equivocation you're making between economic theory and physical theory (RE the validity/justifiability each theory can claim in denying the importance of the qualitative ucs/cs distinction) is laughable at best. what you're really showing is how economists think about their science.
This is just some doodoo disparagement with no substantive support given against the idea that that, even though the conscious/unconscious distinction as defined in psychology may be hugely important in different disciplines, that distinction is not necessary in all fields of thought, including physics, economics, and other fields. Somehow, you turned this upside down and accused me of equivocating physics and economics just because I noted they had one single thing in common. (you might want to check your definition of equivocate).

And then I became even more frustrated when you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
since i'm getting tired of how this "debate" is going, i'll just say here that zyphex is putting words in my mouth
The person who put words in my mouth now accusing me of the same. I interpreted what you said, and perhaps incorrectly. But you know why I may have done that, besides for habitus? Because what you said was in actuality not a response to anything I said and had nothing to do with the Counterrevolution of Science. And you left zero information in that post as to why you brought up Popper, only stating that "Here Hayek is lauding Popper." (with a link to falsificationism). I did a terrible thing and made the totally irrational jump that you were implying Hayek is a falsificationist and that this is a response to my claim that Hayek wrote a good piece against positivism (which is a statement from me you quoted in your post). And to you that is me putting words in your mouth, and such an expression colloquially implies sinister intent. Yeah, I was frustrated.

Then you posted something which you deleted shortly after, which was pretty much a troll and it was quite blatant you were indeed trying to make me out to be a fool more so than critique an argument. Something like: "Notice that everywhere else zyphex would have us only ask us whether Hayek was lauding Popper, and not why Hayek is lauding Popper." Well, well, well, if you hadn't reverted back to the point I tried to clear up where you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
In other words, for you, we mustn't ask the question: but why do they want more of it?
I appreciated you deleting it because maybe you realized what you were doing, but in any case it gave me a glimpse into the fact that you had a large motivation to not listen to me and to piss in my face.

Much like you pissed in my face when, after reading over 100 pages of Mises to respond to your OP in the other thread, you tell me
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
i'll still post a response to your post soon, regardless of the fact that you didn't actually read any of the links.
. But I suppose I should not hold it against you now since you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
i recognize the way i worded my bullet point summary was misleading insofar as it exempted you from reading anything else in the op.
But before that post, that was just one more asshole thing said towards me as if I was a schoolboy who didn't complete his homework assignment satisfactorily enough.

------------------------------------------------------

In any case, I guess I'll quit making your thread get too off-topic for now. Maybe you'll sit back and realize you have no thread if I don't respond; no one else on this site gives a rats ass to have a discussion with you.

You know, when Davo and I used to debate more frequently, we disagreed a whole hell of a lot. But when we talked, we actually heard each other. If I would say something stupid or misinterpret what he said, sure he'd let me have it a bit, and I'd do the same back to him. But no matter what was said, our discussions were in good faith. We weren't trying to destroy the other person, only each others arguments. And where we could find common ground we would, and when there was something one of us said that the other disagreed with, we let it be known that there were some things we just weren't going to agree upon in the course of that discussion.

I'm frustrated because you aren't Davo; I'm frustrated that you aren't someone I can disagree and still remain in good faith throughout the discussion.
GT: Zyphex
Klima
Bold as Love
Klima's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 7,627
Subtract from Klima's ReputationAdd to Klima's Reputation Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000 Klima IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Klima
#45
01-07-2014
Default

Sadly, that last part looks to be true. I mean, you are both smart guys and I for one has learned a lot, it's been a good read for the most part. I just wish it wouldn't get so heated. You're both too frustrated ar this point.
zyphex
Level 25
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Subtract from zyphex's ReputationAdd to zyphex's Reputation zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000 zyphex IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to zyphex
#46
01-07-2014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PM
what you've been questioning is whether your deep-seated investments in your homeboy's economic theory are compatible with any understanding you can gain of bourdieu's notion of habitus.
For the record, I do not deny that my main interest in this thread was to show the compatibility between economic theory and habitus, just as I believed your OP was attempting to imply a conflict between habitus and economic theory. Seemed like a good debate to be had. (At one point, you implied such a discussion was your intent and exciting!)

However, I'm not questioning the compatibility at this moment as you've done nothing to show that there is any incompatibility.
GT: Zyphex
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#47
01-08-2014
Default

i'm too drunk to really respond to that thoroughly or appropriately or unheatedly at this point, but just look at how you're recontextualizing all the bits of what i've been saying thus far and more importantly leaving things out

(like e.g. you bastardized this whole post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PM View Post
tell me what mises means by 'rational' action, again?




" Perhaps I am reading too far into this, but this seems possibly to allude to economic theory and habitus conflicting, at least in some cases. As such, my response was to say mainly that "no, they don't conflict." So I wasn't trying to "absorb" Bourdieu's theory into a Misesian framework because I like Mises and can't understand anything other than Mises; rather, I was trying to find if the truth of one theory necessarily implies the falsity of the other; whether the truth of habitus would necessarily lead to the conclusion that (Misesian) economics is wrong because it is built around the purported fact that human action is rational."

but you were in fact treating the idea as a critique of mises' thought, right off the bat. (this was of course my intention).
but this only really means that you were from the very start looking to absorb the critique.


look: from where i'm sitting, what you've done is to have reschematized bourdieu's idea in mises' own language (bastardizing it-- necessarily-- from the very start) and thereby leaving me no room to even respond to your responses, since i have no mastery of mises' thought and no time to read through the pdf you left on human action to garner something like a working understanding.


i will say though that it's odd how, so far, this thread has only really consisted of your expounding some of the tenets of austrian economics and critiquing positivism, and no real discussion of the idea of habitus (or any of bourdieu's other intertwined concepts)-- but only a statement of this idea you've gathered: that humans act in predisposed ways, and that mises acknowledges this, unlike other economists. but that's a habit. that's not habitus. you've made for yourself an understanding of bourdieu's concept that rejects all of its radical consequences and kept only really the idea that humans are influenced by society and act habitually. and look back over the language you use itt: it's clear you're only even trying to think about this concept in mises' own terms.

while i appreciate your sharing with me your views and your careful responses i'm not sure we're making any progress here one way or another.

maybe this weekend i'll find the time and patience to read through your posts again and try to write out equally careful responses, but i don't now


as an aside,

no; that doesn't follow the claim that consumers are talked into buying things which they are sold in advertisements. only an economist living in a TV-less consumer society and charged with the task of legitimizing the current state of affairs through peer-reviewed scientific economical theorizing could even think this.



and i'll leave this here (i posted it earlier but must've deleted it in an edit)
http://simulacrum.cc/2012/07/21/pier...nction-part-i/
short of linking you to bourdieu's actual introduction to distinction (i can't find it freely available), this is as good an explanation of the idea as any.
by only reproducing parts of it in that post:
Quote:
but you were in fact treating the idea as a critique of mises' thought, right off the bat. (this was of course my intention).
i bet you didn't even read e.g. that link. i've been reluctant to the fact that you're only looking to absorb the critique the whole time.

in other words, refusing to see why they are incompatible...
i'll just re-emphasize before i roll over: bourdieu points to the really destructive nature of neoliberalism and has a word for the persistent misrecogntion of this by neoliberal agents.

the theory you're a fan of has in actuality become the dominant discourse.
it has had and still continues to have really devastating effects on populations it doesn't take into account-- and that it doesn't take into account coherently. it has in some sense even less visible effects on populations it numerically and skeletally presumes itself to be fully able to take account of, like its own.
it reproduces this violence structurally, in and through its reliance on and high esteem of things of logic like, e.g., feasibility reports.


bourdieu's notion of habitus refutes the idea that there could be rational agents in any sense that your homeboy's theory demands in order to be really coherent.-- i'm perfectly happy further debating this statement (what it really means and what the real implications of it are) with you.

what i'm not happy with is your demand that i keep reading your collected grad paper treadmill thoughts on mises' theory, great as they are, in order to do so, especially when you're not reading through the things RE habitus that i'm offering up and deferring back to.

and cut me some slack. i've at least read through your 1800 word recaps of misesian theory. you haven't been touching anything RE habitus or actually existing neoliberalism lately.



final aside, perhaps that you've been (sarcastically, jokingly) treating my posts directed at you as invitations to reproducing homework assignments
Quote:
Originally Posted by zyphex View Post
Yay! Another homework assignment!
is part of the problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 01-08-2014 at 01:44 AM.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#48
01-08-2014
Default

Yo neoliberalism isn't corporations supporting a free market in isolation, it requires the institutional legal and power structures of the State to either give them a pass for, say, massacring natives, or to actively participate in it as well.

At least, that's more or less how I use it and have ever seen it used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
This should prove edifying to interested parties:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...0/ideology.htm
Especially scroll down to Ideology Interpellates Individuals as Subjects.
Wikipedia actually has a (somewhat) useful entry for this
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpellation_(philosophy)
Interpellation is a concept in Marxist social and political theory associated in particular with the work of the philosopher Louis Althusser. Althusser used the term interpellation (see Louis Althusser, Essays on Ideology (Verson: 1970), p.11) to describe the process by which ideology, embodied in major social and political institutions, constitutes the nature of individual subjects' identities through the very process of institutions and discourses of 'hailing' them in social interactions. Althusser thus goes against the classical definition of the subject as cause and substance: emphasizing instead how the situation always precedes the (individual or collective) subject, which precisely as subject is "always-already interpellated". Individual subjects are presented principally as produced by social forces, rather than acting as powerful independent agents with self-produced identities. Althusser's argument here strongly draws from Jacques Lacan's concept of the mirror stage. Althusser's concept has been roundly confused over the last decades with concepts and thinking associated with Michel Foucault, in part because both thinkers manifest an antihumanist insistence on the secondary status of the subject as mere effect of social relations and not vice versa. Another source of this confusion, as elaborated in an article by Keith Sawyer (2002) is the shared use of the word but different concepts of discourse. Interpellation, Althusser's idea based on Lacan, specifically involves the moment and process of recognition of interaction with the ideology at hand. Foucault eschews the notion of ideology and his quasi-structuralist analytics are quite antithetical to Lacanian notions of the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary.
Going to add that for Lacan the Mirror Stage is not necessarily a literal stage of psychological development so much as a metaphor and an extension of Hegels Master/Slave dialectic.
Spoiler!
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#49
01-08-2014
Default

+ the fact is that davo has been trying to get you to read foucault for years.

itt i'm trying to get you to read bourdieu.

you seemingly still want to do neither. or to be as charitable as i can: you seemingly only want to understand these men insofar this understanding can benefit your misesian outlook on things more generally.

not only does neoliberalism require the State (the abache regime
+ all the other States that are rationalized by the lockean-jeffersonian legal structure implemented by the U.S. & co.-- all the other States, which might be able to intervene supramorally in the case of the ognoi people [though in reality these other States only ever banned nigeria from their own commonwealth for a couple years to penalize massacring natives and hanging an innocent activist on trumped up charges and then contributed to giving the shell corporation which funded these actions a humanitarian prize]), but it also requires subjects whose very lives serve to reproduce rationalizations of these sorts of things.
cf. the altusser links davo is leaving above. cf. foucault. cf. bourdieu. see also hardt and negri's empire
see also my other thread (perhaps after reading this foucault bit), since it is intended to be about neoliberalism specifically, and since most of the articles linked there utilize foucauldian tools while also pushing beyond his framework

note that in one of your rationalizations above you essentially say that the violence neoliberalism does to other populations is nothing new (citing old-as-time-itself imperialism), and since this sort of institutionalized violence is 'nothing new' and only really something you think i think is more 'insidious', any moral opposition to it is nothing worth calling a serious critique. in any case, the point about the less-than-visible violences of neoliberalism goes about 1,000x deeper than that.

note finally how this comes off to someone who is attuned to the ethical-political arguments implicit in any given argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 01-08-2014 at 01:42 PM.
PM
1 authentic experience
PM's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location:  
Posts: 12,409
Subtract from PM's ReputationAdd to PM's Reputation PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000 PM IS OVER 9000
#50
01-10-2014
Default

towards a better discussion--


from that foucault link:
Quote:
In the context of neoliberalism, we must not only think about the connections between disciplinary and biopolitical technologies of race/sex regulation,[4] but we must also attend to the ways that life gets figured differently in financialized postindustrial capital.[5] While Foucault does not describe his work this way, looking back we can see that his model of biopower charts the emergence of the modern nation-state, especially in its early twentieth-century welfare state form. In the context of a Keynesian political economy, the life of the national population is set to positively correlate with the life of the economy: both must grow for either one to grow. In a post-Fordist, deregulated capitalism, the economy becomes divorced from labor; the abandonment of mass segments of the US population (through the dismantling of social welfare programs, increased privatization of healthcare, defunding of public education) is not only social, but, very literally, economic. The economy moves on without many of us. The expansion of prison industries has served to capture and contain the racialized populations made surplus by neoliberal capital.[6] My work looks at social service regimes as the “softer” side of the neoliberal management of its own excesses by charting the emergence of federal homelessness policy in the mid-1980s. This is only the second time in US history (the first occurred during the early New Deal) that the federal government has intervened in what has been understood as a local, bounded problem to be dealt with “on the ground,” where it supposedly takes place. That this policy, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, emerged during the Reagan administration is neither ironic nor contradictory. Rather, the birth of federal homelessness policy was the remaking of homelessness into a problem of economic management. It effected a neoliberalization of homelessness which has brought with it a biopoliticization. This means that—in addition to disciplinary-level management techniques of pathologizing/reforming the individual aberrant homeless—we have an interest in homelessness as a specific kind of population to which inheres patterns, tendencies, and, of course, costs. This has been enabled by social science, as quantitative work has sought to capture demographic characteristics that, divorced from social, political-economic contexts, come to be explanatory predictors of homelessness,[7] rather than being seen as the cumulative effects of racialized/gendered labor, housing, and social service markets.

http://sfonline.barnard.edu/gender-j....0fMmv4A4.dpuf

Feminist, critical race critiques of the culture of poverty thesis helps us to flip this, and we can begin to understand that those who are targeted by the homeless services nexus—predominantly single, adult men, especially Black and Latino men, and, in some regions, Native—are also those who have been organized outside of labor and family networks. Thus, the work and cost of their management falls directly on the state (or municipal and nonprofit forms as its stand-ins). Here, qualitative social science in an ethnographic mode has tried to show the “good men” of the homeless, leaving untouched the processes of gender/sex/race that make these populations, as well as the cultural narratives about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon View Post
Here's the problem - I am not a means to the end of rape culture, I am the end. I am literally the termination of this whole ordeal.
here's the problem

Last edited by PM; 01-10-2014 at 02:46 PM.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off