This will get taken down by Viacom as quick as a flash but it is apposite.
In classic South Park fashion they blitz MJ but then warm the edge of their satire by targeting the police, racists and more or less anyone else who wanders into their fair portrayal of a troubled man.
Sunday 28 June 2009
He's not the Messiah he's just a very naughty boy (with apologies to Monty Python!)
After reading this and in particular the picture from the pastiche of the Last Supper, I was reminded of the above from Rock Dreams. The caption was "You were the king and we were at your crowning".
Friday 26 June 2009
Friday 12 June 2009
You show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Excellent expansion on their previous rant by Infinite Thought called the trouble with philosophy continued.
It is two-fold. The seizing of continental philosophy by a kind of adolescent thought which then games out into an Oedipal scenario, and the dismissal of the real by the observer so entrenched in their examination, their view, they have lost all sight of its tangibility.
And it is a problem that Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze grappled with but Baudrillard and Derrida dismissed. The daddy-mentor-slave-master dilemma. Or, that the disciple is not the conduit to truth but a slave in the discourse. And there is nothing more annoying than a shutting down of a debate with, to quote John Searle:
“With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”
I recall vividly a discussion I had as a teenager with an Hegelian disciple who when I began to discuss Foucault would dismiss him along the lines of: “Foucault says nothing that is not in Hegel.” Which is a discussion of real importance but it makes the Hegelian disciple appear as a kind of parvenu. Because in a sense they are literally and figuratively letting themselves down and the whole school down. (And I’m acutely aware of the irony of my attempt to extricate myself from the mentor/pupil relationship by defending Foucault by the way!)
Infinite thought says: “I'm sure that people in much more serious physical trouble - heavy addiction, sickness exacerbated by poverty, those who have suffered bodily abuse - are unlikely to celebrate their oh-so-exciting degradation and would probably prefer access to free, high-quality healthcare. There is something horrible, truly horrible, about people who have access to clean water, enough food and adequate shelter celebrating 'the rot of the flesh' and 'contamination' as if it were sexy. Go and lick open wounds and tube seats if you think it constitutes an interesting philosophical position”.
Which is spot on. Cultural Theory particularly in the USA say 10 years ago was awash with the analysis on the aesthetics of the body. And it’s frightening because it disassociates itself from a body that sickens and dies.
I am utterly enthralled by Baudrillard’s work and in many ways he did have the last word on a whole host of problems in Foucault’s work. But because he was so disengaged, the elements of care and kindness in Foucault’s life and work remained elusive.
As Infinite thought summarises:
“If we are interested in an idea, or many ideas at once, can we simply pursue these interests (whilst acknowledging what it means to do so) without becoming petty about it? Without reducing it to a choice (which is no choice at all) between top trumps or private property..."
It is two-fold. The seizing of continental philosophy by a kind of adolescent thought which then games out into an Oedipal scenario, and the dismissal of the real by the observer so entrenched in their examination, their view, they have lost all sight of its tangibility.
And it is a problem that Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze grappled with but Baudrillard and Derrida dismissed. The daddy-mentor-slave-master dilemma. Or, that the disciple is not the conduit to truth but a slave in the discourse. And there is nothing more annoying than a shutting down of a debate with, to quote John Searle:
“With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”
I recall vividly a discussion I had as a teenager with an Hegelian disciple who when I began to discuss Foucault would dismiss him along the lines of: “Foucault says nothing that is not in Hegel.” Which is a discussion of real importance but it makes the Hegelian disciple appear as a kind of parvenu. Because in a sense they are literally and figuratively letting themselves down and the whole school down. (And I’m acutely aware of the irony of my attempt to extricate myself from the mentor/pupil relationship by defending Foucault by the way!)
Infinite thought says: “I'm sure that people in much more serious physical trouble - heavy addiction, sickness exacerbated by poverty, those who have suffered bodily abuse - are unlikely to celebrate their oh-so-exciting degradation and would probably prefer access to free, high-quality healthcare. There is something horrible, truly horrible, about people who have access to clean water, enough food and adequate shelter celebrating 'the rot of the flesh' and 'contamination' as if it were sexy. Go and lick open wounds and tube seats if you think it constitutes an interesting philosophical position”.
Which is spot on. Cultural Theory particularly in the USA say 10 years ago was awash with the analysis on the aesthetics of the body. And it’s frightening because it disassociates itself from a body that sickens and dies.
I am utterly enthralled by Baudrillard’s work and in many ways he did have the last word on a whole host of problems in Foucault’s work. But because he was so disengaged, the elements of care and kindness in Foucault’s life and work remained elusive.
As Infinite thought summarises:
“If we are interested in an idea, or many ideas at once, can we simply pursue these interests (whilst acknowledging what it means to do so) without becoming petty about it? Without reducing it to a choice (which is no choice at all) between top trumps or private property..."
Wednesday 10 June 2009
A Review Of Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch
This is an abridged version of a longer piece I have written, but this version will be appearing in the Socialist Worker newspaper next week in the commentary section.
Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch
In 2003 the political commentator David Aaronovitch wrote these words on his position over the Iraq war: "If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere. They probably are."
This neatly summarises the genuine, fundamental, fear people have of an official position given to them by their government. Are we being told the truth? Sometimes this is over potentially laughable issues; UFO’s and so on. But, when the stakes are high, as they are in a decision to go to war, the official position becomes of the gravest importance. Which is why it is so ironic that David Aaronovitch’s “Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History” sometimes feels like a cover-up in itself.
He hosts the book, rather like a proprietor of a freak show, beckoning his punters in with the right blend of empathy and condemnation; pained by the monstrosities he displays, but equally factual as he describes conspiracy theorists’ grotesque failure to resemble reality and nudging, winking, at our need to share in his view of the stereotypical theorist.
Guiding us through familiar but nevertheless interesting territory; Zionist conspiracies, Diana and MI5, Marilyn Monroe, JFK, 9/11, he quite accurately displays the sloppy twisted reasoning and tunnel-vision research that is so often the backbone of many of these theories.
And it is a point well made in many respects. The 9/11 truth campaign is awash with demented scenarios. Some literally believe that Mossad were controlling the planes with a remote control or that the hijackers were on the Rumsfeld pay roll, or that the CIA hijacked the third plane and its inhabitants were taken to a secret destination and were then executed... ad nauseum. But that’s why conspiracy theorists are too soft a target and to tarnish them all with the same brush makes it impossible to distinguish between their two distinct types.
The first type, that probably has no effect in shaping history other than to sell books or films (fake moon landings, Christ’s bloodline) are significantly different from the second (9/11 and 7/7 truthers for example). Because the first type, that would have us believe the Lochness monster fired the shot behind the grassy knoll, is a different breed to the second that, however mistaken in its conclusions, is desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events.
What’s equally frustrating is that he has missed a great opportunity here. A better book would have analysed the JFK assassination as the template for all great conspiracy theories, with its heady blend of secrecy, power, a nation devastated, combined with the media anatomy of an event; who shot from where, who paid who, and then examining how it was all, literally, framed by the Zapruder film which is now the “last witness” as it were, and used by both parties as a corroboration of the Oswald theory or a denial.
Because it is the way that the JFK conspiracy theory transpired, that set the pattern for the methods of the others. A good example is “Loose Change”, the film that is the canon of 9/11 conspiracists, as it borrows hugely from the form of the JFK one. The CNN film is the Zapruder film and for unaccounted buildings disappearing, read puffs of smoke behind the grassy knoll. What is inherent in the irritation that many feel on the left is that when addressing 9/11 the truthers have succumbed to ideas, exotically alluring and, in supposedly unmasking a cover-up, they actually allow the real cover-up to go unchecked.
The real story of 9/11 is a tale of US foreign policy backfiring, with its roots in British and American involvement in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Depending on where one starts. But then in their attempt to challenge the Neocons, the truth movement merely plays into their hands. It creates a canny diversion from answering the question that the families of the dead are so needy for.
At the end of the book Aaronovitch arrives at this conclusion: “If the preceding chapters have demonstrated anything, it must be that conspiracy theories originate and are largely circulated among the educated and the middle-class”.
This is palpably untrue. Conspiracy theories are driven by society as a whole; gossiping tabloids, cloak and dagger civil servants, the inquisitive. It is not a chattering elite trying to fool the working-class into believing something that does not exist.
At its best it is a kind of “Conspiracy Theory for Dummies” and Aaronovitch is certainly no hack and there is definitely a genuine grappling with the whole subject of truth and history. But, at worst, its central thesis - that paranoia shapes the theorists - is flawed and he can’t help but suppress a giggle. And the irony of this scoffing is that, in the light of his own unrepentant taking to task of certain elements of the socialist press who questioned the need to go to war in Iraq, he ascribes paranoia upon the minds that realised from day one the government were lying to us.
This is the idea that eludes him, and the book. 9/11 and 7/7 truthers are not privy to a hidden truth or insane but are merely desperate to bring accountability to governments that they correctly perceive as revelling in an unpalatable art of deception. That the UK is entering a new low in distrust of parliamentary democracy and New Labour are being found out, as we speak, is testimony to the root cause of conspiracy theory.
Aaronovitchs’s book, in attempting to expose the mind of the conspiracy theorist, is nothing more than a perfect mirror for the methods they use. Which is particularly galling because he is trying to obfuscate his own complicity in accepting an official lie by deflecting blame on others.
Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch
In 2003 the political commentator David Aaronovitch wrote these words on his position over the Iraq war: "If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere. They probably are."
This neatly summarises the genuine, fundamental, fear people have of an official position given to them by their government. Are we being told the truth? Sometimes this is over potentially laughable issues; UFO’s and so on. But, when the stakes are high, as they are in a decision to go to war, the official position becomes of the gravest importance. Which is why it is so ironic that David Aaronovitch’s “Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History” sometimes feels like a cover-up in itself.
He hosts the book, rather like a proprietor of a freak show, beckoning his punters in with the right blend of empathy and condemnation; pained by the monstrosities he displays, but equally factual as he describes conspiracy theorists’ grotesque failure to resemble reality and nudging, winking, at our need to share in his view of the stereotypical theorist.
Guiding us through familiar but nevertheless interesting territory; Zionist conspiracies, Diana and MI5, Marilyn Monroe, JFK, 9/11, he quite accurately displays the sloppy twisted reasoning and tunnel-vision research that is so often the backbone of many of these theories.
And it is a point well made in many respects. The 9/11 truth campaign is awash with demented scenarios. Some literally believe that Mossad were controlling the planes with a remote control or that the hijackers were on the Rumsfeld pay roll, or that the CIA hijacked the third plane and its inhabitants were taken to a secret destination and were then executed... ad nauseum. But that’s why conspiracy theorists are too soft a target and to tarnish them all with the same brush makes it impossible to distinguish between their two distinct types.
The first type, that probably has no effect in shaping history other than to sell books or films (fake moon landings, Christ’s bloodline) are significantly different from the second (9/11 and 7/7 truthers for example). Because the first type, that would have us believe the Lochness monster fired the shot behind the grassy knoll, is a different breed to the second that, however mistaken in its conclusions, is desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events.
What’s equally frustrating is that he has missed a great opportunity here. A better book would have analysed the JFK assassination as the template for all great conspiracy theories, with its heady blend of secrecy, power, a nation devastated, combined with the media anatomy of an event; who shot from where, who paid who, and then examining how it was all, literally, framed by the Zapruder film which is now the “last witness” as it were, and used by both parties as a corroboration of the Oswald theory or a denial.
Because it is the way that the JFK conspiracy theory transpired, that set the pattern for the methods of the others. A good example is “Loose Change”, the film that is the canon of 9/11 conspiracists, as it borrows hugely from the form of the JFK one. The CNN film is the Zapruder film and for unaccounted buildings disappearing, read puffs of smoke behind the grassy knoll. What is inherent in the irritation that many feel on the left is that when addressing 9/11 the truthers have succumbed to ideas, exotically alluring and, in supposedly unmasking a cover-up, they actually allow the real cover-up to go unchecked.
The real story of 9/11 is a tale of US foreign policy backfiring, with its roots in British and American involvement in the Middle East for hundreds of years. Depending on where one starts. But then in their attempt to challenge the Neocons, the truth movement merely plays into their hands. It creates a canny diversion from answering the question that the families of the dead are so needy for.
At the end of the book Aaronovitch arrives at this conclusion: “If the preceding chapters have demonstrated anything, it must be that conspiracy theories originate and are largely circulated among the educated and the middle-class”.
This is palpably untrue. Conspiracy theories are driven by society as a whole; gossiping tabloids, cloak and dagger civil servants, the inquisitive. It is not a chattering elite trying to fool the working-class into believing something that does not exist.
At its best it is a kind of “Conspiracy Theory for Dummies” and Aaronovitch is certainly no hack and there is definitely a genuine grappling with the whole subject of truth and history. But, at worst, its central thesis - that paranoia shapes the theorists - is flawed and he can’t help but suppress a giggle. And the irony of this scoffing is that, in the light of his own unrepentant taking to task of certain elements of the socialist press who questioned the need to go to war in Iraq, he ascribes paranoia upon the minds that realised from day one the government were lying to us.
This is the idea that eludes him, and the book. 9/11 and 7/7 truthers are not privy to a hidden truth or insane but are merely desperate to bring accountability to governments that they correctly perceive as revelling in an unpalatable art of deception. That the UK is entering a new low in distrust of parliamentary democracy and New Labour are being found out, as we speak, is testimony to the root cause of conspiracy theory.
Aaronovitchs’s book, in attempting to expose the mind of the conspiracy theorist, is nothing more than a perfect mirror for the methods they use. Which is particularly galling because he is trying to obfuscate his own complicity in accepting an official lie by deflecting blame on others.
Friday 5 June 2009
Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle
All South Park Foucauldians should check out the infinite thought blog as it's pretty much an incredible resource for all us post-cultural studies fumblers. I'm busy knocking out a blast for the SWP on Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories book at the moment so won't be posting for a bit.
Thursday 4 June 2009
Forget Foucault?
There's something odd about this http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-the-spirit-of-terrorism.html Firstly it's parochial. World Cup in France, Diana dying in France. Then the events strike - then 9/11 and I think back to Forget Foucault and the slaughtering Baudrillard gave to the History of Sexuality and I'm paraphrasing because I flogged FF on amazon: "a prose that floats so beautifully above its theory" and it does; it's measured and historical but is Baudrillard not equally guilty in the spirit of Terrorism. I know he made amends in Forget Baud but why was Fouc such a target. Derrida's blast at Madness and Civilization was understandable because he was trapped in the mentor/student relationship with all its Nietzchean context as demonstrated in Deleuze's work. But it's fascinating that so much of the polemics focused on Foucault's work. (I know there were academic differences and Virillio basically said that Discipline and Punish was a rip-off of one of his MA pupils thesis!)
Sorry for the rant but I don't think he gets any justice and neither does Bataille but that's a rant for another day.
Sorry for the rant but I don't think he gets any justice and neither does Bataille but that's a rant for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)