|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
France266 Posts
On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level. Also in this case of course a minority among minorities (burqini wearers) is used to 'discipline' all of the Muslim population just to enforce 'secularism' in the public sphere. That's just not how people want to live any more. They don't want to hide their identity when they leave their house.
French islamists failing to challenge the cornerstones of our society doesn't mean that muslims as a whole are deprived of representation. A majority of French muslims (most of them being culturally muslim, not really observant) f*cking hate the islamists, and see no issue in our democratic institutions. The troublesome minority that cries foul is the one that don't want to engage in a meaningful dialogue, and expect the society to cater to their desires.
In France, securalism is concomitant to the rule of law and to the concept of democracy. There is no getting one of these items without getting the others. If secularism is too much to handle to some people, then they should reconsider wether they belong in this country or not.
On August 15 2016 06:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 06:32 Nyxisto wrote:On August 15 2016 04:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
"A swimsuit ostentatiously demonstrating a religious affiliation, while France and places of religious worship are presently the target of terrorist attacks, is likely to create risks of disturbances to public order (gatherings, scuffles, etc.) which it is necessary to prevent."
This ruling, in other words, has a "social" justification rather than one derived from notions of "personal" culpability which Nyxisto believes to be the true fountain of justice:
Then punish the male relatives, because they're the ones committing a crime in that case. This is the same victim blaming logic that happens when people say "I want to ban the burqa because it oppresses women". how about punishing the people who actually oppress the women?
Since I have already been accused of pretentious quotation, I will do no better than the ultimate pretension of quoting from myself:
WhiteDog is French, not German. For him social realities, even in his sociological abstractions, is still a different tier of reality from personal realities, and indeed, for him the social takes precedence over the personal, whereas German culture and especially German literature is inclined to teach the reverse. Yes sure, I think the law in the end should be personal and impartial. Wielding the state and the law like a weapon for culture wars is problematic and corrupts the whole thing. If there's social disagreement about the role of women, public dressing and so on a courtroom isn't the right place to have that battle. Especially if it's, like it is in this case, a majority imposing their ideas on a minority who has no real representation to even defend themselves on the institutional level. In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
This, so much this. If you (non-French) guys want to make sense about our societal disdain of multiculturalism, then you ought to keep this in mind.
On August 15 2016 06:44 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think this kind of anti-communitarianism can survive today. People want to express their religion, sexual identities and so on not only in their private homes but also in public as long as you're not directly hurting anybody else. Minorities don't trust 'the system' to work for them. It's why Bernie lost every minority vote in the US. They don't want grant solutions and to control 'the system' or whatever. They've been on the receiving end for a little too long.
French society has no problem with its citizens expressing their identities (within the boundaries of the law). We are as cosmopolitan as it gets. But segregating oneself and demanding special rights while demeaning women, sexual minorities, religious minorities and non-believers is a big no. It will never ever stick in our society.
On August 15 2016 06:55 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 05:44 Koorb wrote:
1) Yes, the burkini is a blatant, "in your face", symbol of wahhabi islamism. This is widely recognized, even in the muslim world.
2) Nonsense. I don't even see where you are headed with this. 1) Must be why it was created by some stylist in Australia so that some women could work at the beach. Skin-tight garments which don't hide the face and allow you to go to a mixed location with lots of semi-naked people around doesn't sound like the very symbol of wahhabism. 2) Just applied your logic to a similar situation, which indeed resulted in nonsense—we agree on that.
1) If you truly believe that the popularity of islamic garments in the muslim world and the west has nothing to do with wahhabism hijacking islam worldwide, then you are delusionnal. And you should really, REALLY ask yourself wether you are arguing with your guts or with your reason on this topic.
2) No, you didn't. My logic was that women wearing niqab or burkini do pose public order concerns, because they and/or their relatives often act violently toward non-muslims who interact with them. How is that the same that saying that muslims should be blamed when they are victim of arson ?
On August 15 2016 06:55 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 05:44 Koorb wrote:
The French society wins a decisive fight everytime it makes clear to wahhabite and salafite pieces of shit that they won't shape our society like they do in most of the muslim world nowadays. And if a few misguided little soldier of islamism get deprived of their summer day in the process, so be it. These women weren't banned of the public space, they segregated themselves from the rest of us. “Little soldiers of islamism” … So typical of this paranoid panic moral which sees pretty much any Muslim stuff as the insidious activity of some dormant agents “among us”; guess another interior enemy had to fill the gap when the USSR collapsed, eh? The way you dehumanize those women and assume they automatically have some kind of evil political agenda is pretty scary. “They segregated themselves from the rest of us”: sure, that's why they wear specific clothes to feel comfortable enough to go to the beach with other people around. Because they actually don't want to be with said other people. It all makes sense! And to fight wahhabism, instead of banning burkinis on a few beaches, you stop cooperation with Saudi Arabia, you stop selling them weapons which are then used to massacre Yemenis, you stop decorating their officials, … Of course relevant measures actually cost something (billions actually, hence why corrupt politicians won't take them), as opposed to the free good old method of using an already discriminated minority as a scapegoat.
Jesus Christ, now you sound like a columnist of Libération or l'Humanité ;-)
As I said in my previous post, I consider that these women are misguided, hence that they don't have an evil agenda, as you put it. But they are the useful idiots of whatever islamic prick indoctrinate them, and they do harm the society.
|
On August 15 2016 07:59 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +And no we do not agree. I don't believe the republic to be an ideology similarly to a religion or a political belief. Its first and foremost a set of institutions ; it's more of a church than a religion if you prefer. Every modern state which has a constitution with a preamble states the intellectual defense of its existence within that preamble. And whether the legal constitution is the alpha or the omega is irrelevant, for the conflicts being discussed in the Burkini ban law are highly related to a political belief about the relationship of minority communities to general society; therefore if you believe that ideology is something detached from the nature of The Republic, then any discussion of The Republic is irrelevant as such, in the context of this debate. If on the other hand, one voluntarily brings questions of national character into this debate, as you have done, then the the ideological character of the state is de facto acknowledged by its very inclusion in the argument.
Nothing is complety detached from ideology, and yes it's most likely the ideological substructure of the republic that explains its differences with other form of government - and that define its relationship with "communities". The point was that it is not similar to a religion - one is transcendant while the other is immanent. Your usage of the term ideology actually drown the subject because a set of beliefs and customs that define itself as revealed truth is not at all similar to a set of institutions designed to manage conflicts and distribute powers in a society.
The second is designed as a way to achieve individual freedom, manage the daily routine of the life of the city and has no necessary conflict with religious authorities (as long as they respect "the law of the land"), the other, in the case of salafism or wahabism (which promote the burka and all that), is designed as a superior principle and actually dictate a set of institutions that are directly in conflict with all other form of government - not just the french republic (thus wearing the burka is not simply the expression of a "simple desire for independance", it could very well be described as an act of conquest).
|
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you probably mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
|
On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom.
|
On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom.
Are you claiming that Muslim women in their twenties or thirties, who previously having dressed like other children/young adults, suddenly adopted the Burqa due to a recent fashion revolution within Muslim communities?
|
On August 15 2016 09:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. Are you claiming that Muslim women in their twenties or thirties, who previously having dressed like other children/young adults, suddenly adopted the Burqa due to a recent fashion revolution within Muslim communities?
More or less yes. Oftentime they were dressed like other children for french born muslim, or they had the veil, not the burka. The burka is a very marginal behavior, and a new one. It has a political motive, not a religious one (as long as you can split the two).
Mind you, a big part of the young french born muslim people are more "traditionalist" and practice way more than their parents - or at least more openly.
It is very different from the veil.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
That's partly true tho. The next post I specifically point out the benefice that this one community vision has, in regard to the way we used to treat minorities that were citizens. What I was saying with the "it might be a mistake" was not that it unethical, or a-ethical, but rather that it was one solution amongst others, that also created suffering, and that I have no objective way to assure any solution is morally superior.
|
On August 15 2016 09:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. Are you claiming that Muslim women in their twenties or thirties, who previously having dressed like other children/young adults, suddenly adopted the Burqa due to a recent fashion revolution within Muslim communities? More or less yes. Oftentime they were dressed like other children for french born muslim, or they had the veil, not the burka. The burka is a very marginal behavior, and a new one. It has a political motive, not a religious one (as long as you can split the two). Mind you, a big part of the young french born muslim people are more "traditionalist" and practice way more than their parents - or at least more openly.
The Burkini is more like a Hijab than a Burqa, and I presume that the women who adopt this kind of swimwear on the beaches of Nice are those from the general Hijab-wearing community, and not only those with the more complete coverings.
The question must be raised though: if it's true that within these communities, the younger are more "traditionalist" than their parents, and they grow more traditionalist as they grow older, then their traditionalism is not actually the result of organic tradition, but of a reconstructed tradition, in which case, the logic of the "justification via continuity" fails as a parallel to the more muddled circumstances in which this kind of ambiguous traditionalism is transpiring.
If one expanded the logic of self-defense via tradition to the whole of French history however, the parallel can still be pursued, because the Republican myth too, is a reconstructed tradition which is not directly descended from 1789. The constitution of the Fifth Republic invokes the spirit of the Grand Revolution, but between that Grand Revolution and modern France, there is very little ideological continuity in between; between the Napoleonic Wars until 1871, there was no republic in France, and the Third Republic was a constitutional accident set up by French monarchists. Although Republicanism survived as a political ideology/faction in the 19th century, it never achieved the kind of mythological, nation-building consensus it does today, whereby all major French parties invoke the values of 1789. Republicanism was sidelined for a long time in France as an ideological force, and it was the younger generations in the 20th century who revived it via mythological selection.
|
On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom.
I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers.
|
On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers.
When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world".
I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect.
On August 15 2016 10:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 09:32 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. Are you claiming that Muslim women in their twenties or thirties, who previously having dressed like other children/young adults, suddenly adopted the Burqa due to a recent fashion revolution within Muslim communities? More or less yes. Oftentime they were dressed like other children for french born muslim, or they had the veil, not the burka. The burka is a very marginal behavior, and a new one. It has a political motive, not a religious one (as long as you can split the two). Mind you, a big part of the young french born muslim people are more "traditionalist" and practice way more than their parents - or at least more openly. The Burkini is more like a Hijab than a Burqa, and I presume that the women who adopt this kind of swimwear on the beaches of Nice are those from the general Hijab-wearing community, and not only those with the more complete coverings. The question must be raised though: if it's true that within these communities, the younger are more "traditionalist" than their parents, and they grow more traditionalist as they grow older, then their traditionalism is not actually the result of organic tradition, but of a reconstructed tradition, in which case, the logic of the "justification via continuity" fails as a parallel to the more muddled circumstances in which this kind of ambiguous traditionalism is transpiring. If one expanded the logic of self-defense via tradition to the whole of French history however, the parallel can still be pursued, because the Republican myth too, is a reconstructed tradition which is not directly descended from 1789. The constitution of the Fifth Republic invokes the spirit of the Grand Revolution, but between that Grand Revolution and modern France, there is very little ideological continuity in between; between the Napoleonic Wars until 1871, there was no republic in France, and the Third Republic was a constitutional accident set up by French monarchists. Although Republicanism survived as a political ideology/faction in the 19th century, it never achieved the kind of mythological, nation-building consensus it does today, whereby all major French parties invoke the values of 1789. Republicanism was sidelined for a long time in France as an ideological force, and it was the younger generations in the 20th century who revived it via mythological selection.
Except if it is defense against the french history, how do you explain that the same process exist in other countries such as Algeria, Tunisia or Mauritania. What I'm saying is that what you are saying might be true to a certain extent - monocausal explanation are often wrong - and the surge in muslim practicians might be an indirect result of the french ideology of the unique community. But at the same time, any kind of argument that does not put this problem in the broader context of islam just fail short.
This broader context is that of the complete disappearance of any kind of secularism in the arabic world, enlighted by the loss of influence of all the egyptian based islamic interpretations in favor of the saoudian interpretations and its two distinct form - quietist salafism and wahhabism (even the muslim brotherhood, which was egyptian based but completly marginal in egypt during Nasser, is relatively weak today). And this culture war, inside islam, has been waged in many place and especially in the northern and saharian africa (in various forms of course), where many indigeneous cultures (which were already islamic, but diverse) slowly disappeared in favor of those doctrines - which is why I said the burka was foreign imposition akin to a conquest rather than a defense of tradition.
To summary, there are many dynamics, one of those dynamic is specific to the muslim world. Incriminating the french laïcité is, to me, very lackluster. It's not just the west that is colonizing the mind of "muslim" populations (here the term muslim is actually unsufficient to describe the diversity of culture), it's also the east.
Ho and about French Republicanism, it's a thing of the XIXth century, not of the revolution, for that we agree.
|
I mean even if you completely buy into this Republican idea using a hammer as a means is all wrong. The US seems much more successful to get people to like the American idea by letting them do stuff their way while still keeping some common identity. The British recruited Sikhs ino their army and they could even keep their kickass Turbans and swords!
Also again I think the discrepancy needs to be emphasized. When the autonomous left sets cars on fire that's great, but when someone wears a burqini the fun is over. It's really, really problematic that someone outside of the group of Muslims declares their customs to be a 'sign of conquest'.
|
On August 15 2016 10:56 Nyxisto wrote:
I mean even if you completely buy into this Republican idea using a hammer as a means is all wrong. The US seems much more successful to get people to like the American idea by letting them do stuff their way while still keeping some common identity. The British recruited Sikhs ino their army and they could even keep their kickass Turbans and swords!
Also again I think the discrepancy needs to be emphasized. When the autonomous left sets cars on fire that's great, but when someone wears a burqini the fun is over. It's really, really problematic that someone outside of the group of Muslims declares their customs to be a 'sign of conquest'.
Not sure that's true. If you look at the UK, which is pretty close to the US in terms of actual policy, the integration of their muslim population is not better than the french. In fact France famously has a very high degree of mixed mariage, while those kind of mariage are very marginal in the UK for some specific communities (muslim in particular, especially pakistanese if I reckon).
A source just to show I'm not talking out of my ass :
The research also hints that Britain may have less immigrant assimilation than it sometimes imagines. Britain has somewhat fewer mixed marriages than France. The difference is not great but 8.8% of British marriages include a foreign-born spouse compared with 11.8% in France. Mixed marriages as a share of the total population of marriageable age are also lower in Britain (4.2%) than in France (5.6%). The difference seems to be concentrated among immigrant men. Foreign-born British men are much less likely to marry a local woman than foreign-born French men are. Only 28% of married British men born abroad are married to native-born British women, compared with 39% of married foreign-born French men. The explanation may be to do with Britain’s unusually open labour market, rather than the extent of immigrant assimilation (the labour market allows foreign men working in Britain to bring their families with them, skewing the figures). But whatever the reason, the result is that Britain has fewer mixed marriages than one might have expected. It is in the middle of the European range, not (as it might have been thought) nearer the top, along with France and Germany.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/07/mixed-marriages
And I actually wrote an article (in french) on the autonomous left to argue that they shouldn't burn car stupidly and should stop their black bloc tactics. So I disagree.
|
On August 15 2016 10:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers. When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world". I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect.
So isn't islamo-fascism an opposing power?
|
On August 15 2016 11:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 10:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers. When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world". I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect. So isn't islamo-fascism an opposing power?
I believe so. You could even argue that any kind of religion is an opposing power according to Marx no ? "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Damn I didn't work due to this discussion and now I feel bad. Good night peeps.
|
I'm not saying that France "caused" the upswing of Islamic traditionalism across the world, merely that the logic by which French state ideology was defended here may be applied to a number of other ideologies.
I have argued in the past, that the Islamic Revolutionary movements such as those types which emerged out of Iran or Saudi Arabia in the past two generations must be regarded as manifestations of modernity in local contexts. Due to rapid urbanisation in the Arab World, due to the sudden arrival of mass mobility and the consequent social displacement it has engendered, Islam has become more prominent in the psychology of identity than it ever attained in traditionalist, tribal cultures. The disappearance of secular nationalism in the Arab World and its displacement by Islamic Revolutionary ideology is engendered by the democratisation of the Arab World, and although it is not a democratisation along Western constitutional models, it comes from the same shift of consciousness as the western historical experience.
|
Liberation theology isn't a new thing and I guess it's important to recognize that the resurgence of Islam among third generation immigrants is probably an outlet for a lot of frustration that has build up over the recent years. It's often simply an act of rebellion and not even religious in itself.
|
On August 15 2016 11:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 11:05 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 10:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers. When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world". I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect. So isn't islamo-fascism an opposing power? I believe so. You could even argue that any kind of religion is an opposing power according to Marx no ? " Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Then what does this mean?
When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world".
Foucauldian power struggle is not restricted to class only, yes? So why not embrace the violence inherent in struggle between French republicanism and islamo-fascism?
|
The thing about Western Revolutions though, is that most of them were true revolutions in the literal sense, i.e. a nation going in a political circle, ex. going from traditional monarchy -> constitutional monarchy -> republican democracy -> radical democracy -> anarchy -> oligarchy -> military rule -> military dictatorship -> empire -> back to traditional monarchy (in the case of the French Revolution)
The Islamic Revolution on the other hand is not particular about the form of government under which it operates, which makes it not a Revolution at all in the classical political sense. Although Iran and Saudi Arabia are both authoritarian regimes (Iran has a formally Republican constitution which apparently grants the population the most elections in the world, and Saudi Arabia is theoretically an absolute monarchy) the core aim of the Revolution is not the imposition of a particular power or social structure, but the creation of a political system which acts as the guardian of a specific interpretation of Islamic law, and which derives its legitimacy from its guardianship of these laws. The laws themselves are pontificated upon by a clique of Islamic scholars and judges, and it is they, and not the King of Saudi Arabia, who perform what might be considered legislative functions within that kingdom.
|
On August 15 2016 11:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 11:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 11:05 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 10:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers. When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world". I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect. So isn't islamo-fascism an opposing power? I believe so. You could even argue that any kind of religion is an opposing power according to Marx no ? " Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Then what does this mean?
When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world".
Foucauldian power struggle is not restricted to class only, yes? So why not embrace the violence inherent in struggle between French republicanism and islamo-fascism?
Wonderful question.
When you think in foucauldian terms, you only think about "power". To Foucault power has a "productivity" and is basically "everywhere", at every moment. There are powers and what we call "the power" is, to Foucault, nothing but a nominalist term that refer to a "complex strategic situation" at a certain time. Power is omnipresent, and is not negative nor repressive ; it is. And this difuse character of power means, to Foucault, that there are a lot of various place of "resistance" to what we call "the" power, which could be defined as the set of norms and institutions that exist at the moment.
It's not about defining what is good or fighting was is wrong, it is about fighting "the" power, the current situation, with the various powers that exist in the society. Such political philosophy lead to the diversification of political fights, as all possible powers, in the right moment, can be "productive" and permit progress (to him, anything can be good for resistance, from neoliberalism to islam). The expression of one's identity is seen, in this regard, as a form of resistance (it is a very individualist vision of politics by the way).
I think this kind of philosophy has a lot of relation with things like Hakim Bey's autonomous i don't remember what zones and all the weird ass queer/feminists fights (Butler for sure, but at least I respect this kind of feminism when it appeared) like Preciado's Testo Junkie (that I find disgusting). It also lead Foucault to an ever progressive stance, where every possible power is beneficial as long as it goes against the status quo (and his disciples are tracking all form of conservatism everywhere like it's very bad bad bad, people like Geoffrey de la Gasnerie in France - what Jean Claude Michéa call the Orphean Complex).
Now from where I stand - which is the position of a dinosaure to foucauldian - by focusing this way on powers Foucault has effectively ejected morals out of politics (which explains why he can think that the islam in Iran is actually a potential revolutionary power for the west). Marx, on the other side, was not fighting against the power of the bourgeoisie like Foucault said, he was fighting against alienation and to build a world "fit for mankind" - something you can forget only if you actually subscribe to the flawed idea of Althusser's epistemological ceasure. So Marx's motivations were moral, and I believe politics can't exist without morals (a certain vision of what is good and bad for men). It's not about tearing down what "is", whatever it is, it's about changing what's morally wrong and protect what is dying. This is why, to Marx, religion is a renversed conciousness of the world, because it's some kind of illusion (due to the consumption of opium, the metaphore is quite beautiful) that makes you struggle for something (the afterlife ?) that does not exist (at least not in this life), and by doing so you actually permit the reproduction of what is the true source of your suffering (the exploitation and the alienation).
More than that I believe the traditionnal anarchist / communist / socialist movement was not progressive, but very conservative in part, and I am myself very conservative in some aspect (for the environment for exemple). This is why many modern anarchist see the people, the worker class, as a political ennemy - the working class has always been "conservative and rebel" to quote Thompson.
Orwell is much better guide for socialism that Foucault will ever be. There are other problems with Foucault from my point of view but it's already boring to read as it is so I'll not add anything.
So to summerize, I think the ideology of islam is not a moral progress and I don't care that it has a revolutionary potential, because the world that they would give birth to should they come in power would not be "better".
|
On August 15 2016 12:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2016 11:28 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 11:10 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 11:05 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 10:40 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 10:32 IgnE wrote:On August 15 2016 09:25 WhiteDog wrote:On August 15 2016 09:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yes, once again, you repeated exactly what I interpreted your core argument to be:
"The argument then, is not about the inherent logic within the justification, but about the assertion of supremacy of state/social interest (or as Rousseau might call it, the volonté générale) over any assertions of independence by its constituent members."
Which I take to be a fair summary of your position. This was not however, the argument to which I raised the issue of parallelism of "right to self-preservation" between the state and religious minority in question. The assertion was rather based on your logic as expressed in the following statement:
In France, we have a very important principle which is that the country only recognize one community. In the face of history it might be a mistake, as it was achieved through the complete domination of all minorities, but that's how we came to be.
By "France" here you either mean the aforementioned set of republican institutions, in which case, either you believe that all republics "only recognize one community," or you are asserting that France is a special republic which "recognizes one community," in which case you are identifying the French Republic with an ideology particular to herself.
Secondly, you realise that this recognition of only one community is a historical, rather than an ethical proposition, i.e. "it might be a mistake," "but that's how we came to be." Therefore, your defense of the "one community" ideology of the French Republic has no ethical component; it has nothing to do with transcendent vs immanent values, nor with the justification of its character as an absolute necessity to freedom, peace, or the resolution of civil conflicts, since, I presume, that you agree that other states who do not have the policy of France, have their own methods of guaranteeing the same benefits.
Your defense of the "one community" character of the French Republic was based on historical succession: "That's the way we were born as a country, so that's the way we are." It is that argument, and that argument alone which can be applied to the woman who continues to wear the thing that she has since the day that she was born, just as well as to France, and it is that argument alone to which my parallel was applied.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I did not disagree with your description of the Republic you are totally right. What I disagreed with is the equivalency you made between this description of the republic and the act of a very small minority that wear the burka or the burkini. And again you don't understand that the people who wear the burka did not wear it since they were born ... It's a rather new thing, that did not exist ten or twenty years ago. It's not the defence of an old custom. I think you are showing your liberal bourgeois roots. Just own the inherent conflict in opposed powers. When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world". I think one of the few actual qualities of communism in its actual political form (putting aside theory) was the fact that it permitted many generations to go past their racial identity and find a common ground, which explains why so many jews became communists (and one of the reason why the communist party could never actually exist as a strong political movement in the US is the fact that its entire politics is completly structured around race). This is actually slightly discussed by Richard Sennett in his book Respect. So isn't islamo-fascism an opposing power? I believe so. You could even argue that any kind of religion is an opposing power according to Marx no ? " Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Then what does this mean?
When it's class struggle yeah, not when the conflicts are based around race or religious. The "renversed conciousness of the world".
Foucauldian power struggle is not restricted to class only, yes? So why not embrace the violence inherent in struggle between French republicanism and islamo-fascism? When you think in foucauldian terms, you only think about "power". To Foucault power has a "productivity" and is basically "everywhere", at every moment. There are powers and what we call "the power" is, to Foucault, nothing but a nominalist term that refer to a "complex strategic situation" at a certain time. Power is omnipresent, and is not negative nor repressive ; it is. And this difuse character of power means, to Foucault, that there are a lot of various place of "resistance" to what we call "the" power, which could be defined as the set of norms and institutions that exist at the moment. It's not about defining what is good or fighting was is wrong, it is about fighting "the" power, the current situation, with the various powers that exist in the society. Such political philosophy lead to the diversification of political fights, as all possible powers, in the right moment, can be "productive" and permit progress (to him, anything can be good for resistance, from neoliberalism to islam). The expression of one's identity is seen, in this regard, as a form of resistance (it is a very individualist vision of politics by the way). [. . .] So to summerize, I think the ideology of islam is not a moral progress and I don't care that it has a revolutionary potential, because the world that they would give birth to should they come in power would not be "better".
Foucauldian conceptions can be useful without requiring the ethical maneuver that you describe here of amoralizing the struggle between competing knowledges/norms/institutions. For one they acknowledge the violence intrinsic to resistance, which some liberals seem keen to ignore.
|
This is why, to Marx, religion is a renversed conciousness of the world, because it's some kind of illusion (due to the consumption of opium, the metaphore is quite beautiful) that makes you struggle for something (the afterlife ?) that does not exist (at least not in this life), and by doing so you actually permit the reproduction of what is the true source of your suffering (the exploitation and the alienation).
Marx hates religion because for him the proof of truth lies in power through action, whereas the ideal reflection of man through religion presents him with a contemplative truth immune to both action and power, which for Marx is synonymous with a lie (or at best a scholastic truth.) Marx hates religion for the exact same reason that the poor have always loved it. The difference in their ethical valuations of the same phenomenon is entirely arbitrary; unless you are on the same page as Marx when he identifies the "real" with the "good," of "illusory" with "bad," and when he's essentially a materialist when addressing the mind-body problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
