"Deconstruction is for those who find today’s pervasive (intellectual, philosophical, religious and commercial hype) inadequate, limiting and unbearable. The D-bomb is for those who would rather sense every leaf and every grain of sand rather than be mentally blocked into just seeing a predetermined tree or desert. Obviously there are those who prefer and even seek power by limiting your thought processes."*
*Ah, the D-Bomb. The real question here is why, on a Sunday afternoon, I feel compelled to respond to a comment lost somewhere in the trail of waste oozing off the bottom of a fairly convincing article on French Theory by Stanley Fish (http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/french-theory-in-america-part-two/#comment-27729).
He contends that deconstruction does not and could not influence any kind of political stance. The first following comment is a pretentious howler. I skimmed over the rest, but when my eyes landed on some indignant and mystifying scrap, I couldn't help but feel like I was watching a kind of highbrow Jerry Springer show. Fish is praised, questioned, and scorned in varying tones. One commentator accuses his text of being "highly constructed." This vapid invective brought to mind one of the more striking contradictions that appeared to me in my very brief encounter with "the D-Bomb," namely, the trace of a (non[how I loath flagrant misuse of parenthesis])implication that constructivity (Christ, constructedness, constructiveness - how about construction?) might be avoided, when the cultural construction of all "truths" seems so decisively settled. I generally fall in with those that think that politically charged incomprehensibility is not an acceptable end or start point to any kind of discourse.
Anyway, this is a cautionary post for any Derrida virgins (though I didn't get any farther than a little awkward fingerplay) who, on reading the above post, might think that a heavy dose of the "D-bomb" will induce sudden and comprehensive awareness of the Buddha-nature. If you want to feel like you're aware of every grain of sand, I'd recommend LSD and a prolonged camping trip. While the epiphany that all of one's thoughts, preferences and favorite books are mere cultural constructions does have a kind of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure "woah" value, it won't last nearly as long, for the following logical question, "so what do I do," remains stubbornly unanswered. For me, pointing fingers at constructions does not de-do anything to them.
I chose this selection for another reason, (besides the fact that I like deserts, and find the image of a solitary tree breaking a horizon compelling, be it predetermined or not) - it's final attack, echoing through university halls all across the country since this revolution got started. To those who would accuse someone of limiting their thought by not blindly accepting an academic trend- shame on you. Disliking the D-Bomb does not make one a power-hungry reactionary.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
On a Headline
"Hussein Henchman Has Heart Attack"*
*Ah, alliteration in the news. Goodbye, Chemical Ali.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Notes on today's Clarin
Daniel Muchnik writes for Clarin -
"Since the devaluation in the midst of the 2001-2002 collapse, together with the taxes on credits and debts, the "retenciones" initiated in 2002 were a key instrument for the considerable elevation of tax revenue. They were never thought of as an instrument of distribution of revenue but as a collection tool to confront the payment of external debt, a problem that dragged on with persistence and official denial."*
*This change of policy sheds light on the administration's attempt to frame the discourse in fundamental terms. The Pink House (Casa Rosada, the center of executive power in Argentina) defended the export tax on the agricultural sector as a re-distributive intervention of the state, whatever the actual destination of the taxes might be. In framing the discourse as a battle between the state, committed to its duty to share the benefits of growth with the people, and capitalist farmers ,clamoring for a bigger piece of their pie (in Christina's already infamous phrase, "strike of abundance"), they have called into question fundamental issues at play in a capitalist economy together with a populist government. Within these boundaries, the fact that the funds don't go back to the provinces that generated them makes little difference - all must share with all. The ephemeral image of the "small farmer" remains an ambiguous piece of the puzzle. They represent a significant, if lesser, percentage of the producers exporting products, and have played a much larger part in the rhetoric of both groups than a strictly numerical interpretation would merit. Their plight, being hit harder by the export tax than anyone, and the fact that their numbers have been falling sharply in recent years gives them the romantic gloss of a dying breed, and shortly after the strike began, the Kirchner administration announced policy changes favoring producers with less land in an attempt to split the unified base of the protest. In place, these policies recast the principle players in their proper roles - populist government vs. big business. This model doesn't depend on the original intentions of the export taxes; public opinion is a fluid as the changing paradigms of official policy. That was then. However, the generalization inherent in the administration's definition may cost it more than it bargained for:
Alfredu Gutierrez writes for Clarin -
"[Roberto Urquia] is the owner of the 'Aceiteria General Deheza' (AGD), a powerful agricultural holding that supports an entire region of the south of Cordoba. He has investments in other areas and has the franchise of the railroad Central Argentino, the cargo train that moves its produce to the port of Rosario. At first, he took a position almost ambiguous, but all of his friends, neighbors and his constituency are from the area. They made a martyr of him - grafitti, scratches and even a fumigation plane that passed all day in front of his house with a huge sign that flew like a flag: 'Traitor Urkia'. In the end, he leant towards the farmers and asked the suspension of the new export taxes..."*
*Urkia, Senator of Cordoba, is a "kirchnerista". However, the manner with which the administration dealt with the problem puts him in a difficult position - he can stay loyal to his electorate and go against his president (which could have grave consequences for his political future) or he could ignore his responsibility to represent his district and man the party line (which could have grave consequences for his political future). At some point, refusing to deal with the complexities of the issue (not least of which is the presence of kirchnerist officials with strong political and economic ties to the agricultural sector) may not prove worth the rhetorical benefits of a simplistic, two-sided approach to the debate.
**The privilege of being able to frame the debate carries other benefits as well - defining the mainstream positions also defines what radical positions will be effectively excluded from public discourse. One thinks of the almost forgotten disappearing WMD's in Iraq, a cornerstone of the administration's official line. They are irrelevant to the debate on how to move forward with the war. That was then, this is now.
"Since the devaluation in the midst of the 2001-2002 collapse, together with the taxes on credits and debts, the "retenciones" initiated in 2002 were a key instrument for the considerable elevation of tax revenue. They were never thought of as an instrument of distribution of revenue but as a collection tool to confront the payment of external debt, a problem that dragged on with persistence and official denial."*
*This change of policy sheds light on the administration's attempt to frame the discourse in fundamental terms. The Pink House (Casa Rosada, the center of executive power in Argentina) defended the export tax on the agricultural sector as a re-distributive intervention of the state, whatever the actual destination of the taxes might be. In framing the discourse as a battle between the state, committed to its duty to share the benefits of growth with the people, and capitalist farmers ,clamoring for a bigger piece of their pie (in Christina's already infamous phrase, "strike of abundance"), they have called into question fundamental issues at play in a capitalist economy together with a populist government. Within these boundaries, the fact that the funds don't go back to the provinces that generated them makes little difference - all must share with all. The ephemeral image of the "small farmer" remains an ambiguous piece of the puzzle. They represent a significant, if lesser, percentage of the producers exporting products, and have played a much larger part in the rhetoric of both groups than a strictly numerical interpretation would merit. Their plight, being hit harder by the export tax than anyone, and the fact that their numbers have been falling sharply in recent years gives them the romantic gloss of a dying breed, and shortly after the strike began, the Kirchner administration announced policy changes favoring producers with less land in an attempt to split the unified base of the protest. In place, these policies recast the principle players in their proper roles - populist government vs. big business. This model doesn't depend on the original intentions of the export taxes; public opinion is a fluid as the changing paradigms of official policy. That was then. However, the generalization inherent in the administration's definition may cost it more than it bargained for:
Alfredu Gutierrez writes for Clarin -
"[Roberto Urquia] is the owner of the 'Aceiteria General Deheza' (AGD), a powerful agricultural holding that supports an entire region of the south of Cordoba. He has investments in other areas and has the franchise of the railroad Central Argentino, the cargo train that moves its produce to the port of Rosario. At first, he took a position almost ambiguous, but all of his friends, neighbors and his constituency are from the area. They made a martyr of him - grafitti, scratches and even a fumigation plane that passed all day in front of his house with a huge sign that flew like a flag: 'Traitor Urkia'. In the end, he leant towards the farmers and asked the suspension of the new export taxes..."*
*Urkia, Senator of Cordoba, is a "kirchnerista". However, the manner with which the administration dealt with the problem puts him in a difficult position - he can stay loyal to his electorate and go against his president (which could have grave consequences for his political future) or he could ignore his responsibility to represent his district and man the party line (which could have grave consequences for his political future). At some point, refusing to deal with the complexities of the issue (not least of which is the presence of kirchnerist officials with strong political and economic ties to the agricultural sector) may not prove worth the rhetorical benefits of a simplistic, two-sided approach to the debate.
**The privilege of being able to frame the debate carries other benefits as well - defining the mainstream positions also defines what radical positions will be effectively excluded from public discourse. One thinks of the almost forgotten disappearing WMD's in Iraq, a cornerstone of the administration's official line. They are irrelevant to the debate on how to move forward with the war. That was then, this is now.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
On: Tema del Traidor y del Heroe
"From these circular labyrinths he saved a curious proof, a proof that will later amaze him in other more inextricable and heterogeneous labyrinths: certain words of a wanderer who conversed with Fergus Kilpatrick the day of his death, were prefigured by Shakespeare in the tragedy of Macbeth."*
*Borges writes of a historical murder solved by the great grandson of the victim. Literary and historical coincidences become the evidence on which the case turns, as Borges creates a crucible in which fictions mimic reality and vice versa, interweaving and inter-penetrating diverse fields of esotericism, literature, and history. The exact passage from Macbeth becomes clear with the passage below:
"Kilpatrick was ended in a theater, but he also made a theater of the entire city, and the actors were legion, and the drama crowed by his death covered many days and many nights."*
*An indirect invocation of perhaps the most famous (and most cynical) articulation of a popular Renaissance trope: life as theater. The contrast highlights the differences of context and vision apparent in the two - Shakespeare's metaphor personifies multifaceted existence into one actor, indicating perhaps an anthropomorphic vision or that the line's speaker referred only to his own life. In Borges' version, the metaphor is populated, the stage is a city, and defying Shakespeare's "hour", the drama extends through time. The lines from Macbeth -
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And his heard no more.
**I apologize for the clumsy translations.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Notes on the NYTimes coverage of the farm strike in Argentina
Argentina -
For a decent synopsis of the historic stand-off between the government and "el Campo" (a unified front of farmers and agricultural producers across the country -- simple translations like "the farm" or "the country" fail miserably to describe them, so I'll stick to the spanish), click below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/americas/27argentina.html?fta=y
"The strike has led to shortages of meat and dairy products, paralyzed local grain and livestock trade and forced major exporters of Argentine soy products to renege on some contracts. Thousands of people rallied nationwide on Tuesday evening in support of the farmers. The protesters banged on pots outside the presidential palace after the center-left president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, said she would not give in to “extortion.”"*
*Strangely, the article failed to mention the more controversial event surrounding the anti-government protest. After the march arrived in the Plaza de Mayo, a counter-protest led by an ex-functionary of the last Kirchner administration named D'Elia, amassed and attacked the protesters. Fistfights ensued, and the original protesters were forced out of the plaza. It's rumored that the counter-protesters are on the government payroll. The next day, D'Elia publicly announced his "hatred" for the "bitch oligarchy" which he saw embodied in the protesters, who hailed largely from the historically upper-middle class neighborhood Barrio Norte. D'Elia was fired from his last post for being too pro-Chavez, and in this administration and the last, that's saying something.
"Argentina has been one of the world’s main beneficiaries of a global surge in commodities prices. But farmers abhor government measures like export bans and price controls, which are being put into effect to stem inflation and to increase revenue."*
*Alfonso Prat-Gay writes, for La Nacion (opinion) - "The technical sophisms with which the Government tries to convince public opinion must not hide the true motivation of the tax increase. Its been some time since the taxes left off being a financial redistributive mechanism for social policy and transformed into a weapon for the construction of power and political domination of the central government, at the expense of the provinces and in contradiction with our federal principles." Basically, that the money is being used as leverage over impoverished provincial governors, so that they stay within the official line. Why is the purpose of these measures published as a bald statement of fact in the New York Times?
"Ms. Kirchner has said the taxes help redistribute wealth in a country where nearly a quarter of people are poor."*
*Cristina Fernandez' rhetoric has vacillated between tones of recapitulation and outright invective. She has, in her own words, "humbly" asked that the farmers lift the strike; she has also accused the anti-government protesters of being aligned with defenders of genocide. In a charged speech to thousands of "kirchneristas" bussed to the Plaza de Mayo from all over the country this Tuesday, she related the current strike with the lock-out which paved the way for the military coup in 1976 that would assassinate some 30,000 political dissidents. More specifically, she accused "some people" of "wanting to go back" to that time. This did not sit well with the leaders of the agricultural delegation currently in negotiation with the government. Eduardo Buzzi of the Agrarian Federation of Argentina (FAA) responds, also in La Nacion: "And we [also] have exiles and missing persons, and people punished by this process, in Cordona, in Olavarria and in many other places. It's important that those in the Executive Power inform themselves well so that they can define with clarity who was in the coup and who they abducted and exiled."
**Today "el Campo" announced a thirty-day truce, and lifted the roadblocks early this morning. They have also warned that if the government doesn't meet their demands the truce will only be temporary; the Kirchner administration has said that it will not roll back the export tax to its previous level. Supercharged rhetoric aside, I think (I hope) that both parties are seriously invested in the negotiations. A protracted lock-out of basic staples would have wide ranging consequences in the Argentine economy, much more significant than empty meat counters in urban supermarkets, including layoffs and skyrocketing prices of consumer goods, which could cause serious unrest for a very large group of people. What is unclear at this point is whether, if the mass of Argentines effected by the potential lock-out take to the streets, they would fall on the side of the government, or reject it as the party at fault for not negotiating fairly with "el Campo".
For a decent synopsis of the historic stand-off between the government and "el Campo" (a unified front of farmers and agricultural producers across the country -- simple translations like "the farm" or "the country" fail miserably to describe them, so I'll stick to the spanish), click below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/americas/27argentina.html?fta=y
"The strike has led to shortages of meat and dairy products, paralyzed local grain and livestock trade and forced major exporters of Argentine soy products to renege on some contracts. Thousands of people rallied nationwide on Tuesday evening in support of the farmers. The protesters banged on pots outside the presidential palace after the center-left president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, said she would not give in to “extortion.”"*
*Strangely, the article failed to mention the more controversial event surrounding the anti-government protest. After the march arrived in the Plaza de Mayo, a counter-protest led by an ex-functionary of the last Kirchner administration named D'Elia, amassed and attacked the protesters. Fistfights ensued, and the original protesters were forced out of the plaza. It's rumored that the counter-protesters are on the government payroll. The next day, D'Elia publicly announced his "hatred" for the "bitch oligarchy" which he saw embodied in the protesters, who hailed largely from the historically upper-middle class neighborhood Barrio Norte. D'Elia was fired from his last post for being too pro-Chavez, and in this administration and the last, that's saying something.
"Argentina has been one of the world’s main beneficiaries of a global surge in commodities prices. But farmers abhor government measures like export bans and price controls, which are being put into effect to stem inflation and to increase revenue."*
*Alfonso Prat-Gay writes, for La Nacion (opinion) - "The technical sophisms with which the Government tries to convince public opinion must not hide the true motivation of the tax increase. Its been some time since the taxes left off being a financial redistributive mechanism for social policy and transformed into a weapon for the construction of power and political domination of the central government, at the expense of the provinces and in contradiction with our federal principles." Basically, that the money is being used as leverage over impoverished provincial governors, so that they stay within the official line. Why is the purpose of these measures published as a bald statement of fact in the New York Times?
"Ms. Kirchner has said the taxes help redistribute wealth in a country where nearly a quarter of people are poor."*
*Cristina Fernandez' rhetoric has vacillated between tones of recapitulation and outright invective. She has, in her own words, "humbly" asked that the farmers lift the strike; she has also accused the anti-government protesters of being aligned with defenders of genocide. In a charged speech to thousands of "kirchneristas" bussed to the Plaza de Mayo from all over the country this Tuesday, she related the current strike with the lock-out which paved the way for the military coup in 1976 that would assassinate some 30,000 political dissidents. More specifically, she accused "some people" of "wanting to go back" to that time. This did not sit well with the leaders of the agricultural delegation currently in negotiation with the government. Eduardo Buzzi of the Agrarian Federation of Argentina (FAA) responds, also in La Nacion: "And we [also] have exiles and missing persons, and people punished by this process, in Cordona, in Olavarria and in many other places. It's important that those in the Executive Power inform themselves well so that they can define with clarity who was in the coup and who they abducted and exiled."
**Today "el Campo" announced a thirty-day truce, and lifted the roadblocks early this morning. They have also warned that if the government doesn't meet their demands the truce will only be temporary; the Kirchner administration has said that it will not roll back the export tax to its previous level. Supercharged rhetoric aside, I think (I hope) that both parties are seriously invested in the negotiations. A protracted lock-out of basic staples would have wide ranging consequences in the Argentine economy, much more significant than empty meat counters in urban supermarkets, including layoffs and skyrocketing prices of consumer goods, which could cause serious unrest for a very large group of people. What is unclear at this point is whether, if the mass of Argentines effected by the potential lock-out take to the streets, they would fall on the side of the government, or reject it as the party at fault for not negotiating fairly with "el Campo".
A few more changes*
What stared out as an idea for a kind of serial roman a clef has, for some time, been a completely different animal. For the sake of consistency, the layout and mission of the blog need to be redefined. Thanks to any readers who have stayed with me up to this point. I hope you like the new layout and incarnation.
Following posts will be centered around a textual... Well, you'll find out about the following posts, won't you?
Stay tuned.
Following posts will be centered around a textual... Well, you'll find out about the following posts, won't you?
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)