From: "Diane Davis" <d-davis-AT-uiowa.edu>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: re:  Ethics as a figure of nihalism]
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:38:27 -0600


Hugh, I agree with you here:

> the hundreds of thousands of groups of people who live together, go to
> school with, work with each other "in person" are "communities"in the
> traditional sense of the word.
> 
> Our nation, as the "spectacle"  portrayed by communications and
> entertainment industries is not a "community"  in the traditional
sense.
> of the word.  The "spectacle" produces the tyranny of consensus,
infects
> traditional communities, produces conformity in the masses,
> waves of revulsion in some of us. 

But I also want to note that the sense of originary community I was
talking about by referring to Nancy's being-in-common is also not a
community in the traditional sense. Nancy has redefined the term, pulled
it out of its humanist context. He traces the failure of every modern
communal model--liberalism, communism, Christianity, etc.--to the
die-hard notion of human immanence, to an astonishing inability to
imagine a community that does not take off from the self-present subject
who *then* encounters others. Community in the traditional sense is
defined precisely by a constitutive outside that doesn't make the cut.
It includes by virtue of exclusion.  Nancy takes another tack; he's
talking about a very different, radically passive, originary community
from which the subject would have to extract itself in order then to go
about "building" or "producing" traditional communities--communities
defined by and as their work(s). 

So again, the question I would pose is how society (which is not the
same as community) might organize itself in way that would not
immediately efface this originary community, in a way, again, that would
avoid the question of essence without nixing the possibility for
solidarity; in a way that would assume the task, among other things, of
continually exposing an originary non-belonging that precedes any/every
*condition* of belonging. 

Best, ddd
___________________________________________
  D. Diane Davis
  Rhetoric and Composition (UT Mail Code B5500)
  University of Texas at Austin 
  Austin, TX 78712-1122 

  Office: 512.471.8765  FAX: 512.471.4353
  ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu
  http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of hbone
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:06 PM
> To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: re: Ethics as a figure of nihalism]
> 
> Diane/All,
> 
> "tryranny of consensus" - there's a nice phrase.
> 
> I replied to Steve with some thoughts about "community", and the word
has so
> many meanings it becomes a problem.
> 
> Distinctions are needed.  I share your opinion of the politicians, and
> the media.  I was unaware of the Lynne Cheney incident - but it seems
stupid
> to attack academics on these matters.
> 
> Our nation is its people and its government, its military, its
billionaires,
> especially  as it is seen by other nations.
> 
> But the hundreds of thousands of groups of people who live together,
go to
> school with, work with each other "in person" are "communities"in the
> traditional sense of the word.
> 
> Our nation, as the "spectacle"  portrayed by communications and
> entertainment industries is not a "community"  in the traditional
sense.
> of the word.  The "spectacle" produces the tyranny of consensus,
infects
> traditional communities, produces conformity in the masses,
> waves of revulsion in some of us.
> 
> The "people" are not their government.  "Real" communities are local.
> Unfortunately, half of them have deserted the democratic process,
refuse to
> register and vote, allow plutocratic rule by those who finance
camaigns and
> make deals with perennial incumbents.
> 
> The U.S. as "Empire", (plutocracy in action)  is trying to force
"democracy"
> on the rest of the world, but it would oppose any nation-state that
achieved
> power for its small communities, ended financial penetration and
> exploitation of its people and resources.
> by other nations.
> 
> And why not?  When the practice of these abuses
> of its own citizens in its own small communities has been so
successful, a
> deception achieved under the slogans of  a "democracy" that no longer
> exists.?
> 
> regards,
> Hugh
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> > A few years ago I was on the search committee in my dept, and we
brought
> > in a candidate who used the term "community" in every other
sentence.
> > When I got my one-on-one meeting with him, I asked him what he meant
by
> > this term. He waffled, smiled, blushed, and said something like:
> > "um....well, you know, it's really hard to define...but it's one of
the
> > few concepts that doesn't have any negative connotations--no one can
say
> > anything bad about community." I was thinking: wow, those were the
> > days--before psychoanalysis, feminist theory, poco theory,
> > post-structuralism, deconstruction, etc. He didn't get the job.
> >
> > But steve, though I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I
do
> > think I would add a little texture to it or something. I think that
it's
> > possible to experience community, to suddenly experience it through
all
> > the oppressive crap (not just consumerism's crap, either). Today I
> > noticed out my kitchen window this giant SUV proudly displaying the
> > typical post-911 kitsch: an American flag and a big passenger side
> > window sticker saying, in bolded caps, UNITED WE STAND! And it hit
me
> > that in the first moments/hours/days after the 911 tragedy, that
phrase
> > seemed descriptive, a genuine attempt somehow to express the
> > inexpressible, to indicate the overwhelming feeling of concern and
care
> > and support for one another that "we" were suddenly experiencing,
the
> > urge or imperative to pull together locally and nationally. This had
> > nothing to do with consumerism and at that early point very little
to do
> > with nationalism (though, I do think nationalism may have imposed
some
> > limits to the experience). And the news media was as dumb-struck as
the
> > rest of us; it was their dream story, but they were caught totally
off
> > guard and were scrambling around, stuttering, stammering, giving
> > unprepped, unpolished accounts of what they saw or heard. The
spectacle
> > machine that's usually so smoooooth and sleek, bumbled and fumbled.
> > Nobody knew what they were doing. And/but still this experience of
> > community, of being-in-common, as nancy puts it, was palpable. We
had
> > very suddenly and very violently been reintroduced to something that
> > most of "us" have a tendency to forget: that we are indeed fragile,
that
> > we are finite after all. And the experience of finitude *is* the
> > experience of community, the experience of sharing a mortal and
singular
> > (unsharable) existence.
> >
> > That lasted for about 48 hours in most of the country, I'd guess.
Longer
> > in NYC. And then...then "we" forgot again precisely what we'd just
> > relearned. The radically passive and depropriating experience of
> > finitude, of community, gave way to the reassertion of identity and
> > sovereignty, in all its nasty forms. You're with us or against us.
The
> > damn flag became a big money-maker. And this morning that
phrase--UNITED
> > WE STAND!--exclamation-pointed as it was, struck me not as a
descriptive
> > but as a prescriptive, as a command. Especially after lynn cheney's
> > goons at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni put out that
> > McCarthy-ish report citing academics as the "weak link," etc. A kind
of
> > tyranny of consensus now runs rampant in the so-called land of the
free
> > to an extent that I haven't experienced in my lifetime--evidencing
yet
> > again the incredibly shitty side of "community," the fact that the
> > experience of being-in-common is obliterated in the very instant a
> > project is established by which that community might define and
express
> > itself (in this case revenge is the major project: war). By which it
> > might include and exclude. Meanwhile, consumerism came rushing back
with
> > unbelievable force, backed as it was this time by nationalism--or,
> > excuse me, (ahem) patriotism: Buy a gas-guzzling SUV and support
your
> > country's economy!!! No interest for a whole year! Etc.
> >
> > The question for me, though, is not so much how to "win" against
> > consumerism b/c I think we just saw that the latter in fact does
fall
> > off the register when "we" are exposed to our irreparable finitude.
I
> > don't think it's primarily a problem of the loss of common myths,
> > either--myths tend always to be associated with the establishment of
> > some kind of Volk. The question for me, rather, is how to hold onto
the
> > intensity equal to the level of death, as bataille put it, which the
> > experience of sharing-existence demands, without resorting to
violence
> > and sacrifice to do it.
> >
> > Best, ddd
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> >   D. Diane Davis
> >   Rhetoric and Composition (UT Mail Code B5500)
> >   University of Texas at Austin
> >   Austin, TX 78712-1122
> >
> >   Office: 512.471.8765  FAX: 512.471.4353
> >   ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu
> >   http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~davis
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> > > lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of steve.devos
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 5:06 AM
> > > To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: re: Ethics as a figure of nihalism]
> > >
> > >
> > > Mal
> > >
> > > the issue started because of Hugh's belief in communuties having
some
> > > value and worth
> > >
> > > "... a continuity of personal relationships and institutional
support
> > > for those relationships  they affect significant others, parents
and
> > > children, extended families, tribes, communities."
> > >
> > > Given that the structure of the communities in question, and
perhaps
> > if
> > > I used the equally specular but different communities of this side
of
> > > the atlantic it would have been clearer, is predominantly one that
> > > oppresses and excludes rather than includes and liberates. In this
> > > specific society community is used to place the human subject into
a
> > > place where they belong. In previous, equally unpleasent
societies, a
> > > common language placed the subject into its community,  but now
the
> > > commodity spectacle constructs an artificial reconstruction of
> > > community.  Our societies have lost the community that the common
> > > language, the myths had been able to maintain. In place of the
> > > unpleasent communities founded on death and sacrifice, our
communities
> > > are founded on commodification, spectacle and division. The
divided
> > >  nature of our communities constitutes them as inactive because
the
> > > common language of community is derived from its commodification.
> > >
> > > False communities and neighbourhoods are generated everywhere -
for
> > > example - at work 'teams' and 'communities' are built to enable
the
> > > business to maximise its use of human resources through the false
> > > community it constructs. The currently suspended (because of 911)
> > > refugee and economic migrant issue in europe, is founded on the
myth
> > of
> > > refugees and migrants being welcomed and this being a society
which
> > > tolerates difference. The reality is of course different for the
> > > spectacle uses the former myth to hide the oppression of
difference.
> > The
> > > use and glorification of redundent and oppressive cultural norms
based
> > > on cultural, racial, sexual and local stereotypes is normal.
> > >
> > > If 'community' is being used to oppress and control - which is the
> > > result of the excessive commodification - then on a day to day
basis
> > we
> > > need to be careful before we accept the idea that it is in itself
a
> > > positive value...
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > > steve
> >
>