|
June 17, 2005
All resemblances are not equal!
Speaking of fascism, and interpretations, Dick Durbin knows fascism when he sees it. Fascism involves "extremely cold air-conditioning" and "loud rap music." (And if you think that's bad, not only is my air conditioning too cold, but I fail to change the filter, which turns the thing into a giant recirculating dust pump. Plus, I have a hyperactive pit bull puppy who likes to lick people when they're trying to sleep, in violation of the Koran's edicts. On top of that, I listen to things like doowop and the Grateful Dead, which are far more fascistic than rap music.) I realize I'm being facetious. The above traits are just some of the hallmarks of fascism. Ever the academic, James Lileks demonstrates that by using the principle of resemblance, features of fascism can be discovered almost anywhere: Whether the Soup Nazi actually believes in exterminating the Jews and bending the nation towards race-based collectivism and militarism is irrelevant; what matters is that he doesn’t want to give you some of that yummy chowder.If I am reading Lileks correctly, the search for fascism distills itself down to the following formula: NOTE: Mutable mobilizing passions can be especially helpful in this regard. I suppose it's possible that James Lileks is being sarcastic, but I'd like to ask some hard questions at the risk of playing devil's advocate. In order for academics to really teach young people what fascism is, might it be necessary to encourage them to master the principle of resemblance? In his review of this deconstructionist classic (which shows how barbed wire epitomizes modernity and evil), Edward Luttwak argues that the very same principle can be applied to seemingly innocuous, everyday objects. In this case, shoelaces: ...take an artefact, anything at all. Avoid the too obviously deplorable machine gun or atom bomb. Take something seemingly innocuous, say shoelaces. Explore the inherent if studiously unacknowledged ulterior purposes of that “grim” artefact within “the structures of power and violence”. Shoelaces after all perfectly express the Euro-American urge to bind, control, constrain and yes, painfully constrict. Compare and contrast the easy comfort of the laceless moccasins of the Indian – so often massacred by booted and tightly laced Euro-Americans, as one can usefully recall at this point. Refer to the elegantly pointy and gracefully upturned silk shoes of the Orient, which have no need of laces of course because they so naturally fit the human foot – avoiding any trace of Orientalism, of course. It is all right to write in a manner unfriendly or even openly contemptuous of entire populations as Professor Netz does with his Texans at every turn (“ready to kill. . . they fought for Texan slavery against Mexico”), but only if the opprobrium is always aimed at you-know-who, and never at the pigmented. Clinch the argument by evoking the joys of walking on the beach in bare and uncommodified feet, and finally overcome any possible doubt by reminding the reader of the central role of high-laced boots in sadistic imagery. That finally unmasks shoelaces for what they really are – not primarily a way of keeping shoes from falling off one’s feet, but instruments of pain, just like the barbed wire that I have been buying all these years not to keep the cattle in, as I imagined, but to torture it, as Professor Netz points out. The rest is easy: the British could hardly have rounded up Boer wives and children without shoelaces to keep their boots on, any more than the very ordinary men in various Nazi uniforms could have done such extraordinary things so industriously, and not even Stalin could have kept the Gulag going with guards in unlaced Indian moccasins, or elegantly pointy, gracefully upturned, oriental shoes.You know, that's brilliant. I'm starting to see the connections I've never seen before. Fascism has at last been untied! But I do see an occasional problem which might arise when the resemblance is either overplayed, or (in the wrong hands) actually misused. It might cause unsophisticated or bigoted people to see resemblances where none exist. For example, Sean Penn (now reporting for the San Francisco Chronicle) was recently forced to explain -- to Iranians who chanted "Death to America" -- that their remarks might be misinterpreted: NEW YORK Actor Sean Penn, reporting from Iran this week for the San Francisco Chronicle, snared a scoop worthy of a Broder or Brownstein, interviewing Muslim cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who leads the opinion polls in the coming elections.What cause might they have been hurting? The "Death to America" cause? This puzzled me, but in another report, Penn explained that he thought there was a misinterpretation: ....I don't think it's productive because I think the message goes to the American people and it is interpreted very literally.I know this will sound complicated, but taking "Death to America" literally is actually is an example of taking resemblances too far. It really does not resemble what it seems to say. I think the key here is remembering that some resemblances only seem to resemble....
The torture that was so bad under Saddam, is equally bad under U.S. command.That's an example of "reality-based" thinking -- to be used as a last resort when even resemblances fail! MORE (and MOORE): Andrew Sullivan has nominated Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for the prestigious Moore Award in recognition of Kos's "morally cretinous hyperbole." posted by Eric on 06.17.05 at 09:37 AM
Comments
That reminds me of the time a Conservative friend once suggested a cartoon showing a giant's feet (symbolizing America or the West), with Karl Marx on the one side untying the left shoe vs. John Birch on the other side tying the right shoe. The style of that! Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 17, 2005 01:51 PM Eric, I think that you're on the wrong track. We should be encouraging Dean and Durbin to speak as they have. In fact, they should form the presidential ticket in three years time. It would be very...what's the word? Useful. It would be very useful if the Democratic Party leadership continued to voice such opinions. John · June 17, 2005 03:30 PM Durbin on fascism (by the way, it looks like stupidity is no longer a disqualification from being in the Senate. Poor Illinois - who once gave us Lincoln.) It's a typical Leftist tactic. Words mean whatever they want them to mean. It's called "grammatical relativism" (or maybe "syntactical relativism"). Mike · June 17, 2005 05:37 PM Isn't 'hyperactive puppy" redundent? Alan Kellogg · June 19, 2005 03:19 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Lileks is absolutely right about the corruption of language. It used to be that, if somebody behaved or was thought to behave like a martinet, had an "authoritarian personality", he was called a "fascist". Now, he is called a "Nazi" (as in "Soup Nazi", etc.), i.e., equated with the murderers of 6,000,000 Jews by mass shootings, gassings, starvation, and torture. And yet these same people will scream "McCarthyism!" if you dare to call a Communist a Communist.
Bah, humbug!
"....Explore the inherent if studiously unacknowledged ulterior purposes of that “grim” artefact within “the structures of power and violence”. Shoelaces after all perfectly express the Euro-American urge to bind, control, constrain and yes, painfully constrict."
The style of that! Yes, I have always loved shoelaces. I have always envisioned holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma wearing athletic shoes. That always turns me on. "Tight and High...."
I keep thinking of "young muscular fascist youth". "Mystic peasant fascist warrior". "Fascist".... Hmmm....
Unfortunately, while Edward Luttwak wrote that fascinating paragraph on shoelaces as a satire on the Politically Correct mentality, these days, everything you think up as a satire, somebody else means it seriously. It's inevitable that the Politically Correct will soon be trying to ban shoelaces as a symbol of "Western imperialism".