1. Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism” (London: Polity, 2011), pp. viii-ix.
2. Manfred B. Steger and Ravi K. Roy, “Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction,” (Oxford University Press, 2010). See also Stuart Hall, “The Neo-Liberal Revolution,” Cultural Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6, (November 2011), pp. 705-728.
3. João Biehl, “Vita: Life in A Zone of Social Abandonment,” (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2005), pp. 20.
4. This theme is taken up particularly well in Jacques Ranciere, “Hatred of Democracy” (London: Verso Press, 2006).
5. Jean Comaroff, “Beyond Bare Life: AIDS, (Bio)Politics and the Neoliberal Order,” Public Culture, 19:1, (Duke Press: Winter 2007), pp. 197-219.
6. I take up this issue in great detail in Henry A. Giroux, “The Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Politics in the Age of Disposability” (Boulder: Paradigm, 2012).
7. For a broader theoretical framework for understanding the militarization of American society, see Stephen Graham, “Cities Under Siege: the New Military Urbanism” (London: Verso, 2010).
8. Jacques Ranciere, “Democracy, Republic, Representation,” Constellations 13, no.3 (2006): 299-300.
9. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, “Dialectic of Enlightenment” (London: Verso Press, 1989), 243.
10. Theodor W. Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture,” ed. J. M. Bernstein (London: Routledge, 1991), 292.
11. Richard D. Wolff, “Capitalism is Taboo in America,” Truthout (May 15, 2012). Online here.
12. Ellen Willis, “Three Elegies for Susan Sontag,” New Politics X, no.3 (Summer 2005), (accessed January 2007)
13. Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations, IV, no.2, (Spring 2012). p. 68.
14. Ibid., Stanley Aronowitz, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Situations, p. 68.
15. Zygmunt Bauman, “Has the Future a left?” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies (2007) , pp. 1-26.
16. João Biehl, “Vita: Life in A Zone of Social Abandonment,” (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2005), pp. 10-11.
17. Chris Hedges, “Colonized by Corporations,” Truthdig (May 14, 2012). Online here.
18. Slavoj Žižek, “Occupy Wall Street: what is to be done next?” The Guardian UK, (April. 24, 2012).
19. On the related issues of hope and pedagogy, see Mark Cote, Richard J.F. Day and Greig de Peuter, eds. “Utopian Pedagogy: Radical Experiments Against Neoliberal Globalization” (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007).
20. Andrew Benjamin, “Present Hope: Philosophy, Architecture, Judaism” (New York: Routledge, 1997), 1.
21. Alain Touraine, “Beyond Neoliberalism” (London: Polity Press, 2001), p. 6.
22. Bauman, “Work, Consumerism and the New Poor” (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1998), 98.
23. Ron Aronson, “Hope After Hope?” Social Research 66, no.2 (Summer 1999): 489.
24. Zygmunt Bauman and Keith Tester, “Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman” ( Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2001), P. 4.
25. Zygmunt Bauman, “Liquid Life,” (London: Polity Press, 2005) pp. 213.
26. Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, “Why Arendt Matters” (New York: Integrated Publishing Solutions, 2006), 6.
This article may not be republished without permission from Truthout.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
“It appears the “AHEM” author did a Google search of the word “pedagogy” then started pasting sentences together. I doubt if 100 words are his own”.
What a precious, irrelevant little argument. How about addressing the substance of the article and the arguments put forward in it? Or would that require intellect you simply don’t have? Anyone can carp and belittle - that requires no intellect and no knowledge. The article should not be above the ability of an intelligent teenager to comprehend- at least in Europe. You don’t just want the facts, you want them in Disneyspeak. There’s more than enough Disneyspeak to go around already, it’s nice to see an article written for those who have managed to evolve further than that. There aren’t enough of those being written and since the mainstream media has collapsed into the dumbing down formula of cliches, spin and propaganda, such articles are very necessary.
Ozark Michael: One thing: I hope you don’t judge the quality of our coming dictators by the length of their sentences .... er .... what I mean is ...
Seriously, I probably owe Mr. Giroux an apology for starting this string off on an all-too-easy-to-follow negative tone. Actually, I think everything Mr. Giroux says is well worth the broadest possible understanding and consideration. His mind is packed with accurate observations and good advice. It’s just that his thoughts roll out so fast, one piled on top of the previous one before the next one has a chance to breathe ...
Here’s just a piece of one which expresses the very “heart of human darkness” that deserves pondering:
“...a form of economic Darwinism “that authorizes
the lives of some while disallowing the lives of
others.”
Urgent questions that demand serious answers:
1.What is the evidence for “economic Darwinism.”
2.Why is it “authorized”.What does “authorized"mean?
3.How does that “authorization” disavow other authorities?
4.Why does the use of that word bother many people?
5.Whose lives are “disallowed”? How many? What age groups suffer most under “social Darwinisms”? What ethnic groups? Why?
6.What does experience indicate is the result of
allowing “social Darwinism to persist?
7.What steps can wisely be taken to moderate “social Darwinism? To eliminate it?
There’s about a week’s deep discussion required
to deal seriously with just this piece of one
sentence—and it’s well worth it. Will we do it?
Of course not! Why not? Because we aren’t serious?
Or because we aren’t serious enough?
And the most important question of all: If we aren’t
“serious enough” in times like these, what then?
Ozark Michael: One thing: I hope you don’t judge the quality of our coming dictators by the length of their sentences .... er .... what I mean is ...
Seriously, I probably owe Mr. Giroux an apology for starting this string off on an all-too-easy-to-follow negative tone. Actually, I think everything Mr. Giroux says is well worth the broadest possible understanding and consideration. His mind is packed with accurate observations and good advice. It’s just that his thoughts roll out so fast, one piled on top of the previous one before the next one has a chance to breathe ...
Here’s just a piece of one which expresses the very “heart of human darkness” that deserves pondering:
“...a form of economic Darwinism “that authorizes
the lives of some while disallowing the lives of
others.”
Urgent questions that demand serious answers:
1.What is the evidence for “economic Darwinism.”
2.Why is it “authorized”.What does “authorized"mean?
3.How does that “authorization” disavow other authorities?
4.Why does the use of that word bother many people?
5.Whose lives are “disallowed”? How many? What age groups suffer most under “social Darwinisms”? What ethnic groups? Why?
6.What does experience indicate is the result of
allowing “social Darwinism to persist?
7.What steps can wisely be taken to moderate “social Darwinism? To eliminate it?
There’s about a week’s deep discussion required
to deal seriously with just this piece of one
sentence—and it’s well worth it. Will we do it?
Of course not! Why not? Because we aren’t serious?
Or because we aren’t serious enough?
Back on topic…
The complaint about paragraph 5 of Giroux’s essay is not well taken.
It is not foggy at all and I would claim the complainer is rather groggy
headed. Giroux is absolutely precise in making the excellent point that
it is in the province of the intellectuals the Occupier’s “challenge to
capitalism front and center among its concerns and passions [and] to
make economic injustice for the 99 percent and the ruling economic
system central, defining issues.” If one has higher reading skills, the
very next paragraph, paragraph 6, gives much weight to the previous
one.
At issue here is that the protesters seek to rescue the
political possibilities of ambivalence from the powerful,
break open the sordid appeal to common sense, unmask
casino capitalism’s most pernicious myths (especially the
alleged belief that capitalism and democracy are the same),
struggle to restage power in productive ways, enact social
agency from those places where it has been denied and
work to provide an accurate historical accounting of the
racial state and racial power. What has emerged in the
Occupy movement is the refusal on the part of protesters
to accept the dominant scripts of official authority and the
limitations they impose upon individual and social agency,
thus using spaces of critique, dissent, dialogue and collective
resistance as starting points from which to build unfamiliar,
potential worlds. In the process of thinking seriously about
structures of power, state formation, militarism, capitalist
formations, class and pedagogy, the protesters have refused
to substitute moral indignation for the hard work of contribu-
ting to critical education and enabling people to expand the
horizons of their own sense of agency in order to collectively
challenge established structures of financial and cultural power.
His first eloquent point in paragraph 1 is what he perceives as a loss
of democracy. This might be important, especially to those who gripe
about it all the time. Because one does not agree with Giroux 100%, it
does not mean his writing is to be deemed inferior! It most certainly is
not. And I disagree with him right off the bat. Well,... I have a difference
of opinion. He says democracy in America is lost. I would qualify that
and say it is “in the process of being lost.” Americans, we Americans
are losing democracy because we are not taking steps to not. We are
allowing those who would grate the edges of the kind education that
would build the skills to really criticize in an articulate way what is
causing the loss of democracy. But I would say this inaction is a result
of the mass conditioning that has been going on, as Giroux theorizes,
for decades by the corporate/conservative/wealthy class fascistic doc-
trines that are being forced on the public through fraudulent media and
obscene money-backed campaigns to anesthetize the public into uncon-
sciousness about the reality of what is happening, being disfranchised
out of everything that means a decent life. Also, regarding Giroux, we
have to be very clear what he means by democracy. Reading the entire
essay, he does not say explicitly what he means by the word democracy?
It is implied but it should be expressed explicitly since it is the major
theme of his essay that it is missing. I would agree that he does rely on
implications but not all the time. He does give examples.
My plan is to take each of his 25 paragraphs and examine them to see if
anything he says has any real bearing on our society.
I came abrowsing my favorite TD writer, Giroux, and found a bevy
of whining sniveling literary roaches streaming out of the electronic
woodwork! My gawd! The absurdity of the criticism against Giroux’s
style of writing is appalling. JC! Mon dieu! If they hadn’t been writing
on the forums for years and just happened upon the article serendipi-
tously, one could think they had fallen into a well of ignoramuses. If the
article is too hard to fathom, it is a simple matter. Just don’t read it and
pass on to the primary level written articles that are accessible to your
level of reading. But then the obvious, egotists think they just have to
strut out a slick criticism, I guess trying to impress who? Truthdippers?
What a hoot!
While he might enjoy a shot or two of tequila, Giroux is not a pablum
writer that is for sure. Why everyone who authors articles must write as
if third graders are reading Truthdig articles is hilarity. The kind of
burlesque criticisms leveled here are perfect examples of the low level
literacy that permeates American society. I have a theory but at the
moment I will only say Mamma Mia!Given the insipid intellectual fare
that too frequently attempts to make glib hit and run comments, one must,
I guess, suffer the bland uncultivated articulation that is to be expected
when the caliber of writers such as Giroux hits the site.
Thank goodness the editors of Truthdig have enough savoir-faire and more
word “sense” to occasionally publish those writers who have the craft of our
rich language who can write beyond the 9-year old level of comprehension.
One doesn’t have to make a verbal castigating criticizing bowel movement
on a forum all in plain site, myself excepted, of course! Let’s see, though, if
you can really understand what I’m saying! It is really a shame if you cannot
intellectually negotiate a superb writer such as Giroux. Perhaps you just are
not used to reading at the elementary or higher level. An Entry Level Reading
course then more Advanced Reading exercises when there are deficits in
critical thinking might be helpful. Basic thinking skills that usually start at
a very tender age, but without being trained in self-awareness of one’s
deficiency of higher thinking skills and self-discipline leads to difficulty of
getting beyond rote memory and can last into late adult life. An inability to
distinguish fact from opinion is most symptomatic and individuals who are
made aware of this deficit might be motivated to do something about it.
This is where my six high horses and I have come riding in to save you! LOL
Suggested reading: http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/HOT.php?type=subject&id=18
How to increase higher order thinking.
Speaking of cultivation, I would bet my lovely garden that this group could
not understand many of the writers quoted in Giroux’s article: Andrew
Benjamin, Alain Touraine, Paul Ricoeur, et al. Let the defensive quips roll on
in. laugh laugh not nervously, but derisively.
i don’t know whether the leaderless movement we know as the Occupy, not being a political party, will
have to eventually become leaderfull in order to obtain whatever it wants to obtain.
for once you elect to congress own people, from that point of time you are lead; thus have a leadership.
ideally, of course, a leadership shld lead and be lead. present leadership in congress does not lead—-it
appears totally lead by the basic U.S ideology; from which arise laws, constitution, bill of rights, etc; and,
of course, the ONEPERCENT or monetary power.
so, the lesson seems to be clear: establish a THOUGHT and then you run everything on it.
that’s what u.s runs on. strip away all the verbal brilliance, vacuities, vagueness, other
generalizations/rationalization from bill of rights, constitution, etc., and you arrive at the base of all
things in u.s; crudely and crushingly said: right of a person to control another person.
the Onepercent does not just happen; it is manufactured and i may add with deliberation and purpose:
forever to lead the ‘nation’ and never ever to be lead by vast numbers of americans.
Pretty good, albeit written in an unnecessarily paper-for-college style. It’s crucial that Occupy *not* reduce itself to any of the business-as-usual forms and actions desired by those outside our ranks. Naomi Wolf, the photogenic woman unsurprisingly selected by the UK daily newspaper, The Guardian, to be the voice (and body) of Occupy, wants us to get involved in electoral activity. RIP. We all know where that goes—has gone—and pace Ms. Wolf, we aren’t interested in being enablers to the 1%. Some of us will vote, and some will even participate in campaigns for office…but that will never, ever, characterize Occupy.
I use that only as an example. The key point is that Occupation won’t be reduced to *any* specific action. That is its genius: it is a dimension through which possibility gestates, processes, and projects. It is a “meta” that makes possible innumerable things, including Ms. Wolf’s desire for electoral acts—while never being restricted or equivalent to that or any other line of action.
At the cost of a fair amount of derision, I suggested at Adbusters that Occupation’s strategic mode is akin to that of water, and quoted the Tao Te Ching to that effect:
The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.
The “meta” of Occupation is clear in its leaderlessness and decentralized “flow.” This is why it is accessible at all times everywhere, to anyone who wishes to take up Occupation. There is no *leader you must wait for*, as it is a dimension of self-less action. We act for and with each other, in defending foreclosed homes, demanding help for homeless veterans, at all times exposing the organized theft of our lives by the profligate war-making culture of Wall Street…and yet, no one of these is the equivalent, the be-all/end-all to Occupation. If it were, we would already be defeated.
Occupation means to make possible—that is its essential nature. That is how and why we flow as people who seek alternative ways through the barriers, the tomb that has been constructed around our lives. There is no “line” or “vanguard” that must be followed; our faith is that of democracy and the importance of leadership distinct from leaders. “Leaders” are media celebrities, empty totemic substitutes for real power and deep change, offering mere entertainment and symbolic freedom. We are not satisfied with symbols, and care nothing for celebrity.
The 99% will Occupy exactly as they see fit, when and as it appears urgent and sensible for them to do so. Others busy themselves in electing the next errand-runner for war and Wall Street, deploying police, dispersing encampments of the homeless poor. We Occupy. We are the future. Expect us.
Worth noting is that the Occupy protesters believe that intellectuals (those willing to exercise critical thought) come from a broad range of jobs, fields and institutions and should inhabit the realm of politics, be willing to cross intellectual and physical boundaries, connect questions of understanding and power and unite passion, commitment and conscience in new ways in order to reflect on and engage with the larger society.
The article is packed with meandering sentences like the one above. It is verbose and foggy. His weekly five page articles say less than the 1 or 2 pagers that other Truthdig authors put up. I regret to inform Mr Giroux that quality and precision are not attained by quantity of words.
His articles dont really make a point so much, they just stack one platitude upon another, building into an overwhelming snooze-inducing tangle.
His articles are quite partisan(like Hedges) but unlike Hedges they are so foggy that I am not moved to agree or disagree. I couldnt be bothered to quote a line in order to disprove it. I couldnt even be bothered to inquire how he determined the validity of the sentence that I did quote just now. What is lost or gained? Who cares? Thus Giroux makes his subject matter seem unimportant. Hedges, on the other hand, makes it seem that existance hangs in the balance of whatever he is writing about, and his asertions rise to that vital level where one must support or attack what he says. One is forced to ponder. Thats a good thing.
Geez, this Giroux is so bad it is making me appreciate Chris Hedges!
I would have gone further about this Giroux. I would have accused everyone of supporting this author merely because the drift of it all appeals to your prejudices, however… a few of you commented on his style already and thus you knocked that weapon out of my hand.
on p. 4, HAG speaks, i think, of a necessity to get away from the tendency to remain a
dependency or ruggedley inidvidualistic and turn to an interdependent way of living.
don’t depend on anyone—be interdepedent with everyone.
this means one shld be a job [work] giver and job taker, one shld listen to and obey
others and others shld listen and obey her/him.
s/he shld respect everone and hisher basic rights and everyone shld respect her/his
rights and him/her.
all competition and sport for money and grading people and kids shld be made illegal.
for that is a form of servitude or patronization. we shld once for all ban the use of word
stupid when meant for kids or people.
“Creativity and Science with happy enthusiasm should soften if not convince the “conservative” to loosen their grip.” And the moon is also made of green cheese.
“as the govt deregulates, privatizes and outsources key aspect of governance…..”
i think u.s govts merely do what the governance or the system of rule, constitution, bill of rights,
commands them to do.
or to be even more accurate, govts do what the payers of the govt and of both party members tell them
to do, or else!
i don’t think it is as complicated as pundits tell us. as i see it, it is very crude and simple: do as i say or
i’ll get s’mone else to do it.
the payers see that america is getting poorer. they want to keep their wealth; so, fewer crumbs for most
people.
however, u.s governance or system of rule has always been owned by a minority of people. that’s not
changing.
and if it does not change, what’s gonna change?
talking about politics, can one have or do good politics if one has no education;
does not obtain healthcare, accurate/adequate information, etc?
no, of course, one cannot do politics well just as one cannot play golf, bridge,
football well w.o some education and training.
and that is what is denied most american males and more so females.
i am married man and i know how much my wife knows about politics, her duty to
know-excersice it.
btw, at one time, i, too, was completely ignorant about life itself let alone its aspect
we call politics.
true, capitalism and democracy are not the same;
however, one influences, shapes, reshapes the other and
reverse is also true.
however, democracy w.o. timocracy and/or pantisocracy
or some degree of it, may behave as some of the worst
totalitarianisms ever to have befallen us.
in fact, as i have noted in one of my previous comments,
in the powers to wage wars, deceive, rob, such powers
appear near absolute. if bailouts do not prove it, what
wld i wonder?
of course, the greater degree of timocracy-pantisocracy
in a democracy the more it shapes and reshapes
capitalism; hopefully to please also lower classes.
HAG shld have explained what economic justice means.
does it entail ownership of the banks, minerals, forests, governance,
etc., by each american in equal measure?
in other words, if u don’t own ur share of america, u don’t get ur share
of information, education, healthcare, complaining freely, good food,
justice, etc.
and u never had that in u.s and u may not ever except by armed
rebellion and/or getting highly political.
or is it too late to obtain that solely via education or protests?
time will tell if education-protests wld fail or not.
Gerard is spot on. This guy may be a towering intellect, but he needs to learn to write for general consumption. Otherwise he has a big future in the non-prescription sleep drug business.
i do think that the Republicans or Tea Party members hate govt, let alone the governance;
ie, fathers of the confederation, constitution, basic u.s laws.
but, yes, they are simply mistaken in concluding that Democrats love less all that than the
tea party members and Republican politicians, clergy, bankers, et al.
they’d love the right govt: one totally privatized or totally controlled by the 1%.
right now that is not the case, as far as i can tell, but it may be in not that far in future.
“merging of corporate and political power”???
i do not think that political power was ever separated from monetary [corporate-company], educational,
informational, military, religious, judiciary, and police powers.
each of these powers was and still is an integral part of a whole.
and, i suggest, founders of u.s knew that u.s wld function like that for an eternity.
indeed, in whatever country and at whatever point of time that’s what is happening.
u.s was meant to function like a diktatorship; in some aspects of its policies, more so than others.
in warmaking, it functions totally diktatorially; most people have no say whatever in this one aspect of u.s
system of rule.
and the truth is always witheld from them.
talk about totalitarianism; no greater exists than the one in u.s.
It is a crying shame that Giroux cannot write in a style simple enough for ordinary people to understand because he has vitally important things to say. His complexity is self-defeating, and I sincerely hope that someone behind the scenes is carefully retranslating what he writes, dividing it up into palatable “bites” and issuing it all as paperback handbooks of “required reading” for all social-studies classes at high school and college level. Every single phrase is vital to literally “take in” and “put into practice”, not just skim over and pass on. Will somebody please tell him?
After Oklahoma Disaster, Give Thanks to Government
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By JDmysticDJ, May 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
RE: Shenonymous, May 23 at 8:55 am
I think that what people are complaining about is that it’s necessary to:
“…take each of his 25 paragraphs and examine them to see if anything he says has any real bearing on our society.”
Report thisBy diamond, May 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment
“It appears the “AHEM” author did a Google search of the word “pedagogy” then started pasting sentences together. I doubt if 100 words are his own”.
What a precious, irrelevant little argument. How about addressing the substance of the article and the arguments put forward in it? Or would that require intellect you simply don’t have? Anyone can carp and belittle - that requires no intellect and no knowledge. The article should not be above the ability of an intelligent teenager to comprehend- at least in Europe. You don’t just want the facts, you want them in Disneyspeak. There’s more than enough Disneyspeak to go around already, it’s nice to see an article written for those who have managed to evolve further than that. There aren’t enough of those being written and since the mainstream media has collapsed into the dumbing down formula of cliches, spin and propaganda, such articles are very necessary.
Report thisBy gerard, May 23, 2012 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment
Ozark Michael: One thing: I hope you don’t judge the quality of our coming dictators by the length of their sentences .... er .... what I mean is ...
Seriously, I probably owe Mr. Giroux an apology for starting this string off on an all-too-easy-to-follow negative tone. Actually, I think everything Mr. Giroux says is well worth the broadest possible understanding and consideration. His mind is packed with accurate observations and good advice. It’s just that his thoughts roll out so fast, one piled on top of the previous one before the next one has a chance to breathe ...
Report thisHere’s just a piece of one which expresses the very “heart of human darkness” that deserves pondering:
“...a form of economic Darwinism “that authorizes
the lives of some while disallowing the lives of
others.”
Urgent questions that demand serious answers:
1.What is the evidence for “economic Darwinism.”
2.Why is it “authorized”.What does “authorized"mean?
3.How does that “authorization” disavow other authorities?
4.Why does the use of that word bother many people?
5.Whose lives are “disallowed”? How many? What age groups suffer most under “social Darwinisms”? What ethnic groups? Why?
6.What does experience indicate is the result of
allowing “social Darwinism to persist?
7.What steps can wisely be taken to moderate “social Darwinism? To eliminate it?
There’s about a week’s deep discussion required
to deal seriously with just this piece of one
sentence—and it’s well worth it. Will we do it?
Of course not! Why not? Because we aren’t serious?
Or because we aren’t serious enough?
And the most important question of all: If we aren’t
“serious enough” in times like these, what then?
By gerard, May 23, 2012 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment
Ozark Michael: One thing: I hope you don’t judge the quality of our coming dictators by the length of their sentences .... er .... what I mean is ...
Seriously, I probably owe Mr. Giroux an apology for starting this string off on an all-too-easy-to-follow negative tone. Actually, I think everything Mr. Giroux says is well worth the broadest possible understanding and consideration. His mind is packed with accurate observations and good advice. It’s just that his thoughts roll out so fast, one piled on top of the previous one before the next one has a chance to breathe ...
Report thisHere’s just a piece of one which expresses the very “heart of human darkness” that deserves pondering:
“...a form of economic Darwinism “that authorizes
the lives of some while disallowing the lives of
others.”
Urgent questions that demand serious answers:
1.What is the evidence for “economic Darwinism.”
2.Why is it “authorized”.What does “authorized"mean?
3.How does that “authorization” disavow other authorities?
4.Why does the use of that word bother many people?
5.Whose lives are “disallowed”? How many? What age groups suffer most under “social Darwinisms”? What ethnic groups? Why?
6.What does experience indicate is the result of
allowing “social Darwinism to persist?
7.What steps can wisely be taken to moderate “social Darwinism? To eliminate it?
There’s about a week’s deep discussion required
to deal seriously with just this piece of one
sentence—and it’s well worth it. Will we do it?
Of course not! Why not? Because we aren’t serious?
Or because we aren’t serious enough?
By Shenonymous, May 23, 2012 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
Back on topic…
The complaint about paragraph 5 of Giroux’s essay is not well taken.
It is not foggy at all and I would claim the complainer is rather groggy
headed. Giroux is absolutely precise in making the excellent point that
it is in the province of the intellectuals the Occupier’s “challenge to
capitalism front and center among its concerns and passions [and] to
make economic injustice for the 99 percent and the ruling economic
system central, defining issues.” If one has higher reading skills, the
very next paragraph, paragraph 6, gives much weight to the previous
one.
His first eloquent point in paragraph 1 is what he perceives as a loss
of democracy. This might be important, especially to those who gripe
about it all the time. Because one does not agree with Giroux 100%, it
does not mean his writing is to be deemed inferior! It most certainly is
not. And I disagree with him right off the bat. Well,... I have a difference
of opinion. He says democracy in America is lost. I would qualify that
and say it is “in the process of being lost.” Americans, we Americans
are losing democracy because we are not taking steps to not. We are
allowing those who would grate the edges of the kind education that
would build the skills to really criticize in an articulate way what is
causing the loss of democracy. But I would say this inaction is a result
of the mass conditioning that has been going on, as Giroux theorizes,
for decades by the corporate/conservative/wealthy class fascistic doc-
trines that are being forced on the public through fraudulent media and
obscene money-backed campaigns to anesthetize the public into uncon-
sciousness about the reality of what is happening, being disfranchised
out of everything that means a decent life. Also, regarding Giroux, we
have to be very clear what he means by democracy. Reading the entire
essay, he does not say explicitly what he means by the word democracy?
It is implied but it should be expressed explicitly since it is the major
theme of his essay that it is missing. I would agree that he does rely on
implications but not all the time. He does give examples.
My plan is to take each of his 25 paragraphs and examine them to see if
Report thisanything he says has any real bearing on our society.
By Shenonymous, May 23, 2012 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
I came abrowsing my favorite TD writer, Giroux, and found a bevy
of whining sniveling literary roaches streaming out of the electronic
woodwork! My gawd! The absurdity of the criticism against Giroux’s
style of writing is appalling. JC! Mon dieu! If they hadn’t been writing
on the forums for years and just happened upon the article serendipi-
tously, one could think they had fallen into a well of ignoramuses. If the
article is too hard to fathom, it is a simple matter. Just don’t read it and
pass on to the primary level written articles that are accessible to your
level of reading. But then the obvious, egotists think they just have to
strut out a slick criticism, I guess trying to impress who? Truthdippers?
What a hoot!
While he might enjoy a shot or two of tequila, Giroux is not a pablum
writer that is for sure. Why everyone who authors articles must write as
if third graders are reading Truthdig articles is hilarity. The kind of
burlesque criticisms leveled here are perfect examples of the low level
literacy that permeates American society. I have a theory but at the
moment I will only say Mamma Mia!Given the insipid intellectual fare
that too frequently attempts to make glib hit and run comments, one must,
I guess, suffer the bland uncultivated articulation that is to be expected
when the caliber of writers such as Giroux hits the site.
Thank goodness the editors of Truthdig have enough savoir-faire and more
word “sense” to occasionally publish those writers who have the craft of our
rich language who can write beyond the 9-year old level of comprehension.
One doesn’t have to make a verbal castigating criticizing bowel movement
on a forum all in plain site, myself excepted, of course! Let’s see, though, if
you can really understand what I’m saying! It is really a shame if you cannot
intellectually negotiate a superb writer such as Giroux. Perhaps you just are
not used to reading at the elementary or higher level. An Entry Level Reading
course then more Advanced Reading exercises when there are deficits in
critical thinking might be helpful. Basic thinking skills that usually start at
a very tender age, but without being trained in self-awareness of one’s
deficiency of higher thinking skills and self-discipline leads to difficulty of
getting beyond rote memory and can last into late adult life. An inability to
distinguish fact from opinion is most symptomatic and individuals who are
made aware of this deficit might be motivated to do something about it.
This is where my six high horses and I have come riding in to save you! LOL
Suggested reading:
http://www.cdl.org/resource-library/articles/HOT.php?type=subject&id=18
How to increase higher order thinking.
Speaking of cultivation, I would bet my lovely garden that this group could
Report thisnot understand many of the writers quoted in Giroux’s article: Andrew
Benjamin, Alain Touraine, Paul Ricoeur, et al. Let the defensive quips roll on
in. laugh laugh not nervously, but derisively.
By katsteevns, May 23, 2012 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
Moral indignation is a prerequisite to action, and there just aint enough of the former to go
Report thisaround. The hope here appears to be misplaced.
By balkas, May 23, 2012 at 5:18 am Link to this comment
i don’t know whether the leaderless movement we know as the Occupy, not being a political party, will
Report thishave to eventually become leaderfull in order to obtain whatever it wants to obtain.
for once you elect to congress own people, from that point of time you are lead; thus have a leadership.
ideally, of course, a leadership shld lead and be lead. present leadership in congress does not lead—-it
appears totally lead by the basic U.S ideology; from which arise laws, constitution, bill of rights, etc; and,
of course, the ONEPERCENT or monetary power.
so, the lesson seems to be clear: establish a THOUGHT and then you run everything on it.
that’s what u.s runs on. strip away all the verbal brilliance, vacuities, vagueness, other
generalizations/rationalization from bill of rights, constitution, etc., and you arrive at the base of all
things in u.s; crudely and crushingly said: right of a person to control another person.
the Onepercent does not just happen; it is manufactured and i may add with deliberation and purpose:
forever to lead the ‘nation’ and never ever to be lead by vast numbers of americans.
By Wikileaks for Nobel, May 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
Pretty good, albeit written in an unnecessarily paper-for-college style. It’s crucial that Occupy *not* reduce itself to any of the business-as-usual forms and actions desired by those outside our ranks. Naomi Wolf, the photogenic woman unsurprisingly selected by the UK daily newspaper, The Guardian, to be the voice (and body) of Occupy, wants us to get involved in electoral activity. RIP. We all know where that goes—has gone—and pace Ms. Wolf, we aren’t interested in being enablers to the 1%. Some of us will vote, and some will even participate in campaigns for office…but that will never, ever, characterize Occupy.
I use that only as an example. The key point is that Occupation won’t be reduced to *any* specific action. That is its genius: it is a dimension through which possibility gestates, processes, and projects. It is a “meta” that makes possible innumerable things, including Ms. Wolf’s desire for electoral acts—while never being restricted or equivalent to that or any other line of action.
At the cost of a fair amount of derision, I suggested at Adbusters that Occupation’s strategic mode is akin to that of water, and quoted the Tao Te Ching to that effect:
The highest good is like water.
Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive.
It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao.
The “meta” of Occupation is clear in its leaderlessness and decentralized “flow.” This is why it is accessible at all times everywhere, to anyone who wishes to take up Occupation. There is no *leader you must wait for*, as it is a dimension of self-less action. We act for and with each other, in defending foreclosed homes, demanding help for homeless veterans, at all times exposing the organized theft of our lives by the profligate war-making culture of Wall Street…and yet, no one of these is the equivalent, the be-all/end-all to Occupation. If it were, we would already be defeated.
Occupation means to make possible—that is its essential nature. That is how and why we flow as people who seek alternative ways through the barriers, the tomb that has been constructed around our lives. There is no “line” or “vanguard” that must be followed; our faith is that of democracy and the importance of leadership distinct from leaders. “Leaders” are media celebrities, empty totemic substitutes for real power and deep change, offering mere entertainment and symbolic freedom. We are not satisfied with symbols, and care nothing for celebrity.
The 99% will Occupy exactly as they see fit, when and as it appears urgent and sensible for them to do so. Others busy themselves in electing the next errand-runner for war and Wall Street, deploying police, dispersing encampments of the homeless poor. We Occupy. We are the future. Expect us.
Report thisBy OzarkMichael, May 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
The article is packed with meandering sentences like the one above. It is verbose and foggy. His weekly five page articles say less than the 1 or 2 pagers that other Truthdig authors put up. I regret to inform Mr Giroux that quality and precision are not attained by quantity of words.
His articles dont really make a point so much, they just stack one platitude upon another, building into an overwhelming snooze-inducing tangle.
His articles are quite partisan(like Hedges) but unlike Hedges they are so foggy that I am not moved to agree or disagree. I couldnt be bothered to quote a line in order to disprove it. I couldnt even be bothered to inquire how he determined the validity of the sentence that I did quote just now. What is lost or gained? Who cares? Thus Giroux makes his subject matter seem unimportant. Hedges, on the other hand, makes it seem that existance hangs in the balance of whatever he is writing about, and his asertions rise to that vital level where one must support or attack what he says. One is forced to ponder. Thats a good thing.
Geez, this Giroux is so bad it is making me appreciate Chris Hedges!
I would have gone further about this Giroux. I would have accused everyone of supporting this author merely because the drift of it all appeals to your prejudices, however… a few of you commented on his style already and thus you knocked that weapon out of my hand.
Report thisBy balkas, May 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment
on p. 4, HAG speaks, i think, of a necessity to get away from the tendency to remain a
Report thisdependency or ruggedley inidvidualistic and turn to an interdependent way of living.
don’t depend on anyone—be interdepedent with everyone.
this means one shld be a job [work] giver and job taker, one shld listen to and obey
others and others shld listen and obey her/him.
s/he shld respect everone and hisher basic rights and everyone shld respect her/his
rights and him/her.
all competition and sport for money and grading people and kids shld be made illegal.
for that is a form of servitude or patronization. we shld once for all ban the use of word
stupid when meant for kids or people.
By gerard, May 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment
“Creativity and Science with happy enthusiasm should soften if not convince the “conservative” to loosen their grip.” And the moon is also made of green cheese.
Report thisBy balkas, May 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment
“as the govt deregulates, privatizes and outsources key aspect of governance…..”
Report thisi think u.s govts merely do what the governance or the system of rule, constitution, bill of rights,
commands them to do.
or to be even more accurate, govts do what the payers of the govt and of both party members tell them
to do, or else!
i don’t think it is as complicated as pundits tell us. as i see it, it is very crude and simple: do as i say or
i’ll get s’mone else to do it.
the payers see that america is getting poorer. they want to keep their wealth; so, fewer crumbs for most
people.
however, u.s governance or system of rule has always been owned by a minority of people. that’s not
changing.
and if it does not change, what’s gonna change?
By balkas, May 22, 2012 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
talking about politics, can one have or do good politics if one has no education;
Report thisdoes not obtain healthcare, accurate/adequate information, etc?
no, of course, one cannot do politics well just as one cannot play golf, bridge,
football well w.o some education and training.
and that is what is denied most american males and more so females.
i am married man and i know how much my wife knows about politics, her duty to
know-excersice it.
btw, at one time, i, too, was completely ignorant about life itself let alone its aspect
we call politics.
By balkas, May 22, 2012 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment
true, capitalism and democracy are not the same;
Report thishowever, one influences, shapes, reshapes the other and
reverse is also true.
however, democracy w.o. timocracy and/or pantisocracy
or some degree of it, may behave as some of the worst
totalitarianisms ever to have befallen us.
in fact, as i have noted in one of my previous comments,
in the powers to wage wars, deceive, rob, such powers
appear near absolute. if bailouts do not prove it, what
wld i wonder?
of course, the greater degree of timocracy-pantisocracy
in a democracy the more it shapes and reshapes
capitalism; hopefully to please also lower classes.
By balkas, May 22, 2012 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
HAG shld have explained what economic justice means.
Report thisdoes it entail ownership of the banks, minerals, forests, governance,
etc., by each american in equal measure?
in other words, if u don’t own ur share of america, u don’t get ur share
of information, education, healthcare, complaining freely, good food,
justice, etc.
and u never had that in u.s and u may not ever except by armed
rebellion and/or getting highly political.
or is it too late to obtain that solely via education or protests?
time will tell if education-protests wld fail or not.
By BrilliantBill, May 22, 2012 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
Gerard is spot on. This guy may be a towering intellect, but he needs to learn to write for general consumption. Otherwise he has a big future in the non-prescription sleep drug business.
I did three paragraphs before nodding off.
Report thisBy balkas, May 22, 2012 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
i do think that the Republicans or Tea Party members hate govt, let alone the governance;
Report thisie, fathers of the confederation, constitution, basic u.s laws.
but, yes, they are simply mistaken in concluding that Democrats love less all that than the
tea party members and Republican politicians, clergy, bankers, et al.
they’d love the right govt: one totally privatized or totally controlled by the 1%.
right now that is not the case, as far as i can tell, but it may be in not that far in future.
By balkas, May 22, 2012 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment
“merging of corporate and political power”???
Report thisi do not think that political power was ever separated from monetary [corporate-company], educational,
informational, military, religious, judiciary, and police powers.
each of these powers was and still is an integral part of a whole.
and, i suggest, founders of u.s knew that u.s wld function like that for an eternity.
indeed, in whatever country and at whatever point of time that’s what is happening.
u.s was meant to function like a diktatorship; in some aspects of its policies, more so than others.
in warmaking, it functions totally diktatorially; most people have no say whatever in this one aspect of u.s
system of rule.
and the truth is always witheld from them.
talk about totalitarianism; no greater exists than the one in u.s.
By gerard, May 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment
It is a crying shame that Giroux cannot write in a style simple enough for ordinary people to understand because he has vitally important things to say. His complexity is self-defeating, and I sincerely hope that someone behind the scenes is carefully retranslating what he writes, dividing it up into palatable “bites” and issuing it all as paperback handbooks of “required reading” for all social-studies classes at high school and college level. Every single phrase is vital to literally “take in” and “put into practice”, not just skim over and pass on. Will somebody please tell him?
Report this