Christopher Hitchens speaks with Charlie Rose about a variety of things, but I thought the opening portion of this segment was interesting. Hitchens distinguishes between being pro-freedom and anti-totalitarian, and claims that the former is too grandiose a claim. I would also add that it becomes a very complex claim very quickly. I, for example, don't consider the libertarian movement to be at the forefront of the fight for liberty for reasons I've outlined ad nauseum here. Like Dewey and Foucault, I see society as composed of a dense web of relations and obligations and it can be hard to call any single arrangement of those relations and obligations "free" and another one "unfree". That's not at all to say that freedom is an illusion - but just that its exact definition can be illusory. Many, many, people substitute ideologically convenient definitions of "freedom" for real freedom.
Part 1 of the interview is here, Part 2 here, 3 here, and 4 here.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Well, you've already stated in the past that you really don't know a heck of a lot about Foucault ... so, you shouldn't really be leaning on him very much at all. What's rather amazing is that you lean on it despite what Foucault has to say about the creation of prisons, the rational madhouse, the squashing of "deviancy," etc. - all of which are projects of the modern liberal mindset.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what you're engaged in here is basically logomachy ... libertarians aren't in the forefront of freedom because they don't agree with what I think freedom is. I'd call that a really boring conversation at best.
It would be awfully nice if it could be reduced to logomachy, wouldn't it? I'm not sure the problem is that simple, Xenophon.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that "rather amazing". Perhaps you should enlighten me on what my relationship is to the modern liberal mindset. While you're at it, you could enlighten me on why useful insight on one issue implies useful insight on other issues and why recognition of one insight requires an embrace of an entire system of related insights. Have you never uttered the words "he has a point, but...".
I don't think he's entirely off base on prisons/punishment anyway - but as I've said, I'm not deeply familiar with him.
Anyway, I'd argue that this is a very good example of how libertarians differ from everyone else:
ReplyDeletehttp://reason.com/archives/2010/08/31/online-gambling-arrest
In this case the libertarian is not concerned with people who gamble; the liberal and the conservative (who are natural busybodies trying to push their notion of what is and is not moral onto others to the point of throwing them in prison) is concerned with such. This also explains why the U.S. - a place where both the modern liberal and conservative views switch back and forth in dominance re: political power (this is much less common elsewhere) - has far more prisons per capita and in the aggregate than even places like Russia and the PRC - the puritanical mindset of the modern liberal and conservative are both in full flower here. Here we have the worst of both ideologies constantly ratcheting up the "War On X" activity that each finds unacceptable.
"Perhaps you should enlighten me on what my relationship is to the modern liberal mindset."
ReplyDeleteWell, you've stated it enough that I should think that it was obvious by now.
"While you're at it, you could enlighten me on why useful insight on one issue..."
Because Foucault's insight - such at it is (and isn't much of one) - has a context obviously.
"...far more "prisoners" per capita..."
ReplyDeleteXenophon -
ReplyDeleteImagine that - passing off stereotypes as differences makes your in-group look good.
The only "war on X" I support as it's traditionally conceived (that I can think of at the moment) is the war on terror - and I have a lot of concerns about how that's been executed w.r.t. violations of civil liberties.
If you're going to reduce the difference between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives to puritanism I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Because Foucault's insight - such at it is (and isn't much of one) - has a context obviously.
ReplyDeleteI would have imagined that the web of power relations would have been the context for the thoughts on prisons, madness, etc. - not vice versa.
And even then - as I've said - I'm not sure I'd follow Foucault down every rabbit-hole (I'm not going to wage a war on psychiatry, for example), I'm not entirely opposed to the way he's applied his thoughts on power to other issues either.
Either way - the insights on power seem to be the context for everything else, don't they?
I don't support the "war on terror."
ReplyDelete"I would have imagined that the web of power relations would have been the context for the thoughts on prisons, madness, etc. - not vice versa."
The point Foucault makes by the end of his career is that there really is no reason to fight this ... and that one system of power is just as good as any other (which is why he was able to so stupidly support with such glee the Iranian revolution even when it turned totalitarian).
"If you're going to reduce the difference between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives to puritanism I think you're barking up the wrong tree."
I reduce even further than that - how many are headed towards prison under each ideology. This is sort of the essence of the problem that liberals and conservatives have with libertarians ultimately - for libertarians all manner of coercive measures (and the reasons for such) are off the table and that is just incredibly disturbing to the former groups.
I don't support the "war on terror."
ReplyDelete1. Nobody claimed you did.
2. Really? How would you have responded to 9/11 - just ignored it? I think you're confusing a lack of support for how it's been executed or promoted with a lack of support for a "war on terror" itself.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThat isn't a "war on terror," that is a "War on the Taliban." That could have been mopped up within six months to a year (or perhaps even less). A "war on terror" is the sort of dramatic overreaction that feeds right into what the terrorists want us to do. This is a basic category error that most Americans easily slipped into.