Tag: society

54

generalising/expanding Badiou’s notion of the scandal – the notion that scandal is a [morality] device by which [an] ideology persuades people that particular problematic consequences of that ideology are in truth events that [morally] contradict that ideology and that thus don’t undermine/discredit it – thus a culture framing/interpreting events as scandals thus functioning as a kind of defense mechanism… or, in short: something being a scandal implies that it is an aberration – that things are normally not as bad, the scandalous event therefor noteworthy:

Morality and moral judgement/condemnation/prohibition in general perform the same function, just on a more abstract level – & especially what could be called progressive morality, by which I mean morality that continuously seeks/finds new moral frontiers to define[/re-define] itself with/along:

For a newly-emerging/visible domain of problematic consequences of an ideology, a new [phase of progressive] moral norm emerges, proliferates and predominates – which (pre-emptively or retro-actively) positions the ideology as standing in opposition to the bad stuff, as standing on the right side of emerging debate/struggle/conflict…

Furthermore: the morality that an ideology’s culture pushes most is an indication of the issues the ideology/culture is most fearful of discussing (instead of denying/repressing) – feels most guilty about.

This seems the principle/universal of which Badiou’s notion of scandal is the particular.

entry 18

an easy way to spot racism & bigotry:

Whenever an ethnicity, religion, class or gender is blamed for something: just try to notice whether someone accepts this without considering whether the blamed group is just a scape-goat(De: Sündenbock). 

The phenomenon and concept of scape-goating is so familiar and obvious that, whenever there is some problem that is causing pain in society and a specific class or sub-set is blamed for the problem, any non-racist will naturally react by [first] asking themselves whether the blamed group is just being scape-goated.

And it is easy to notice the opposite – when someone accepts the blaming/judgement of an ethnic or cultural group without pausing to ask themselves whether this might just be another case of selecting and using a scape-goat to deflect discontent/resentment away from wherever the true responsibility lies.

scape-goating: There is a simple and broadly well-understood phenomenon of the master in a master-slave relationship using a slave or category of slaves as a scape-goat for problems that would otherwise impact the master’s standing in some hierarchy or power-relation, e.g. would reduce the respect or loyalty that the master commands. And this can be expanded beyond literal slave-masters to include individuals or groups or classes that control or preside over whichever processes/structures/institutions are actually* causing or contributing to the problems in question – or even just to the [economic, societal or other] structures themselves in cases where nobody is really in control and nobody really understands what’s going on or how we got here.  

* – at least in the minds of those people who are in control, as this subjective picture/model is what is causing them to feel a need to deflect blame – so this is actually independent of where the true cause is.

entry 11

de-mystifying the term ‘unconscious ideology‘ – a term that may sound esoteric or meaningless or unscientific etc. – what it means and how it occurs:

Some material change occurs, and that change means that different strategies/behaviour patterns are now viable [to different degrees].

In these new circumstances, those agents have an advantage whose dispositions (which are unconscious structures of the mind) are better compatible with the new set of more viable behaviours.

And those agents who possess advantageous unconscious traits rise in success/power relative to others, and thereby those unconscious traits spread through [higher levels of] hierarchies of success/power/respect etc. .

And this proliferation constitutes an emergence of common/shared [similar] unconscious traits [- and a shift in the makeup of unconscious traits within certain social/hierarchical groups/levels].

And those shared unconscious dispositional traits at the same time are a shared causal foundation/base for common sets of rationalizations – in other words, now that minds with certain shared intuitive/unconscious aspects/traits have grouped together, this leads to certain [new] sets of rationalizations finding group appeal & acceptance and becoming prominent and standard.

This kind of complex of such sets of group rationalizations with a shared unconscious causal basis that comes about through material change interacting with unconscious mental traits is what I mean by ‘unconscious ideology’.

And of course such sets of rationalizations can build/produce more complex structures of rationalizations over time, thus more obviously becoming ideologies or systems/structures of common thinking.

entry 10

individualism & rationalism* as social & theoretical-philosophical anti-structuralism** respectively

individualism:

Individual freedom is seen as freedom from social structures… & freedom to use money to do whatever one wishes – and this monetary liberalism at the same time erodes, disintegrates, dissolves and liquefies social structures.

rationalism/rational tradition:

on the linguistic level: Under rational methodology, ones tries to reduce statements to such that can be defined and used independently of any [theoretical] context that might be too broad to be tangible, definable & explicable, and to such statements that consist of components whose meanings/functions are independent of any intangible, unconscious, impractically complex contexts. Put more simply, words and statements are isolated out of the complex structures they are/were parts of.

on the level of object/reference domain: When considering an object or a question, one can often find that this object is actually embedded in a more complex structure that is beyond practical rational analysis, and that the object’s properties and identity are dependent on a larger structure. The rational method tries, when tenable, to put aside such more complex structure in order to isolate and focus on an object that is a tangible, bounded, comprehensible piece of the universe. And rational objects of analysis thus tend to be physical and of theoretical dimension (- i.e. of [minimum] number of relata of the object’s predicate -) low enough to be reducible or definable using the available/accessible [mainstream] theories & theory levels.

on the level of belief/truth: At the same time rational theorizing tries to be free from dogma and bias by trying to be free from ideology, i.e. ideological idea structures. And this manifests in tending to minimize the positive content of theory structure, being opposed to theory structures that contain positive beliefs/determinations/propositions, instead aiming to build a purely technical/mathematical structure of neutral sets of possible choices. And this keeps the theory structure from growing in minds***, and thus minimizes the dimension and complexity of the theory structure, i.e. minimizes the extent of structure.

—

Now, the idea of freedom from social structures is of course false – a naive rationalist denial of unnoticed, unconscious structures that humans are embedded in – structures of class, hierarchies, traditions, genders, etc. And this situation of naive ignorance of causally active social structures is open for exploitation by reactionary paternalism.

And analogously, the assumptions underlying rational methodology are also naive and exploitable.

*I’m not yet sure whether to say ‘rationality’ or ‘rationalism’ or something else here – and this isn’t simply a matter of looking up which term is the one closer to what I mean, it’s a matter of a longer process that involves exploring the logical and historical relationships between these terms and contemporary ideologies/traditions and developing a terminology that can most effectively be used to let a reader see the connections and distinctions I am trying to make or explicate. Suffice to say here that I mean ‘rationalism’ in a very broad, undefined, exploratory, speculative sense and not exactly in the sense of any particular existing historical definition of ‘rationalism’. Some other of many terminological candidates for what I’m thinking of are ‘rational tradition’ and ‘rational methodology’ and ‘rational-analytical methodology’.

**I use ‘structuralism’ here in a broader sense than the common usage of the term, especially than the sociological usage: By ‘structuralism’ I roughly mean: a meta-theory/philosophy that says that structures and relations actually exist and need to be taken into account for correct analysis of any single part of the world.

***I expect to write much more on this in other notes concerning the connection between rational-analytical method and nihilism.