[Reader-list] The Poverty of Debate on Iraq

[Jamie Dow]

Are, Rana,

Rana is right to see 2 different agendas here.
One is descriptive and sees the world in terms of impersonal or
semi-personal forces. In fact, on this view, even the personal forces are
typically described impersonally. Hence, Are, you reach instinctively for an
analogy with physics to illuminate what you are saying. Inevitably the scope
of this kind of view will be wider, since human (intended) action is only
part of what affects things in the world. On this model, we are passive
recipients of what the world throws at us - we react to it, it elates or
(predominantly) angers or depresses us.

The other project, though, sees us as agents ourselves. Not as victims. And
this is the blessing it offers, since it is not content simply to describe
the world. It asks what to do, and - yes - what one ought to do, what one's
nation ought to do. This kind of motivation for action will not come from
anywhere else. In fact, my opinion is that the less we take this view of
things, the more hope/anger fades and gives way just to resignation.


At risk of cutting less gently, I think there is something to be worried
about in the type of rhetoric we use. Words like "domain" and "space" and
"oligopoly" and so on, sentences used in inscrutable ways - these are all
things that exclude others from understanding what we are saying. I think it
is prevalent in the way you write, Are. This way of writing is
characteristic of the kind of quest to understand the world as "a field of
flows, forces and vectors". I'm wary here, since cultural differences can be
important in the way in which language is used. Words are much more
commonplace and inclusive in one culture than the next - Are, I've no idea
where you're from, and so this is not necessarily directed at you,
therefore. But I think that a drift to a more inscrutable type of language
can typically be motivated by two reasons: (1) a worry that if a point is
too clearly understood it could get refuted; and (2) the belief that
academic language should be opaque and technical. Of course, both of these
are ill-founded. Clear points will persuade if they are good ones. To be
helped to be rid of a bad argument is a blessing. And real academic language
aims to be clear and down-to-earth.
I would therefore plead for a "lowering of the tone", making our case in
plain language. These seem to be virtues in the business of building
community, letting voices be heard, and very much necessary to enable people
to connect with each other in almost anything to do with either the media or
the city. I appeal of course here to the values of Sarai.

Jamie


On Behalf Of Are Flagan
Sent: 20 February 2003 00:44
To: Rana Dasgupta; reader-list at sarai.net
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] The Poverty of Debate on Iraq


Re: 2/19/03 16:09, "Rana Dasgupta" <rana_dasgupta at yahoo.com>:

> I think the rather pathetic Fox News slight - though
> not intended for the public domain - is therefore
> completely unjustified.

But FOX News, on the other hand, is intended for and shapes the public
domain...so why should an argument that questions an argument that closely
follows it's rhetoric, albeit with a different outcome, then be deemed
pathetic, cruel and unjustified?

The point is to recognize that if one accepts that the world is a field of
flows, forces and vectors, one must in the same instance give up on the
universality of anything being just "right" or "wrong." Einstein tried to
quantize space and time for decades to come up with a unified theory and,
gravity always pending, failed. Powerful fields push and pull with different
forces depending on where you are and who you are. Einstein worked around
the problem by establishing _constants_ to make the other parts operative,
but we now have compelling theories that argue for the variable speed of
light and, thereby, open up for the possibility of parallel universes.

My time here has expired.

-af

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe
in the subject header.
List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>