A song I listened to recently put me in mind of Reverend Tim Haggard's situation.
The song is by the band 'Garbage.'
The title of the song is "Sex is not the enemy"
A song I listened to recently put me in mind of Reverend Tim Haggard's situation.
The song is by the band 'Garbage.'
The title of the song is "Sex is not the enemy"
Crossposted from Posthegemony, as this bears, dare I say it, on some earlier discussions concerning politics, performativity, and the New Left. But I'll let others draw whatever morals or conclusions they will.
I've mentioned Douglas Oliver's Diagram Poems (1979) before, following a discussion of Deleuze's concept of the diagram. And I remember somewhere, sometime reading an essay about, or simply mentioning, these poems--I had thought that it was in Marshall Blonsky's On Signs, but no. Then Oliver came up again in a conversation last year with my friend Carol Watts. So I felt I should track this book down.
What is a public? Jodi Dean lucidly suggests that since calls for the 'public' are voiced, well, in a pre-existing public, such calls are mostly political interventions for a certain kind of public, i.e., one more amenable to one's own orientation. We might say, then, that these calls for a public are disengenuous, not actually concerned with achieving a true public. (One can obviously place in this context Republican calls for a less `liberal biased' PBS.)
What, then, is a true public? Is it the pre-existing public that allows for various factions to fight within it for their particular definition of a public? The set that exists before the battle to hegemonize its definition and practice? Does a true public only pre-exist the hegemonizing of the set through the rise of the master-signifier?
Or can we say that, only with the right master-signifier, the right political order, the true public actually comes into being?
A true public is one without pigeon-holing, where one doesn't automatically place oneself in five seconds of speech. It's one where you don't know what I am going to say next. It's where I am not merely offering pre-digested soundbites. Most of the blogosphere then has nothing to do with this true public; partisan hackery is but more TV (which is precisely why the TV networks can so easily report on this sector of the blogosphere), as are the endless ruminations on what one fed one's cat today.
The true public goes beyond your surprise at my words, my positioning. I must be surprised myself. As in the decisive act that overwhelms you, that preempts one's understanding of one's own actions, here I must myself be surprised by what comes from my `pen'. Only after the fact, upon the establishment of a new order, can I come to understand what I have done.
But then the question is: does the new order in fact get created here, in this part of the blogosphere? What could that mean? No, yes, maybe new orders are constantly being tested. We're playing at being vanishing mediators. But playing with an enormous sense of responsibility, for the Other. So maybe, then, Long Sunday is both the `true public' before the hegemonization of the very term 'public', and the Just `public' after the right hegemonization.
Having it both ways? Ah, the life of a vanishing mediator...
Zizek writes, in a sort of parallel:
The "political" dimension is... doubly inscribed: it is a moment of the social Whole, one among its sub-systems, and the very terrain in which the fate of the Whole is decided - in which the new Pact is designed and concluded. (For they know not what they do, 193)

Recent Comments