Re: Anarch and PCorrectness

[Thomas Friese <tfriese@intergate.bc.ca>]

larbaud wrote:
> 
> John King wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Thomas Friese wrote:
> >
> > > > Sorry, but I think you minimize the phenomena. Political correctness
> > > > goes far beyond the university world. Its main weapon is the mass media
> > > > and tends to control the whole ideological production, not only the
> > > > academic discourse. And its centre is not the university, but the
> > > > political and economic power.
> > > > power in the world, unfortunately.
> > > > I agree with you that it's "an object of ridicule for most people
> > > > outside it", but the problem is how to go out of it. It's not easy.
> > > >
> > > You are right - difficult indeed. Exactly the kind of problem that faces
> > > the anarch and that challenges him to find a personal solution! No?
> > > Thomas Friese
> >
> > Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the person and works of EJ. We
> > ought at least to retain that perspective - there are plenty of other
> > fora for general political discussion.
> >
>  O, I've just replied to your post, Mr. King. All the merits of the new
> issue are yours.
> 
> > However, I am not sure how "political correctness" and the "mass media"
> > phenomena coincide. "Bild Zeitung", "The Sun" - mass media, but
> > xenophobic, sensationalist, mysoginist. PC? The link to technical and
> > ecomomic production sounds on the other hand like a Marxist account of
> > ideology as an attempt to conceal by various strategies the true nature
> > of the conditions of production and thus deceive the proletariat.
> >
> > On the contrary I would suggest that (post)-modern society quite easily
> > contains a whole variety of conflicting discourse, ideologies, value
> > systems, whatever. Hence, the comments I made drawing on Baumann, that PC
> > discourses circulate essentially unheard in the "mainstream". I would
> > seriously question the notion that there is a single common denominator
> > to be detected behind all these multiple voices which can as such be
> > resisted - unless it is an increasing medialisation of experience.
> >
> > Thus, the idea of the "Anarch" seems to be superfluous as a specific
> > programme. If there is no "mainstream", no "metanarrative", then the
> > "Anarch" merely becomes another voice in the cacophony of the present,
> > yet another alternative. Is the retreat to "Innerlichkeit" any more than
> > a deeper internalisation of previously existing structures of subjectivity?
> > And thus not an escape?
> >
> > John King.
> 
>         I don't want to divert the literary discussion on your list, Mr.
> King,
> because literature is my only concern here.
>        I agree with most of what you said about Baumann's criticism of
> the narrowness of some academic discourses. My only point was that
> political correctness goes far beyond the university world, as your post
> seemed to suggest. I know that PC doesn't "coincide" with the mass
> media: I've said that PC's main instrument is the mass media and not the
> academic classrooms. Just that.
>         My apologies.
> 
> Larbaud Jr.
> 
> PS: I'm not anarch and I don't think that they can be "yet another
> alternative". I'm just a reader of Bertrand de Jouvenel's great book "Du
> pouvoir", so close to some Juenger's positions, in my opinion.

	I would suggest that the anarch is essentially different from the other
"voices in the cacophany of the present" in that it is one voice which
is not particularly concerned with being heard. Unlike most (ALL?) of
the others, it takes its validity from itself, from the individual
himself and it does not look for acceptance in the context of society,
however p.correct it may be or not. To quote Stirner (from Eumeswil):
"Let a nation do without freedom of the press. As for Me, I will hit on
some trick or act of violence in order to print my work; I will obtain
the permission only from Myself and My strength." If I am even
interested in broadcasting my ideas....

	And of course it is an escape, but is that intrinsically negative?
"Escape" in what sense? From who, from what? All of us would say that an
unpleasant prison should be escaped from if possible. Society is our
prison but since the anarch has long given up on society's self-serving
belief in progress and hence does not expect the prison to ever be
transformed into paradise, he can only turn upon himself in his struggle
to be free. (It goes almost without saying at this level that neither
does he believe that he can live altogether without society - he is not
a naive anarchist who believes that a fish can live without water.)  Of
course if anyone (including the anarch) feels himself interested or
obliged to "influence" society, go to it! But don't expect it of others
because no-one is bound by any higher ethic to contribute to society as
a master to be served. One does it for oneself, because one wants to or
cannot help doing otherwise. The anarch and the "Only" would probably
say that their attitude to the world was not an internalization but
rather a rediscovery of previously existing but hidden structures of
subjectivity. 

	I would say that an anarch would use PC in order to further his own
agenda. It does also offer certain advantages.

Thomas Friese