Economic Justice in Belief and Action, Some Reflections on Moral Obligations Pt. 2

(Pt. 2)

...

Are we then required to subject ourselves to the harsh, challenging living conditions in order to cancel the debt we feel to people who have themselves been structurally, routinely and regularly exploited and disenfranchised by the very system which has benefited some of us, in different ways?

Some Marxists intrigue me for the position they take on this issue. Often, they claim a practical fidelity to their principles, while their principles virtually complicate any attempt to practically realize them in nonviolent or tempered forms. An ideologically infused, systemic and totalizing critique, for such a person, may even become a bulwark against any action, as taking 'smaller' steps to ameliorate economic depredations seems to pale in comparison to something so grand and important as uprooting and overturning an entire system's inequalities or exclusions. In response, one might ask: What is the relevant system and scale? How can we confidently define it and attribute determinative agency to it? These are important questions. And, in response, I might be accused of conflating or simplifying positions or generalizing across different Marxist ideologists.

In whatever case, the issue remains: how can one maintain a systemic, totalizing critique and not act in other ways to arrive at its outcomes, the eventual amelioration of inequalities produced by capitalism? Are these habits in contradiction or opposition? Is the contradiction material or insignificant? I contend that it is significant, that it sheds light both on the challenge for the Marxist in pursuing the end goal of their theoretical view of how society should operate and how we should arrive there in light of the prevailing conditions of production and such a theoretical path closes off, obfuscates or renders seemingly inconsequential any other, more immediate, focused or targeted efforts to the point of rendering their own theoretical positions practically insignificant.

I don't make these statements lightly, as they have frustrated, depressed and challenged me and continue to do so, informing and shaping my own decisions and activity. They are, nevertheless, real and we must all face and cope with them, every day, forever, as much a part of the absurd conditions of existence (and our political economy) as anything else.

But, then, I ask myself: "who am I to make such judgments for any anyway?" and "What if they," (whoever they are) just for example, "do make good on some of these promised revolutionary ventures?" And to generalize even further, "what is the relationship of any opinion 'we' have to those around us?" In a few short moments, the moral swamp deepens and becomes murkier, as it is no longer clear who bears a 'more' moral mission (or, alternately, how we might navigate these dilemmas at all), while the traditional ethical interpretive framework of intention-action-possible consequence, remains only so helpful in addressing and heading off such questions. Such a framework doesn't even really consider who should be invested with the power and right of being the judge, in addition to other issues of calculation, of discrete separation of activities into these categories as well as so many other things.

One of my immediate intuitions is that there isn't a tangible or apparent final judgment to be found here, and consequently, no judgments absolutely better than any others, just a variety of arguments, some with better justification and others with worse justification (or a justification that isn't apparent, isn't made public or isn't clear or completely articulated). We live in a world that contains an environment of evidence and possible opportunity, and the fact that it is up to us to both act and judge complicates both activities, when we lack some kind of recourse to a higher power, in the case, which increasingly it is, in many circles that we refuse to ascribe to a laid out religious doctrine (but still maintain a respectful position to it). MLK evaded this problem of moral foundation by citing god and the divine law as the ultimate litmus test for any terrestrial practice or policy; but we simply no longer have that formerly-widely-consented to privilege any longer.

Living in an unprecedented age where meaning is uprooted and floating, inscribed in our human practices and reinforced by our own actions and beliefs, we must find alternative sources for justifying our own actions, and, as I see it, the only possible solid alternative is a kind of fidelity to a human community that involves both immediate and longer term investments of power, effort, service, finance and care to what we do have. This conclusion doesn't answer the question entirely, but it does shed light on some of its complexities, which is perhaps all we can really do now.

And yet, another position remains. I cannot help but think that any position that places one more immediately in the fray of appreciating and addressing inequality and injustice deserves greater attention and appraisal, no matter what it is. This course of action doesn't accept any categorical inhibitions that cast any and all such work in a nonconstructive pall. It prioritizes confronting present conditions and expediently working to create more fair, less unequal arrangements from them. Again, the issue of standard persists, but in this position, one may more comfortably admit that much of what today happens may have positive outcomes that are yet undiscerned but that any action whatsoever that refuses the Economists promise of a better world later on is worth considering.

As well, there are likely to be contradictions and conflicts between the various attempts to address these issues (not to mention the various definitions, interpretations and narrativizations of them, which I will get to in a later post). True, the particular actions need to be scrutinized, but I contend that we nevertheless need action and reflection; and if we lose the balance or lose a sense of the immediacy, then we lose any hope of ever addressing the issues themselves. The Economist's prediction lives nowhere but in our imaginations, but we do not want our own fidelity to our fellow humankind, to social justice and making fairer the world to be made of the same stuff.

If nothing else, it is worth noting how our own morality is a problem for us, and has been, for so long. It even provides a kind of comfort, really, to see that what we're working on has been worked on and will likely continue to be. Nevertheless, we must maintain fidelity both to the present and what is not present, and to this we hopefully can work towards.

...

Bipartisanship?

What does it say that we cannot even agree to what it means to be bipartisan or that we're fighting over its very definition? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/15/gohmert-pushes-impeachment-obama-getting-close-to-a-high-crime-and-misdemeanor/

Banksy's 'Gift Shop'

While the actual practice of the art fairly defies categorization, it is worth noting that street art, in many ways, has achieved remarkable renown and, from this standpoint, cannot arguably be said to represent the Avante-Garde any longer. (Subsumed under the umbrella is graffiti art, Lock-On art, flyposting art, stencil art, mural art, performance art and so much more). Some of Banksy's more recent contributions, in his most recent 'artist-in-residence' work in New York, appear to suggest a stale and overly-hyped shell of its previously innovative and critical character. And I'm sure that he's appraised of this, and you can even see it in some of the forthcoming objects.

One of the most recent objects, "Art Sale," is not one object but a series of original stencils that he did for the purpose of vending them publicly, near Central Park, in a nondescript temporary booth entitled 'spray art' person-ed by an older gentleman. Selling the works for $60 dollars but actually only experiencing around $400 in sales total, one reading of this object/performance is that people, in general, cannot recognize art unless they are led to it, appraised of its value, having it identified and properly explained to them by 'authoritative' critics.

This cynical view, however, was largely validated by how many were unable to recognize his work or who failed to ask about authorship, as those who actually purchased anything did so unbeknownst of its origins and were really just desiring of something to fill some wall or to commemorate  their trip to the place. An alternative, marginal but far more interesting reading of this object is, in my opinion, however, that people are losing interest in Banksy, a reality that he is probably aware of and concerned about to some degree. Sure, one might reasonably and predictably object, "if they knew it was his work, they would've paid immense sums for it." And I wouldn't argue and would likely concede this point. But I would retort that, at this point, it is a matter of image, of status, and not about innovation or the production of the art objects themselves. That is, his art has basically lost its edge, and he is no longer defining what we might reasonably term the Avante-Garde.

This is how I think we should interpret the status of Banksy's work, not merely as something that should be synonymous with his name. For the name and image have, for so long, obscured and obfuscated what is actually being done and left public; although, admittedly, this wasn't always the case. Perhaps people just wanted to, at one time, to laud it, celebrate it, praise it, purchase it for the express purpose of appropriating it. Fearful of what it could do, they knew they must have it to keep it off the streets, from public eye, public appreciation, so that they could better understand this countercultural figure and the potent nature of his critiques. If this were the case, they have already won, and we have already lost. More likely, they just understood his edge, they say what he was doing to be experimental and suffused with present issues regarding the state of the public arena in the era of privatization, and they wanted to, ironically, privately mull over some of the questions that he raises, if objects can be said to do so at all.

In whatever case, art has intriguing capacities for foretelling ways of doing, seeing, and being in the world, but the market understands them; it is up to artists then, to appreciate the concerns that they present to the production of the new, the novel and hold out for this very purpose.

There is a lingering chance, though, this is just the normal course of the production of art and its dissemination, but this explanation would take us out of the process, and we are important players who should never be disregarded.

I just know that, if any icon has achieved such notoriety, then something disconcerting is afoot, and we should not merely welcome such icons with an uncritical, celebratory, awed eye. For is precisely at these moments when we are most vulnerable, when we become deceived, distracted and diverted from is actually happening, if anything can be said to be happening.

The Political and the Status of the Forum

What is most disconcerting about the political reasoning of this place is that it actually isn't happening. This is not to condemn the people here or to dismiss them as 'stupid' or 'ignorant,' for their tendency is far more common and widespread than any of us would like to believe, being good citizens constituting a democracy who proudly wear "I voted" stickers. It is to say that people here appear to be decided before argument or debate; that argument or debate is not seen as an opportunity for mutual learning and possibility, and so, the very quality of the realm of the political as being uncertain is lost, perhaps without restitution. The common prejudice that the conditions or opportunities for putting forth, reviewing and updating opinion are to be avoided and if engaged in at all should merely involve two parties that steadfastly maintain their positions of disagreement is sad testament to the state of what we call a 'democracy' but not, by any measure, grounds for forsaking the project.

Their idols and party provide them with no better model. House Republicans (amongst others) have been incorrigibly and obdurately refusing to talk about several issues, using even extortionate tactics to achieve their aims. A new level of desperation has been disclosed. But this is not where the political is, as the political was never about force but about power, turning to H. Arendt for the distinction, meaning the creation of spaces of debate and argumentative play whereby the multiple parties to the event might be able to put forth their respective positions and learn from those of others in the pursuit of fashioning decisions or policies that might satisfy as many as possible. This is not what is occurring any longer and appears to be a sad reminder of what could be.

There are reasons that this is happening, too. Adherence to the line of a party is held in such high regard that deviation is treated as betrayal, which, interestingly sheds light on a novel understanding of what membership in a party means. Parties are not teams, and we are not playing sports; as tempting and intuitive as it might seem, we are not merely democratic participants who are supposed to indefatigably defend positions with little consideration of what is resisting that defense or opposing us.

There is also a failure to appreciate the uncertain aspect of the realm of the political. Outcomes are not supposed to be infinitely or completely determined, if at all, and instead are supposed to result from the play of opinion and difference in a given forum. Sure, constituencies elect members to congress and elsewhere, and these elections are supposed to charge their representatives with certain responsibilities. But holding to these constituencies should not preclude representatives from embracing difference and discussion, the kind that might even uproot and shift opinion, creating the space for new possible political outcomes. But this is not how our political system works for various reasons and may present good reason to reflect on a re-engineer it or our expectations of it.

Furthermore, the likely outcome of difference and disagreement that already exists based the ineluctable fact of a plethora of different doxa (perspectives, worldviews that inhabit the world) coming to a head in discussion is, in fact, avoided at all costs, seen not as inevitable based on ineradicable disagreement (and dare I say natural?) but as merely gratuitous and violently masturbatory, just argumentative fun and games really. But this account fails to appreciate the realness of perspectives and their distribution across space and time and the likely inability to reconcile parts of them. Quite possibly, without forums like this, that is, spaces of the political, something much more terrible might result.

Even more insidious and disconcerting is what this practice (or evasion of it) does for the realm of uncertainty. If we are no longer creating spaces for the presentation, negotiation and resolution of political difference, then we have deluded ourselves into believing either that the space is unnecessary or that such engagement is not expedient and captures time better spent elsewhere.
Explanations such as these have their implications. If we've lost an appreciation for the significance of this space, then Arendt is correct and what political conflicts have happened this century (and really, much earlier than that) have traumatized 'us' to the point of feeling the need to avoid all conflict. Perhaps, as well, it has done so permanently (but never irreparably).

If, on the other hand, it merely seems expedient to give up participation and engagement in the realm of the political (which can be anywhere really, where difference and disagreement are acknowledged, disclosed and confronted), the private industry has triumphed and overcome the priorities of resolving political difference. In this case, we have become more concerned with efficacy, productivity, profit and eliminating risk (and its attendant uncertainty) than with examining and scrutinizing the fissures that inevitably characterize, and without serious consideration, potentially endanger own communities.

As part of this trend, difference from one another itself seems to be ignored as a fundamental quality of how we live, of how we are and the fact that we each possess original, unique and infinitely distinguishable histories that are at once both constructed and already present. We must seek to rectify this lack of appreciation for the realm of the political, to show the world what we are losing when we ignore it. For the conditions that encourage and engender it remain. Difference is a function of our existence and failing to give forum to it is dangerous and short-sighted and would only ever seem proper if parties to the debate failed to appreciate the significance of the conditions that gave rise to it.

And yet, we wonder why 'talking politics' has become taboo, left only to cocktail parties and places where we might expect sameness. But this does not have to be.