Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

The subversion/ruining of useful concepts and ideas

All Acting Regiment

15:56 / 21.06.07

How things one might otherwise be happy to support become tainted by over-use by people who abuse them. This is a very relevant discussion, I feel. It's probably best to explain what I mean by using examples.

1) The war on Afghanistan and Iraq being presented as a crusade for "women's rights", etc.

2) "Antisemitism" being used as a slur to shut down debates about Israel.

3) People who claim to be in favour of "Enlightenment values" but who, on closer inspection, are using this as a gloss to disguise xenophobia against a given group or groups of people.

Phex: Dorset Doom

16:22 / 21.06.07

Just to clarify, are you looking for more examples like those above or to discuss the phenomena in general?

*

17:04 / 21.06.07

Further, are you saying you would be in favor of the Iraq/Afghanistan war but are not because it's tainted with feminism, or that you would be in favor of feminism but are not because it's tainted by the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

(Sorry. Being facetious.)

All Acting Regiment

17:11 / 21.06.07

Just to clarify, are you looking for more examples like those above or to discuss the phenomena in general?

Sorry, I was called away. I'd like this thread to contain both of your suggestions.

Further, are you saying you would be in favor of the Iraq/Afghanistan war but are not because it's tainted with feminism, or that you would be in favor of feminism but are not because it's tainted by the Iraq/Afghanistan war?

I'm saying that people, who are not feminists at all, often claim justification for the wars by saying they are about women's rights, when a) they are manifestly about power and money, and which men have those things, and b) have done nothing for women's rights (or only token gestures) in those countries, because women there still live in fear of their lives.

*

17:12 / 21.06.07

Oh! Oooh! Or for serious:

The goal of protecting children from sexual abuse is tainted by its association here with rampant paternalism, racism, and colonialism, along with self-evidently unjust laws that target huge numbers of people based on race alone!

That what you mean?

All Acting Regiment

15:25 / 22.06.07

Aye, that kind of thing. I'm trying to dig out a particular pernicious pretend-feminism article I read somewhere.

MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!

15:30 / 22.06.07

Do you really see these misuses as "ruining" the concept or idea, though? I get woefully tired of seeing people in Quebec using "cultural preservation" as a thin veil to be racists, but that doesn't diminish my interest in or valuing of cultural preservation a whit -- I'm just tired of seeing it misused to take clumsy swipes at minorities.

Similar to the "human rights" justifications around Iraq -- the fact that the neo-cons suddenly started trumpeting it as a the reason for the invasion after it became woefully apparent there were no WMDs there doesn't diminish the concept at all, it just makes the war-champions look like dissembling fools.

So I'm on board with "subversion," but is there really "ruining" going on?

13:25 / 26.06.07

[In response to Zippy's post above about child sex abuse/colonialism, elders speak back.]

All Acting Regiment

12:46 / 27.06.07

Good point Matt Sheperd. I suppose the concept doesn't get pushed beyond use, but I think it's well to be aware of what's happening to it, who else might be using such a concept and why we might want to be careful of falling into that trap. I feel it needs to be said outright that Blair's wars are sod all to do with feminism in order to avoid people thinking, in some round about way, that they are.

Jawsus-son Starship

14:53 / 07.07.07

Re; The war in Iraq. I think the people who use the human rights abuse as the reason for going to war do so to diminish any of thier opponents ability to form a reasonable argument. Iraq was easy to argue against when it was about weapons of mass destruction; the main reasoning I hear now is that of freeing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. Since the reason has been retconned, I think those claiming this as the reason hope that the people who would argue against the invasion now struggle to do so.

This policy of freeing the oppressed leaves itself open to a different kind of questioning. For example, it could be argued that the people of North Korea are just as oppressed, but we don't see any American tanks heading in this direction. Same with Africa. So it's more of a diversionary tactic then anything else.

In the case of "antisemetic" and "anti-Israel", I read an interesting article on the channel four website which I now cannot find, which talked about Anti-Zionist jews in England. I'll see if I can find it and post the addy.

19:59 / 07.07.07

1) The war on Afghanistan and Iraq being presented as a crusade for "women's rights", etc.

This I mention mainly because it is currently clawing out my eyes - Surely you mean wars, plural, IN, not on, Afganistan and Iraq.

As I said, I mention it mostly because it was clawing at my eyes, however I also think that in a thread about the semantic shifts that occur as different groups attempt to redefine terms to suit their own ideologies, clarification would be desirable.