BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

Micro vs Macro

  
 
No star here laces
12:04 / 31.01.02
quote:Originally posted by me:
I think that there are a lot of problems with the macro social structures in the world, such as nation-states, transnational corporations and NGOs.

quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Indeed there are. And what are these things? Chimerae afforded headspace and processing power in the brains of individuals. Abstracts. Illusions, perhaps delusions, with power because they are accepted. On what level can they be beaten? Only by redefining the rules, by revolution (which probably requires or even is a subset of the foregoing), or by a superior force...

Let's tackle this one head on.

It is my profound belief that although perceptions are indeed a very powerful thing, there is also such a thing as material power. I'd say that Nick's quote above is actually hedging. The strong version of that thesis is something like this:

quote:All power is based on illusion - on the perception in the mind of the oppressed that the oppressor has power. Thus the only way to defeat the power of the oppressor is by redefining the rules - by changing perceptions.

I don't accept this thesis. At some point the material basis of power has to addressed. Other wise the man will show exactly why he is the man by knocking you down and kicking your fucking head in.

That is why, to me, it is not sufficient to fight injustices by disseminating ideas or creating art or any other form of purely perceptual subversion.

Now I know the obvious counter-argument to this is "but exactly - because he is stronger than you, you can't fight him like that". To which I go "a-ha, but why is it only in the perceptual arena that we can redefine the rules?"

Example: the rise of the bourgeoisie over the aristocracy comes through a redefinition of material influence from connections and birthrights to pure wealth and educational knowhow.

Example: the classic revolutionary model - seizure of the means of production by those who do not currently own it, in defiance of military power.

So, arguments for and against the existence of purely material power, and the necessity of material adjustments to this material power in order to cause change.

(note: my case is not that material force is sufficient to cause change, only that it is necessary)

[ 31-01-2002: Message edited by: Lyra Lovelaces ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:16 / 31.01.02
Well, this is exactly why I posted in the Ideology thread that I believe that many Leftists, led astray by the Elder Gods of Gallic Theory, make a category error and mistake epistemological (in your words, "perceptual") change for ontological (in your words, "material power") change. You can't change power structures through altering your perception of them. Yes, it is educational to use the tools provided by Foucault, Derrida, Delueze and all the rest to examine the institutions of power. But that doesn't mean critique is capable of changing the institutions.

Now, how to change these institutions? Borrowing a page from Lyra's mea culpa in the Ideology thread, I would suggest an utter and ruthless hypocrisy on the part of those who want to change these institutions. That is, cut off your fucking dredloks, put away the giant puppets, go to Harvard Business School, get your fucking MBA, and get yourself invited to the WEF, the WTC, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, etc. Play the game from the inside.

Obviously, this is the fantasy of the Bruce Wayne/Mason-esque enlightened corporatist who accumulates material power (necessarily profiting from the immoral institutions s/he plans to bring down), but why should it be a fantasy? It's no more a fantasy than a truly meritocratic society (as in Lyra's first example above) which wouldn't be egalitarian, or an enlightened revolution that doesn't turn into terror and oppression at the end.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:59 / 31.01.02
Lyra: quote:I'd say that Nick's quote above is actually hedging.That's a really aggravating habit you've picked up somewhere, Lyra. I'm not hedging, you and I have different points of view. When you say I'm hedging, the implication is that I'm refusing to own up to my convictions or motivations on a given issue. It's either a sneaky and irrelevant way of undermining my argument of a slur on my character.

quote:it is not sufficient to fight injustices by disseminating ideas or creating art or any other form of purely perceptual subversion. [...]

Example: the classic revolutionary model - seizure of the means of production by those who do not currently own it, in defiance of military power.First, revolution in the classic mode is impossible without some form of perceptual shift. In the classic Marxian model, this means the creation of a class awareness, and an informed, active proletariat (or even bourgeoisie, depending on what stage of the historical materialist cycle we're at). More loosely, a transition has to be made from individuals accepting the status quo to rejecting it - the actualisation of what has been called 'value disynchronisation': a disjunct between the world as advertised (or as it 'should be') and the world as experienced.

Second, without a shift in value and perception, the new regime will simply be the old one all over again. It's not good enough to perform a rejective revolution - 'we want these bastards out' - because that's just a coup d'etat, and little changes. The new regime has to be configured in a different way, not just structurally and schematically (e.g. left takes over from right) but in terms of actual action and reaction and understanding of how the world works. A revolution in this country, for me, would have to include an ethos of government which rejected 'behind the scenes influence' and the pernicious 'realpolitik', and the favour-trading which goes on with large companies and small pressure groups...otherwise it's just another episode of 'Yes, Minister'.

Third, successful revolutions do not take place in defiance of military power. Not ever. The position of the armed forces determines the outcome of an armed revolution. Where they are split, as in the Russian revolution, there is often civil war.

Todd:

quote:Play the game from the inside.I'm not at all sure it can be done.

What I see as vital is the creation of a culture which does not separate us into alienated selves such as 'working me' and 'private me'. The directors of a large company should not be told 'it is your duty to make money for the shareholders even if it means destroying the environment'. That's possible only if human and corporate hats are distinct from one another. We must be integrated. The captain of the England Cricket team cannot say 'I don't want to get involved with the politics surrounding our tour'. We must not abdicate. Ever.

Finally, I think using the tool of the Man (force) inevitably recreates the Man. I've explained why before, but I'll do so again if need be. So My revolution is one of individual change over a mass of people. Because I also believe that treating a large number of individuals as a single unit creates the myth of 'acceptable losses' and 'the good of the nation' and so on.

No one is expendable.
 
 
grant
16:40 / 31.01.02
Who needs to play the game from the inside once it's publicly revealed (and accepted) as a game, rather than some sort of iconic "way-things-are"?

I think that's one of the underpinnings of memetics, the idea that ideas can change things, that perceptions actually do mutate power structures.

I mean, that's exactly what you describe in your first example, rise of the bourgeoisie.
The second example quite often relies on a similar redefinition: they got the guns, but we got the numbers. We're not disenfranchised, we're King Mob. That kind of thing.

[ 31-01-2002: Message edited by: grant ]
 
 
alas
23:56 / 31.01.02
what nick said. i'm pretty sure management/administration is a pernicious place--cut the dreds and join the team and things become tricky: where does the subversion-from-the-inside game stop and hypocrisy begin? each decision each day becomes messy and complex and it gets comfy riding up there in business class...

side issue: one of the mistakes people often make about foucault, anyway, is thinking his ideas are about head games: his whole point is much more visceral than that: the body is the locus of power. power acts on our bodies, as we have been trained to imagine them: the developmental bodies we have inhabited since the late 18th c...e.g. it may look like what's going on in schools is about minds, but its about training bodies to sit still, look at the teacher, take notes, ...

it's so hard to avoid reifying a simple mind-body duality, but i think it's important.

but what do i know: i don't get very close to revolution sitting in front of my computer. partly because i distrust the vacuum that results within revolution: a space where often the most retrograde elements come forth to take over.

[edited for the sake of editing]

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
Ethan Hawke
01:59 / 01.02.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:
[QB]what nick said. i'm pretty sure management/administration is a pernicious place--cut the dreds and join the team and things become tricky: where does the subversion-from-the-inside game stop and hypocrisy begin?

I'm of the mind that a little hypocrisy is not a bad thing; another problem I have with the traditional Left is their concern with (a)being inflexible on certain principles (b)making decisions based on being on "the right side of history" (acting in the short term how you believe things in the long term should be). I'm definitely an incrementalist, and if that entails being hypocritical and shifting principles to a certain extent, so be it. Politics, whether 'personal', 'local' or "power' is "the art of the possible," after all.

quote:
side issue: one of the mistakes people often make about foucault, anyway, is thinking his ideas are about head games: his whole point is much more visceral than that: the body is the locus of power. power acts on our bodies, as we have been trained to imagine them: the developmental bodies we have inhabited since the late 18th c...e.g. it may look like what's going on in schools is about minds, but its about training bodies to sit still, look at the teacher, take notes, ...

Having very recently read a large portion of the Foucault corpus,(and still doing so currently)of the problems I have with "Discipline and Punish" is the focus on the West and post-industrial society in particular. An arguably more severe tradition of discipline (training bodies) existed for centuries in the East. I'm referring to the Yogic tradition of course, and the various monastic orders that branch off from it, including Japanese Zen. The connection between bodily austerity, isolation, silence, and ritual was well understood in the East long before the creation of prisons in the West. What is the difference, really, between an ascetic in the Yogic tradition and a prisoner?

I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I would be very interested in what a Foucaldian examination of, say, Zen practices would be.
quote:
it's so hard to avoid reifying a simple mind-body duality, but i think it's important.

I think what I'm trying to establish the difference between is not mind/body but rather mind/society. Yes, society is a product of mind reinforced through bodily control. But power is always top-down, and to think about slavery different is to still be a slave.

Again, I'm not so sure about any of this. My thoughts have largely been a mess lately. My faith in some of my traditional political beliefs was shaken by the events of September 11th and what I saw as pre-emptive, rote reactions of some on the Left toward possible American retaliation. My infatuation with Theory, (I'm still much a babe in the woods in this area, anyway) has been shaken by reading a lot of threads here in Barbelith, where it seems sometimes to function as obfuscation or a billy club more than a lens or a scalpel.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Todd ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
03:12 / 01.02.02
quote: But power is always top-down

Well obviously you haven't read that much Foucault - sorry, deliberately bitchy, bad joke. I think you might dig the latter volumes of the History of Sexuality - not about zen but intersecting with what you're taking about [/threadrot]

Anyway, I wanted to take up Nick on his first point - it seems to me you are really stretching your marxism to get where you want to go. Class consciousness means (for marxists) identifying with objective class interests, rather than the interests/values imposed by ruling classes (i.e., through nationalism). It's not just a matter of 'rejecting the status quo' - that's just reformism.

on the other hand, I am somewhat baffled by Lyra's saying "it is not sufficient to fight injustices by disseminating ideas or creating art or any other form of purely perceptual subversion." because surely nobody thinks that it is? and if there are such people, they are what we in the business call 'fucking idiots'.

anyway - it seems obvious to me that cultural/perceptual activism isn't going to institute change by itself, but that material change won't happen without instigating changed perceptions of things - did that make sense? i am trying to avoid talking like a trot but i will do it to try to be clearer - material change won't happen without a mass movement; you can't build a mass movement without transforming people's ideas. eek, how embarrassing.
 
 
No star here laces
03:12 / 01.02.02
Nick, I know we've had a barney recently, but I'm actually feeling sort of warm and hugglesy towards you at the moment and that 'hedging' comment was simply because I wanted to state the argument that perceptual change is the only tool in its strongest form, whereas in your original quote you talk about using perceptual change or superior force.

I didn't set up the thread specifically to argue with you, more with the perception that: "it is sufficient to fight injustices by disseminating ideas or creating art or any other form of purely perceptual subversion."

I don't personally believe the other extreme, that perceptual subversion is irrelevant. That's why I said "my case is not that material force is sufficient to cause change, only that it is necessary". i.e. that macro structural changes and perceptual changes are both necessary.

Anyway, it's clearly absolutely correct to say that people have to reject the status quo before they change it, and that is a very nice and clear way of expressing things.

But as Crunchy says, class consciousness is about identifying with the interests of your class, and there is a ruling class and they identify with their own interests. More importantly, because they are the ruling class they can enforce these interests using material power. To me this is the sticking point. I find it very hard to believe that you can change the perception of someone like Rupert Murdoch or George Bush to make them want a leftist solution. And this is the point at which politics ceases to be personal, because if you cannot convince them to abdicate power, then you have to make changes so that they no longer have power.

That does not necessarily mean having to wrest it from them, but it does mean having to think about macro structures and how to re configure them.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
10:51 / 01.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:


Well obviously you haven't read that much Foucault - sorry, deliberately bitchy, bad joke. I think you might dig the latter volumes of the History of Sexuality - not about zen but intersecting with what you're taking about [/threadrot]


Heh, I knew the Foucaultistas would take me to task for this. Anyway, I've been reading him in Chronological order and I'm only up to the first volume of the History of Sexuality, which I think marks the real emergence of the "post-structuralist" Foucault and where he explicates his theory of the omnivalence of power. I'm not as of yet convinced of this formulation of power, as it is described in part 4 of the History of Sexuality part 1. It seems like mystical bullshit to me, frankly, comparable to the Holy Spirit of catholic theology, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and keep reading.
 
 
Baz Auckland
11:44 / 01.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Todd:
That is, cut off your fucking dredloks, put away the giant puppets, go to Harvard Business School, get your fucking MBA, and get yourself invited to the WEF, the WTC, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, etc. Play the game from the inside.

Obviously, this is the fantasy of the Bruce Wayne/Mason-esque enlightened corporatist who accumulates material power (necessarily profiting from the immoral institutions s/he plans to bring down), but why should it be a fantasy?

I wonder if after 20yrs. of ass kissing your way up, you learn that you have as much power now as you did when you were a dreaded activist. Say you made it to being up there... CEOs can get fired, presidents assassinated, if you had a seat on a power council, you're one seat of 15...

There must be a more effective way to bring about change. A friend of mine explained her hatred of protesters by saying that if they want to help the environment, they should join the Conservatives (the party in power), work their way up and become Minister of the Environment. Ideally, it might work, but in reality if any Minister tried to go against party policy, they would be booted out of there within minutes...
 
 
alas
12:02 / 01.02.02
maybe think of power less as holy spirit more as an event, or a relation occuring in and through time, between persons. as i see it, the idea is mainly to counter the idea that power is simply tool, some people have the "tool" or have bigger tools, while some don't have a tool or a box to put it in, or some have big power tools run on big voltages while some have a little battery operated screwdriver ... there are limitations to any metaphor. foucault's mainly questioning a simplistic "objective" notion of power

ok, so, still doing a sorta foucauldian thing, gwb is a product of enormous cultural forces and a multitude of small decisions, reactions, some chaotic some informed by ideology; "he" (less who he "really" is and more "who we think he is") is inconceivable outside our current system: he is a seemingly puppetlike man who by virtue of position and a regularly reported 80%ish "approval rating" excercizes some control over lots trained soldiers, spies, and big weapons. to what degree would one have to sieze the current institutions of state-sanctioned violence to change the system that created him. would one have to "destroy him"--i.e. his position / the idea of him, or? i.e., how "physical" must that destruction be?

(Is that--sorta?--the question? or did that just muddy the waters?)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:07 / 01.02.02
Lyra - it's mutual. Go figure.

I think we may have run out of disagreements here - I take your point. Although I would say that with some people you wouldn't necessarily think of as flexible, they can learn. I'm thinking of Bill Gates' encounter with the reality of poor Africa - gee, no, Mr. Gates, they don't need computers, now that you mention it. Electricity would be good. Houses, medicines, you know, that kind of thing.

And I'm given to understand he got it. Although maybe that's just hype.

But you're right - some people are too entrenched to be moved...

Agggh. I'm losing the thread - got a stinking cold today and there's cotton wool in my brain. More later.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
12:15 / 01.02.02
(Maybe it's worth mentioning at this point that Gates' $24 billion dollar philanthropic organization has now focused on improving health infrastructure in Africa.)

(edited to say, whoops, that's what nick was saying)

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Todd ]
 
 
The Planet of Sound
14:52 / 04.02.02
It seems to me more and more these days that the only possible true revolution (evolution?) is 'micro': personal, individual, perceptual... Has there ever been an example of a shift in the 'macro' scheme of things that has ever made much difference, he asked, jadedly? The real day-to-day revolutions are mental events like 'Oh well, I suppose I'll be friendly to this black/gay/protestant/catholic/(ad infinitum) chappie, and afford him the same rights and respect I'd afford others'. And that seems to be about it. All else is theory bitching and fisticuffs.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
03:03 / 05.02.02
Nice thread. Lyra and Nick coming to terms, and in agreement with Crunchy. The heart quails.

There's almost no point in adding anything, except in response to the bit directly above. Abolition, Civil Rights, Suffrage: those things (in the US) seem to have made a difference, and appear to have done immediate service historically contextualized. Sure, it may feel irrelevant when yr sitting at the pub next to a macho bigot, but come on?

Foucaultists looks funnier in print.
 
 
the knowledge +1
06:06 / 05.02.02
Sexual neuroses, coming to terms with wthe work-environment, these are the real determinants of power relations in society.

Every individual has a certain amount of power. Whether you're Bill Gates or John Doe. How powerful is the President at a given time if at that same given time you're a terrorist directing a plane straight at the White House? Fair enough, you're driving a God-damn plane/bomb but it's you that put yourself behind the wheel innit? (wheel?)

It's the relations, the gel that's more important - Sexual between two people can be very empowering, as can relations between a boss and his emlpoyee, if there's respect between the two and an understanding of each others roles. Brings the conversation back to macro/micro: Small changes make the largest difference; the butterfly that flaps its wings and causes a tornado can also stop a tornado, etc etc.

My head hurts!!!
 
 
Jackie Susann
06:20 / 05.02.02
I hope it's because somebody just slapped you upside the head.* Are you serious? The majority of the world's population lives in the global south in conditions of absolute poverty. The suggestion that what they or the world need is subjective 'micro' reform is absurd; they clearly need structural macro-change. I would humbly suggest their sexual neuroses have relatively little to do with this, and that the ability to even consider 'sexual neuroses' a major factor in power relations is a sign of blinding privilege. Nor are personalised 'i should be nice to faggots' style revelations going to help.

I'm indifferent to questions of 'real' revolution, revolution vs reform; I reckon we don't know what works and we should keep trying new things. But it seems to me that anyone who suggests structural, political or economic change are less important the individual growth are taking liberalism to a ridiculous extreme (and/or, ignorant and naive).

* - Sorry about this, it just seemed too good to resist.

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: Dread Pirate Crunchy ]
 
 
The Knowledge +1
11:08 / 05.02.02
I agree entirely. Might I suggest that if you're that concerned about South Africans then you should think more on the micro-scale and get your ass over there and help?

I agree that the macro is important, but the micros' make up the macro, dig?

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: The Knowledge ]
 
 
The Knowledge +1
11:34 / 05.02.02
Anyway, its the sexual neuroses of us Westeners that partly leads to the the ignorance of the rich civilisations of the world and the subjugation of the third world. I don't think that micro is more important than macro, I just don't think vise versa either.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
21:06 / 05.02.02
Crunchy: quote:The majority of the world's population lives in the global south in conditions of absolute poverty. The suggestion that what they or the world need is subjective 'micro' reform is absurd; they clearly need structural macro-change.It's not absurd in the slightest. Knowledge is living in Zonko's Land of Fairy Politics, but don't let that affect your thinking on micro/macro.

Is it even remotely possible that there will be a grand macro change without significant micro alteration here? And if there were, would our efforts do any good if the same culture of government prevailed there? Many of the developing nations have perfectly good constitutions...and they just get worked around. Like ours...

So sure, the majority don't need to undergo some kind of micro-revolution...except...if their new macroworld is to be sustainable, that's exactly what they do need. But no one's suggesting that all those folks in refugee camps can eat notions of social responsibility (which in many cases they have a better grasp of than their counterparts here.)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:26 / 05.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Is it even remotely possible that there will be a grand macro change without significant micro alteration here?

Maybe we need to clear up exactly what we mean by "significant micro alteration". I think maybe part of the problem is that people have encountered the pro-micro, anti-macro argument previously as a pretty obvious smokescreen for doing very little: "I just try to be subversive in my day to day life" if it just means reading the right comic books, or "I just try to be decent and kind to everyone I meet" if the only people you meet are people just like you...

Mind you, that's not to say that the macro argument can't be used in the same way ("it's pointless me doing anything when what's needed is change on a massive scale"). The ironic thing about the above is that on an initial, pragmatic level, I tend to agree absolutely that micro change comes first - it pretty much has to. In a sense, enacting change in the sphere of the 'micro' - ie our own lives - is all we can do initially. It's just a question of what that micro change is. Obviously, I can't single-handedly overturn governments and redistribute resources with a wave of my hand, but I can get involved with activism, etc. But that doesn't mean that macro change isn't still the desired outcome.

Think macro, act micro: isn't that another take on the "think global, act local" motto? Possibly even a better one, given the increasing number of people who are alienated from their geographically local community (whoa, there's a whole other topic there...)?

Another question: when micro alteration becomes significant, doesn't it inevitably also become macro?

[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
Polly Trotsky
12:57 / 06.02.02
Which is, of course, what we seem to be stumbling around. Nick, back from the battle with illness, reminds us that sweeping political changes mean nothing to the grifters in office and the rednecks with buried ammo drums. On the other hand, once you get a bunch of activists with a lot of press, public support, and, um, we'll call it the right message for now, you tend to get a genuine change in the macro that reverberates through the culture. It's missing the point to have been alive for the last 20 +/- years and be blind to the reality of this. Things are different, for good or ill, and a lot of the micro changes you've made yourself, or have noticed in those around you, are repercusions of macro, er, stuff.

I think what Lyra's getting at is that eventually the macro has to lead. Take the ERA or the Human Rights Campaign in the US; supporters will be one on a micro level, but with only 40% or less of us voting, it'd only take 21% of the population (max) to change everything for everyone. (by way of example only, and not a particularly ideal one...)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:20 / 06.02.02
Okay, I'll buy hermeneutic reinsertion.

But...One of the things which troubles me is the implication of 21% making full-on concept altering decisions for the remainder. It seems more than likely to enforce the 'strength over reason' paradigm, paradoxical though that sounds. The tyranny of the (notional) majority etc.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
13:58 / 06.02.02
Okay, Nick, what exactly troubles you and how would micro-level changes alter the situation?

I did mention the example was far from ideal; I used it only to counter the notion that macro-level changes accomplished nothing.

We may need to start the old Force vs. thread again to hash out some of this, even if it seems old hat - give the new kids a chance and whatnot.

But... Do you view all macro-level systemic changes as deployment of force?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:04 / 06.02.02
I'm not sure - I'm still thinking about it.

But I think there is that possibility, especially where you have a 'democratic' setup which does not actually involve anything like a majority.

A micro change in this context would be a shift towards determination to be involved in the process of government and legislation...and away from the whiney culture which is growing up in English-speaking developed nations. "Fix the railways but don't tax us!" etc.

Without that, I think any change is going to be perceived by some (many?) as forced, and that whilst it might have positive effects, it might also have rather negative concealed or lower-level effects...not the least of which could be a current pushing people away from involvement in the governing process.

Bear with me, I'm thinking this one through as we speak.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
14:33 / 06.02.02
Keep in mind that the democratic system you suggest would have to come about through some sort of change. It's an entirely different structure from what any any of us are living under.

You suggested in the Anarchy thread that such a systemic change would make little difference without people behaving themselves. Other posters openly fear such a system (which might lead to fleeing, destruction, or equivalent apathy). And still other suggest that it would only come about under conditions that at least implied a priori responsibility.

I'm fond of using the "if we had x" tactic to justify my own claims, but I think we're looking more for a how-to process rather than a what-if exercise.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:56 / 07.02.02
I think we've had a misunderstanding there. I was talking about the example you gave when I mentioned a 'democratic' setup.

The point of my argument is that the structure we have now would be fine if people would be prepared to make it work. Likewise, other structures would have similar problems if they were not prepared to do so.

And I don't think this is a what-if? exercise. What drives me to say this, over and over, is that I think this is a practical point. Endless structural change, social engineering projects, bring about piss all real change, just new faces. I don't think real change is possible without the backing of a huge majority, and to achieve that, you need micro-change, committment at a mass individual level.

And yes, I am aware to achieve that level of enfranchisement (and a sense of enfranchisement) may require some macro-level changes on the way. It's a duality. BUT for me this is the only practical way to approach it.
 
 
No star here laces
10:23 / 07.02.02
I really like Flyboy's point earlier.

I think it's necessary to make a distinction between directed and undirected micro changes.

There is a world of difference between "I will change my behaviour to be behaviour I approve of" and "I will change my behaviour in order to acheive certain macro goals". The latter is, I believe, far more constructive.

So the hypothesis here is that macro change cannot be acheived without micro change, but the micro change has to be made with some vision of the macro change that it will bring about.

This is very interesting in the light of the way we view advertising. Advertising is seen as coercion (pace Douglas Rushkoff), because it is a persuasive force that makes people make micro changes in their purchasing behaviour (that lead to macro effects).

So given that macro vision --> micro change --> macro change is identical to the advertising process, isn't all political change essentially coerced, even if the eventual decision is made by a majority? Because if they made a micro change, they changed their opinions and were therefore persuaded, which could equal coercion...

If I have a vision of how the world might be, and persuade everyone that I'm right, can this ever live up to our criteria of consensual change? And, if so, does it actually matter what means I use to persuade people? It's the old ends/means question I guess...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:35 / 07.02.02
This is making my head hurt. I'd have picked 'I will modify my behaviour to behaviour I approve of' over option 2, which seems to me to miss the point - that it has to be an aspect of self, not a teleological choice.

And you're right, of course, micro-change can also be coercion. Which is why I lean more and more to getting my own shit right before I try to chance anyone else's. A paradox...

And yet successful persuasion is not perceived as coercion, and therefore doesn't teach the same rubrik of power over reason.
 
  
Add Your Reply