RE: RE: History and awareness

From: Stetsenko, Anna (AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 10:09:10 PST


 Philip, you did not notice one aspect of what I was saying, namely, that
people WERE actively creating the change/history then and are possibly
creating change/history right now, albeit without knowing it. Take Enron's
example. I believe only the FUTURE will tell whether Enron is just one more
(though huge) company collapse or it is indeed part of our history. The
latter would be the case, for example, if Enron will trigger collective
social action that would lead to substantial changes in the type of the
system that exists now (i.e., by changing the fundamentals of what appears
to be totally corrupted in principle, see e.g. Krugman in NY Times, a couple
of weeks ago, paper titled "System corrupted"). So, if people will enact
collective processes that would change the system, following the
Enron-instigated revelation of how the system actually works, then I bet it
would become part of everyone's history, including Paul Dillon's. Or, on a
more modest scale, if a situation like a great depression ensues from the
Enron collapse, then again it would become part of the history for all of
us, as we will start loosing jobs, homes etc.

So, Phillip, my point has always been that systems never change on their
own, it is people who create change (as collective subjects, Paul Dillon is
right, of course), albeit without being aware of the significance and
ramifications of their actions. See?

Anna (two n's)
-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip White
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 2/15/2002 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: RE: History and awareness

xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:

        Ana scrobe:

>Paul Dillon introduced collective subject's 'awareness' as the
criterion
>for
>processes to count as historical ones.
>This brings me back to the question I asked before: how is it that
people,
>as collective subjects, are often unaware that they create history --
>even
>as they participate in and enact social processes that shape their own
>history? Why is it that history becomes clear often only in the
hindsight?
>it is very likely that Rosa Parks wasn't aware, on the spot, of how her
>courageos act was going to affect the social processes, was she? But
even
>at
>the level of a collective subject, the real significance of events
often
>becomes clear only after the fact, doesn't it? Like with people back in
>the
>80s in Moscow who moved very slowly in the subways (in Mike's
>recollection)
>but who prepared and eventually enacted, in their collective
activities, a
>fundamental historical change, a change of history (for better or
worse,
>we
>still have to see; further history will show).

        Ana, i'm glad you came back to this, because it's been on my
mind ever
since you first raised the question about why the immenient collapse of
the soviet union wasn't recognized.

        i think that probably Yrjo or Jay could answer this much better
than i
because from what i've read of theirs tells me that they've got a much
better grasp on systems theory than i do. still, i want to put it out
there half-baked as it might be.

        before the collapse of Enron some people could see evidence of
its
possibilities - because they had access to particular bits and pieces
of
information - they were in a system in which there were those feed-back
loops.

        much of the soviet union was predicated on blocking the free
flow of
information - ironically, much like Enron and other hyper capitalist
organization. i think that the agents within such systems believer that
they are protected themselves by blocking access to information,
attempting to keep it from moving through-out the entire system.

        so, i would assert that to a great part, the reason that people
didn't
anticipate the collapse of the soviet union was because they didn't have
ready access to the information. certainly they knew that things
weren't
working - as frineds of mine have said who lived within the soviet
union
at the time - but things hadn't been working for so long - this, i
think brings up the parable of the frog in the pot of water that has
such
a low flame under it that the frog never notices that the water is
slowly
slowly incrementally rising to a boil, until it's too late, and he's
already poached. (Gregory Bateson)

        which is where i think Paul is wrong when he suggests that Enron
is not
part of his history - unless i misunderstood him. i would think that
Enron is certainly part of his history because when information in a
positive feedback loop like Enron enters a system, the entire system
wobbles to accomodate the information.

        what do others who work with systems theory
(cybernetics/Batesonian)
think?

phillip
>
* * * * * * * *

* *

The English noun "identity" comes, ultimately, from the
Latin adverb "identidem", which means "repeatedly."
The Latin has exactly the same rhythm as the English,
buh-BUM-buh-BUM - a simple iamb, repeated; and
"identidem" is, in fact, nothing more than a
reduplication of the word "idem", "the same":
"idem(et)idem". "Same(and) same". The same,
repeated. It is a word that does exactly what
it means.

                          from "The Elusive Embrace" by Daniel
Mendelsohn.

phillip white
doctoral student http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~hacms_lab/index.html
scrambling a dissertation
denver, colorado
phillip_white@ceo.cudenver.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST