Good comment, Paul. I notice that there is a pervasiveness in the US of
the notion that we really do have "freedom of choice" in all or most
things. Of course, the deep belief in this notion decreases precipitously
as you go down the income scale (social class), and I don't think very many
African Americans buy this idea, not even middle class folks.
Reminds me of the quip attributed to Bertholdt Brecht when he was asked
what he thought about American Democracy. He said, "I think it's a great
idea. They should try it sometime!"
This conception of "freedom" (that is, the kind that is given, not wrested
from power through struggle) in the US resonates in the behaviorist systems
of classroom management still popular in public schools, the most
well-known of which is "Assertive Discipline" They start from the premise
that each child "chooses" whether to behave or misbehave, as if nothing
else in the classroom context matters very much.
I wish I could remember the exact quote from Frederick Douglass, where he
said "Power concedes nothing without a struggle" The point being that this
is a very unequal class society, with the lower classes being oppressed on
a daily basis in almost every aspect of life. (And those in the middle
don't have it so good either, at least not psychologically, but they mostly
don't get it) Those who don't see this, in my opinion, are either
oblivious to reality or just don't care.
Pete Farruggio
At 02:52 PM 9/9/00, you wrote:
>Judy,
>
>When you use the term "responsibility" to whom is one responsible and
>according to which interpretations of ones actions and the consequences of
>those actions? The courts, for example, spend most of their time
>determining responsibility according to laws and procedures that most of
>us have no notion of.
>
>As in Nate's example, were the indians who gave some settlers rights to
>use (since they had no concepts for absolute ownership) the island of
>Manhattan in exchange for beads, responsible for the fact that those
>settlers later massacred their relatives who felt they were excersing
>their rights?
>
>Nothing that either Alfred, Diane or you have written so far shows me how
>you have anything but a very ideologically (ie, partial and determined
>unreflectively by prevailing power relations) bound notion when you talk
>about freedom. In particular, I'd like to know how you distinguish
>responsibillity from necessity and at what point anyone is responsible for
>the consequences of their actions; ie. how they could be responsible for
>consequences that were unforeseeable or even that they themselves could
>not see. What if someone said: "this will happen" but they had no reason
>to heed that persons advice. Are they responsible then? And with this,
>if we assume the abstract responsibility about which you all are talking,
>should we therefor not act since the consequences of our actions are
>always partially unforeseeable?
>
>What if you don't get caught doing something whose consequences you
>yourself would not want to befall you yourself? To whom are you
>responsible then?
>
>No, I really do think that this treatment of freedom and responsibility as
>flows from Alfreds first post is quite ideologically bound and no one here
>has yet examined its logical incosistency.
>
>Also, no one has addressed the relation between freedom and power,
>implicit in what Nate has written, and about which I explicitly
>asked. Powers of gods?? What about powers of corporations and the Santa
>Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court Decision of 1887 that
>gave personhood to corporations thereby making stockholders unanswerable
>for the consequences of what the corporations do.
>
>But that was my first question: who are you saying one is responsible
>to? What is the relationship between freedom and power. And ultimately
>what is the evidence of freedom? Couldn't you just be deluded that you
>are choosing something freely, but in fact be totally determined in your
>actions? How would you possibly know the difference?
>
>
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu>Judy Diamondstone
>>To: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 1:05 AM
>>Subject: Re: freedom & responsibility (2)
>>
>>Diane asks:
>>
>> >so, while i agree with you in terms of the how these are political
>> >activities (freedom-internalization-consciousness) in ways that make them
>> >kinda silly, like fictive idealisms,
>> >the idea of freedom and responsibility, and accountability, - something
>> >alfred also mentioned - suggest kinds of activity that respond to
>> >politics, rather than being manifestations of politics.
>> >does that make sense?
>>
>>sure does. It seems that most postings converge on this point: that
>>freedom (responsibility/accountability) isn't only an ideological effect
>>but is integral (choice is integral) to symbol-using, and as symbol-users
>>we'd do well to take responsibility for it, as Alfred said, so nicely --
>>we should hold ourselves accountable:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>insofar as action that could have been known or reasonably suspected at
>>the time of acting was instrumental in bringing about disaster or humanity.
>>
>><<<<
>>
>>The INSOFAR is the bug, I'm afraid -- ours is not the freedom of the
>>gods. It's so contingent on our capacity SEE ahead, see the effects yet
>>to come -- wh. seems to me largely the capacity to listen to perspectives
>>other than our own. The 'freedom' of the sociohistorically postioned --
>>it's blind otherwise. like we're destined to repeat to repeat ourselves,
>>otherwise... >>>>
>>
>>Playing Pollyanna (apply sing-song intonation)
>>
>>Nate, thanks for those anecdotes! wonderful.
>>Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:51 PDT