Thanks for commenting: On Zizek and Opus Dei #2
Hernanii responds: "I don't mind you used my comment as a post, but i'd say I was very sad to read your reply. To say that the current sexual environment is a "consumer good" is a very mean thing to say. I'm sure you don't tell gay people that their sexuality is a "consumer good". Another thing: the people championing the sexual revolution thought their approach to sex was "better" than the repressed and myth-prone approach their parents had, not just "different" or "countercultural". if tolerance and openness are dominant now, that is a GOOD thing. plus: the unbelievable smugness of this expression: "those who seek more radical social and cultural change".
LHG: Let us clarify the position taken in our offices. First, we purposefully didn't use gay rights and gay sexuality as an example because we believe that the movement toward full acceptance of gay rights - including those rights that are most controversial because of their sexuality (marriage, adoption, etc) - is perhaps the most progressive cultural/sexual movement available today, especially in the United States. Gay sex and gay sexuality, as far as we at the LHG can see, has not been turned into a consumer good.
Second, you're right, those involved in the sexual revolution thought their position was not just countercultural but better, the former word doesn't do justice to the position. But the sexual revolution wasn't just about the physical act of sex, it was, more importantly, about transforming the way people related to each other; it was about a transformation in human relationships (which is also how we understand the struggle for gay rights). Today, when heterosexual sex has seeped into every aspect of culture, from the mass media to advertising to illness to the pharmaceutical industry, abstaining from consuming heterosexual sex as a product could very well be the beginning of a change in human relationships.
Third, often "those who seek more radical social and cultural change" have fallen prey to an elitist snobbery. If so, however, the fault lies in the person and not the ambition. It seems to us that the call to consumption, made from the First world, begs the question of who's doing the consuming. The expansion of what could be called the right to consume in the Third world would be the product of "radical social and cultural change." Within the First, however, it seems if not reactionary at least irresponsible.
PS. Are we really far apart in our views?
PSii. A recent office poll revealed that those at the LHG who abstain from sex, sadly, don't do so of their own free will.
LHG: Let us clarify the position taken in our offices. First, we purposefully didn't use gay rights and gay sexuality as an example because we believe that the movement toward full acceptance of gay rights - including those rights that are most controversial because of their sexuality (marriage, adoption, etc) - is perhaps the most progressive cultural/sexual movement available today, especially in the United States. Gay sex and gay sexuality, as far as we at the LHG can see, has not been turned into a consumer good.
Second, you're right, those involved in the sexual revolution thought their position was not just countercultural but better, the former word doesn't do justice to the position. But the sexual revolution wasn't just about the physical act of sex, it was, more importantly, about transforming the way people related to each other; it was about a transformation in human relationships (which is also how we understand the struggle for gay rights). Today, when heterosexual sex has seeped into every aspect of culture, from the mass media to advertising to illness to the pharmaceutical industry, abstaining from consuming heterosexual sex as a product could very well be the beginning of a change in human relationships.
Third, often "those who seek more radical social and cultural change" have fallen prey to an elitist snobbery. If so, however, the fault lies in the person and not the ambition. It seems to us that the call to consumption, made from the First world, begs the question of who's doing the consuming. The expansion of what could be called the right to consume in the Third world would be the product of "radical social and cultural change." Within the First, however, it seems if not reactionary at least irresponsible.
PS. Are we really far apart in our views?
PSii. A recent office poll revealed that those at the LHG who abstain from sex, sadly, don't do so of their own free will.
posted by elivo at 12:06 PM
5 Comments:
We are not that far apart in our views, now that you've stated these expected disclaimers. anyway, don't link (me) to websites where ignacio ramonet is the main source of information. the first "fact", for example, is 6 years old, and the number of people living with "2 dollars a day" has fallen significantly since then (mainly thanks to china, but anyway). plus, it says there that the "fact" is calculated in PPP, when it's not. But that was not the argument. Or it is: many of the points of progressives look, more often than not, like anti-capitalism and anti-liberal democracy stands disguised as something else. i know LHG is not one of those.
I know it has nothing to do with this particular post, but I am curious about LHG's response to Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." It sounds to me like her position, let alone the title, is exactly what LHG has been talking about regarding the Democrats' three strikes options (though obviously not all democrats are liberals). Coulter seems to present a 4th scenerio, from her website
"The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.
The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)"
Does LHG think this may be the motivation needed for some democratic leaders, or liberals in general, to step up and take a firm stance on the "family values"/religion front with the 3 strikes or will they dismiss it for the conservative trashtalk it is?
it is a pleasure to read your musings on consumerism and liberation. i must say i agree that sex has been reduced from the human to the commercial by its ubiquitous use as a marketing tool; just the other evening i was thinking of how sick i am of the misogyny in the disembodied t&a we see everywhere in advertisements. in the imagery of the mainstream, sex (represented primarily by women's bodies) markets not only products but the repressive indulgence that has become the ideal of our culture. i was reading this morning about the uranium deal with Iran, and how they refuse to give up their privilege/right to pursue nuclear arms of their own. i wondered why disarmament doesn't seem to be part of the conversation - just deals and strategy, and the kind of skimpy compromise that reflects the general unwillingness of the world's leaders to act with the kind of equanimity and compassion one might hope, if not expect, from people privileged with tremendous power. there is so much ego in the world, and i think it is symptomatic of the repression of excess that you talk about. in the case of u.s. leadership, for instance, the example being set is one of indulgence not in the senses, necessarily, but indulgence of the ego and the emotions, as evidenced by prz. bush's comments about doling out justice, etc, which is awfully presumptuous heard from an ostensibly God-fearing man. this repressive indulgence is something i find myself extending to a lot of the bad news in the paper these days. anyways, the point is i agree with you. and you sometimes remind me of Woody Allen.
let me introduce another point of view: if an opus´ guy wants to lacerate himself, so be it. what´s the problem? doesn´t the s&m community experiment the same way?
anonymous #1: Haven't read Ann Coulter's new book - not sure I will. But am currently not in the U.S. so thankfully don't need to feel guilty about that just yet. Others, though, have argued that liberalism, like Christianity, is a "comprehensive worldview." Of course, Coulter has a tendency to turn things into a caricature. Anyway, might read it in a month or so.
anonymous #2: Seems to me that part of what people don't like about the "Opus laceration" is that it's a denial of our sensuality. While S and M is a more extreme expression of that sensuality. Same practice, different intents.
Post a Comment
<< Home