Terrorism as Anti-Globalization Culture-Jamming
By the time of 9/11, decades of countercultural politics had conditioned many people to see just about every major political problem as a consequence of mass society. Since the sixties, the left has been committed to the idea that a repressive and hegemonic System -- variously understood as Capitalism, Empire or Patriarchy -- is the single greatest threat to global freedom. This led to the widespread adoption of a "jihad versus McWorld" intellectual template, which explained the attacks of 9/11 as a natural and somewhat justifiable reaction to globalization. Its greatest folly was that Islamic terrorism, while deplored, was interpreted as an extreme form of culture jamming, with suicide bombers being merely the most committed members of the anti-globalization movement. The left followed a similar path of thought when it came to understanding the American desire to topple Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq: the invasion was immediately linked with a dystopian narrative of suburban excess -- it was about providing a steady and cheap supply of oil to fuel the gas-guzzling SUVs that symbolize all that is odious about American consumer comfort. That's from Andrew Potter's column in Maclean's magazine, which sets out his take on the Euston Manifesto and its implications. I wrote my take on it all in the Globe and Mail last month.
Potter is one of the more interesting writers out there these days (his weblog is one of most interesting around, too). Although I'm a regular contributor to Adbusters, I'm nonetheless a big fan of Rebel Sell, the book Potter co-authored with the Joseph Heath, which subjects the Adbusters' umwelt to a fierce critical analysis. Heath's another guy whose ideas I find pretty interesting. Heath's book, The Efficient Society: Why Canada is as Close to Utopia as it Gets, is one of those rare books that invite a housecleaning of one's assumptions.
Potter's Maclean's essay reminded me that I should really get around to outing the Canadian Eustonians I'm aware of. I haven't been keeping track in any meticulous fashion, so the following list is almost certainly shy of several names, but as it is, it's fine company to be keeping, I think. In no particular order:
Nav Purewal, writer, activist, University of Toronto.
Jim Monk, Ontario union & gay rights activist.
Martin Deck, Windsor, Ontario.
Robert Harlow, novelist.
Mark Unger, B.C. union activist.
Jack Cunningham, writer, Inuvik.
Daniel Dale, York University student activist.
Paul Franks, associate professor (philosophy), University of Toronto.
Simon Harvey, Vancouver punk critic, "neurotictext" blogger.
Axel van den Berg, McGill sociology professor.
Nadia Khouri, Dawson College humanities professor.
Marc Angenot, language and literature professor, McGill.
Morton Weinfeld, sociology professor, McGill.
David Pariser, art education professor, Concordia.
Stanley Sadava, psychology professor, Brock University.
David Ross Mann, New Democratic Party, Brantford.
Mark D. Watson, University Of Saskatchewan, computer science.
Rod Weatherbie, Toronto artist.
Michael Collinge, Western Birds (a terrific grunge band)
Mark Fournier, Ottawa.
Bob Lane, Nanaimo.
Bruce Lyth, Vancouver Liberal, Iggyist.
Brooks Gray, CHUM-TV writer.
Rose deShaw, Kingston Raging Granny.
Frank O'Hara, Toronto new-media whiz.
Alan Revich, Toronto negotiator/mediator.
Daniel Stewart, associate psychology professor, Sir William Grenfell College
Stephen Reeves, Toronto.
I reckoned I'd set out these names after reading Jack Cunningham's post yesterday:
A great Italian novelist and exponent of democratic socialism, Ignazio Silone, penned an essay entitled “The Choice of Comrades”, a choice he regarded as among the most significant and revealing one can make. The signatories of the Euston Manifesto are as fine an army of comrades as one could find, and I am honoured to stand under their banner.
Speaking of joint efforts, here's one Jack's just joined. And give Nav a hand with this.
posted by Terry Glavin at 6:55 AM
3 Comments:
The left followed a similar path of thought when it came to understanding the American desire to topple Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq: the invasion was immediately linked with a dystopian narrative of suburban excess -- it was about providing a steady and cheap supply of oil to fuel the gas-guzzling SUVs that symbolize all that is odious about American consumer comfort.
Gah!
No. Once again, a disproportionate focus on the easy-to-critique fringe whackjob opposition to the invasion, presumably because it either fits neatly into a preconceived analysis of the left, or because it's easy to shoot down.
Given the horror of today's Iraq, the threat of partition of the country along sectarian lines, and the complete destabilization of the region, I am astounded that those who predicted exactly this outcome continue to be portrayed as hippy-dippy tofu-eating naive peaceniks.
It's enough to drive one to drink. And I mean lots of strong drink.
But did anyone really predict the depths of savagery the place would fall to?
Civil war, insurgency, the likihood of an Iran-friendly Islamic theocracy, and the danger of partition were all high on the lists of predictions well before the shooting started.
"It's all about oil" is hardly a fringe notion associated solely with the far margins of the, em, tofu-eating community.
Without polling, I'm not sure how to determine the truth of that. I do know that the liberals and leftists that I choose to listen to were quick to point out that the US was the largest purchaser of Iraqi oil before the invasion.
And I think he makes a perfectly solid case.
In the same way that a case against conservative policies would be made if it assumed that Coulter, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh represented modern conservatism, or assumed that the "Nuke Mecca" crowd were spokespersons of the ideology.
If he chooses to tackle the Galloway crowd and debate the merits or lack thereof of their arguments, that's fine. But the phrase in question was "The left followed a similar path of thought...". As a member of the left, I take issue with that.
I would be more convinced of Potter's analysis if there were reasons given to believe that his assertion about the left was realistic. Yes, there are certainly shallow-thinkers on the left (cough-cpc/ml-cough), but there is also a wealth of excellent liberal and leftist critical thinking available that does not fall into the pattern as presented.
There's not much to go on in the way of objective counting, however, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
And yes, the Fox News crowd does seem to reflect some popular right-wing thought on policy, but there are also many excellent conservative thinkers and writers. They're totally wrong about almost everything, of course :)
Post a Comment
<< Home