[iDC] (no subject) - ethics

[Ryan Griffis]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:00 AM, idc-request at mailman.thing.net wrote:

>   "Is our primary mission as artists [people] to produce commerce
> fitting monuments to ourselves, or is it to use art to help bring
> ethics into the picture?" --
>
> would have to substitute "ethics" with, "politics."
>
> Politics requires something much more demanding that mere "good
> values." It means strategic and tactical "actions" that might not
> conform to the purities of "ethics."
>
> Thus, Q.E.D., ethics can aid and abet conservative politics. MoveOn,
> Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, etc. all continue to support "lesser of
> evil" voting, which only maintains the status quo. They steal
> "progressive" "values" and mainstream them in support of the
> Democratic party..... A hopelessly naive form of reactionary
> politics, and a form of passivity that maintains the status quo.
>
> This is counter-intuitive for those who are wrapped up in
> "bourgeoise" ideology, which has been the target of most of the
> theorists that many on this list ascribe to: Foucault, Delueze, etc.
> etc. Which is to say, many on this list risk hypocrisy.

i'm totally on board with Mark's response to Luis' provocation...  
replacing "ethics" with "politics" is no mere semantic feat indeed  
(ethics is an entirely conservative discourse in my estimation).
However, at the risk of sounding an apologist myself... i'm weary of  
the drive to eliminate the "hypocrisy" of being "wrapped up in the  
'bourgeoisie' ideology". Those contradictions run so deep and are so  
complicated that to call for some kind of ideological purity for  
those existing in a ecology that is so contaminated is little more  
than ideological grand standing. Don't get me wrong - i think  
pointing to contradictions is useful and a necessary tool in critical  
change. There are so many tactics and efforts needed, some of which  
are going to be carried out under less than ideal circumstances and  
with less than "pure" intentions.
Again, i don't mean to suggest that we shouldn't be critical of this,  
but that trying to eliminate "bourgeois" motivations as such might be  
a mistake in that it creates an atmosphere of false purity and  
asceticism, which can be less than productive for action across  
constituencies, which i think many would agree is necessary. A real  
critique of compromise and democracy (ala R. Deutsche's  
"agoraphobia") might be necessary.
Personally, i don't look to lists for direct action or even really  
engaged political discussion, although the thoughts and ideas that  
come through them make their way into my contributions in arenas  
where i think those more direct discussions occur (generally in more  
localized, face-to-face forums).
i certainly don't have any answers, just some doubtful questions. i  
also don't think action begins with answers, so there you go.
Just some quick thoughts in response.
best,
ryan