Modernity vs Classical Antiquity

MODERNITY

12/12/2013 4:38:00 PM

One total community that submits itself to the power of the state. ---if left to our own devices to defend what we think is life we kill each other premise is: human nature is inherently self-interested; that rationality is self interested rationality; allows itself to justify the existence of a totalizing state/political power that protects all aspects of human life GREEKS limited within the realm of the oikos (life)- oikos= household; management of household oikonomikos economics; life cnetral to the household is the activity of labor; Hannah Arendt's understanding of greecian politics; central to the sustencance of life is our ability to labor; human beings labor to sustain life like other animals; --because it is concerned about life; then the structure of authority can be no other than a hierarchy -a hierarchy in the economic order; o kind of rule is coercive in nature; one of the most coercive in society o there are non-debatable issues (no money for things you dont need) you just submit to what is needed at the moment go to war free of the constraints of labor; primary goal is no longer just to live (in search of glory; in search of recognition; fighting for something that matters to them beyond their life, hence they can sacrifice themselves; the need to defend something other than life (goal of war; war releases us from the constraints of coercion; but wars are temporary; when men return to households they get bored and talk in the agora to spend time; they talk about and reliving the ancient wars they had fought; what goes on then when men go out to the agora and talk bout each other and the glories of the war, etc thats the birth of politics (arose out of the leisure of men) politics is leisure; it is not bound to life for the ancient Greeks ancient model of politics its only words (boyzone) =)) so transformation of war into craftsmanship of arguing; ancient

Greek men fought each other by words, by speech, by trying to persuade people with their stories; and what Arendt sees here is the transformation of the antagonism of what goes on in war; logic of antagonism is the destruction of political enemy of community; thats why it ends because it is rooted in antagonism; Carl Schmitt (Germans philosopher)- politics is the distinction between friends and enemies; and we mobilize our friends to antagonize enemies; but Greeks wouldnt be satisfied with this definition of politics because that would stop, so Arendt says antagonism cannot simply be the logic of the political; for Arendt, the logic of politics, in contrast to the household is the agon of freedom the agony of freedom --- an agonizing encounter with ones freedom/leisure o what do I do with my freedom? o Agonizing when people keep talking to each other; agony that arises when antagonism transforms into agonism; agonistic because it is no longer governed (theres still a distinction between friends and enemies, but you need them there) by just friends and enemies but the perpetual creation of enemies. when we no longer have an enemy, we have no one to debate with; we just agree failure to be released from the consequence of words; what sustains the agon of politics is our human capacity to forgive each others trespasses; if we cannot release ourselves from the hurtful words given to us, we cannot move on and begin anew and begin a new enemy politics we keep moving on, creating new enemies and frontiers to argue with --- this is the hallmark of Greek politics; in this sense to make sure we can hurt each other w/o killing each other, the issues and discussion in political space have to ban questions of life; we can talk about anything in politics, except about the sustenance of life (not life in general, but basic life the bare life; how to reproduce our lives) these questions should be banned from discussion because the hurt then drives a

deeper hurt because the stakes drive at a human necessity; in a sense, politics doesnt address human needs; it is an exercise in leisure, in superfluency; what we see in modernity: is this entire preoccupation with life; sustenance of life; hallmark of this rise of life as a question in politics arises out of the French revolution (accdng to Arendt); French revolution compassion for the poor; none of the French revolutionaries came from the masses -they wanted poverty to be addressed in politics (poverty as a natural condition of humanity) that became addressed as a question in politics o greeks: poverty shouldnt be questioned on the level of the political; must be sustained and questioned in the realm of the household issues of life addressed in politics so that we can go back to or households and not care about it afterwards enlightenments modernity proceeded with a goal for a new justification for a new political authority ends up retreating from politics in favor of the privacy of human life greeks: based on words; ability to agree to and disagree, persuade in modernity:in a ddressing the question of life sincerity of ones pity, compassion for the poor;question was no longer whether or not this was the best proposal; o are you really sincere with your intentions

o -its no linger about artificla proposals about the world creation of ancient politics - it became about ones internal motivations frnehc revols descended into this realizaiont og the human conditionss artificiality greeks: artificial is okay; political positions are masks so I could persuade people but it doesnt mean thats me (artificial) natural opinion has to be something that must be transformed to persuade people; frnehc rev people = sincerity for all rationality of modernity = feelings differences collapse when moods are similar everyone is mobilized; flattens human experience foundation now of politics: sentiments/feels jean Jacques rousseau very core of politics = the life of the nation; and sentiments of nationality have that sincerity; patriotism flattens human experience --we are one family (imagine the whole world/nation as family) o to bring the logic of coercion (from the family) to a global realm of the polis encourages hierarchy; prevents opening ourselves to the agon of politics exposition of what is at the heart of the modern state a power not grounded on words but on human life; bio-politics; uses life to legitimize its policies; realized by michel Foucault

12/16/13 POS100

How does the state operate if it makes sure that our meals are safe and are assured would be healthy and would provide us with energy; how does power in our modern sense operate? Sustenance thats why its BIO-political; it regulates things that are in direct contact with the way we live; power does not operate in a violent way; not contrary to our way of life this is how Foucault defined power o Machiavelli (16th century) vs LaPerierre (18th Century) Machiavelli 1. Defense of territory freedom was coextensive with territory; Machiavellis view: to ensure that territory is well-defended, aw as to be exercised in its fullness 2. Law in classical sense, it is viewed like a perimeter of the political community; law was no abstract or cannot be understood by people; guides and binds people; provides structure; it limits in a sense, but not in the sense that it oppresses people; it exists to make sure that a space is to be called a space of freedom, of politics, and outside this space of law was where unfreedom thrived hence the family was not a space of freedom in classical view; because the law bound people together, it is the only way we can get to the common law was something we can refer to from anywhere 3. Common good in classical community was precisely that which was common political community; good is not just the aggregation of individual goods; it wasnt. there was a wide gulf that cannot be simply be breached between individuals good and common good; the common good always takes precedence over the individual good; it is only in todays common good that we see it as a summation of all individual good to come up with the greatest/least common good (the rule of liberal

common good) common good in classical sense was the polis itself; so the good then is not some internal thing that I want; it is the very life of sharing something in common view the public as an extension of the govt body, because the other person is viewed as part of the property/territory of the king as territory is seen as an extension of the body of the king --- reason why punishments were very harsh REPRESSIVE GRAND o Vincent LaPerrierre (18th Century) goal of state is not longer defense of terriroty, but the proper management and administration of things and the relations of things to each other; things and their relations 1. things and their relations it refers to the birth, the deaths thats going on in the city, refers to the plague, the sickness, the migration, the everything and the identity and the culture of the people in short: the modern power is concerned with the management and administration of POPULATION/demographics of the population what is the purpose? In modernity, the goal of political power is to ensure that individuals arrive at their convenient ends 2. CONVENIENT ENDS the good of the individual themselves as they want it; what the person finds desirable; where the person finds his own shape and goal in life to ensure that no roadblock is there for the individual to pursue their own end; gap between the common good and individual good has been collapsed; now state does not tell us what common good is but allows us to pursue our individual and convenient ends

we want govt to provide us with proper tools so we can be who we want to be if the goal of the state is to ensure our convenient ends, is the manner in which that end can be arrived at is done in the establishment of the law? Laperrierre says if the goal of the state is to ensure that all people arrive at the convenient ends, are all these ends something that the state can provide for? It doesnt simply impose laws, it creates and develops tactics and tecnologies that will ordain us to our individual goals o Technologies and tactics of surveillance

o ex. FDA and DOH work to ensure that people are healthy; to create standards to ensure that things are safe Foucault says this model of power is called the Panopticon not just territorial defense but also the derivation of knowledge Foucault: knowledge is the instrument of power; to more others know about you, the more you become an object of knowledge, the more that power becomes pervasive; state databases info about us to allow us to enter into our convenient ends, to pursue it better; if the state doesnt do surveillance, we wont be able to meet our ends Power is no longer repressive; it allows you to do things PRODUCTIVE MICROPHYSICS in a capillary way, in very little machinations of political power rather than the repressive or grand juridical manner in classical, the more that todays power becomes

uncontestable; you can no longer critique power that allows you to meet your CE; power is rendered opaque from judgment o the best way, the most scientific way to do it offers us knowledge about who we are, thus Foucault says that it is possible that there may be knowledges about our bodies that may not necessarily be knowledge and objective knowledge about our bodies; what Foucault is trying to say if youre trying to look at how power operates; the operation of power in this microphysical state is unquestionable because it presents as info about us; there migt be knowledge about who we are but may not really be about us but we think it is us because thats our nature primarily because these kinds of knowledges are authorized by the state; example: the more pervasive exercise of power is undetected o SO WHAT KIND OF KNOWLEDGE does Sir have? He can see us; the very system we have in the room, the names, etc INVISIBLE

Dec 18, 2013 Recap: Machiavelli and laperrierre by Foucault Governmentality Not just about government; not just about increasing importance of specialist structures of government but also mentalities that aspire to be governed that we today want to be governed; and part of the reason why we want to be governed is because of the success of the governmentality to inform us or insidiously suggest to us that there is a certain kind of truth about us, about who we are; that the state or that

forms of knowledge that may lie outside of ourselves tell us, inform us, direct/orient us to this truth; we know that the state and the forms of knowledge of the state are able to prove to us that we are indeed this bearer of truth, then we easily submit/comply with what is demnded from us because of this truth; what Foucault allows us to study/identify are forms of knowledge that are not pure; he is trying to say that there is no pure knowledge; that knowledge may not necessarily just about one particular thing, but that that particular thing is what the state tells who or what they are - the confessional society; we are being asked to/compelled to confess to a certain truth about who we are Foucault: how we construct these truths or how these serve other purposes apart from self formation or self identification; this is the creative space of resistance not just by rallying (forms of resistance as these assume that power lies on the legislative, social terrains so the way to battle power of this nature is to rally/form a resistance army) but what Foucault shows us is an intimacy with power that it moves us from within our very bodies the truth we are asked to develop are truths we can creatively fashion self fashioning that is very difficult to categorize/classify; a lot of times we try to fit into categories Foucault: statistics state stato-tistika the study of a power of the state; the science of the state; what the state does is to count, and after counting, to process the data = that analysis of data is now the truth supposedly of the population of the data ---so one kind of resistance is to be statistically unclassifiable; one form of power is vandalism against the grid system in class or against the teacher =))) o this is inscribing a space within myself to show that the teacher does not control ones entirety o ^this is what Foucault calls as ephemeleia heautou care of the self one interesting strategy by fr david: sadomasochist sex bdsm among fisherfolk in mindoro what. Kind of care of the self in bdsm not just simple whipping, there has to be calculating strategies as well; what youe exposing there is the ferocity of

knowledge; knowledge having power over us that tells us who we are; the science behind it can also be reversed; i.e. Foucault talks about the relationship between the greek man and the body (pederasty/pederastia) very stringent rules involved, like if the little boy likes the pursuit of the older man then the older man must back off; the boy cannot fall in love with the older man; if the boy feels the older man is enjoying too much, he must back off ---- these rules/techniques tell us something about the creation of selves; that is, selves are fashioned by using rules/forms of knowledge about who we are these techniques may at some point legitimize power structures or power relations that lie beyond us/outside of us but so long as we are agents creating/fashioning ourselves then this kind of agency insulates us from being legitimating actors of an existing power structures thats why for Foucault EphHoutou is protection but eph heautou is kind of f=difficult when talked about with liberalism LIBERALISMs core: John Locke in contrast to Hobbes, Locke does not begin with the assumption of the brutish solitary poor and nasty and short state of nature of man without the state (from Hobbes) life without state is the natural state of civil society; human beings are not naturally inclined towards violence but that civilitiy exists; but civil society is encumbered by man hindrances esp hindrances in the accumulation of property and wealth; in contrast to hobbes who inscribes man in the natural state of insecurity/need to defend himself all the time, locke sees man in his sate of nature as

someone naturally inclined towards owning property- property loving men; in absence of state/govt that sets down the rules on accumulating and regulation of property, people wont be able to accumulate as much as they can; there will be roadblocks to accumulation; in a state of nature, we constitute civil society so that it is governed by property rules; the agent that establishes rules of property would be the state; goal of the state for locke is to ensure that property rights are properly administered to the public; so the legitimacy of the state comes from its ability to ensure tha continous private accumulation of property among the people; we dont raly have to give p our rights; unlike with hobbes where we give up our capacity to fashion ourselves, in lockes we simply entrust to the state our rights; and therefore the govt is party to our contract contract is between me (agent) and the state different from hobbesian contract: two people and one who executes the contract is the state o difference that locke provides in liberal ideology is that he now provides reason for the contestation of the state the state in locke can be contested; liberal theorists trace the origins of liberal democracy to the very work/philosophy of john locke o CLASS ON FRIDAY Jan62014 Lockean Liberalism protect the property; wrote his philosophy whe capitalism was just beginning --- maintenance of property relations by the existing stat

Lockean theory of politics is not just a political theory, as it is a submission of politics, the surrender of politics to economics; economics becomes the language of politics; things to be analyzed from pov of accumulation of property; what suffers here is the very specificity of political theory; politics is no longer a specific domain, but is colonized by economics and recedes into a private affair; economics then becomes a public affair of man. compare hobbes and locke hobbes ends his political theory with the establishment of force (leviathan) the state system that is the summation of all individual wills; hobbes is also remoing away from the classical idea of politics (with the policing ad removal of common good) and the rise of biopolitics at leats if we were to give credit to hobbes, he gives us a sense of political accountability for institutions and something we can study and analyze; but the outcome of locke critical theory puts the nail on the coffin of authority the main task of liberalism is to justify the existence of political authority, but what it actually did was destroy th conditions necessary to establish pol. Authority and it was locke who did that for locke, if the end goal of community building is accumulation of property, then it ceases to be a function of reason. Remember that the liberals wanted to ground pol. Authority upon reason thats why they wanted a political system that was scientific and secular in character; it was thought that the previous source of reason divine inspiration- was not a good source of reason, so their goal was to make a pol. Theory that would establish reason hobbes ended it with force locke ended it with the force of emotions; if you look at the market, at the economy, it is not founded on reason or deliberation; but what is deliberated on are hunches or emotions (as seen in stock market discussions where they involve the temperament of the stocks) and thats what locke brings in if you make politics resemble to economics, then you make politics subject to the swings or moods of popular temperament locke: foundation pol auth. Is popularity rousseau would radicalize this claim: the popular is the sovereign emotions are quite invisible and emotions are in fact the antithesis to reason; now if pol auth is grounded on emotions (which locke and rousseau did) then you ground it on the swinging of moods and not on reason

liberalism then sanctions an arbitrary political order not grounded on stable foundations but on sentimentality o rousseau political consciousness is embodied in the concept of the nation where our identityt is based on lelz as a final attempt to put some stable grounding to his sentimental theory veers away from the very need to define authority o authority auctoritas (lat) auctor author, but is really actor, initiator; to initiate an act liberalism wanted us to find this, but then it destroyed itself o hobbes submission of individual will to the state --- how can there be initiative there o locke- the foundation of pol authority lies in economics, in our emotions, which we are not always in control of or initiate; the danger in liberalism the withering away of our authorship of our acivities and actions; it recedes political authorship/initiative form the public space into something that we cannot visibly identify o but historically, all these things, these arbitrariness and appeal to emotion needed by emerging political system of that time as capitalism dwells on the arbitrariness of our roots; it is justified by our own sentimental consumerism; and thats why liberalism became the dominant political ideology because cpitalism became its dominant economic ideology main question were trying to aks is if the enlightenments vision of modernity bring us closer to reason? Did the state bring us closer to reason? Looking at liberalism, no. Charles Tilly makes a very interesting argument: the modern state was born out of war making; the modern state with its insitutions, affairs, regulatory bodies were created because state swere going to war with each other; what he did was investigate 15th and 16th century. Modern nation state is a relatively new phenomenon, it was born in 1644 when the 70 year war in Europe ended with the signing of the treaty of Westphalia Germany which finally demarcated the borders of western Europe. Prior to this, Europe was fair game. It was a war of everyone

against everyone (tudors series, which narrates the centralization of political authority in britain) part of this was the need to go to war and in order for a kingdom to go to war, they need money, vessels, warships, logs, academe war making created an imperative for the state to build it s bureaucracy but it impelled the state to tax its people and tax efficiently and centralize the resources of the realm into the state coffers and thats what the state does in order for it to go to war; now in order to do that, it must also quell down the resistance of lords and counts, etc; lesser lords and lesser principalia would submit themselves o serve the monarch this coincide with the hobbesian defense an absolutist state and had control over bureaucratic affairs of the people so that the state could go to war; democracy came about because when the state was taxing you, what do people require? People require a say/demand participation in policy making processes; thats hen political parties and lobbying and social movements came about pressuring the states to properly allocate the taxes that the public is paying for war making. So liberal democracy elections that the state gave to give people membership to pol. Institutions. Otherwise, this emerging group of people from whom the state derived its resources, the capitalists, will no longer support to the establishment. The other way around: if they dont provide capitalists a voice, tey wont have a source of income. philosophical justification of the state defined by political theorists matches with historical accounts -has liberalism, has enlightenment brought us any closer to reason? No it hasnt. thats where the tiny bit on religion comes in. if the secular order of liberalism hasnt brought us to reason, is religion then a sounder basis for reason, for authority? would you agree that secularism is indeed depraved, and not viable for active community building? Do you agree with milbanks view? --are we first religious people and only later be a professor or be any political person/a student, a feminist, etc? in short, what is our fundamental orientation? Are we first our religion and later on our political identities, ro are we first our political identities and later on our religion? If we are first religious beings, it should make sense that whatever your political opinions are, they should be aligned with religious values Power beyond state and territory

Liberal model in politics state is what you can run to to protect people from conflict and abuses in poli-economic system, state can punish, but what is going on in our world is that the state is being hollowed out. The state is still there but sometime sit becomes incapable of using its power because there are powers above and beyond its reach that the state must now succumb. Some of these powers include these multilateral MULTILATERAL 3 or more states discussing multilateral talks/multilateral institutions or organizations are now seemingly more powerful than the state because they provide more limits and actions that the state cannot do o example: UN based in New York; distinct entity where there is no distinct country so its possible to give birth there and choose what country the child would reside in haha o apec asia pacific economic cooperations asean countries, brazil, Canada transpacific o TPP transpacific partnership- another big trading block of countries that will institute regulations that will be uniform across them o one of the more contentious organizations multilaterally being prepared is the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global carbon emissions UNs MDG millennium development goals have a deadline: 2015; maternal health: 50% of current maternal death rates need to be reduced by 2015 hence why the govt is psending a lot on health services to comply with this MDG target, but in truth only 40% of countries are prepared to meet the goals European Union countries: tough considerations there is the deficit spending deficit spending/ budget deficit if part of EU, youre only allowed X% of budget deficit which limits what govt can spend, so if for instance a lot of your countrymen like in Spain, around 45% is Spaniards are underemployed so naturally, govt would want to pump economy

by encouraging spending but it is part of EU so it cant do that because its budget spending is only part of X%. So these multilateral organizations will impose certain rules that may prohibit the country; dehado ang botante dahil akala niya kayang gawin ng party ang mga projects na platform nila, but no thats not possible because of these multilateral organizations rules Angela Merkel reason why Germany is not in recession; very cunning; Eu needed money to bail out Greece, but Germany then allowed EU to loan; so now EU must follow Germanys propositions Globalization issue hyperglobalist position the time of the modern state has now ended; the domestic nation state is now on its twilight, eclipsed by multilateral organizations and transnational and multinational corporations; like mcdo which is more powerful than some states in Africa or latin America stocks in phils are on the rise; it is not because of us though, but its more because that they are averse to the conditions going on in the west BRICS brazil, Russia, india, china, south Africa merging market economies because these are countries where us-fleeing investors invested these brics are now risky again bubble of growth in phils is dependent on

china; and china is growing bec. Of investment but what if investment in china is pulled out, what will happen to phils? o our states, political entities, no longer have monopoly in spurring markets of economic development; we cant prioritize sectors we want to prioritize; we need to follow the electronic herd and what it wants for us to institute as

it is the only way we can be productive now (hyperglobalist perspective) o but is that really true? (skeptical pers) homogenization of global experience, and not globalization; consumerism drives homogenization of global culture; 2 tendencies: mcdonaldization or coca-colanization Golden Arches Theory no war ever occurred between 2 countries that had mcdo; not a global village, but merely global products circulating; also English the flow of communication mediated by this; business practices, technical ops, being harmonized; global outsourcing or offshoring or businesses and services; goods, ideas, culture, commodities, but also physical people are circulating READING on Friday: migration and the changing style of macho dancing in the Philippines mere bullying in globalization; state bullying: even in the security council, if one country says no, they cannot act. Is that really democratic, is that really a global institution? Whats going on is not globalization, but a resurgence of the empire on the part of the US, making its presence felt hyperglobalist position which says nation state is dead, and no, theres no global order, homogenization of culture and only US for those who argue that it is homogenization, one wonders why mcdo in the Philippines has a spaghetti meal that doesnt have Bolognese past sauce but has hotdog and cheese how does this homogenization happen and does it really achieves the ourpose of uniformity? Check groups 1. Papal Scial Encyclicals read it well, find its backgrund/historicity 2. Political Issues pick one from the list sir gave; if the issue you want isnt there, PM sir. Craft your own thesis question; Select and understand the dynamics of the issue based on the approach or political history weve taken in class;

3. Interview with the politician it has to be a non-relative politician; goal or objective I to give you a more proactive sense of citizenship; call office of the public official and craft own questions and try to talk with the politician; local politician in your local area city mayor, council members, baranggay chairman just state his credentials and which baranggay, etc. Talk to local bureaucratic officials even if you want, or still talk to national politicians, or secretaries. Get a photo taken with the interviewee otherwise, sir wont check the paper. Judiciary talk to a trial court judge/assistant justice Allowed to talk to more than one, but only until 3 people 4. assessment evaluate whether the perspectives of the bureaucrat conforms with the proper political frame not jst analyzing it from political standpoint from social encyclical standard; are perspectives of the politician, do they fit into the program of the social encyclical? Are there contradictions, etc, and make a recommendation on how to integrate this SEs framework to the politicians view Requirement is due at the end of February 2000-2500 words Chicago parenthetical citation DebateModified british parliamentary (3mins) Opening govt PM and DPM speaks for 3 mins; opening; leader of opp offers counter proposal; dpm rehabilitates the arguments of PM that may have been destroyed by opposition (3mins) and closing govt - 2M of G 1m of M 3mins 2m of M rebuttal speakers; main task is to do rebutting; no need o present constructive argument whereas first 3 need to do

so; rebuttal speakers need to demolish what the other 3 have said 2mins Whips team whip; doesnt have substantive arguments; a rhetorical speech, main objective is to convince gallery that your side one the debate highlights what arguments were rebutted; what part of our case wasnt rebutted/was destroyed 2mins

govt whip closes, which means magkasunod si oppM of G and oppW debates: feb 7, feb 14, feb 21 will be graded as a group 20% of the mark in between 30 secs after each speaker starts and before last 30 secs of each speaker, POIs can come in key to te debate is the perfomance, not the strength of arguments; just technique and the rhetorics possible to collude with the other team; pracice how to outwit each other the winning side gets A, losing side gets B+ be warned that sir walks out of boring debates if speaking in bedroom voice, too quiet, too weird, sir will walk out or sir will do POIs. He also gets bored when other team doesnt raise POIs. When class doesnt participate, sir gets bored; well convene ourselves in parliament by selecting which side to sit with and supporting that side hear, hear, or by saying shame use these extensively POIs raise one question 0 not a deductive question, usually a clarificative Speakers have to at least accept 2; MUST SPEAK in English for the whole thing May come in business attire; May bring notes, but dont read

When we talk about privileged political discourse, its a discourse of good governance phil politics is a problem of corruption; the problem is that corruption is going on and good gvernance strategies need to be insitutued and that is todays buzzword of neo liberalism Neoliberalism - global neoliberalism, not just a philipine neoliberalism as a phenomenon but global kind of economic order; were looking at globalization of the world economy and what drives this forward is neoliberalism which can be summed up in the narrative of commercialization, or increasing commercialization of human experiene,

privatization of the economic order, deregulation of social norms of condut and increasing liberliams as well of human exchange, trade and financial exchanges across borders The cross broder of economic ordering in todays global space that the economy today is being built on a ground that trascendes the borders of nation state So globalization something external that shapes outside our human experience, of our intimate human affairs; but the point of roland tolentitnos article is that globalization is reflected and mirrored in very immediate manifestations; and it just so happens that his subject matter that connects these is the experience of macho dancers and the style of dancing; the shift in macho dancing style moves from a feminine approach towards a more masculine approach. The shift is explained by tranformations in the character of the Philippine state as it participates and apporportaes moves towards global area and takes in local experience in its process of globalization happening at a global scale; this is the area that roland looks at in macho dancing the study of queer spaces and gay identity and how these are being shaped by neoliberal forces; and happening on the level of queer and homosexual formation = happening also in hetero-identity sexual formation transformation in the realm of cultural reality and a lot of times when we talk aout culture, we host it as the non material aspect of life; and the material aspect of life is the economy and politics and power so power exists under the economic order and politicsl and culture isnt about power its about norms, ideas, desires, etc. but the point of roland article is that these two things are converging and what were seeing is the tranformation of culture into an economic identity under globalozation; and part of this is the commodification of human desires, bodies, and even sexual exchanges becoming commodified; how do our own personal relationships (not about buying, sex or paying) ut how these are also increasingly mediated or made sense of by transactional language/market commercialized encounters what roland tolentino has also tracked is the transformation of the macho dancing style form a feminine choreography towards a more masculinist choreography reflective of according to him, it mimics the desire of the

empowered patrons; the empowered patrons desire, which means that the empowered patrons of gays in the early incanation of macho dancing facilities desired a more feminist movement primarily reflective of the kidnof desire being shaped by the marcos govt what was marcos govt promoting on the level of the Filipinos? Remember the saying that auhoritarian govt we are shaed by a feminine thing by the military complex so that they are legitimized by the popular consciousness authoritarian rule vis a vis our conjuration or desire for femininity; and the wider broader manifestation beyond this macho dancing style is our fascination with prestige and culture, and urban purity this legitimizes a kind of political order that promises us to a return to this under certain politicians who are there to institute order and bring us back to a romanticized order;hypermasculine order on the part of the state that tranforms society into a garden; a sexualization/sexual tension in the level of consciousness; all of us are beign transformed into a feminine sttucture transformation of the gay space as well, and a tranformation of the economy of empowered gays o now, tehres hierarchical organization of gays gays who can dance from afar, gays who can table, and gays who are rich and can pay for private time; -- what kind of gays go to these strip clubs? The bakla or the sward-speaking parloristas the other kind of gay club more prevalent the other gays, the discrete, straight acting gay guys, the queers, they dont go to these strip clubs; they go to clubs with other heterosexuals, but the club is teeming with gay theres an emerging and growing trend are gays who hang out with other gay guys creates hierarchical order too discrete gay guys are usually upscale, mobile classes; o 21rivileged gay urban identity the ones under are the parloristas

virtual gay spaces

o also transforming the lives of gay people themselves the gay apps o discrete gay guys have a lot of criteria o mediating a kind of identity that is popula in western spaces very restricted spced that shows the hierarchical organization thats going on hierarchicalizatin of the economic order everyone is invited to have some gay fun but that depends on your capacity or acess to the commercializatied things o mirrors structuraalizaion going on

in the country shift in style of macho dancing = shows this climb up the hierachical order; they have to be masculine because as the economical order changes, the gays are also changing in their desires; they want to be empowered and be prt of this race its not an agent related change, but its that gay desire is also being shaped by global forces; it goes beyond local identities cultural outcomes are now politicized we cannot look at culture where there is no power play involved becase even among gas, theres power play in the production of cultural identity; check the passage in rolands article: p87 Philippine neoliberalism has introduced, regimented body capitl through pageants, etc. these have shown the possibility of moving upwards using bodily trades desirable resources, uplifting individuals etc, to utilize their bodies in the service industry o there are some men who use body as cppital but they just like itl; some are models who dont need money but that they just like it; others do so eause they can be part of the sulture of their institutuion money to buy clothes, bags, etc o opeining of global tourism isnt universally shared; some migrant workers, theyd rather stay in the country because

family, or sustainability of their lives (taste of food, etc) its also the production of tlife in the phils that differs form production of life outside globalization isnt just tranformsing institutions abut also life processes; life becomes at stake in globalization gives us an imperative to study how life becomes a tool for politicization; how political actors create their agency hat would make sense to them; when we talk about politics - we look at whats at stake today, institutions becomes less and less relevant, whats becoming more immediate today are issues: economy is manifesting itself in our cultural identity, part and parcel of our life processes; even our consciousness is a sphere where power operates and therefore 90if you want to track the immediate manifestations of political power then we must study the way we perceve things, in the way our consciousness is produced; utterly uncomfrtoblae with our consciousness globalization doesnt just territorializae politics but also disembeds us defmamliarizes our consciousness form ourselves; what were thinking isnt just something produces by our own determinations; what we saw here is that even the consdciussness of desires of the empowered gays are shaped by the states way of negotiaition with global powers and localizing these globa powers on the level of po[ular legitimacy; because reemnber that the state doesnt just operate by imposing rules o the Italian Marxist antonion gramche tells us that the politics of the state is two fold project coercion insitutions and consensual intisutitons templates and ocnstructs that the state uses to legitimzie its power and authority in oder for the state then to do hat it wants to do, it has to capture our imagination but capture in a w ay that we ourselves thought it; that we ourselves are the sourc pf this kind of legitimacy; state power is present in popular culture; 1/20/14 Nation State as core of liberalism, is withering away in the age of globalization (also something brought about by liberalism); no longer as relevant, as forceful, as capable as we all continue to imagine it to be,

because even until todays globalizd age, we are feel as if we are asked something that had to take on from the perspective of the state, the first thing they have in mind is how we can contribute to the states ability to enforce certain relations, etc, its all thinking from the vntage point of the state; what weve seen however is that the NS has exploded no longer the core of thinking; eclipse of the ntion state happening at the time of the state trying to claim their waning legitimacy; US as guarantor of political peace and democracy that has led its advance towards the middle ast in pursuit of its ideal kind of political democracy o a contradictory process: one hand: pool of global forces and on the other hand, the cross-pool coming from domestic demands/forces but at the heart of it is the very realization is that the nation state is no longer today the only point of poitical idencitifation that we should sanction; politics can no longer be situated in the restrictive confines of the Nation state. Politics can be seen as occurring on various levels; political authority is no longer seen as forms as it cant be crystallized in aystematic forml; it is now theorized in the language of spheres of authority spheres of authorit that exceed the borders of the nation state, these can overlap and it is in this overlapping that spheres of authority that contentions of our age are usually negotiated and this is where poitics today lies one cannot be a liberal and claim that one is reasonable; on a philosophical front, the logic of liberalism is inconsistent; on contermporary and historical premise, its promises and institutions are inadequate and so we need an alternative world view. alternative must account for and directly confront the two major driving forces of liberalism

o 1. Market-based understanding of growth and development and huan interaction complete acceptability of the market o 2 fetish and delusional understanding of the state as a neutral aegis as objective and universal agent of human politics o hence, any alternative to a liberal worldview must be skeptical, or if not completely against the market, and it must be suspicious of any claims n the part of the state to be neutral; alternative worldview then has to reject the finality of the market, desirability of the market as the principle of organizing social life and suspicious of the capability f the state in regulating market activity and social life from a completely objective, scientific, and neutral perspective skeptical of the blackbox identity of the state What do you think is this alternative worldview that is critical of the market, and critical of the state? Does it have a name? o SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM the only alternative, yet were afraid to say it, makes liberalism so powerful

Socialism Why is it not an alternative? o Power is too centralized NoKor, China, Cuba, and before, Russia o These two people that created this totalitarian system and fucked it up, distorting the very ideologies of the worldview itself I named my pillows after them: Stalin, and Mao has never really existed; there has never been an actually existing communist state, because these two people who claimed they were socialists were actually not socialists, they were simply using the ideology to mask their own personal and individual interests the systems they have impleneted or logic of their thinking did not embody any socialist principles in fidelity to the ones formed and created by Karl Marx, so none of them actually understood what Karl Marx was saying who was not an ideologue; Marx said he was not a Marxist, and that the complete and first Marxist

was Lenin, the most faithful follower of Marx, whose ideologues was destroyed by Stalin and then further perverted by Mao for the Chinese in a sense, Marx has not been carefully, really applied; which makes us hopeful; we cannot judge this perspective based on previous attempts to establish it because they all went from the path suggested by the very worldview itself socialism as a spectre a specter is haunting Europe; the specter of communism thats how marx began the communist manifesto, even in the way marx described it, exists merely as a spectre that haunts us thats why we cannot cahellenge liberalisms because of the baggages of communism; 1 first step: take away the baggage that communism weighs down oon our minds and consider the text and principle by the writers of socialist tradition 2 your response today and you cant articulate it shows how different our times are; communism had its heydays during the 60s and 70s during which time it was warranted that if youre a college student, you have to be a socialist otherwise, youre stupid o what was going on during the 60s and 70s Vietnam war; result? Catastrophic for the US; intervened with US to prevent the rise fo communism so the result was massive deaths of US soldiers; prior to this, 50s-60s was the Korean peninsula war that resulted also in the destruction of the US army; US Army lost in those two wars and a lot of dissatisfaction among students in the US Woodstock phenomenon o Philippines: we were under martial law so no alternative on the legal, democratic front; communism became such a fad in the universities o ---past notes today not recorded----Socialism is outdated what other people say; we need a new paradigm to organize ourselves, but as we keep on saying that it is outdated, the powers of liberal process continues to consolidate itself, while we wait for socialism, are scattered and alienated

2 let go of this notion that it is outdated; maybe in fact its not outdated, but capitalism, maybe the liberal institutions are outdated that we pin our hopes on question: do we feel and believe that the present system can reform itself? Can it make changes of its own? that the present system has this brilliant, invisible unknown force that would harmonize everything wrong with it and make it better? either that or we say no, we are makers of our own history, fabricators of our history, we make history that is the starting point of socialism when you say that we make history; in that sense, when we claim ownership of the systems that are in place and because we are owners of these systems, they cannot own us; if we fabricated liberalism and thats true its a fabrication/product of a time in history and when it emerged, it was good in consolidation of forces against monarchies and establishment of parliaments where people can fight for their rights and a market where economic pursuit can be channeled it was good; Marx recognized it; capitalism was very progressive and gave birth to the feminist projects, tot eh rights and civil rights project, put an end t apartheid; but like any historical artifact, it can lose its utility because our experience has been progressing. therefore we change our instruments and our gadgets; why cant do the same with capitalism? o Put an end to slavery, etc but it cant put an end in increasing militarization of states and poverty; globalization upon us yet states are still militarized; if indeed liberalism is the ideology of reason, then should be able to put down these militarized states; we are now doing things that can no longer fit in the goal of liberalism Long overdue break-up with liberalism: On relationships: Just have fun and break up when its tragic because were makers of ourselves and of history Thesis for todayL history is something that we make; we are makers of history; thats what being human is; was liberals do is they allow history to take over us, we become non-agents and wait for it to reform itself; we become superstitious in that sense; something that is completely human

and elevate and make it inhuman; what socialists want to remind us is there are a lot of things in our world that are up to us; that is Marxs best lgecay to political thinking reforming things is simply saying that we should wait for it to get better; but revolting: it might not get better or get better, so take the risk and put an end; Marx: It is in the logic of liberalism to treat us like shit; the analsysi of why capitalism might have produced some good, but has a lot of shit at its core Marx -a historian; his view on history was influecned by his major teacher, GWF HEGEL german philosopher -- main antagonist: Kant (Satan) and Descartes (Lucifer) two demons you must hate; Hegel philosopher who discerned a pattern in the movement of historical progression; history moves in a dialectical fashion history as an account of dialectics

12/12/2013 4:38:00 PM

12/12/2013 4:38:00 PM