Re: THE CONTRADICTIONS OF ENFORCED SOCIALITY

["Peter Fleming - mant" <pfleming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date:          Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:52:32 -0400
> To:            frankfurt-school@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From:          Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxx>
> Subject:       THE CONTRADICTIONS OF ENFORCED SOCIALITY
> Reply-to:      frankfurt-school@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi everyone. I've been following the list for a while and have really
enjoyed the conversation. Ralph's contributions in particular have
been excellent. However, I have a lot of problems with some of the
following comments:

 > And what is doubly ironic is that the kids I know _already_ have
much
> HIGHER personal standards that those touted by this organization.  I tell
> them time and time again that their own personal values and standards are
> and will remain much higher than any social institution they encounter
> throughout the course of their lifetime, and that they will always be able
> to do what is expected of them but they will always find their own values
> and standards to exceed what any instituion has to offer or can demand.
> And this is becuase they have a perspective on life that is based OUTSIDE
> of all bureaucracies, that transcends the class system from top to bottom!
> So they are already above the perspective of being groomed as a managerial
> elite doing charity work on their days off.
> And they are not cynical about the value of life, but they do know that the
> whole social system is unfair.  Hence in their souls they are already free.
>  Hear what I say?  Hear what I say?
>
> Now I can imagine why poor Adorno was so extreme.  Everything around him
> constituted a totalitarian threat.  To be sociable, to be one of the boys,
> to participate in the collective existence, what's the difference between
> that and joining the storm troopers?  I know just how he feels.  Of course
> he was a grouchy loner.  Can you blame him?


I think that the latent individualism in these sentiments is really
dangerous. First, there is the idea that our personal values,
standards and beliefs can somehow be outside of the
social institutions in which we all reside. This draws attention away
from the systems of power that inject into us our humanity ever
moment of the day, from the day we are born to the day we die. Now if
we are aware that our personal dispositions are indeed inextricably
linked to the broader political system in which we are embedded,
then we are in a much better position to fight the sometimes
unobtrusive and invisible forces that control us. Hence, telling
someone that what you believe and feel is outside of the bureaucratic
apparatuses that organize our lives is, in my mind, politically
irresponsible because it leaves whole realm of human existence
unexamined.

Second, not all collective institutions automatically reproduce
structures of domination. In fact, judging from Ralph's comments, the
only way to escape the administrative society that currently cages us
in like animals is to isolate and remove our individual selves from
the system. I think that particular prescription is part of the
problem rather than the solution. Late capitalism is, in my opinion,
held together primarily by force, and secondly by an ideology of
aggressive individualism that alientates people from each other so
that they do not collectively resist or trust one another. This
ideology tends to penetrate radical circles in the form of a romantic
existentialism, but it's practical effects are pretty much the same.
J.B Thompson in his book on ideology makes the excellent point that
ideology does not only work through socialisation (consensus or
consent) but also through isolation - making us not want to be part
of any group or collective.

In New Zealand, my home country, the ideology of rampant
individualism is in full force. We have been trained to distrust each
other, not want to join associations or groups of any kind etc. This
suits the system to a T, of course.

Peter