| | |
|
NonaFarahnikFirstPaper 12 - 28 Feb 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | One Does Not Speak of a Successful Trial Lawyer as a Great Scholar of the Law.
“The actual habits and attitudes which operate under the banner of the creed to make the institution effective have a slightly obscene appearance. Nice people do not want to discuss them, except for the purpose of getting rid of them.” | |
<
< | For Arnold, social institutions are a necessary corollary to our human sociality, and we are mostly motivated by these systemic orders in unconscious ways. Though we are all empirically related, our social organizations and institutions often work to suppress our kinship to separate ourselves from “the Other.” The functioning of those orders on our unconsciousness makes it difficult for us to call the thing what it is, except in contexts where the operation of the institution is blatant and meaningless (Santa) or used in such a way as to make us uncomfortable about its effectiveness. This is dually reflected through the purposive content, but underlying ignorance of the New York Times’ “Where Fear Turns Graphic.” That we (choose to) ignore the subtle and less identifiable ways in which we are constantly bombarded with particular attitudes, creeds, and habits leads to problematic results: we see moral culpability in actions from which we can clearly separate ourselves, but create shields and rationalization where we are (even remotely) complicit. | >
> | For Arnold, social institutions are a necessary corollary to our sociality, and we are mostly motivated by these systemic orders in unconscious ways. Though we are all empirically related, our social organizations and institutions often work to suppress our kinship to separate ourselves from “the Other.” The functioning of those orders on our unconsciousness makes it difficult for us to call the thing what it is, except in contexts where the operation of the institution is blatant and meaningless (Santa), or used in such a way as to make us uncomfortable about its effectiveness. This is dually reflected through the purposive content, but underlying ignorance of the New York Times’ “Where Fear Turns Graphic.” That we (choose to) ignore the subtle and less identifiable ways in which we are constantly bombarded with particular attitudes, creeds, and habits leads to problematic results: we see moral culpability in actions from which we can clearly separate ourselves, but create rationalizations where we are (even remotely) complicit. | | | If we acknowledge that politics unconsciously moves us by creating some notion of a general will whose furtherance demands the suppression of the particular, then it seems we must focus our efforts on creating institutional frameworks that tend towards the good and the just. How can I know what is good and what is just? I will seek to be Holmes’ betabilitarian: I cannot measure my choices against a normative standard, but against my predictions on how the universe and people behave. The only choice I have is to place my bets and play. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |