Jordy: Notes and Responses: Rorty

Globalization, the politics of identity and social hope
Richard Rorty

- Does not think that “revival of long –repressed hatreds embedded in ethnic, religious and national identities” is surprising
- Does not see that terms like “politics of identity” point to anything interesting or different
- Does not think that the fragility of universal conceptions or postmodern skepticism plays a role….
- Loss of faith in universal notions and cosmopolitan…

Concludes:

- Things couldn’t get much better than they are right now!
- We will never have a classless global society!

o When ideal stood… there was little interest in the minority or marginal cultures
o If a global monoculture was prospect, than it was worth the loss of cultural inheritances

2 scenarios:

1. Marxist proletariat followed by the loss of entrepreneurialism
2. Peace and technology would progress to virtually unlimited economic prosperity

Fear: United States is a danger of developing an over class to the misery of everyone else

- The middle class of the US and Brazil have more in common then with the poor of their own country
- Concerned with the loss of the two egalitarian utopias, therefore concerned about globalization
- Appropriate intellectual background to political deliberation is historical narrative

Past:

- Philosophers formulated their taxonomies of social phenomena, and designed the conceptual tools they need to criticize existing institutions, by referring to a story about what happened and what we might reasonably hope could happen in the future

Present:

- Taking starting point from psychoanalysis, language, “identity”, and “self” and “subject”
- Turn away from narration and utopia dreams towards philosophy seems to gesture of despair… IMPOSSIBILITY

Central Question: those about the relations between rich and poor

Globalization: the economic situation of the citizens of a nation-state has passed beyond the control of the laws of that state.

“…The absence of the global polity means that the super-rich can operate without any thought of any interests saves their own...”

US was a world leader for its egalitarian roles… it has lost that role….

The role of United Nations... In the past several decades we have seen the United Nations falter on many occasions. Its relevance has been questioned for in terms of having any control of what is occurring on a global scale. I think that the relevancy of such an institution is symptomatic of its failing state. However, I think the United Nations needs to be reformed, repackaged, and restructured.

I think the majority of its problems stem from its oppressive structure that allows a few select states be in control over a larger group of smaller countries. I do not think that countries should have “veto power”. The role of the oppressive countries in the United Nations is a reflection of what is occurring in a broader global context.

A global authority is necessary in this complex and high-speed political world. However there are some hard questions to ask about the extent of such an authority. What authority should it have? To what extent should there authority be? Who should be in charge? How much power should each country have? Should it only be countries? Many corporation have more land / wealth / workers than some smaller countries… should they have a role in a global authority?

Should global authorities only be a political agenda? Should the other scapes have a global authority? Do we need regulating zones for media, technologies, cultures, and ideas?

What about moral questions? When would a global authority have a right to intervene? Does it have a right to intervene? What role does a global body have? Is it even possible for it to keep relevance in this high speed and complex world?

Identity:

- No such thing as “intrinsic” or “essential” attributes
- Preservation of cultural identity
o Native tribes
o Oppressed groups
o “Politics of identity”
o Distinct from the struggle of rich against poor

- Become aware of humiliations (i.e. colonialism)
- Counteract by having a voice
- Reveal blind spots:
o Correctable: attention called to the harm we have been doing without noticing that we are doing it.
o Open to pluralism: individual variation

Blind spots?

It is funny how we can create blind spots towards certain ideas, actions, or beliefs. It is possible to act in a horrendously immoral and insensitive way without even knowing what you are doing. One of the most striking examples would be exposed with the Holocaust. Hannah Arendt has done amazing work in showing how banal evil can be with her text called Eichmann in Jerusalem. In the text, she demonstrates how the bureaucratic actions of one man caused the death of millions of innocent people, while he felt no remorse or acknowledgment of his actions.

These blind spots occur on everyday scale as well. How often do you turn away from a homeless person? Or disregard a famine that is occurring half a world away? How much responsibility to you feel for those occurrences? How much should you feel for these occurrences?

I understand blind spots from my experience of schoolyard bullying. When a child is unfairly bullied or picked on and the classmates, teachers, parents ignore the bullying, it is a prime example of blind spots. We are ignoring that an unfair action is happening to an innocent person, which could be stopped. What is requires is the acknowledgment of all parties of what is occurring. We do not necessarily need consensus, but the issue needs to be addressed. If we as a society still let children were bullied how can be ever address larger issues of abuse? I feel that any possible chance for an egalitarian society exists in the school yard and by educating others…