tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post4718110649073687761..comments2023-12-08T08:34:54.615-08:00Comments on Posthegemony: riskJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14637452970276655064noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-34591118610389401142011-01-11T06:39:23.000-08:002011-01-11T06:39:23.000-08:00I'd put things slightly differently: this is n...I'd put things slightly differently: this is not a tale about the failure of capitalism, but about its limits. The old woman, here, puts a limit on capitalist expansion by initially refusing the notion that everything has a price. The central problem that the story poses, then, is how does capital manage to go beyond its limits. I suggest it does so by supplementing its own logic with another, here something that's closer to the gift economy.<br /><br />Now, to say that the logic of capital is limited (or reaches its limit) and has to be supplemented isn't quite the same as saying it has failed. And to say that traditional values mark the limit of capitalist expansion or or to note that capital has to take recourse to such values isn't the same as saying they have "supremacy."<br /><br />But these observations do, I'm suggesting, complicate our way of understanding capital, and help us show that it's self-portrayal, as sufficient unto itself, is at best ideological (however "true" it may be!) and at worst irrelevant (because the widow's downfall is thoroughly post- or non-ideological).<br /><br />So, yes, we've managed to "undo" an irrelevance. But another way of seeing it is that we've shown that the terrain of dispute is not ideology, but rather affect and habit.<br /><br />(For what it's worth, this is also what I try to show in my book, <i>Posthegemony</i>. Though there I also introduce a third term, apparently absent in this story: the multitude.)Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-21457760896844115672011-01-11T06:24:10.000-08:002011-01-11T06:24:10.000-08:00Bill, thanks for your comments. Yes, perhaps anot...Bill, thanks for your comments. Yes, perhaps another way of putting things is that it is in the nature of business to be "unbusinesslike," to go beyond its bounds or to refuse to stop.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-52490314957526275122011-01-10T23:59:33.000-08:002011-01-10T23:59:33.000-08:00<p><span>I am interested in the two ec...<p><span>I am interested in the two economic systems you have identified in<br />this tale as well as in the ideology that can be extracted from the<br />tale and how it can be challenged.<br /><br />The most obvious economic system I can identify is capitalism which maître Chicot ascribes to. I would like to better understand the second system, which could be associated with mere Magloire. Is this a specific economic system such as socialism or gift economy? I can recognise the two kinds of relationship to land that you have identified: one based on affect, the other based on profit.<br /><br />By ideology, I understand the values or ideas which can appear as common sense or the ideas of the dominant class which are assimilated by an entire society by way of socialisation. In my understanding, you are suggesting that although it may seem that this tale cautions against greed, avarice and drunkenness, it actual shows that capitalism has failed and that profit-driven greed and cunning and has had to be supplanted by human fraternal behaviour.</span><br /></p><p><span><br />Since the “dispassionate logic of capital” has failed, can we see in<br />this tale the supremacy of traditional values which you have<br />identified as “hospitality, neighbourliness, conviviality, gift<br />economy”? Should rationalism and objectivism give way to affect and subjectivism? Is the tale prescriptive or descriptive? Is there a clash of masculine or masculinist values embodied in the person of Chicot with feminine or feminist values embodied in the person of mère Magloire? (By masculinist values, I refer to rationalist and objectivist values descending from the Enlightenment representing the European and predominantly male heritage associated with the scientific movement, which some have accused as not being representative of the reality of, say, Aboriginal people, women, non-European people, etc.)<br /><br />If the apparent ideology warning against greed, avarice and<br />drunkenness are insufficient to explain the story, and if capitalism,<br />which seems to crush traditional values, actually fails in securing<br />profit, how do we deal with the disguised homicidal behaviour of<br />maître Chicot? Can we draw conclusions about power, violence, and oppression? Can capitalist regimes sometimes turn to structural violence and oppression to maintain power?</span></p>mmebennett@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-54844492619404202022011-01-07T18:35:50.000-08:002011-01-07T18:35:50.000-08:00Lots of interesting threads here -- and all very e...Lots of interesting threads here -- and all very elegantly put. You have led us very quickly to an interpretative perch where it is easy to plunge ahead in many conflicting (?) directions. One of those directions you took:<br /><br />>>> But in fact the story tells us that in origin it is the innkeeper's risk assessment that fails, and that his reputation as a "very knowing customer" or "smart business man" depends on his acceptance of other modes of dealing that are not, in the end, entirely businesslike.<br /><br />Where does business stop? By definition, a free market is a market that is free to use any means of exploitation; freedom of the people is second to market freedom (and market freedom is justified by the wealth it generates). In that society, there is no such thing as corralling business – that would be socialism! So the sub-prime lenders were being “smart business men”; whether they caused death and destruction or not, the majority walked away with fortunes.<br /><br />After reading your post, my thoughts also went to the Native Americans at the time of colonization, who were almost literally washed away by a wave of alcohol, when more deadly weapons were not used. Apparently the Johnny Appleseed story is more about cider rather than pies.<br /><br />PS: I like your translation better than the one I put up. Thanks!Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-13444411499326608612011-01-07T12:18:38.000-08:002011-01-07T12:18:38.000-08:00Yes, I did think of that very same case and almost...Yes, I did think of that very same case and almost linked to it. (<a href="http://www.thisistrue.com/win_some_lose_some_4778.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a rather more succinct account.)Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-42936735421789432672011-01-07T12:13:55.000-08:002011-01-07T12:13:55.000-08:00I wonder if André-François Raffray thought of offe...I wonder if André-François Raffray thought of offering brandy to Jeanne Calment (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment</a>)fionanoreply@blogger.com