------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is without a doubt a deficiency of creativity in how we analyze our reality.
Perhaps not because we are unimaginative, but maybe because we are constrained by the perspectives of law and the culture of capitalism.
For example, a discussion of Bank of America forclosing on a house that results in the removal of a home owner, the common debate is between a liberal arguing that the Bank is unethical, and a republican arguing that the bank has done nothing wrong and that the former tenet is responsible for their actions and must pay the consequences. The liberal is reacting to the socially (unjust) conflicting laws that allow institutions to get away with such things. The republican is reacting based on the rules of the system while disregarding issues of right, wrong, justice, injustice, morality, etc. As they debate, they do so by arguing within the rules of the dominant legal and economic system, instead of from an alternative legal and economic system. One can not begin to challenge the legal and economic system if the questions they are asking do not challenge the system. Asking whether an action is legitimate is concerned with an issue from within a system; we should be asking questions like "is law legitimate?" if we want to understand our reality and its complexity.
So what?
Progressive mainstream news sources present issues from within the sphere of law and capitalism and rarely ever analyze issues creatively or imaginatively. They focus on whether issues are constitutional, efficient, profitable, etc. There is a lack of diversity in how the mainstream media analyzes politics, and this influences how the public discusses the political.
Sorry this post sucks.
Perhaps not because we are unimaginative, but maybe because we are constrained by the perspectives of law and the culture of capitalism.
For example, a discussion of Bank of America forclosing on a house that results in the removal of a home owner, the common debate is between a liberal arguing that the Bank is unethical, and a republican arguing that the bank has done nothing wrong and that the former tenet is responsible for their actions and must pay the consequences. The liberal is reacting to the socially (unjust) conflicting laws that allow institutions to get away with such things. The republican is reacting based on the rules of the system while disregarding issues of right, wrong, justice, injustice, morality, etc. As they debate, they do so by arguing within the rules of the dominant legal and economic system, instead of from an alternative legal and economic system. One can not begin to challenge the legal and economic system if the questions they are asking do not challenge the system. Asking whether an action is legitimate is concerned with an issue from within a system; we should be asking questions like "is law legitimate?" if we want to understand our reality and its complexity.
So what?
Progressive mainstream news sources present issues from within the sphere of law and capitalism and rarely ever analyze issues creatively or imaginatively. They focus on whether issues are constitutional, efficient, profitable, etc. There is a lack of diversity in how the mainstream media analyzes politics, and this influences how the public discusses the political.
Sorry this post sucks.
this post does not suck. i feel it is a great rupture of mainstream debate that is definitely worth negotiating.
ReplyDeleteWell thank you very much! I talk about this in a previous post about the economy. We always hear the economy measured in GDP or jobs, etc. and rarely about wages, personal fulfillment, mobility etc.
ReplyDelete