The Politicization of Disaster
A Posts entry from Tuesday, May 27, 2008
In regards to the nearly 10,000 children who’ve died in China’s most recent earthquake, the New York Times has a fascinating article on the way the disaster has become politicized at local levels, leading to demonstrations against the government for having failed to address the unsafe building conditions prior to the earthquake, as well as exaggerating the role they played in disaster recovery. Concerning the issue, the Times has this to say:
The protests threaten to undermine the government’s attempts to promote its response to the quake as effective and to highlight heroic rescue efforts by the People’s Liberation Army, which has dispatched 150,000 soldiers to the region. Censors have blocked detailed reporting of the schools controversy by the state-run media, but a photo of Mr. Jiang kneeling before protesters has become a sensation on some Web forums, bringing national attention to the incident.
… The authorities in Beijing appear to recognize the delicacy of the issue. On Monday, a spokesman for the Education Ministry, Wang Xuming, promised a reassessment of school buildings in quake zones, adding that those responsible for cutting corners on school construction would be “severely punished.”
The article goes into more detail regarding the protests aimed against specific officials who the parents have identified as being negligent in regards to building safety conditions. What makes this particularly interesting is that it demonstrates that even so-called “totalitarian” states (in truth, China’s politics could be more aptly described as pragmatic authoritarianism) must be responsive to their citizens. The distribution of power between the (Party-)State and its People is never fully one-sided, even at the very limits of delegitimization. The events have spurred, to varying degrees, a form of local collective action against party bosses that are forced to acquiesce to the demands of the rightfully enraged parents. The only truly serious political question is whether this politicized message will come to play a crucial role at the level of national politics, against any predictable depoliticizing logic of “victimization.”
But I think what’s especially breathtaking here is that, while this development seems somewhat unremarkable, can anyone imagine the same procedure taking place in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Not at the level of talking-head-faux-outrage, but the direct politicization of the disaster and the mobilization of the poor against the state apparatus and its varyingly corresponding parties. The irony is that in the U.S., contrary to China, such a development would be truly unfathomable, despite the latter’s aforementioned “totalitarianism.”
With the Olympic games coming up in a matter of months, the question that remains will be what, if anything, will occur in China. On the one hand, it is more than likely the case that things will continue running smoothly and any events that appear to disturb the smooth run of things will simply appear as “blips” on the radar screen. Yet, the reduction of such events to mere “blips” ignores a key Marxist insight apropos capitalism’s cyclic fluctuations (as well as Freud’s insight in regards to the symptom): these these momentary lapses represent the repressed “truth” of a ruling order. To varying degrees, they are capable of carrying with them a deeper truth-procedure towards an Event. On the topic of politicization, however, the crucial question is what kind of Truth emerges in the midst of an event. Will the masses opt for neoliberal ideology as did a number of post-Communist countries (including Russia), or will something new emerge? Obviously, then, one shouldn’t blindly throw a monkey wrench in a machine without in some way discerning out of that action what will emerge in its aftermath.
On a more macroscopic level, what humanitarian ideology, a thoroughly depoliticizing bourgeois ideology if there ever was one, has taught us is that natural disasters, which render people into victims, require the benevolence of some privileged third party capable of administrating the affairs. Yet, what if the appearance of disaster (e.g., global warming) and its after effects points to a general failure at the level not only of state-citizen interaction, but at the level of Capital as well. That is to say, what if the logic of Capital does not accommodate itself to disaster relief, and hence relies upon the ideological mystification of humans reduced to the status of “victims” to elicit support at the individual level. Consequently, the politicization of disasters and the formation of local collective action seems like a positive development for the most marginalized members of society (those are disproportionately affected by such disasters) against the ruling strata. And this, of course, is not simply the case for impoverished Third World countries: we should recall the events of Katrina and keep them in mind when developments such as these arise, in order to seize them before they dissipate under the guise of mere “blips” on the radar.
Jason
Er…I’d hardly say there was a lack of socioeconomic protest following the events of Katrina.
If anything, the event reopened the vast cleavages between races and classes; or, at least, brought them to the forefront once more.
You seem to make an error in assuming that just because the U.S. situation lacked the degree of vocalization that the movement in China possesses, that there is some inherent irony in that the former is the “supposed” “enlightened” democracy. Rather, I would take the fact that China is experiencing this “class” issue so broadly as precisely because it is “authoritarian”….thus, not only are people more likely to see the disaster as one that borders against the class/political divide, but we as “outsiders” are quicker to notice and establish the movement (as we ourselves are implicitly drawn to such movements, i.e. Tibetan monks, and the underprivileged).
That there was less class struggle and protest in the United States only points to the relative degree of stability and “multiculturalism” that we have attained: people no longer are so quick to classify issues as class-based or racially-based…we have some sort of “greater faith” in our government. Now, to completely ignore the fact that the Bush Administration, or at the very least, FEMA, was not almost universally criticized in the aftermath (with many asking what the response would be had the disaster occurred in, say, Greenwich Village) would be pretty fallacious. I’d say you did just that.
Mark Elliot Cullen
(This is Bryan on Mark’s computer)
I think your response matches too much the liberal democratic impulse that trumpets the greatness of democracy in absorbing the violence of conflict.
I would completely agree with you insofar as democracy is responsible for all of the things you attribute to it, only I would say this is negative. Democracy is depoliticizing by obscuring the inherent (ontological) truth of antagonism.
Jason
Ah, so this is similar to your critique of Obama’s “Unity” message; that in the contemporary atmosphere of politics and government we don’t necessarily need (or even want) to “mend” certain bridges or seek a multi-party consensus.
I’d only argue that you and I must see different “merits” behind politics and movements of antagonism. I suppose more drastic movements, more antagonistic, apolitical approaches might seem better to you in that they have certain quasi-revolutionary traits. To me, politics of compromise (though definitely not Obama’s lofty and still undefined form…instead, like Clinton’s more focused “triangulation”) have been more successful in yielding progress. Modern revolutions (without outside intervention) generally bring either horrendous defeat (i.e. Tienanmen Square) or merely a polar evil into power (i.e. the “Caracazo” in Venezuela and its eventual aftermath).
Antagonistic movements are defined by leaders who must, by the very definition of the movement, rest at some form of the extreme (i.e. Perez and Chavez, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, etc.) They are leaders who are unwilling to compromise, and who therefore see anyone in the middle sphere (which ironically is the largest sphere) as potential dissidents. Thus, revolutions, no matter what their outcome, only bring true “success” to whichever extremist party wins…the “middling” people are still pretty much screwed.
Hell, even the American Revolution was more an exercise of the wealthier merchant class dressing up their desire for less taxes as issues of “liberty and justice” to the poorer colonists.
Bryan Klausmeyer
I don’t think you understand the point I’m making, so I’ll put it in bullet point:
- Antagonistic movements, by definition, are political. The notion of an apolitical antagonistic movement is a contradiction.
- Words such as “progress” and “extreme” are mystifying because they obscure the ideological constellation of that which they refer to. “Progress” towards what? “Extreme” in what regard?
- Compromise on whose behalf? Who is the one compromising ? For what purpose? If the compromise is intended to simply make the system run smoother, then it is depoliticizing. Amongst any genuine revolutionary movement there requires a time where compromise is favorable, even necessary, but the kind of formal legalist compromise you speak of is not the same.
There are two other specific mistakes you’ve made:
- You perform the all too quick liberal-democratic rendering of the far Left and far Right as equal through the obscure word “extremes.” This ignores the main difference between Left and Right: for the Left, antagonism is internal to society (class struggle, which negates the social at both the level of content and form), whereas the far Right relies upon the specter of an externalized enemy (Jews, Arabs, Chinese, etc.) in order to maintain the existing (formal) structure of society (e.g., capital in the form of corporatism).
- You ignore the point of view from which you’re speaking, which is within a certain set of political norms established under liberal democratic society. It is the ideological constellation of this social system that establishes the conditions for what counts as “extreme” and what counts as “progress.”
Now, following this to its logical conclusion, if you were to argue that revolution is too “violent,” then this discussion is pointless, as we’ll simply be disagreeing. You can’t have a revolution without revolution (that is, without terror or bloodshed), nor can you accomplish its goals without a minimum of a genuine Act (meaning, remaining within formal legalist structure means staving off the goal ad infinitum). And on the subject of failure, one should dare to “fail worse” than before (one could even elevate this to a revolutionary maxim if one intended). It’s what separates Left from Right and also what renders visible the inherent limitation (problem) of liberal democracy (its attempt to obscure antagonism under the spectacle of “party politics” and so-called “compromise” towards an unidentified ideological telos which goes under the useful term “progress.”) This is of course not even addressing the issue of Capital, which is simply supplemented by today’s (formal legalist) democratic ideology.
Now what this specifically has to do with the post, I am not sure, but there are, I’m sure, a number of other resources one could accommodate oneself with one is unclear on the aforementioned issues.
Jason
As to your bullet points: I don’t see anything in them that I didn’t already consider before.
As to my “specific mistakes”:
This section is ironic considering you, not long ago, argued within the context that two points on a single line, once moving from one another, would invariably be similar at some point. Think, Marcus Garvey and the Klan. Aside from this interesting hypocrisy, the rest of your point doesn’t really mean anything; that the Left and the Right differ in their methods of politicalization is irrelevant in the broader context of conflict. We’re looking to the end result, not the means.
This point is almost not worth commenting upon, as it is often the parroted statement of “philosophers” or pretentious debaters (not saying you are one). Its inherently a straw-man argument (or, moving the “goal-posts”) and it is similar to, for example, when Obama supporters argue to the skeptic that they “have to hear him speak” in order to understand. These are empty arguments, and they’re solely tools for misdirection. I recall you criticizing shana’s reply to you regarding a Latin text you were writing upon, when she stated “you need to read it in its original language.” Same thing.
As for the rest of your commentary:
I’m going to have to just disagree with you and leave it at that. Your “logical conclusions” are dubious, and certain points (though absolutely correct) have nothing to do with our discussion. Being right on an unrelated point is not akin to being right on the point at hand…. there’s some LSAT help for you.
As for you statement on “failing worse”…that seems to be an argument that would implicitly accept acts of supposed martyrdom. Not sure if you were going for that, or if you just missed the correlation.
As for you concluding remarks; bravo, you’ve read about a dozen philosophy books and suddenly you’re the reincarnated Lacan.
I was trying to have an interesting discussion with a friend Bryan, not some formalistic debate turned pretentious chest-thumping. Just because I disagreed with you on certain points didn’t mean that you should disrespect or mock me. You’re not a professor yet, so stop acting like one.
Bryan Klausmeyer
In response to the following subjects:
- As someone who wishes to debate using “precision” (at least at the level of logical and rhetorical formalism), there is a crucial difference between the convergence of opposites and inherent antagonism. On the one hand, convergence of opposites refers to a “dialectical movement” (meaning, the introduction of a contradiction [antithesis] to a thesis) which is “sublated” (synthesized) by demonstrating their underlying unity. Now, your example of black nationalism here is simply a rhetorical gesture, as, like all beautiful souls, one appreciates its exemplifying felicity not so much from its formal premises, but rather from its content. By this I mean that, had you used the example of Adolf Eichmann’s famous proposal to partition Palestinia on behalf of the Zionists in order for them to be relocated by the Nazis, this would most certainly have lost its symbolic efficacy, at the very least, on your own behalf (e.g., calling into question the political legitimacy of the State of Israel as the realization of a Nazi [anti-semitic] fantasy). On the other hand, “inherent antagonism” refers to a void/gap inherent to the One (the gap between its ontological status and its ontic “place of inscription”). To make it simpler, the difference between the first example and the second is the difference between “surplus” and “lack”: the convergence of opposites refers to a “surplus” or excess that collapses the Two dialectically opposed points onto each other (like a house of cards), whereas a “lack” refers to a point of “scission” that acts as a focal point of circulation (think: Freudian “death drive”). If Left and Right refer to a “convergence of opposites,” then you are left with the fairly untenable theoretic-philosophical proposition that politics is formally solipsistic, and consequently one should always stand somewhere in the “middle” in order to prevent one’s symbolic “sliding” into one or the other. (This is perhaps what one may comically refer to as the “metaphysics of moderation”).
- This notion of an “absent middle” (meaning: formally content-less, i.e. if it had a definitive content it would simply pertain to some solipsistic sliding) brings us to the second point. My reason for bringing up the notion of an ideological “background” is actually the more crucial part of the argument and your resistance to it, in my opinion, attests to its significance, which is why it is simply effaced through a rhetorical gesture as opposed to being concretely argued. I have no interest in discussing Obama nor “moving goal posts.” This is completely unrelated and perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what I’ve written. To risk repeating myself, but perhaps more concretely, if Left and Right are indeed “convergences of opposites” (and politics solipsistic), for whom/what is such a view being enacted? That is to say, because we are relegated to phenomena (and not, say, an omnipotent deity capable of attaining direct insight into “things-in-themselves”), always immersed within a subjective viewpoint, what is the content of this “transcendental” background (the “absent middle”)? It is not an objective a priori understanding, but an embedded one, one that is socially and culturally conditioned, hence its subjective “absent-ness” (what Kant referred to as “transcendental apperception”). Precisely because we are embedded within its ideological constellation, we cannot see it, because for us it actually is how things really are in-themselves. It has nothing to do with so-called “strawmen” and everything to do with revolutionary science. And, like so-called “democracy” (formal legalism), it attempts to obfuscate, mystify and domesticate “the Real,” the inherent antagonism, the non-coincidence of the One with itself. That is the site of Truth in politics. The “convergence of opposites” only negates, hence it fantastically (and negatively) renders the positive fantasy of the Other (solipsism, e.g. my example of Maoism sliding into authoritarian capitalism), i.e. it does not perform the Hegelian “negation of negation.”
Now, I hardly find public debates to be the place for decorum or “friendship.” That is for the niceties of day-to-day discussion. When it comes to theory and its concrete practice in the form of politics, one should be merciless. Everything else is a tea party.
Bryan Klausmeyer
And after that seemingly eternal detour, I would simply return to your first comment where you wrote:
Er…I’d hardly say there was a lack of socioeconomic protest following the events of Katrina.
If anything, the event reopened the vast cleavages between races and classes; or, at least, brought them to the forefront once more.
… and posit it to be fairly absurd; as if Kanye West’s “George W. Bush hates black people” comment really affected the nation’s discourse on race relations (“reopened vast cleavages”…) in an unprecedented way, not to mention its non-discursive, concrete, ethico-political implementation!. The “politicization of Katrina,” which does not refer to debates between so-called “democratic parties” (e.g., Democrat and Republican), was close to non-existent. I hardly recall any armed insurrections against local party bosses either. Perhaps we get our news from different sources?
Bryan Klausmeyer
bryklaus@umich.edu
7 Comments