[csaa-forum] But wait, there's more

Tue Mar 1 17:05:23 CST 2005

dear ben,
thanks for your reply. i'm between meetings at the
moment. you raise some interesting ideas; however, i
believe you have misread some of my statements, and i
disagree with one of your assertions. 
1. in relation to ad hominem logic: in my last post i
argued that: ‘these critics’ logic is combative,
aggressive or ‘hawkish’; they despise (as they have
said in relation to anti-war protesters) ‘weakness’.
you replied: ‘If you mean this as a criticism, you've
just engaged in an ad hominem (to the man)attack.
Address their arguments, not the style in which they
are presented, unless you're going to argue that the
style invalidates their logic’. 
this is absolutely a criticism; and this is absolutely
not ad hominem logic: i specifically refer to their
*logic*, not to their *character*. although i did use
the pronoun ‘they’ in my next clause, i was referring
to (as indicated in parenthesis) to what they ‘said’.
(if i was writing in another context, outside this
list, i would refrain from using pronouns in reference
to ‘logic’). i use ‘said’ in reference to both writing
and speech. of course in an academic context, notions
like ‘combative, aggressive and hawkish’ have little
descriptive merit, unless one was analysing the way
these words operate in popular/political discourse. i
use these ill-defined terms to describe their logic:
the way they use broad analogies and generalizations,
their false dilemmas and false causes, the fallacious
use of evidence, their fallacious references to
traditional universal notions as authority, their
simplistic appeal populous notions, etc. that is what
i mean by their *logic* being ‘combative, aggressive,
hawkish’. in terms of style it does have an affect on
logic, if one takes into account the social situation
(social meaning involves numerous discourses, which
have material 'affects'), for example: these critics,
bolt, piers akerman, keith windschuttle, janet
albretchen, paddy mcguinness, all present themselves
in tv debates in calm and measured ways; however, they
invoke affective or emotional responses in others
*because*  of the logic described above; it is very
difficult to argue against that logic in a tv
interview. in other contexts, it's different (although
i have seen bolt lose it on a number of occasions.
like the debate with david marr). 
2. i suggested that: ‘the conservative government
wants to privatize the public broadcasters (a
proposition a number of howard ministers and rightwing
jocks have suggested)’. you said: ‘Let me register my
support for this proposal’. your meaning is not clear;
however, i read it as that you approve the
privatization of, even though you love, the ABC and
SBS. this is because, as you say, ‘it's not right to
coerce people into having their earnings taken away
(i.e. taxation), and then spend it on luxuries’.
(ignoring your politically charged words ‘coerce’ and
‘luxuries’) i disagree strongly. i think the ABC and
SBS should be publicly funded, either by taxation as
in australia, or tv licences as in the uk.
(neo-conservative janet albretchsen, the new ABC board
member, agrees with me, at least publicly, that
tax-payer should fund public broadcasting. but
worryingly janet has said, without irony, that she
intents to make the ABC ‘fair and balance’, which is
the mantra of fox news, of course). if you were
suggesting a US public broadcasting model, again i
would disagree. australia does not have the population
to make that work effectively, and besides we already
have that model with access tv. [this is, however, a
complicated issue, way beyond this post.]
3. you did identify a use of ad hominem logic
correctly: you said: ‘I get the impression that you
refer to whoever it is as "rightwing jocks" (another
ad hominem attack) because of their social values as
well as their beliefs about how the economy should
best be managed.
you are right: ‘rightwing jokes, i mean jocks’ is ad
hominem logic (but that was the *ironic* humour i was
referring to in my last post, although i admit it’s
not very humorous, and maybe not obvious enough for
some). so where do i stand: firmly against
neo-conservatism (as defined in political discourse,
which relates primarily to the US; australian
conservative economist/policy adviser andrew norton
has written on this very issue, saying conservatism in
australia is different to the neo-conservatism of the
us. by definition he is right). i’m not
anti-capitalist (my knowledge of economics is very
limited, but if stephen keen, professor of economic at
sydney uni, is correct in his book ‘debunking
economics’, there is not one system of capitalism but,
he argues, five). for a privileged middle-class, white
boy living in an advance capitalist country (like
myself), the rise of neo-conservatism doesn’t really
affect me. but it does affect the 16,000-100,000 dead
iraqi civilian, whose opinions we will never know.
[this is a very touchy issue i’m not going to debate,
its too late; i will, however, debate the new war] and
the rise of neo-conservatism does have material
effects in relation to, as we have seen both in
australia and the us, abortion, gay marriage, land
rights (all things i support); and in relation to
civil liberties (so if you think neo-conservatism
equals freedom, i disagree).
3. i said: ‘these attacks will never end’. you relied:
‘They may one day, if the left-right dichotomy (and
with it, the typical attitudes each side holds towards
the 'New Humanities') ceases to dominate our thinking
about politics, and is replaced by some new scheme of
classification. But then we will have new,
different-looking debates’.
i disagree, these attacks will not end, no matter what
new schemes of classification are developed. as i have
said before, this left/right paradigm is simplistic
and (almost) useless (especially after the fall of the
‘second world’ in 1989), but they remain important
(limited and temporary) foundations to political
discourses and liberation movements, especially in
relation to postcolonial ‘third world’ states both
externally, and internally, in resistance to (western
supported) indigenous comprador bourgeois-elite, who
do not represent (as many postcolonial theorists have
demonstrated) the majority working class or
subalterns. even though globalization, simply
speaking, has socially benefited many people and
helped resistance movements (some argue that the first
globalists were marxists), it is still dominated by
western interests, at the expense of ‘third world’
countries (this is, in itself, a very complicated
issue, with divided opinions among developmental
theorist and postcolonial theorist (materialist and
textualist), just look at the developmental journal
‘third world quarterly’). 

tim

--- Ben Hourigan <mail at benhourigan.com> wrote: 
> Another response to Tim Langley:
> 
> > however, in agreement with catherine, responses
> must
> > be (in this public sphere) measured and
> unemotional,
> > refrained from personal attacks, ad hominem logic
> and
> > academic language,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > these critics’ logic is combative, aggressive or
> > ‘hawkish’; they despise (as they have said in
> relation
> > to anti-war protesters) ‘weakness’.
> 
> If you mean this as a criticism, you've just engaged
> in an ad hominem 
> (to the man)attack. Address their arguments, not the
> style in which 
> they are presented, unless you're going to argue
> that the style 
> invalidates their logic.
> 
> > the conservative government wants to privatize the
> public broadcasters
> > (a proposition a number of howard ministers and
> > rightwing jocks have suggested),
> 
> Let me register my support for this proposal. I love
> the ABC, and SBS, 
> but it's not right to coerce people into having
> their earnings taken 
> away (i.e. taxation), and then spend it on luxuries,
> however much you 
> or I may appreciate them. Does support for
> privatisation make one right 
> wing? If a commitment to economic freedom (this
> includes maximum 
> freedom from taxation) makes one right-wing, and a
> commitment to 
> government control of economic activity makes one
> left-wing, then 
> you're correct. However, it's not as simple as that.
> Isn't that what 
> you were arguing in a previous post? I get the
> impression that you 
> refer to whoever it is as "rightwing jocks" (another
> ad hominem attack) 
> because of their social values as well as their
> beliefs about how the 
> economy should best be managed.
> 
> > these attacks will never end
> 
> They may one day, if the left-right dichotomy (and
> with it, the typical 
> attitudes each side holds towards the 'New
> Humanities') ceases to 
> dominate our thinking about politics, and is
> replaced by some new 
> scheme of classification. But then we will have new,
> different-looking 
> debates.
> 
> > , and neither should our
> > responses.
> 
> Again, agreed. Just keep the ad hominem arguments to
> a minimum.
> _______________________________________
> 
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association
> of australasia
> 
> www.csaa.asn.au
> 
> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>  

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 