[csaa-forum] Howard's Tampa

[Mark Gibson]

I think Pearson appeals both to emotions and intellect. Yes, there is a
highly emotional aspect ‹ bordering on the manipulative at times. But
there¹s also a serious analysis of the long-term consequences of welfare
dependency ‹ one which I don¹t think can be lightly dismissed.

Pearson may well be wrong on many points. I find it odd, though, that Œwe¹
can dismiss him so easily. Okay, he may be a Œpolitician¹. But so are we
when we draw comparisons with Tampa, union busting on the waterfront etc.
What is that we want? Is it desirable?

I¹m as keen as anyone to be rid of Howard and the whole miserable turn in
Australian politics over the last decade. But, sorry, I just don¹t believe
it¹s as  clear cut as you make out Paul. The military have been called upon
to provide resources to the initiative. Does this make it Œwar¹? Howard¹s
own chosen metaphor is natural disaster (the comparison with Hurricane
Katrina etc.). Shouldn¹t we be engaging with that discourse (problematic in
itself) rather than engaging in spurious theatricalisation of our own?

A good part of Howard¹s success, in my view, lies in his ability to provoke
his critics to hyberbolic excess ‹ apoplectic attacks which just fail to
strike a chord with anything but a very select audience. If we¹re looking
for the political play in this recent initiative, I¹m sure this would have
entered calculations. Do we want to be suckers again?

-- Mark

On 29/6/07 2:10 PM, "Paul Magee" <paul.magee at canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> Re: Noel Pearson¹s comments on Lateline (Œchildren sleeping soundlyŠ¹ etc).
> Pearson is a politician. He appeals to the emotions rather than the intellect
> to get what he wants. The thing you have to ask yourself is always, ok, but
> what is it that he wants? Is it desirable?
>  
> As for sending the troops in to remote communities, this really is classic
> Howardism. ŒWar on the Waterfront¹ in 1998 & ŒOperation Relex¹ (the Naval
> blockade of Australia¹s North coast against Asylum Seekers, including those on
> the Tampa) in 20001 both involved military deployment against the enemy within
> - or just without. Like in this new Œwar¹, so then: the presence of troops is
> thoroughly theatrical. In fact, it¹s astounding. We¹re meant to believe that
> the situation is so bad that we have to declare war on a section of our own
> population? 
>  
> Actually, I don¹t think we need to believe that, for this sort of politics to
> have its effect. What¹s more important is that people allow it to happen,
> however contrary to reason ­ or rather, precisely because it¹s contrary to
> reason. Howard knows that a collective suspension of disbelief is far more
> powerful than actual belief. He¹s got a much better intuitive grasp of
> ideology than us. That¹s why the  fictions he enacts are so utterly crazy: are
> we really meant to believe that the way to protect indigenous minors from
> sexual abuse is to subject them to a medical examination involving anal and
> vaginal penetration? It¹s not necessary for us to believe that this is the
> right way of doing things, not at all. Rather, we need a shadowy awareness of
> the fact that something about this whole campaign is completely and utterly
> insane. That¹s how Howardism works, as a violation of common sense. Which
> includes a massive, indeed blinding, hypocrisy.
> 
> In the media, these details ­ the presence of troops, the fact that
> examination is physically penetrative, just like the abuse it apparently wards
> off ­ recede to the side of the picture, to be replaced by the everyday
> business of getting the job done, which is now the chief substance of
> reporting. The rapidity with which things become business as usual is
> something Walter Benjamin reminded us of. It¹s part of the way this government
> ­ this repeated violation of common sense ­ acquires its power. Not only does
> it brain us at regular, pre-electoral, intervals. It reminds us that reality
> reforges itself on these grounds too, that even here, we¹re safe in the force
> of the habitual. Well, at least some of us are.
>  
> In saying that Howardism  works as a violation of common sense, I don¹t mean
> that common sense is our usual lot. Life¹s a lot stranger than that, and it¹s
> even a lot stranger than Howardism, which simply avoids the issue. Common
> sense is not common. You need a War on the Waterfront, or a Children
> Overboard, a War on Indigenous Communities, or a ŒThis election, ladies and
> gentlemen, will be about trust¹ ­ you need something as unbelievable as those
> interventions, for common sense to make sense. Whatever it is, it¹s not that.
> And nor are we. Then people can write soberly that the only reason Howard is
> still in power is that he delivers on the economy.
> 
> 
> Dr. Paul Magee
> 
> President, Cultural Studies Association of Australasia
> Lecturer in Creative Reading
> School of Creative Communication
> University of Canberra
> ACT 2601
> 02 6201 2402
> 
> Australian Government Higher Education (CRICOS)
> Registered Provider number: #00212K
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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


Mark Gibson
Communications and Media Program
National Centre for Australian Studies
Monash University
Caulfield East 3145
Victoria, Australia

Editor, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/10304312.html

tel: +61 3 9903 4221
fax: +61 3 9903 4225

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://bronzewing.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20070629/cb491b0a/attachment.html