[csaa-forum] Howard's next Tampa

Sat Jun 30 14:31:06 CST 2007

Re:

>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 war? 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?

I disagree. We should always engage with the underside of the image. What's unstated is much more powerful. What else is conservativism but one big lie (with a knowing wink and nod to the audience)? Of course we shouldn't lose sight of what conservatives say they are doing, which may even be what they believe they are doing. They're probably as out of control as anyone else. 

At any rate, people buy the full package. I doubt Howard would have anything like the power he wields if he were simply an ideologue. It's the hypocrite who mesmerizes, compells and even - it has to be said - excites people. 

The closest social theory seems to come to finding a language for that is in metaphors from the theatre. But few people even go to the theatre nowdays. It's time we found a new language for this sort of governmentality, which clearly has a logic to it (albeit one we find hard to articulate, or even just name - a paralysing state, innate to the phenomenon at hand). I've settled on 'Howardism' as a provisonal term. Before he gets swept into the dustbin of history, why not coin a bit of conceptual value out of him?

cheers

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au on behalf of Mark Gibson
Sent: Fri 6/29/2007 4:54 PM
To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] Howard's Tampa

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 Owe¹
can dismiss him so easily. Okay, he may be a Opolitician¹. 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 Owar¹? 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 (Ochildren sleeping soundlyS¹ 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. OWar on the Waterfront¹ in 1998 & OOperation 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 Owar¹, 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 OThis 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