« Old Etonians | Main | Mirror stage photo set »
Constitution?
Well the voting is underway. I don't mean to belabor this, and neither do I pretend to be an expert on the subject, but maybe the referendum is not the “pseudo-democratic aberration” Paul Virilio recently claimed it to be (while gushing, it must be noted, over Blair's infinite wisdom) (via). That is, perhaps the “pseudo-democratic aberration” is the constitution itself! Is it even correct to call this thing—500 pages of detailed trade agreements— a constitution? I have not read it, no, but from what I've been able to understand, not least of all regarding the eventual prospect of a privatized BBC (and a FOX News for Europeans?), I'm very inclined to insist: let us hope they succeed in voting this abberation down so that a genuine constitution may be written; one more responsive to the needs of the working class, one capable of leaving itself open to alternatives to an unchecked neoliberal world order. One can only wonder what a Lacanian would make of Virilio's rather exemplary, closing remarks:
We are moving from a democracy of opinion toward a "democracy of public emotion", where what is desired of voters is less a free choice, a firm affirmation by a sovereign people, than a "limp consensus", a friendly solution in the name of a population subjected to all possible forms of brain washing after the excesses of the polls. In the meantime, after the progress of electronic democracy in real time, we are seeing the era of virtual democracy, inspired by the most outrageous marketing strategies, as exemplified by the election of the current governor of California.
In any case, Blair is about to get off the hook, which I imagine he has some mixed feelings about. Is the far left up to this fight? We had better hope so.
Update: It would be nice if those voting their conscience today were not so habitually denounced as
being simultaneously head-in-the-clouds and "conservative
nationalists." This has very little to do with nationalism, in fact,
as usually understood, and some people priveleged enough to be published should know better, or perhaps be less dishonest. (As à Gauche
points out, what is nationalism anyway if not the fancy clothing and
cloaking of a more fundamental economic anxiety?) Eurosceptics we are
not (though the earth is still most definitely round). Which is not to
suggest for a minute that an effective, realpolitik counter-balance to
the U.S. isn't still drastically needed, one can only hope it goes without saying.
Update II: More here, here, here, here, here and here. The full text of the recently dispatched, for those without day jobs, is here.
By Matt | May 29, 2005 in Current Affairs, Democracy, Europe | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452467869e200d83459489769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Constitution? :
» Warsaw flight from CPROBES
warsaw2pics Originally uploaded by RIPope. I took these pics in August. I was in Warsaw for but 2 days, one of which I spent searching for the apartment building complex where Kieslowski filmed the Decalogue. Problem was that there... [Read More]
Tracked on May 30, 2005 2:08:14 AM
» Reclaiming nationalism? from CPROBES
Peacekeepers Originally uploaded by jnorminton. Over at the glorious Long Sunday we've been talking about the `no' vote to the EU Constitution and how it might be played up as reborn nationalism. I've sort of been saying that even... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 2, 2005 8:55:51 PM
Comments
We win!
«Le bonheur est une idée neuve en Europe!» Saint-Just
Posted by: R.Mutt | May 29, 2005 1:59:34 PM
Beaumarchais L'Insolent, with Fabrice Luchini as the playwright talking to Louis XVI about the American Declaration of independence:
Le Roi: Et que dit-elle cette déclaration?
Beaumarchais: Elle parle du peuple et du son droit le plus sacré.
Le Roi: Quel droit?
Beaumarchais: [pause] Le droit au bonheur, Sire.
Posted by: Alphonsevanworden | May 29, 2005 2:18:08 PM
80% turnout isn't bad. (For a bunch of imprudent, backwards, utopian, insecure, provincial, nationalistic, conservative, limpy, round-worlders). So then, now the real work begins.
Posted by: Matt | May 29, 2005 4:33:34 PM
In my part of the world, nationalism is something, in fact, only practiced by the Left. The Right here wants to get further in bed with the Americans, the governing Liberals (centre-Right) are only marginally less brown-nosy, so that to be a nationalist is progressive.
Posted by: RIPope | May 29, 2005 5:28:11 PM
You're right of course. That was sloppy of me. There is a certain mainly defensive nationalism on the left, sure, responding to the perceived threat of the US primarily.
But calling what just took place merely "nationalistic" (which is, let's face it, a rather ugly word, with plenty of historical connotations) still grossly and rather purposefully misses the point, and sweeps under the rug of convenient, ready-made language a whole host of legitimate concerns. Quality of life, health care, living wage, worker's rights, public media, the list goes on...
It's an obvious point maybe, but as Troll of Sorrow is wont to point out, many people would rather cry (either directly or indirectly) "Stalin," or "History" or something or other, in order to dismiss a vaguely perceived threat to their worldview in one fell swoop, rather than take the time to address these very real and growing concerns.
Posted by: Matt | May 29, 2005 7:12:12 PM
80% turnout!?!?!? Why, how dare those cheese-eating surrender monkeys make the United States and its citizens look bad!
They hate us for our Freedom©.
Posted by: A Disgruntled Postal Worker | May 29, 2005 9:17:48 PM
That is, for (y)our Freedom Fries.
Matt, I agree entirely with what you say. One shouldn't be a straightforward nationalist, of course, but nonetheless I do believe in some form of nationalism as being necessary. I don't believe that any true global political order is possible, nor, frankly, desirable. So the only thing that can fight back the onslought of late capitalism, and its twin process of extreme deterritorialization and extreme REterritorialization (in the lawless export producing zones), I'd argue, is the nation-state. After all, export producing zones work precisely by weakening the power of 'Empire'-managed nations.
Of course, labelling the nay-sayers in France as regressive and nationalist is part of the neoliberal consensus that, precisely, always already excludes discussions of labour conditions.
Posted by: RIPope | May 30, 2005 1:35:50 AM
RIPope:
If there's an oscillation between what you (or D&G or H&N) call de/reterritorialization, isn't it in fact between the poles of global capital and national defense? Isn't that what we're living through right now? Doesn't the "war on terror" constitute a reterritorialization that in turn provokes yet another deterritorializaion? Neoliberal flat world to 9/11 to Unsteady Empire?
How, exactly, do "export producing zones" function as the deterrit. phase? And why are they labelled "lawless"?
What form of nationalism is "necessary" for the USA? Or are they the exception?
Posted by: CR | May 30, 2005 1:52:36 AM
No, those zones would function as the most extreme REterr., given that they are gated off from the nation-state where they are housed, workers must be cleared when they come in and out, they have armed guards, cameras aren't allowed in, etc...
They are lawless in the sense that the nation-state in question relinquishes its responsibilities to its citizens once they enter each morning for work. Of course it's not totally lawless - I overstretched, but the point is there. Global capital deterr's, and then it reterr's in such zones. Beyond the nation-state. Which is why I find critiques of the nation-state to often be working in tandem with the neoliberal agenda - including (in a more complicated way) Hardt & Negri.
Nationalism for the USA. Err, yes, they might be the exception. Or at least it would be harder to define. But why, for instance, is it considered the height of nationalism in the US to change the world according to itself? Does nationalism in itself involve perpetual conquest? Or can it seek simply to provide cohesion to a national body, peacefully mediated with other such bodies through the UN?
Posted by: RIPope | May 30, 2005 2:30:38 AM
Those who voted 'no' will be denounced as 'conservative nationalists' because it allows those who lectured for a 'yes' vote to not question the role they wish to play as 'progressive lecturers' of 'global society'. It is theatrics.
Posted by: s0metim3s | May 30, 2005 11:48:59 AM
Being nationalist in a world of globalization is another word for decentralized political power.
People want some to retail some measure of political control over economic issues - they are willing to accept the short-term pain of lack of European integration in order to get this right (or at least not-as-wrong).
Posted by: pebird | May 30, 2005 10:14:16 PM
While it's important to note the liberal dynamics at work in the casting of the 'no' vote as a vote for nationalism, that doesn't mean it's necessary to imagine that nationalism is indeed either radical or oppositional. It isn't. Nationalism is always racism. That said, those who counterpose nationalism to globalism are being foolish. Nation-states were always part of an international system. They were just the differentiated segements within a global hierarchy.
Posted by: s0metim3s | May 31, 2005 12:23:53 AM
But then, what's the immediate alternative? The creative energies of the multitude? Lord, I hope not.
Posted by: RIPope | May 31, 2005 2:37:05 AM
those on the 'left' who didn't agree with the way it was 'written up' were in a tough place due to the perspectives of those on the 'right'; who did vote to protect elitist nationalistic views. (nationalism on the left more resembles the anti-globalization / one-world under one-power movement... to be overly brief and thus simplified about it)
in regard to the EU vote, the conundrum for the left is somewhere between supporting policies they don't agree with in order to support a unified body that will protect them from policies they abhore even more than those of a Chirac led EU.
even so, the "no vote" succeeded by only 4%. not exactly a landslide victory.... lets hope it incites further development of the concept, because it's not a guarenteed outcome of this vote!
Posted by: ricia | May 31, 2005 9:47:59 AM
Uh, 55 to 45 percent is a ten point spread. Pretty much a landslide victory to me. Notice that in the Netherlands, the p.m. just decided that the no could only carry at 60 percent. Did anybody say democratic deficit?
Posted by: rogergathman | May 31, 2005 12:40:28 PM
"nationalism on the left more resembles the anti-globalization / one-world under one-power movement"
You're going to lose me there, ricia, as that was precisely the kind of slogan this post sought to call out.
I think it's safe to say that "anti-globalization" not unlike "anti-Americanism" is primarily a propaganda term, repeated ad nauseam by the likes of Thomas Friedman and others, invoked primarily as an excuse for their own shallow preaching. Conveniently enough such terms, posing as self-evident, function to dismiss a whole host of legitimate concerns and necessary but subtle distinctions. Haven't we evolved beyond this by now? Hasn't it been demonstrated by now that "free" trade as currently structured is only "free" for some, disastrous for many right away, and extremely dangerous in the long term for all? Anyway you may see my own blog for plenty more.
Posted by: Matt | May 31, 2005 2:17:27 PM
My knee jerks when I hear the word "nationalism" but it is interesting to think, vis a vis AVW's definitive explanations of the state of the game, that what the no-ers were out to protect, in part, was national public broadcasting, national public services, vs. privatization.
I'd call this "strategic nationalism," after Spivak's "strategic essentialism" - national only in the sense that there's no other body that could provide public services...
i.e. I'm only American when I'm listening to and cutting checks for NPR. Or something like that...
BTW, some rightly left-thinking europaper should've had AVW write it all down for them - I've yet to see a clearer and more persuasive explanation of the no-side... Certainly not in the incoherent ramblings of the theoryish grayhairs...
Posted by: CR | May 31, 2005 2:36:37 PM
Yes, but neither should the goal be a world government. New institutions, certainly. Perhaps the question is not so much one of nationalism as of language, finally.
Where the "nationalism" on the left is a seeking to negotiate a position that is not only firmly NOT racist, but also far more hospitable to something like a "world citizenship," in short beyond the trappings of nationalism as traditionally understood.
Posted by: Matt | May 31, 2005 3:55:39 PM
yes matt - i completely agree... it's true that the catch phrase 'anti-globalization' leaves out the word "corporate" or "trade" and the phrase "one world gov't" inbetween the word anti and the word globalization!
what is happening in western europe that i very much appreciated, is that the 'movement' is well informed and 'nationalism' is not a simili (how is this spelled??.. sorry) for 'patriotic' - as it is in n. america...
i guess i'm still over simplifying, not enough time to be less cryptic! but i think u get the gist of it...
Posted by: ricia | May 31, 2005 8:19:38 PM
But you do have to watch the slippage, don't you. I wonder if everyone over there is quite so clear on the distinction between anti-privatization and the specter that's haunting western europe, the specter of the polish plumber as AVW. I know how I'd vote, and why, but I can't be very sure I know why the left part of the 55 percent did. Parisian intellectuals, perhaps, but have you seen the electoral map? I'll bet there was a ton of left nationalism of the not so pleasant sort...
Semantic differences are, um, differences. It's just a word I'd prefer to steer clear of...
How about the blur in John Edwards's candidacy in '04. Take Edwards in '08, add a biblethumper to the ticket, and you have socialism + nationalism = uh oh.
Hyperbolic, I know, but it's something that would really appeal, right now, to the unemployed North Carolina furniture makers - whose jobs were "taken" from them by the Chinese. Unemployment benefits + heavily armed border guards + anti-terror measures + nationalized "bailout" of a starving auto-industry = not good.
We're on the same page here, substantively. Just think the semantic difference is incredibly important, a slippery slope...
(Have a feeling I'm asking for trouble here, but whatever... Again, I'd definitely have voted no...)
Posted by: CR | May 31, 2005 10:23:53 PM
Das ist ein sehr gut point.
But is nationalism on the part of Canada, the most multicultural and 'tolerant' (I only put in brackets because I hate the term) nation in the world, so bad?
socialism + nationalism need not = National Socialism.
Unless they are also xenophobic + imperialist, methinks.
Posted by: RIPope | May 31, 2005 10:36:07 PM
Do you think there's a significant difference between Canadian nationalism and anti-Americanism. Does it have a positive definition in other words?
(Don't get me wrong - there's nothing better for Canada than anti-Americanism. Makes me cringe and shake when my atlantic can relatives start talking about how everything will be better once the frenchies leave and the US annexes Nova Scotia...)
Posted by: CR | May 31, 2005 11:15:16 PM
To deny that the complex entanglement of "anti" feelings in Europe and elsewhere is a dangerous and quite scary reality would be naive in the extreme; my point was simply to draw attention to how the same reductive language is used by the (sorry excuse for a) neo-liberal left as the neo-fundamentalist/xenophobic right. Would it be a stretch to say the former uses it dishonestly, in order to dismiss justified critique, and the latter uses it more honestly?
Language matters, as recent the debate over "the American Gulag," or the continuous, uncritical citing of "9/11" might suggest.
It's simply a fact that the "anti-" slogan, whether "anti-globalization" ("flat-earth protestors" in Friedman's previous words for Seattle, before he decided the world was actually flat), "anti-EU," "anti-American"...OR "anti-Semite" (whether in 1870 or again today) functions to conflate positions and hijack the terms of debate.
Posted by: Matt | Jun 2, 2005 3:31:45 PM
Maybe the question is one of the usefulness vs. dangers of polemic. Can this question be neatly severed from the question of priorities (um, for example those of Brad Delong?)
Calling Guantanamo "the Gulag of our time" is irresponsible and inaccurate, yes. So is our collective amnesia.
But when "anti" is used as a constant mantra, feeding on itself from the left to the right and back again, one begins to wonder just what it is they are trying to conjure away, yes.
Posted by: Matt | Jun 2, 2005 3:45:37 PM
CR, yes, Canadian nationalism does = anti-Americanism today. In the past it meant anti-Great Britain. A large part of Canadian identity is simply defining ourselves against American culture - in a way, then, all Canadians are media and culture critics.
Matt, you are, of course, absolutely right that we probably shouldn't call it nationalism. But in a more general way I'm not for abandoning terms, but simply redefining their values. Like right now, liberals are letting the term liberal take on an exclusively negative valence. For all the times we bash liberals ourselves (from a very different perspective, of course), the basic thrust of liberalism (equal rights, universal suffrage, freedom of the press) is valuable. So we should not just let it disappear. Just as I, for one, don't think there's anything wrong with a national identity per se - but then maybe that's just because I'm from Canada where our identity is extremely weak and multicultural anyway.
Posted by: RIPope | Jun 2, 2005 8:24:21 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
