[DEBATE] : Re: Putting the human back into humanism

[Dominic Tweedie]

Russell,

You are capable of cultural criticism. Why do I have to tell you that the
form in which Frank Furedi is writing carries a political message?

All the choices he makes like overall length, length of paragraphs, choice
of words, whether to use examples, anecdotes, quotes, footnotes, headlines,
whether to summarise at the end or at the beginning, all of these taken
together send a political message which may be in line with or at variance
with the message if it could be construed separately.

Furedi wants to reassert rational humanism, the legacy of the Ancient
Greeks, the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Karl Marx, not to
mention ubuntu and the Bhagavad Gita and aspects of every human culture that
ever was.

I'm saying his adoption of the English affectation "we", that is his placing
of the article in the first person plural, sells the pass to the post-modern
objective-idealists in the second paragraph. You have to plough through the
rest of it through a shriek of conflicting signals.

Do I need to point out that the use of the first person plural is not
possible in South African political journalism or political academic
writing? It is so glaringly obvious that it is intolerable. Maybe a
patronising git like Barry Ronge might use it, but only because his literary
persona exists within a small enclave of arty-farty middle class whites.

I want to tell you why this group of would-be revolutionaries thinks it can
succeed by wearing the clothes of bourgeois - what? - let's not call it art.
Let's call it artism, as in the relationship between science and scientism.

How do they rationalise it themselves? Socialism with the face of the
Victoria and Albert Museum? Marxism re-mastered for Channel Snore? Bakewell
Bolshevism?

You lived in London like me for a long time. Didn't you find it a strain in
that regard? Didn't you get fed up with the in-group jargon, even as open as
it is, because it is so patronising?

What the hell is going on here? Say something about it (spiked, &c.). Is
this a tactic of capturing the ivory tower by stealth, like entryists, and
then launching the proletarian revolution from there? Or is that a secret?


Domza..net



-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: 03 November 2006 08:56 AM
To: debate: SA discussion list
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Putting the human back into humanism

Not sure what Dominic's argument is here or what's going to happen in six
months. Maybe he can spell it out?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Tweedie" <hypercube at telkomsa.net>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Putting the human back into humanism


That's more like it, Russell.

I just wish you could tell your pals to avoid the awful stylistic tic that
arrives in the second para.

I mean the dreaded "we".

When the tide turns against this abomination, Frank Freddy and his pals are
going to be cringing every time they see their old work.

I reckon it could be about six months away. The sooner people stop using it,
the less embarrassment for them later.

In this case it is worse, because "we" is always a herd, not a polity of
free human subjects.


Domza.net


-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Russell
Sent: 02 November 2006 05:31 PM
To: Debate
Subject: [DEBATE] : Putting the human back into humanism


Wednesday 1 November 2006

Frank Furedi
Putting the human back into humanism

_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate