View Single Post
Old 10-05-2004, 08:11 AM   #86 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
it is exactly this general opposition that i was referring to, ustwo:

it says nothing historically, offers nothing in terms of understanding any aspect of the state and its functioning, and serves to occult the relationship between initiaves undertaken by Individuals or small groups (almost always the latter--rarely the former--no-one works in isolation) and infrastructure--which renders the notion of the entrepreneur totally afunctional.

creativity is a social act. in most places, you find a tight relation between conentration of funding--available publically through one or another state undertaking--and research/creativity.
it is america that is the exception.
your viewpoint would first presuppose that the american example is universal, when it is obviously not if you spend even a little time looking into the matter.
therefore, no series of platitudes about the state like those above can possibly account for this diversity of roles adopted by various states in sponsoring creative activity--the state is not a metphysical entity, not a category--its functions are diverse as its situation: but one thing that is common to all modern forms is that it makes activities accountable to the public, if the public mobilizes and brings pressure to bear on it. private wealth, private initiatives are those which have no mechanisms in place to assure accountability.

since the entire worldview that valorizes atomized private undertaking, and opposes then to the state, is also suspicious of public mobilization (the fifth column, the commies do that sort of thing--righteous americans sit alone watching tv) and even of the public itself (pace margaret thatcher for summing this up--"i look around me and i do not see society: i see individuals), i suspect that conversation along these lines might be difficult. but we'll see.

caveat: i am not collapsing creativity into state functioning--to do that would be to simply argue for the same binary i am trying to criticize from the opposite side. it would simply be the reverse of the position outlined above.
what i am saying is that entire logic is wrongheaded.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360