Quote:
|
Rules, to me, are at most communication. At best, they are a form of speech by those with power, saying what they consider wrong and how they will respond.
|
Foucault has a lot of smart things to say about this...and i think you're really on the right track with this statement. I think there is some communication back from the ruled that shows up in rule making, namely the subject matter.
if a dictator has a rule about not eating cotton candy on sundays, you can be sure of two things. somebody most likely did eat cotton candy on a sunday, and in doing so they in some way resisted that dicatorial power.
silly example, but i think it gets the point across.
i'm always much more interested in who makes a law or rule legitimate than anything else about it. who we choose to obey is one of the most important decisions we make as human beings.
choosing to obey the rules of those communities we trust and love (and who deserve support) is not cowardice or slavery, even when it sometimes restricts our choices. and when we find ourselves in conflict with fundamentally good communities, it is about finding ways to dissent to a rule while still being loyal to the larger idea of that order.
the reverse is also true. choosing the saftey of obedience when that order is unjust or immoral is not duty, honor or being a good citizen. it is moral cowardice to refuse to stand for what is right simply because there are people with power who disagree with you. assenting to injustice on the basis that it was "the law" is an empty excuse, and one that we see for folly with the passage of time.