Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think the problem I have is with his vagueness and generalizations in reference to the "western" world in relation to terrorists groups who can be clearly identified and have clearly defined goals and objectives.
Also, I do not believe there has been a consolidation and monopolization of global power. I actually believe the opposite in todays world more than any time in history there is greater participation and distribution of power than ever in the history of this planet. One example is the simple fact that a small group of terrorist can change the the course of a national political election, which occurred in Spain a few years ago.
What is "Western society". For example many in the Middle East refer to Hollywood movies and entertainment as a source corrupting their society. Most people in Western society have absolutely nothing to do with the making and distribution of Hollywood movies and forms of entertainment to the Middle East. that responsibility belongs to "Hollywood" and the people in the Middle East who demand that entertainment. Or, another example would be the globalization of let's say McDonald's Restaurants. Just because I eat a Big Mac every once and awhile, doesn't mean that I am responsible for McDonald's opening restaurants in China. That responsibility belongs to McDonald's and the Chinese, doesn't it?
How can systems be immoral? Isn't morality a human characteristic?
That presents an interesting question regarding morality. I thought that morality or lack of morality required deliberate action or deliberate inaction. You seem to suggest that morality can be accidental. Is that what you and Baudrillard are suggesting?
The "who" are the specific groups who have declared a holy war against this country. I understand the problem with using the word terrorist and terrorism in this context, but even as our enemy operates in shadows they are identifiable. In my mind it is simple - when they end their war against us, the war will be over.
|
I admit Baudrillard isn't specific in his reference to "we." But his aim is not to delineate the oversimplistic binary opposition that plagues such ideas as America and Islam, globalization and terrorism. Instead, he attempts to shatter the facade placed on them by the "New World Order" by pointing out the futility of the attempts to fetishize or commoditize them. Terrorism is a concept, an idea, not something you can pinpoint. It is too far removed from the realm of the practical that you cannot target it in a war, especially when that thing you assume to be "war" is no longer within that realm either.
He points out that terrorism (and terrorists) isn't something you do (or be); rather, it is a cultural response to power. You can no sooner have a supposed war against terror than you can a war against poverty, as both of these things are responses to social and cultural conditions and therefore cannot be pinpointed to a single cause or response. They are so far removed from real conditions that we can no longer trace back to their cause (or, perhaps we never could).
By concentration and monopolization of power, I believe Baudrillard means the gains in power in the hands of government and corporations at the expense of the power lost from the hands of individuals via cultural groups. The anger within Islam is in response to this shift in power. The response with the most impact, sadly, has been a terrorist one.
The immorality of systems is a result of the immorality of people. The systems I refer to are human systems. If these systems cause or allow evils such as child labour, murders, etc, they are inherently immoral. And ignorance is no excuse: the fool who does evil may not know it, but this does not mean what he does is good; it is still evil.
This "enemy operating in the shadows" that you speak of is not unlike the "phantoms" that Baudrillard points out to us. They are everywhere. Just as America was seeing red during the height of Soviet Communism, they are feeling fear in the face of the terrorist response. If you want to fight a war against that, then you're going to need a lot more than munitions. Phantoms are invulnerable to them.