The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Foucault's suggestion audaciously reverses the Cartesian and existentialist doctrine that interiority and subjectivity are 'authentic', irreducible and asocial. For Foucault, on the contrary, it is social institutions which give rise to 'pysche, subjectivity, personality, consciousness.' In the History of Sexuality Volume 1, Foucault expands this analysis: power works by inducing us to identify with these allegedly interior states, to understand them as the 'truth' of our being. Moreover, we are everywhere encouraged to 'confess' - not any more to the priest, but to a secular psychological power, whose emissaries one can see everywhere, from psychiatric professionals to Oprah Winfrey, who insistently parrot power's demands: 'Tell us who you are, confide in us the truth of your self.'

We were discussing Foucault in a seminar and a girl, attempting to refute the panopticon thesis, said she liked being a "girly-girl" just because. Not to satisfy the expectations of others looking at her, as she's a liberated pomo-feminist, and anyway, she does her hair and makeup while home alone so how could it be for the Gaze? I told her that the Patriarchal Father is always watching her and everyone laughed.

Moment #4342 of depressing gradskool alienation
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I am sexually attracted to girls, but only the types that wear make-up and heels. Sometimes I like creative tattoos, but no stupid "punk" hairdos or anything like that. And no fetish-gear looking cheap clothes. When I say "lipstick" lesbian I mean Chanel, and when I say heels I mean Marc Jacobs.

Yeah I'm into girly-girls "just because." :confused:
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Oh absolutely, thinking that not "dressing girly" is somehow more authentic is the flip side of the same error this girl made: you are always dressing up (or down) for the Other, never "just for yourself." Discussion didn't quite get as far as "there is no you" or "your desires are always the desires of the Other" of course...
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Guybrush does raise an interesting point though: is capital punishment radically more barbaric than many other punishments? To the point that Europe can pat itself on the back? Or is its banning merely symbolic, a way to prove who is civilized? Imprisoning people in things like SuperMaxes or tubuculoid-ridden Russian prisons is not much more humane or civilized than executing them.

I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but the prisons in Scandinavia are almost luxurious (and, as some notorious incidents have indicated, coveted by criminals abroad). Also, as I have written before, life sentence mostly means about 20 comfy years behind bars in practise. The public discourse on these topics is a bit smug, though, with the American model frequently being labelled barbarous. Which is partly the reason I started this thread in the first place.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but the prisons in Scandinavia are almost luxurious (and, as some notorious incidents have indicated, coveted by criminals abroad). Also, as I have written before, life sentence mostly means about 20 comfy years behind bars in practise. The public discourse on these topics is a bit smug, though, with the American model frequently being labelled barbarous. Which is partly the reason I started this thread in the first place.

American prisons are a completely barbarous waste of money, though.

The town I'm from has its entire economy based on 1) a military base nearby (Ft. Drum, which sent most troops to the Gulf War and the current one) and 2) a prison. One of the surest ways to inject some life into a rural economy, and one of the things they've been discussing in my hometown recently for this reason, is to build a prison there, preferably maximum security. Of course, the townspeople are all for this idea, because the Zinc mine my dad used to work for closed for a long time and most of the town was out of work.

As Gavin mentioned before, the prison system in the U.S. is a for-profit enterprise. Also, I believe it was Tht who called ours a "vast Gulag"...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I grew up on an island with a population of about 130,000. We had THREE prisons. Ha!

My town had 6,000 people in it :( There's already one prison that has minimum and maximum security sections there that had a rapper there in the 90s who started a riot there. Now they want another!
 
Last edited:
We were discussing Foucault in a seminar and a girl, attempting to refute the panopticon thesis, said she liked being a "girly-girl" just because. Not to satisfy the expectations of others looking at her, as she's a liberated pomo-feminist, and anyway, she does her hair and makeup while home alone so how could it be for the Gaze? I told her that the Patriarchal Father is always watching her and everyone laughed.

Moment #4342 of depressing gradskool alienation

The paradox is that it is the Gaze (or objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, in contrast to the mere object of desire) which must be excluded by the psychic economy in order for the subject to be constituted as a subject.

Two examples that might change the opinion of your 'girly-girl' student:

Towards the end of Kieslowski's Three Colours Blue, we see a prostitute getting ready to perform on stage in some seedy sex joint when she is suddenly horrified and helplessly distraught to discover that her father is seated in the audience awaiting the performance, and so she becomes unable to perform. Similarly, there's Freud’s case of the female homosexual who leaps onto the train tracks when she sees her father staring at her with contempt when he observes her with a prostitute. She hurls herself onto the tracks because she’s lost the cause of her desire, the Gaze, something radically different from the object of her desire (the prostitute). When that gaze disappears, her subjectivity, her whole world, collapses; in effect, in her psychic economy, she ceases to be a subject. We tend to be pretty clear as to what the object of our desire is and this is part of the problem. What we’re unsure of is the point from which we desire or the cause of our desire.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
There's some interesting stuff to this effect in The Parallax View...will find the reference...
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Two examples that might change the opinion of your 'girly-girl' student:

Towards the end of Kieslowski's Three Colours Blue, we see a prostitute getting ready to perform on stage in some seedy sex joint when she is suddenly horrified and helplessly distraught to discover that her father is seated in the audience awaiting the performance, and so she becomes unable to perform. Similarly, there's Freud’s case of the female homosexual who leaps onto the train tracks when she sees her father staring at her with contempt when he observes her with a prostitute. She hurls herself onto the tracks because she’s lost the cause of her desire, the Gaze, something radically different from the object of her desire (the prostitute). When that gaze disappears, her subjectivity, her whole world, collapses; in effect, in her psychic economy, she ceases to be a subject. We tend to be pretty clear as to what the object of our desire is and this is part of the problem. What we’re unsure of is the point from which we desire or the cause of our desire.

Unfortunately she was not a student but a classmate! Hence the alienation...

These examples might be too opaque; they both beg to be read from the rather boring vantage of "They were embarrassed and ashamed"... and because?

Anyway, I don't really understand them clearly either... In the second example, the Gaze that disappears is her father's? Or her own?
 
Unfortunately she was not a student but a classmate! Hence the alienation...

These examples might be too opaque; they both beg to be read from the rather boring vantage of "They were embarrassed and ashamed"... and because?

That was why I called it a paradox: why should she be 'embarrassed' or 'ashamed' if she is so proud of being a 'girly-girl' etc, it being her whole raison d'etre? Shouldn't it be the opposite [given, as you earlier argued, it is for the benefit of the Patriarchal Father]?

Anyway, I don't really understand them clearly either... In the second example, the Gaze that disappears is her father's? Or her own?

Neither. It is always other. What disappears is the cause of her desire. Gaze is a blind-spot, a remainder, what the psychic economy excludes to constitute itself as a subject.
 
Last edited:

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
That was why I called it a paradox: why should she be 'embarrassed' or 'ashamed' if she is so proud of being a 'girly-girl' etc, it being her whole raison d'etre? Shouldn't it be the opposite [given, as you earlier argued, it is for the benefit of the Patriarchal Father]?

Neither. It is always other. What disappears is the cause of her desire. Gaze is a blind-spot, a remainder, what the psychic economy excludes to constitute itself as a subject.

Ok, this makes more sense to me now, although I lack (pun?) firm Lacanian grounding.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
And back on topic of sorts:

U.S. stalling on Iraq executions


A dissensus in the Iraqi puppet government: Maliki calls for blood, Talabani plays aloof, and VP Tareq al-Hashemi threatens to resign if the executions go through. Too bad none of them actually have any say in the affairs of the nation they "govern."
 

bruno

est malade
You seem quite sceptical, which is, I guess, why my first argument failed to seduce you.
i don't know, guybrush. i'm not accusing the west (whatever that is) of taking the moral high ground as i have seen it in non-westeners regularly. let's convene the western position is advanced more forcefully. but i try to stay away from the we (i don't always practise what i preach) because it seems to me that consenus is an illusion, an onion that reveals a convoluted mess when peeled. is it unfair to say that most people have had no say in legislation about capital punishment (and resent it), that many have not given thought to or are indifferent/ignorant of the reasoning behind whatever decision has been taken on the issue, that even the reasonable will leave reason aside when unreason rears its ugly head? i wouldn't go so far as to say the average citizen would like nothing better than to take justice into his own hand, but i wonder how deep humanist conviction runs, that's all.
 
Last edited:

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
Couple of naive questions since the thread is already derailed...
Oh absolutely, thinking that not "dressing girly" is somehow more authentic is the flip side of the same error this girl made: you are always dressing up (or down) for the Other, never "just for yourself." Discussion didn't quite get as far as "there is no you" or "your desires are always the desires of the Other" of course...
Are you dressing for the Other if you're explicitly and self consciously dressing for someone else's expectations (sexy underwear for your boyfriend, smart suit for a job interview, whatever)? And is not dressing (or doing whatever else) for the Other something that you a) could do and b) should want to do, or is it just something you have to recognize as a symptom?
 

bassnation

the abyss
this thread seems to have morphed into some theoretical discussion that bears little to do with the original topic (hey, whats a suprise!). anyway, on the original subject would just like to post some pertinant crass lyrics that totally sum up my opposition to the death penalty and vociferous dislike of those who support it.

It's Myra Hindley on the cover
Your very own sweet anti-mother
There she is, on the pages of The Star
Ain't that just the place you wish you were?
Let her rot in hell, is what you said
Let her rot, let her starve, you'd see her dead
Let her out but don't forget to tell you where she is
The chance to screw her is a chance you wouldn't miss
Let her suffer, give her pain is the verdict you gave
You just can't wait to piss on her grave
You pretend that you're horrified
Make out that you care
But really you wish that you had been there
You say you can't bear the thought of what she did
But you'd do it to her, you'd see her dead
Tell me, what is the difference between her and you
You say that you would kill her
Well, what else would you do?
Don't you see that the violence has no end?
Isn't limited by rules?
Don't you see as angels preaching
You're nothing but the fools
Fools step in where angels fear to tread
You see, to kill others is the ethic of the dead
Chorus
The single mug shot from the past
Ensures your fantasy can last and last
It gives you the chance to air your hate
Because she got there first, you were too late
Hindley's crime was to do what others think
Took her anger and her prejudice and pushed it to the brink
Then you goodly christian people, with your sickly mask of love
Would tear that woman limb from limb, you'd never get enough
So you keep the story alive, so you can make yourselves believe
That you are so much better than her
But you aren't, that's YOUR GUILT laying there.
 

martin

----
What girly liberal rot!

Bring back the noose. The scum who batter OAPs, rape babies, sell smack to schoolkids, steal from their neighbours, cut corners on railtrack repair and maintenance, ban unions from the workplace and run private security firms would soon learn to show some respect towards society if they knew they were up against the laughing hangman!
 

bassnation

the abyss
What girly liberal rot!

Bring back the noose. The scum who batter OAPs, rape babies, sell smack to schoolkids, steal from their neighbours, cut corners on railtrack repair and maintenance, ban unions from the workplace and run private security firms would soon learn to show some respect towards society if they knew they were up against the laughing hangman!

yeah cos none of those things ever happen in places where they have the death penalty do they?

lol, and you'd really make union busting subject to the death penalty? i'd like to suggest playing coki style bangers too as being punishable by death - off with their heads!
 
Top