what's wrong with being pc?

[Kyburz at asu.edu]

On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Andrew Dinn wrote:

> davemarc replies to Bonnie:
> 
> > >So where do we draw the line?  [. . .] for myself, as for others (say, 
> > >the founders of Amnesty INt'l) there is a space wherein cultures can 
> > >converge--simply, on the matter of torture and pain.  Am I wrong?
> 
> > No, not at all.  It's a fallacy to think that a "culture" is an
> > unchanging phenomenon with a clearly defined "inside" and "outside."
> > Humans interact and exchange ideas all the time.  Protesting any
> > human practice, whether "individual" (they all are, in the long run)
> > or "cultural" (they all are, in the long run), is just as much a
> > part of the culture as the practice itself.
> 
> If you give Jules this much room to manoeuvre then your criticism is
> redundant. For, if a culture is truly the catholic and impartial
> compendium of human practices you suggest then there ought to be no
> danger of Jules' views being accounted representative of those of
> other members of the culture - at least not `in the long run'.
> Dissociating yourself from Jules' posting is merely a minor
> articulation of your own particular stance within that amorphous and
> unregulated mess known as White Male EuroAmerican culture, an
> articulation in a vacuum which requires no response from anyone who
> recognises the real nature of the beast, Kultur. For, doubtless, the
> invisible hand which regulates the cultural market place will sort
> things out equitably `in the long run' without the need for your
> protest.
> 
> In which case your comments can only be addressed to the short run.
> So, to paraphrase the Iron Queen of the free market, are you not just
> trying (to no avail, of course) to buck the system to satisfy your own
> cultural agenda? And if, as I believe, cultures actually serve to
> regularise and consolidate a system of power relations (they are a
> manifestation of that urge to empire which tarnishes so many human
> endeavours) then your worry is indeed well-founded and your response
> appropriate to the nature of the juggernaut. But in that case your
> response is also a self-contradictory ploy which will work, if it
> works at all, by force of rhetoric alone.
> 
> So which horn will you be gored on? The choice is yours (even if the
> selection on offer is all my own work).
> 
> 
> Andrew Dinn
> -----------
> And though Earthliness forget you,
> To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
> To the rushing water speak:  I am.
> 
Thanks, I guess.  I gotta say that you present a limited notion 
of the power of rhetoric, of its chances for creating material change.  
I gotta say there's something powerful about rhetorical intervention that 
is not always visible immediately--causal relations break down in the 
chaotic region of communicative exchanges, particularly if we're talking 
about the "rhetoric" of "persuasion," where controls are perhaps unable 
to create the ultimatley desired effects, yet also, maybe they, or some 
other influence, are able to make even a dent in a highly complex system 
(culture and particular cultural practices).  

I will not be gored, Andrew.  But thanks for asking.  Lead on . . .


Bonnie L. Kyburz, Instructor
Department of English			(602) 965-7756 (office)
Arizona State University		kyburz at asu.edu
Tempe, AZ  85287-0302			*or* surfus at chuma.cas.usf.edu