MDMD: Am I still dreaming?

[Paul Nightingale]

Writing is an attempt to impose conformity (that is to say order, without
which communication is impossible) even when - as is the case with Pynchon -
writing also expresses the impossibility of attaining any such goal. Dreams
are always elusive; they remind us that the knowable will remain unknown.
One of the differences between Freud and Nietzsche - I think they share a
suspicion of mass society, to put it mildly - is Freud's belief that
interpretation is possible. His distinction between manifest content and
latent meaning is the means by which the role of the scientist, as
disinterested commentator is prioritised. Nietzsche, and more recently
Foucault, deny any such role for an empowered individual or group. The legal
system (On the Genealogy of Morals) is whatever those who exercise power
decide is either permissible or forbidden. That such a
declaration is arbitrary precludes a disinterested role for law-makers, ie
those who would interpret an act as lawful or unlawful. We are back to
outlaws and evil-doers. Weber defined the nation-state as that entity which
can claim a monopoly on the legitimate (ie law-based) use of force. A few
thoughts, then, on discourses of legality in the current crisis. Firstly,
Bush et al demonstrated astonishing hypocrisy in insisting that the attack
on the US amounted on an attack on other NATO
countries. This one-for-all, all-for-one philosophy is at odds with the US'
refusal down the years to respect UN resolutions that were critical of
Israel. It is clearly important that the US required public (ie visible)
support from its allies. Secondly, the need for some kind of collective
response ("You are with us or with the terrorists") has highlighted the role
destined for international law: an agreeable fiction that is henceforth used
to determine the relations between nation-states. And this is the bit that
might be wishful thinking: if justice does need to be seen to be done, it
should, in the coming weeks, preclude the kind of bully-boy tactics that
would lead to a full-scale military strike against bin Laden's tent.
International law, such as it is, denies that the US and its allies can be
at war with terrorism, which is not a nation-state. Bin Laden himself is
still only a suspect. Colin Powell, interviewed on the BBC last night,
Friday, said there was enough evidence to secure a conviction. This, the
language of due legal process, both justifies the obscene military build-up
and also confirms the view that a suspect should be allowed to have his day
in court. Hopefully, the more Powell, and Bush and the other militarists
strutting up and down with their medals and ribbons, are forced to make that
kind of statement, the more limited will be the kind of military action they
are free to entertain.