I don't listen to broadcast radio, but I do occasionally check in with a couple of the Pacifica stations.

Here is Doug Henwood's show, Oct 1st.

He is interviewing
Corey Robbin, author of "The Reactionary Mind"


Robbin speaks about those who want hierarchy, want to restore some sort of policical and/or economic hierarchy, want to preserve such.  Why?  Well part of it is just that they want the benefit of elevated status.  This is part of it, but only part of it.  They also seem to just object to people being able to have full social status.  Robbin tries to talk about this, but he doesn't quite no where to go.

What he is getting at is what Alice Miller is saying in books 2 and 3.  She is saying that people demand submission to pedagogy.  They submitted, so they expect everyone else to submit.  The idea that their could be people running around lose who have not submitted horrifies them.  It threatens their denial systems.  It threatens to expose the pain they felt.  It forces them to consider that maybe their parents were not justified in the means that they used to break them.  It forces them to consider that the Family System is a type of despotism.

Deleuze and Guattari also get at this, though their style of writing and what they use as foundation is totally different.  They deal with the fact that there is only one class, the bourgiose, and there is a social code, and their is inscription.  This inscription is just like the body multilations and scarifications done by primitive societies.

So what it amounts to is one is exected to submit.

First its to Daddy Self-Reliance.  Then its to all the rhetoric which says that this is kind, loving, nurturing, and for your own good, to Mommy Recovery.

Facing the idea of non-submission is horrifying because it threatens to surface the pain.

In book 7, Breaking Down the Wall of Silence talks about the female genital mutilation practiced by some Muslims.  She explains that the explanation given is that otherwise the girls will not be able to marry.  Miller explains that people perpetrate this mutilation because otherwise they would have to face their own pain, the emotional pain which comes from someone being so denigrating towards you.  So long as they can rationalize it, they can do it to others, to their own daughters.  Part of Miller's message is that all the pedagogy derived social codes are of this type.  This is what drives the political process too.


Robbin also mentions an essay, Conservatism, by Karl Mannhiem.


About my need for a strong Privacy Screeen:

Very serious things have shaped the course of my life.  So if I were to disclose any details, I would be subjecting myself to further victimization.  I don't want this.  Rather I want victory.

So I must conceal.

Disclosure is a luxury I don't have.  I don't want to be further raped by Daddy Self-Reliance or Mommy Recovery.  Rather, I want to fight back and win.  I seek comrades.

I have been terribly treated in the face to face world.  Most severe things have happened.  I have also been terribly treated online.  So again, I must conceal to minimize further damage.

In the face to face world and online I have won some battles.  But the big battles still remain to be fought.  So I must conceal.

Someone suggested that I am "trying to reform the Family System into one that's more accountable."  This might be what actually happens.  But it is not what I am trying to do.  I am trying to strike at the Family System, stike like lightening, strike and epic scale of blow.


Views: 134

Replies to This Discussion

BO to Forum, family is the agent of repression
The family under capitalism as an agent of repression

The family is the agent to which capitalist production delegates the psychological repression of the desires of the child.[46] Psychological repression is distinguished from social oppression insofar as it works unconsciously.[47] Through it, Deleuze and Guattari argue, parents transmit their angst and irrational fears to their child and bind the child's sexual desires to feelings of shame and guilt.[page needed]

Psychological repression is strongly linked with social oppression, which levers on it. It is thanks to psychological repression that individuals are transformed into docile servants of social repression who come to desire self-repression and who accept a miserable life as employees for capitalism.[48] A capitalist society needs a powerful tool to counteract the explosive force of desire, which has the potential to threaten its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy; the nuclear family is precisely the powerful tool able to counteract those forces.[49]

The action of the family not only performs a psychological repression of desire, but it disfigures it, giving rise to a consequent neurotic desire, the perversion of incestuous drives and desiring self-repression,[49] as also said by Foucault in the preface, loving power and desiring "the very thing that dominates and exploit us."[50] The Oedipus complex arises from this double operation: "It is in one and the same movement that the repressive social production is replaced by the repressing family, and that the latter offers a displaced image of desiring-production that represents the repressed as incestuous familial drives."[47]

:end quote

The repressive forces are there in our society.  Its not limited to my family or yours.  So if one is not engaging these forces in battle, then one is still repressed, subdued, subjugated.  What therapists put out is just more Liberal Pedagogy, more of the same mechanics of repression.  The reason people go for this is that the pain of facing how their life has been shaped, is unbearable.  So they need a denial system, a palliative.  No one was better at showing this than was Alice Miller.  But the writing of Liberal Pedagogies / Therapies continues.  Failure to stand up to Daddy Self-Reliance and Mommy Recovery, and to face the pain inherent in doing so, are why people still desire their own repression and opt for things like the Recovery Movement / Therapy.
Liberal Pedagogies:
There is one thing they say in the wikipedia article which I do not agree with.  They say that Anti-Oedipus is an addendum to Nietzsche's Anti-Christ.  This I think not.  Nietzsche's Anti-Christ is not read that much.  Maybe the title comes from it.  But the Anti-Oedipus text is heavily dependent upon Nietzsche's concepts of Will to Power and Eternal Return, and these are developed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and are generally seen as the high point of Nietzsche's thought.
D and G's preferred Nietzche interpreter is Pierre Klossowski.
Laurence Lampert is an excellent contemporary source.
I want to amend something.  I posted an interview of Corey Robbin by Doug Henwood.  They speak of how for some reason many people still want hierarchy.  Yes, it is because they can't face their own pain, the pain of how they were subjugated via pedagogy.  So they still try to impose the pedagogy.  They try to impose newer versions of it, the current Liberal Pedagogies.
But at the end of the interview they speak of Nietzsche and the ideology of the Free Market.  They are right about everything they say except about Nietzsche.  Nietzsche would never would have supported the ideology of the Free Market.  They just don't understand him.
The first one to openly come out and rescue Nietzsche from those types of appropriations was Bataille in the 1930's, his article Nietzsche and Fascism.  Beyond that then the best sources are Klossowski, Delezue, and Lampert.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service