Speaker: The Re-Branding of Maxim
61 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
That seems very likely, Kyle, and in fact I only started paying attention after those rewrites. But the thing is that it's the rewritten bill that's going to be voted on. And if the bill as it is now doesn't capture what its advocates want, why are they still advocating it?
-
I don't see that there's any great danger from Maxim using the term Social Justice in a manner that suits them. So they might say "Social Justice means no gay marriage". How many people are going to be swayed by that that wouldn’t be swayed by "gay marriage is wrong" anyway?
This sort of reasoning about the power language reminds me of magic spells and has as much reality. Politicians are always choosing words to suit their argument, the Greeks called it rhetoric, the art of persuasion has been around for a long time and all parts of the political spectrum practice it.
And I think it is wrong to say that conservatives are unconcerned with social justice, they just emphasise different, conservative, methods of achieving this.
-
Craig Ranapia wrote:
Grant:
Remove the pseudo-academic verbiage
Am I the only person reading this and thinking "Pot calling kettle, come in kettle"?
Craig, I like & appreciate that you're prepared to voice an opposing opinion in many of the discussions on Public Address, though I often find myself struggling more with your turn of phrase, than the ideas you're expressing.
Perhaps you're not a pseudo-academic ;o)
-
For someone professing concern with language you seem to be remarkably loose about conflating the relgious right with the neoconservative movement.
How ironic considering the success the neocons have had in doing exactly that.
-
I made the mistake of reading Maxim's opening blurb on Social Justice -
It is about people and how they live together. Government cannot bestow identity, inspire hope or secure belonging; it cannot shape character or show love. These things, which are vital for human flourishing, are forged and sustained through living and dynamic relationships with family, charities, sports clubs, iwi and churches. Social justice is at the heart of a free, just and compassionate society and it makes demands of each one of us: to care, to give and to be involved in the communities in which we live.
Since then I've spanked at least two children and rang up some gay friends to tell them their lifestyle is an abomination and they should not get married. After saying a few prayers for their souls I'm off to buy a Bible, perferably one without that liberal New Testament bit, and then I'm going to ring up all the women I know who've had abortions and inform them they're baby killers.
You can too. Just Do It.
-
I like & appreciate that you're prepared to voice an opposing opinion in many of the discussions on Public Address, though I often find myself struggling more with your turn of phrase, than the ideas you're expressing.
I've heard that possessing a Fine Mind is like owning a Ferrari. While everyday life affords few opportunities to really put the foot to the floor, there's always the blogosphere.
-
I made the mistake of reading Maxim's opening blurb on Social Justice
We live right by Middleton Grange, a private religious school which is the Maxim Institute's fourth biggest funder. One the aims for the school in their prospectus is:
To develop confidence in, and the ability to, communicate effectively.
Training the religious fundamentalists of the future.
-
Jon:
Heh... I'll confess my prose would often be improved by a good thrashing with a rolled up copy of Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. (Except it's far too slim to smack any sense into a skull thick as mine.)
I'll simply take my licks, and defer to Mr. Morrison's elegant concision:
This sort of reasoning about the power language reminds me of magic spells and has as much reality. Politicians are always choosing words to suit their argument, the Greeks called it rhetoric, the art of persuasion has been around for a long time and all parts of the political spectrum practice it.
Or to put it in the Aussie vernacular: "Get you hand off it, Grant, before you go blind." If the secular left has a political problem in framing debate, I'd respectfully suggest their own moral and intellectual arrogance - and inept campaigning - is more likely to be a root cause than making the Maxim Institution some kind of post-modern, neo-con bogeyman.
And just as a sidebar, I'm really impressed by the folks up thread who
can talk about Leo Strauss' influence on 'neo-conservatism' with such confidence. If anyone out there has actually read Liberalism Ancient and Modern, Thoughts on Machiavelli, Natural Right and History or On Tyranny without their heads exploding, they have my sincere admiration. Personally, I wonder if Strauss - much like Darwin and Marx and Freud - is one of those intellectual figures who gets name-checked and and put through the pop journalism grinder rather than being read and intelligently discussed. -
Strauss did teach what some people might think is a rather subversive doctrine. There is no need to have read Strauss to point this out, any more than I need to have read Marx to say someone is a communist.
If you simply google "Strauss neoconservative" you will find a fair amount of material that addresses what he said and how his influence manifests. If I were writing a thesis, rather than posting on a blog, I'd go to primary sources, but in a context like PA System I think I can be forgiven for condensing secondary material down into a sentence.
(But you'll be pleased to know that I have in fact read Darwin, Freud and Marx - in German even. Darwin and Freud are still pretty readable but Marx make ma head asplode).
Oy. I must be feeling oversensitive this morning :)
Perhaps I misunderstand and you're saying that leading neocons couldn't cope with Strauss in the original. In which case I'm going to lazily dump some Wikipedia on you. Maybe his influence is overstated -- I don't know.
-
Stephen:
Oy. I must be feeling oversensitive this morning :)Fair enough, if you feel I've made a crive-by accusation of intellectual charlatanism. At the risk of being sent back to Pseud's Corner :), it's pretty heavily contested just how big an influence a dense and highly abstract political philosopher Strauss actually is on the 'neo-cons', let alone on Bush administration foreign policy. A bit of intellectual name-dropping, or taking a graduate seminar with one of his students, doesn't necessarily mean they've read - let alone understood - anything Leo Strauss wrote.
-
Certainly you don't need to misunderstand a difficult philosopher in order to come up with the strategy of distracting people with one thing while you do another -- that's my beef with the Strauss thing. ZOMG Strauss was a Jew! And the neocons are Jews! And they have a secret doctrine of fooling the public while they take over the world! Or not.
-
Eww... Yes, I have to agree with you on that one: Like a lot of political labels 'neo-conservative' actually has a useful but limited meaning that seems to quietly morph into a term of abuse that becomes more dreadful the more vague it becomes. "You... you dirty conservative!" Yeah - well shove it up your bunghole, you Godless liberal!"
To quote that great moral philosopher, Cher Horowitz: What-EVER.
-
good points Craig. and i'd agree with the previous comment that you write some good arguments.
on the power of framing though, anybody willing to suggest that coining it the 'Anti-Smacking' bill has had no effect on the discussion and people's understanding of the issues? really?
-
Ridley:
To be quite frank, I think the bill is explicitly 'anti-smacking' and I don't know why we've really had this semantic shell game being run by supporters of the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act. I think you've just got to read the comments and blog posts by repeal advocates for that to be blatantly obvious.
So, here's my question to Grant et. al.: Why the fuck have you been so inept as not to actually be upfront and say "You bet your arse we're "anti-smacking", and I'll tell you why any time, any where"? FFS, as a gay man with a sense of history, I know the fight for homosexual law reform began long before Fran Wilde put the Homosexual Law Reform Bill into the member's ballot. It was the work of people who made an argument one bloody, painful step at a time over years. Ditto for women's suffrage, the battle to abolish the slave trade in Britian (a bicentennial worth celebrating BTW), the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Heck, any social reform worth the having.
What doesn't achieve meaningful social or legislative change is trying to take a short-cut by 'framing' your argument with blatant intellectual and political dishonesty. And I have very little sympathy with activists of any stripe who get tripped up by their own rhetoric.
-
anybody willing to suggest that coining it the 'Anti-Smacking' bill has had no effect on the discussion and people's understanding of the issues?
It helped to clarify things. But seriously, that's my understanding of what the bill intends. Otherwise why would there be the issue of police discretion over prosecuting parents who smack their child?
Training the religious fundamentalists of the future.
I'm not arguing that Maxim is not a threat to liberal values just that this rebranding is hardly a threat. To the contrary I would see it as a bit of a victory for liberals - they are forced to adopt the liberal discourse or at least the trappings.
Lurking at the back of this "Language matters" issue is a now discredited trend in the philosophy of language epitomized by Foucault's view that language is a prison. For some reason this view was highly attractive to many on the Left. But it really is quite dated. Its continuing popularity might be because liberals like to scare themselves.
-
I can shed a little light on that for you neil, Michel foucault is drawn upon quite heavily in many of the educational philosophy papers I had to do at uni when training to be a teacher. Several essays were based on the power and punishment aspects of his work. So he's kind of got his 'fan' base locked in to start with. Obviously not everyone just drinks in everything they are feed by their respective lecturers (at least I damn well hope not) but the education system is the primary means of socialisation the government posesses, be it tertiary or otherwise. Given that the current admin is left leaning with little enclaves of centralist and fringe they probably like it this way.
-
the one I really liked though was Martin Heidigger and his opinion on the danger or essence of technology, really mind bending that stuff.
-
To develop confidence in, and the ability to, communicate effectively.
Is it just me, or is that some really bad grammar?
-
Whats up morningside, the neighbours on new north road are still going hard from last night.
-
heid__e__gger
-
To develop confidence in, and the ability to, communicate effectively.
Is it just me, or is that some really bad grammar?
That is some deeply, satisfyingly bad grammar. That kind of irony is especially pleasant.
Neil. The other day my nine year old daughter was playing in the park down the road from our house, by herself. A man came up to her and asked her if she'd like to come with him. She could drink some coke, play some Xbox, hang out with other kids, it'd be cool. After about ten minutes of trying to persuade her that no, she didn't really have to ask her parents first, he admitted that what he was inviting her to was a Christian Youth Group.
Now, I could be impressed that secularism has come so far that these people are now pretending NOT to be Christians for as long as possible, but I'm not, I'm really grossed out and I find it creepy and insidious.
I find it equally nauseating when people who are fundamentally illiberal pretend a liberal face, but still believe I'm unfit to raise my own children. I don't find hypocrisy a victory for anyone, it just cheapens what I believe in.
-
Oh, and I'm going to have the Philosopher's Song stuck in my head the rest of the morning now, thanks Reece.
-
That is a creepy story EH, no doubt about it. How young are they trying to convert people to the ol' "youth group" ruse these days anyway? 9 seems a little, well, precocious. I didn't get into a "youth group" until 13, and within 12 months most of my friends were using it as a ruse to meet their boyfriends and go drinking on a Friday night. Kids these days.
-
Craig, thanks for your loving words of advice.
I think if you read the comments throughout this site you will indeed see that the bill has nothing to do with smacking.it's been more than a hundred years since smacking your kid was made illegal in nz. but oddly enough parents haven't been dragged off to our lesbian communist gulags for smacking their kids.
that's because police only act on a complaint or when they consider a case serious enough to justify further investigation, charges and letting the courts decide. note nobody has been put away for smacking timmy on the wrist when he chucked a dart at his sister's head. nobody has been put away for giving sally time out in her room or on the naughty step either, much as your party has been desperate to try and suggest.
so it is now, and so it will be after the bill passes. that's because s59 has nothing to do with the charging aspect of the crimes act. nothing.
it really is a sad disgrace that so many people who actually do know better, who know this bill has no effect of sentencing, are willing to let sadistic out of control people continue to get away with brutalising children - just for the sake of appeasing the redneck and fundamentalist constituencies (because as is starting to dawn Craig, when middle NZ really understands what's been going on with this issue your party won't have won many friends there).
so for the umpteenth time, s59 is a legal defence that only comes into effect after a parent/caregiver has come before the courts on charges for allegations serious enough for the police to decide to proceed with prosecution. this does not apply, never has, never will, to the kind of smacking some parents administer for correctional purposes (although as you know that too is explicitly sanctioned by the bill).
so carry on with the sophistry. you might as well, it's about all you have left now. i really hope the right enjoys the friends its made with opposing s59.
-
I read Maxim's research report on social justice linked to by Grant Robertson and found it, well, unremarkable.
I've never found any "research" from Maxim to be particularly credible but this is worth reading. The conclusion that there's always a trade-off between Equality and Liberty is not exactly news and I wouldn't have thought it would be very controversial.
Internet surveys have obvious methodological problems but this is an interesting picture of what many NZers think on the subject of Social Justice. I really can't see how we can deny that there is actually a wide range of views on what social justive is and how we can achieve it.
I came away thinking more of Kieslowski's Three Coulers: White rather than wanting to look under my bed for neo-con boogey monsters.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.