Boycotts

By -
"The modern deformers of humanity, when they have gained power in the form of a totalitarian government, use the same threat [of murder] as their ultima ratio, while in the so-called free societies they use milder forms of violence, such as social boycott. What happened to Camus after the publication of his L'homme révolté and the break with Sartre is a representative example of the treatment meted out in a Western society to a man who dares to think." "The Eclipse of Reality," Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 28, p. 135

Comments

  1. Keshav Srinivasan3:01 PM

    Collected works of whom?

    Do you you agree with whoever said that quote that boycotts are by their very nature deformation? Are there no circumstances in which you think they can be a force for good?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:29 PM

      Thanks for catching the lack of name.

      But Voegelin certainly does not say boycotts are by their nature deformations!

      The point is they are an *attack* on the person boycotted. Some people ought to be attacked! (For instance, criminals.)

      Delete
    2. Keshav Srinivasan7:30 PM

      If that's all he was saying, it's a fairly anodyne statement. It sounded to me like he was saying that boycotts are what characterize the "modern deformers of humanity" in a free society. Doesn't that mean that he sees the act of boycott as a deformation of humanity itself?

      Delete
    3. gcallah8:01 PM

      I don't think this is that hard. Look at the other part: killing dissenters is a tool used by totalitarian regimes. But that doesn't mean killing is automatically a totalitarian tactic! If someone is bludgeoning my child to death, and I shoot him, that does not mean I am a totalitarian!

      Delete
  2. Bobybuilder10:07 PM

    I think MathMan you are missing that he is talking about reactions to dissent. In Stalinist Russia they shhot or jail you; lacking the power the would be totalitarians boycott and quarantine you. It is a manifestation of the same impulse, of the same reaction to dissent.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more