Politics Of Displacement
Jean Elshtain, Chp.2 Democracy and the Politics of Displacement Response to
Question 1: In the excerpted chapter titled Democracy and the Politics of
Displacement, Jean Elshtain discusses the concept of ‘politics of identity'. In
discussing the ‘politics of identity', Elshtain argues there is an emerging
social phenomenon, wherein society is turning the private affairs of our lives
into public discourse. The Western World has become a public pool, in which the
information mediums and venues of society are overflowing with confessions and
apologies. We have made the private affairs of our lives, into a booming
business. Society has witnessed a proliferation of self - help groups, ‘twelve-
step' programs, anger management programs, television shows broadcasting a ‘tell
all' theme and Internet chat groups designed for people to post the confession
and/or apology of the day. Inherently, it has not only become socially
acceptable, but socially encouraged to air our dirty laundry. We are actively
creating an ‘Apologizing Society.' Elshtain argues that as the boundary
separating the private and the public becomes increasingly hazed, a new social
identity emerges. Elshtain argues that as this new social identity emerges,
there arises a ‘politics of identity.'Our social identity is no longer composed
of differentiated spheres of human activity, but rather it has become a
dichotomous social relationship involving those who are victims and those who
are victimizers. Moreover, it is the quality or character of being a ‘victim'
that becomes public discourse. In turn, this quality of being a victim becomes
an individual's primary or dominant identity: it defines their entire being.
Through the process of class discussion, it was realized, that as the quality of
being a victim enters the public lime- light, there emerges a social
accumulation of victims and victimizers. The social accumulation of victims
emerges as a result of two factors: 1) as the quality of being a victim becomes
more public, it's definition and defining characteristics begin to broaden.
Thereby, accumulating and embracing a variety of ‘victims,'that otherwise, may
never have come to view themselves as having been victimized; 2) as the
definition of being a victim becomes more broad in the public sphere, it
simultaneously becomes glorified and popularized. That is to say, society begins
to credit a great deal of sympathy to, and focus a lot of attention on, those
who have been victimized. As a result, a social phenomenon emerges, wherein
everyone wants to be a ‘victim.'As a final note, the social accumulation of
victims continues, as some victims feel compelled to engage in the public
service of sharing their experience with the world. For example, we often hear
victims injecting society with notions of victimization through injunctions such
as, My experience will have served a purpose, if I can help one person to
understand that they are not alone. Essentially, there is a collective
engagement among victims, to ‘accumulate' more victims. Response to Question #2:
Elshtain argues that the ‘politics of displacement' are essentially bound up in
the politics of identity, as the private self become increasingly more public,
and therefore, the public begins to ‘displace' the private self within society.
Moreover, Elshtain argues that the politics of displacement are circumvented by
two paradoxical connections, wherein: 1) everything private becomes public and
2) everything public becomes private. Through the course of class discussion, it
was realized, that although Elshtain argues that everything public become
private, she does not mean this, in its literal sense. Elshtain, merely presents
the paradox to create the necessary juxtaposition, in which her politics of
displacement can be clearly articulated. For Elshtain, the politics of
displacement remain emphatic of the increasing disappearance of the boundary
separating the private from the public spheres of social life. Elshtain further
argues, that the politics of displacement are increasingly cutting away the
social space necessary for society to maintain conventional politics. Elshtain
concedes, that conventional politics have now become bound up in the politics of
displacement and inherently, the politics of identity.
Hence, this new social
identity of being a ‘victim,'which was discussed in the above response, has
increasingly billowed over into conventional politics. For example, conventional
or traditional politics did not encourage politicians to disclose information
and details about their personal life, in contemporary society, ‘telling all' is
the best approach to political campaigning. There has been a paradigm shift,
wherein the current widely held beliefs maintains, that nothing should be kept
from the public audience, this belief is perpetuated within society by social-
political injunctions such as the people have the right to know. Conventional
politics was concerned with the notion of ‘keeping up appearances', whereas
contemporary politics focuses and hones in on painting a picture of the
politician, to which the people can relate. Essentially, the aim is to
manufacture politicians and to make their social identity, one which, the
average Tom, Dick or Harry can identify with, therefore it become essential to
turn the private into the public. Response to Question #3: Elshtain briefly
discusses the implications for a society, in which the boundary separating the
public and private spheres of life becomes hazed or disappears. Elshtain argues,
that with the disappearance of the private, the quality or characteristic of
shame, also disappears. Without the line drawn between the two spheres there is
no longer a boundary from which to judge, those issues that should remain
private affairs and those issues that become free for public discourse. Thus,
there is no longer any essence of shame attached to our wrong doings. The
proliferation of talk shows such as Jerry Springer, in which it boasts a ‘tell
all' theme, exemplifies the loss of shame. It has becoming increasingly more
common- place for people to speak out about the private affairs of their lives
within a public forum. It has become so popularized to ‘speak out' within the
media industry, that people are no longer revealing a sense of shame or even
dignity.
|
