1. What is genealogy and how can it be applied in relation to the occupations in New York and London?
2. Is it a useful concept?
3. What does it explain?
Nietzsche defined genealogy as the process of challenging the existing 'grand narratives' or 'totalising discourses' that exist in our society. Foucault later said that in order to challenge the existing narratives, one had to use the 'illegal knowledge', so to speak, which is the local and discontinuous knowledge which might be in opposition of the unitary body of theory. An example for this is history of war, where knowledge is constructed by the winners, who wrote about the events, yet we might be able to challenge this grand narrative by using the 'illegitimate knowledge' of the losers or somebody who was a witness to this war.
In relation to the occupations in New York and London, I can see it as a theoretical stand against capitalism (capitalism in the sense of the banks' structure and domination, as we are familiar with it today).
The problem with genealogy in this context is the lack of direct or clearly defined objective. The notion of 'fighting against capitalism' as an existing order of the world is more or less ludicrous, and the views of the protesters even involve statements such as 'It's time for global change' and demands for demilitarisation of the world or just the feeling of being allowed to speak up, regardless of the reason (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/19/occupy-london-movement-who-are-protesters). The anger towards the economic inequalities in the world is expressed through actions, but how useful are those actions? Foucault theorised that any movement which is in opposition to an existing system will, eventually, imitate the formulation and structure of the regime it was opposing in the first place. One of the protesters claimed: “My goal for the movement is to build alternatives to capitalism while tearing the current system down.” But how much of those 'alternatives' will function differently?
“The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of 'social justice' -- a 'classless' society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and 'power'.” (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guides/Z-Social%20Justice-Code%20for%20Communism.htm). The communist system was based on the notion of economic equality and yet it did not function. Though communism might also be viewed as a system, where a selected clique seeks to manipulate the masses for its own ends using an ideology, just as in capitalism. Capitalism plays on the idea that greed is not a grand narrative, but a human instinct, a 'natural' phenomenon. But in fact, greed IS, in fact, a 'grand narrative' which helps to justify capitalism and the existing social order.
I believe in this case, the concept of genealogy cannot be successfully applied. The protests are in response to 'everything that is wrong with the world', rather than the notion of capitalism being portrayed as a 'grand narrative'. And given the lack of clarity with view of what grand narrative the protesters are opposing and what is their aim, what is their purpose – are they standing up for capitalism to fall (like communism did in some countries), are they standing up for financial equality and the end of corporate greed, or are they standing up just to voice their opinions, to say that the world is going in the wrong direction? I don't think we can successfully implement the concept of genealogy, if there is no specific 'grand narrative' to be challenged, but rather the anger and oppression of society.
In comparison to the Arab Spring:
“Numerous factors have led to the protests, including issues such as dictatorship or absolute monarchy, human rights violations, government corruption, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic structural factors,such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied youth within the population.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Summary_of_protests_by_country) What this resulted in, were numerous protests over the course of several months in the Arab countries. While in Libya those protests were channelled towards the regime of Gaddafi and in opposition of his autocracy, which led to his murder, in general, the Arab Spring is not that much different than the stand against capitalism, happening around the Western world. As a reference to the 'Prague Spring' from 1968 – a liberalisation movement in Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring), the Arab Spring is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests, directed against the dominant regimes in the Arab countries.
Now how is this similar? If we see capitalism as the dominant grand narrative in the Western world, the dictatorial regimes in the Arab countries can be viewed as the grand narrative in those territories, and both types of protests can be seen as genealogy. However, to what extent genealogy can be a useful concept in both cases is not particularly clear. In Libya, the demonstrations led to Gaddafi's murder and the fall of the dictatorial regime. However, this poses the question – what other regime will there be instead? After the fall of communism came democracy, which does not function either, because in both systems there is the grand narrative of capitalism, of 'natural human greed', as well as the notion of power and the concept that 'some people are born leaders and some people are born followers', which are those grand narratives so deeply rooted in our consciousnesses and in the material of society, that they will form elements of any newly-created regimes (and as Foucault said, the new systems will imitate the systems they were designed to oppose).Labels: 305mc |
