The Manifesto Club
An introduction, via spiked, to the Manifesto Club.
The sixth point of their manifesto – ‘We seek to reclaim the Enlightenment and the legacy of the Enlightenment’ – is interesting in a post ‘Was Ist Aufklärung’ era …
The sixth point of their manifesto – ‘We seek to reclaim the Enlightenment and the legacy of the Enlightenment’ – is interesting in a post ‘Was Ist Aufklärung’ era …
posted by MH at 8:00 am
4 Comments:
It is interesting, and their membership is not devoid of star quality either.
Is this glib remark a sign of what we’ve been reduced to – nodding in acknowledgement of ‘star quality’?
Alas, the death of the political intelligentsia …
No, this glib remark is a sign of the death of my leisure time.
I was more trying to express my surprise that people of such a (relatively) high profile were still willing to actually commit to a position, an occurrence that seems rare at the moment. In all honesty I have a deep appreciation for the sentiments expressed, I just don't know if what they are trying to do is either philosophically or politically possible. (Which is what you are wondering I'm sure).
As for reclaiming the enlightenment, that is I would most like to see, but it is I suspect, the least possible on all fronts. The political machine won't want it to be reclaimed, it is working for them just fine as it is, and there are many of the “political intelligentsia” (and the philosophical intelligentsia too) who won't want to see this happen and will resist any change.
Looking further at the Manifesto Club pages – their aims and goals, I am concerned that their commitment to networking their campaigns leaves the organisation open to political attack. (See the “-- Campaigns and initiatives” heading). Campaigning against CCTV is unpopular enough, issues such as criminal record checks on those who work with children is a political subject that needs to be treated with the utmost care, lest the public misunderstand the position being taken, and come to associate the campaigners with those that children need protecting from. These are questions that might need to be asked, but the political discourse needs a bit of tweaking before you can safely ask them.
Nothing wrong with a little 'political attack' . Not enough of it around, I'd say. It is only through the clash of competing positions that political ideas and what they hold at stake become clear, after all. As for 'refining the political discourse' , you may be right; however, there is no way to state the case against vetting that will not appear scandalous to those who have bought into the child protection bandwagon. I'd like to hear these people voice their objections to the Manifesto Club's challenge loudly and forcefully, and out in the open. That way we could start to have the kind of political arguments that the issue demands. To my mind there's nothing ambiguous in the MC's Case against Vetting and we should credit people with enough sense to realise that questioning the move towards ever greater state regulation of adult -child relationships is not the same thing as endorsing child abuse.
I'd like to know what contributors to this site think of the particulars of the argument contained in the document. If there are disagreements lets hear them.
Any substantive comments about the MC's wider aims and politics would also be welcomed. Are they politically and philosophically impossible?
Politically, surely, there exists a possibility as long as people are willing to take what's at stake seriously enough to do something about it.
Philosophically? At the risk of sounding like an old Marxist, I suspect this is one of those questions that will ultimately be decided at the level of politics and social practice. Nonetheless, there are enough serious thinkers around who, in one way or another, are concerned with thinking around or through the many deadlocks of our society - the 'death of the subject', for one - for the possibility of some kind of humanising restoration, in theory and in practice, not to seem entirely quixotic.
Post a Comment
<< Home