Doug Henwood wrote,
>Are you waxing deconstructive here, Tom? Being anti-apocalyptic requies an
>(unacknowledge) dependency on the notion of apocalypse? If so, what is the
>unnarativizable other?
The answer to the first question is, "yes". As for the second, I wouldn't
say that the dependency is all that unacknowledged. After all, Max was
pretty explicit in calling Chossudovsky's tract "apocalyptic" (BTW, I
agree). Obviously Max had a model narrative in mind with which to compare
Chossudovsky's. He also has a critique of that apocalyptic narrative. As far
as that goes, it's fine. It's only when Max starts asserting the
counter-narrative of "life more or less goes on" as the way it _really_ is
that Max's critique begins to slide over into anti-apocalypse. And this is
where the "low unemployment" discussion becomes tendentious, too. Within the
context of "life more or less going on", unemployment is just another
expression of flux. "U goes up, u goes down, nothing really happens."
Yes, I guess that means that the "other" to apocalypse _is_ unnarrativizable
-- it's a critique, not a counter-story. It seems to be an almost unbearable
temptation to go beyond the critique, though.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 688-8296
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
