We live inside systems of which we are unaware. Certain boundaries of discussion, of acceptable thinking, are assumed to be just part of the way things are. Chomsky talks about this when he says (I'm loosely para-phrasing from memory) that those who are the object of political criticism really owe a debt to their detractors, because while some voices may be dissatisfied with this or that policy, on a much deeper level those same voices reaffirm the framework of discussion in the mind of the public. And this reaffirmation of framework legitimizes the existing power, or system of power. Marx, and other social radicals I suppose, also recognizes a difference between fundamental systemic restructuring and merely improving or realigning within the system that now exists.
As I reflected a couple weeks ago, the systems that we create, comprise and perpetuate are complex and interwoven abstract entities. The task of engaging on a fundamental level with "the system" therefore seems impractical, requiring one to be an expert in many fields. Marx, for instance (I've spent the day thumbing through his works, I admit), was learned about a number of fields, and it was from this polymath platform that he was able to construct a cohesive and compelling critique of capitalism and social vision of communism. To not expose yourself widely and immerse yourself deeply is to sentence yourself, it seems to me, to someone's charge of ignorance and irrelevance. But what the heck; everyone is someone's infidel, right?
This is not a pessimistic blog post. If my criterion for true engagement with the world were polymath and polyglot perfection, then why live? Gosh, just writing that sentence feels heavy. No, this post is hopeful...but also honest: recognizing and even celebrating the bounds of capacity for knowledge, I am leveling a self-exhortation to be perceptive (and courageous?) enough to identify the systemic outlines of accepted arguments, now and in the past, and then to make that the starting point of engagement, the place of attack.
Random PS....Bob Dylan does things with music I never knew were possible.
As I reflected a couple weeks ago, the systems that we create, comprise and perpetuate are complex and interwoven abstract entities. The task of engaging on a fundamental level with "the system" therefore seems impractical, requiring one to be an expert in many fields. Marx, for instance (I've spent the day thumbing through his works, I admit), was learned about a number of fields, and it was from this polymath platform that he was able to construct a cohesive and compelling critique of capitalism and social vision of communism. To not expose yourself widely and immerse yourself deeply is to sentence yourself, it seems to me, to someone's charge of ignorance and irrelevance. But what the heck; everyone is someone's infidel, right?
This is not a pessimistic blog post. If my criterion for true engagement with the world were polymath and polyglot perfection, then why live? Gosh, just writing that sentence feels heavy. No, this post is hopeful...but also honest: recognizing and even celebrating the bounds of capacity for knowledge, I am leveling a self-exhortation to be perceptive (and courageous?) enough to identify the systemic outlines of accepted arguments, now and in the past, and then to make that the starting point of engagement, the place of attack.
Random PS....Bob Dylan does things with music I never knew were possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment