Re: new immanence - Chirac cheats!

A few comments:

>A few notes--I'm beginning to wonder about this dichotomy I keep 
hearing--immanence, good; transcendence, bad.  I thought postmodernity was 
supposed to deconstruct binary oppositions.  In the nineties, we always heard 
constructivism, good;
>essentialism, bad--whatever happened to that one?

True.  But frankly I'm in no mood of digging into it.  Maybe another day.

>The moral impeachibility (or not) of the multitude has little to do with 
whether or not its actions may have impact in the present or the future.

Yes it does. If a bucnch of people manifest because of pressures form the 
media, and not because of a well thought critical stance, for them to shut up 
it is enough for the media to shut up - just like for Afghanistan (or 
Chechenya, for that matter)

>Wars are won or lost on the cultural plane--i.e., one side becomes convinced 
it cannot win, or trying to continue to fight would have excessive 
consequences.  This was even true of  Japan's fight with the US in World War 
II--atom bombs intimidated
>Japan definitively, rather than actually disarm their army.  If the US  is 
brought to heel, it will involve a number of factors--those it is directly 
fighting with, 'allies', 'world public opinion', domestic politics.  All of 
these have to be
>watched and analyzed to understand how the situation is unfolding.

Yes. That is true.

>The key differences between the present and the cold war--Western Europe does 
not believe it urgently needs the protection of the US, and the weak economic 
position of the US.

I agree.  I would add that the loss of hegemony is well represented in the 
fact that vioelence now has to be used to create compliance.  Consent, the 
most important part of hegemony, does not seem to be enough.


>Steven Sherman

Damian Popolo
PhD candidate
Newcastle University
Department of Politics
Room 301