On Dignity

I went to a George Kateb lecture the other day, on the subject of Human Dignity. Very interesting, although I must admit to squirming through his discussion of "Nature!" and "Science!" One does not often meet a High Victorian Liberal these days, who brandishes "Science!" as our greatest achievement but dogmatically[1] refuses to accept the actual scientific research of the last 75 years. It is totemic, not something to be engaged with but something to be brandished. As a friend mentioned, it makes one realize that Derrida is not in fact only arguing against straw men and long-dead men. And that's all well and good.

But he wants to use the concept of human dignity as a foundation for human rights, and accordingly he wants dignity to be an ascribed characteristic of every human, one that is non-forfeitable (although it can be assaulted) and one that is shared equally by all humans. And I'm fine with that in theory, and certainly I hope to treat all people in line with this basic Kantianism precept.

I have long been playing with dignity as a basis for a political project. And I'm increasingly despairing that  one cannot articulate a politically relevant conception of dignity that does not draw a boundary of exclusion; that is, all conceptions of dignity that seem capable of doing any political work (that is, tell an ethically constitutive story that motivate political behavior and commitments) require the establishment of a set of conditions for its achievement. And these conditions necessarily create a boundary of exclusion. Where that boundary is drawn matters enormously, and Kateb wanted to draw it such that it includes all human (and all humans equally) but no animals.

And it's on that thought that I bring to you The Idiot. No, not Dostoyevsky; Rogers, Stan Rogers.




I often take these night shift walks when the foreman's not around.
I turn my back on the cooling stacks and make for open ground.
Far out beyond the tank farm fence where the gas flare makes no sound,
I forget the stink and I always think back to that Eastern town.

I remember back six years ago, this Western life I chose.
And every day, the news would say some factory's going to close.
Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those.
I take nothing free, and that makes me an idiot, I suppose.

So I bid farewell to the Eastern town I never more will see;
But work I must so I eat this dust and breathe refinery.
Oh I miss the green and the woods and streams and I don't like cowboy clothes;
But I like being free and that makes me an idiot I suppose.

So come all you fine young fellows who've been beaten to the ground.
This western life's no paaradise, but it's better than lying down.
Oh, the streets aren't clean, and there's nothing green, and the hills are dirty brown,
But the government Dole will rot your soul back there in your home town.

So bid farewell to the Eastern town you never more will see.
There's self-respect and a steady cheque in this refinery.
You will miss the green and the woods and streams and the dust will fill your nose.
But you'll be free, and just like me, an idiot, I suppose

The line I think of most is "Well, I could have stayed to take the Dole, but I'm not one of those." 

This is a line of great ambiguity for the modern left; we reject it, we hate it, we don't like it's "no life on the dole" poor-bashing. But we get so damned lost in fighting back against this that we miss the fundamental point: our culture values work, values independence, and the left will only be able to make any progress if we take these values to heart. (As an aside, this is why I've always wanted to reframe welfare as a wage)

But can we make the claim that the government dole will rot your soul, and therefore we need a government that will commit itself to creating and maintaining good jobs where one is able to live a relatively decent life, without embracing--subtly or forcefully--the claim that those on the dole are degraded? I am less and less sure, although I think that it is worth finding out.

[1] "I cannot accept..." was probably the most frequent rejoinder.

Norman Jewison's an asshole

....we can now add ...And Justice for All to the pile.

Evidence includes (1) his cheap take on the elderly, (2) his portrayal of Ralph, the transvestite mugger. I'm still suffering through, so I'm sure there will be more.

Update: Not sure whether it is standard to be practicing so many different types of law at once: accidents, paternity suits, muggings, murder defenses, rape. Truly impressive practice this guy has. Plus, as plot developments, hostage takings are usually one of the cheaper tricks. Almost as cheap as throwing cafeteria plates and a judge tackling a lawyer. The thing that makes Jewison such an asshole is that he things everyone else is an asshole, and artlessly throws his shit at the wall and hopes it will stick.

Update 2: I wonder if Norman is killing off Al's clients (2 of em dead now) so as to make room for the promised plot? I suspect the main motivation was to somehow have a hostage negotiation scene, and that killing off the client was the only way he saw fit to move on to the next scene.

Update 3: Better and better..... Al has just been given a series of polaroids from one of his many clients (paternity suit/accident) showing the judge, the head of the ethics committee, and a hooker engaged in S&M. See Update 1.