We The People

We had a good discussion the other night about the "We" that must be constructed in order to effect transformational societal change. It brings up lots of interesting points of inquiry, such as the interplay between solidarity and pluralism, the idea of autonomy and individuals comprising a multitude of subject positions ( a la Hardt and Negri) and notions of utopian harmony devolving into a hellish totalitarian unity.

I have been concentrating lately on an investigation of democracy and the state and how these notions combine with the project of "building a new society within the shell of the old". Part of our discussion delved into whether there was a necessity to have a vision ( or particular blueprint) of the future we wish to see or whether the Scream was enough, the critique from the heart ( mind?) and subsequent exposure of injustice. This, it seems to me, leads directly to the chicken or egg conundrum. Building this new "model" we are consigned to using the blocks from the old. On a practical level this means any movement building involves dealing with people whose consciousness is shaped by their experience of the old system. Old theories, old cultural biases, old relations, old notions,etc...And unless you can achieve some sort of total isolation, it means being exposed to constant, corrupting influences of the old system. "Old Left" theory often posited a "transition" period where the consciousness of the masses might "catch up" to the new objective conditions after any sort of revolution. ( assuming a revolution arose out of historical conditions, a big assumption). But this "transition" has in practice proved problematic.

Along with this there is also an assumtion that a transformation of the "We" from having a cynical distrust of capitalist "democracy", or capitalist "justice", or capitalist administration (organization) to a BELIEF that these concepts could now, suddenly, approach their ideal is possible.This assumes a certain rationality or reasonableness that seems not to exist currently. How might this be reconciled? What of the unconscious? How is trust suddenly restored and Spectacular consciousness banished?

In Democracy's Children :Intellectuals and the Rise of Cultural Politics, author John Mc Gowan would assert that me and the cultural left are being:;
"to subtle by half. Injustice and the indignities that attend it are just not that complex. In particular,I find any reliance on intricate accounts of psychological mechanisms implausible - and politically troubling when attached to claims about unconscious processes. Democratic interaction depends,I believe, on a faith that people generally know what they are about and that rhetorical efforts to shift their self-understanding can be direct."

He discards chicken and egg, Lacan, Debord, or "false consciousness" and believes I can walk into the Old Testament Revelations revival tent and have a true discourse with the assembled, that the symbology of racism doesn't lie underneath the concern for right-wing "liberty" and that democratic processes are possible under capitalism or whatever. We can walk into a "tea party" and ask to have a meaningful discussion about socialism. I myself have argued that people need to be trusted to understand difficult ideas. So does this just mean that these ideas- pluralism, egalitarianism, democracy - have not been well enough articulated? Are we just lacking in rhetorical skills?