4 ms·

What is your point?

fwn 6y ago
My point is your parent is right and you are wrong. Artificially extending what's seen as political to excess is a pointless exercise that removes all meaning and usefulness from the concept. That's bad because a shared understanding of some political sphere (which comes into existence through its boundaries) is really important for democratic discourse.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  That sounds nice, but how, and as importantly who decides what those boundaries are?
  - fwn 6y ago
    In a best case scenario those boundaries are continuously questioned in the democratic discourse. Some moral entrepreneur might argue: Politics should govern the bedroom for [reasons]! ... and others might object: No; the bedroom is a private sphere where politics has no say for [reasons]. ... and over time there should emerge a shared understanding of which aspects of life are political grounds and which are taboo. The bedroom case is mostly decided today. One side won (mostly LGBTQ&Friends) and now we see the bedroom as something that should be free from politics. ..like I think that the vast majority of people in the western world now sees sodomy laws as bad fit for modern democracies. But there are other issues that are more contemporary: The idea that speech is violence, for example, is prime moral entrepreneurship. Western societies regulate violence in a certain way and this equivalence would suggest to treat both equivalent, one way or the other. ... and it's far from decided how speech will be treated in the future and we all have many open arguments on the matter. It's a healthy thing for societies to continuously re explore their specific boundaries of politics. I have difficulties seeing the "everything is political"-trope as anything but the proposal to be reckless regarding the process of a shared understanding of the boundaries of politics.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > It's a healthy thing for societies to continuously re explore their specific boundaries of politics. To rephrase: through political action (such as activism, lobbying and campaigning), societies should continuously reevaluate what topics are within the political sphere. If how we decide what is or is not "acceptably" political is itself a political process, how can you honestly say certain things aren't political. Claiming that bedrooms "aren't" is naive. There are still absolutely exist people who have and are and will continue to try and control what people can do in their bedrooms. Just because one side, and the side you presumably agree with, appears to have won the argument for now, doesn't mean that things are finished. There are lots of things that I think should be outside of the realm of politics: basic human rights, white supremacy, a woman's right to choose. And yet. So we return to the original question: how come those topics are "political", but in your opinion "bedrooms" aren't? (And would someone in the UK agree with you? They probably would, despite laws that affect them). Who decided that bedrooms were off limits but uteruses weren't? How? Why? Can I change that? Those are all political questions. And when you start into this meta-discussion of how do we make something political? The answer is pretty straightforward: you find people who are that there's an issue and you make noise about it. When lots of people see a problem and make noise about it that problem becomes political. Disagreements, on a societal scale, are politics. So "this shouldn't be political" isn't much more than "I don't think the status quo is worth spending resources on". And, well, the people who think there's a problem will disagree on that. And thus: politics. Yeah there are things that I wish we didn't disagree about, but I also am willing to stand by my convictions and say I disagree, instead of hiding behind "this isn't even a discussion, you're not allowed to bring up this complaint because this isn't acceptable politics". If you're fine with the way things are, say that.
      - fwn 6y ago
        > through political action (such as activism, lobbying and campaigning), societies should continuously reevaluate what topics are within the political sphere. No that's not what I've said. I talked about discourse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse This difference is important since the discourse is in itself not framed by any material boundaries. This difference also answers your question on whether political action deciding on the scope of politics might be incoherent. > Claiming that bedrooms "aren't" [political] is naive. There are still absolutely exist people who have and are and will continue to try and control what people can do in their bedrooms. A shared understanding of what is political does not require every single person to agree on the scope of politics. In the end it's all about relative stability, not unanimity or majority or something like that. > Just because one side ... won the argument ... doesn't mean that things are finished. There I agree. I don't think the concept of "finished" exists in any human context. > Who decided that bedrooms were off limits but uteruses weren't? How? Why? Can I change that? Those are all political questions. This question on who specifically might make a specific decision seems to be a reoccurring theme in our dialogue. In modern societies that's usually a multitude of interlinked processes. Very rarely there's an isolationable agent/action relation relationship. ...and that's, of course, a good thing. > ... this isn't even a discussion, you're not allowed to bring up this complaint ... Who forbade you anything, by the way? I don't get why this conversation should be so confrontational or accusatory. I have no strong feelings on any of the many crossroads in debating social science epistemology or democratic theory in general.

What is your point?

fwn 6y ago

My point is your parent is right and you are wrong. Artificially extending what's seen as political to excess is a pointless exercise that removes all meaning and usefulness from the concept. That's bad because a shared understanding of some political sphere (which comes into existence through its boundaries) is really important for democratic discourse.

joshuamorton 6y ago
That sounds nice, but how, and as importantly who decides what those boundaries are?
- fwn 6y ago
  In a best case scenario those boundaries are continuously questioned in the democratic discourse. Some moral entrepreneur might argue: Politics should govern the bedroom for [reasons]! ... and others might object: No; the bedroom is a private sphere where politics has no say for [reasons]. ... and over time there should emerge a shared understanding of which aspects of life are political grounds and which are taboo. The bedroom case is mostly decided today. One side won (mostly LGBTQ&Friends) and now we see the bedroom as something that should be free from politics. ..like I think that the vast majority of people in the western world now sees sodomy laws as bad fit for modern democracies. But there are other issues that are more contemporary: The idea that speech is violence, for example, is prime moral entrepreneurship. Western societies regulate violence in a certain way and this equivalence would suggest to treat both equivalent, one way or the other. ... and it's far from decided how speech will be treated in the future and we all have many open arguments on the matter. It's a healthy thing for societies to continuously re explore their specific boundaries of politics. I have difficulties seeing the "everything is political"-trope as anything but the proposal to be reckless regarding the process of a shared understanding of the boundaries of politics.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > It's a healthy thing for societies to continuously re explore their specific boundaries of politics. To rephrase: through political action (such as activism, lobbying and campaigning), societies should continuously reevaluate what topics are within the political sphere. If how we decide what is or is not "acceptably" political is itself a political process, how can you honestly say certain things aren't political. Claiming that bedrooms "aren't" is naive. There are still absolutely exist people who have and are and will continue to try and control what people can do in their bedrooms. Just because one side, and the side you presumably agree with, appears to have won the argument for now, doesn't mean that things are finished. There are lots of things that I think should be outside of the realm of politics: basic human rights, white supremacy, a woman's right to choose. And yet. So we return to the original question: how come those topics are "political", but in your opinion "bedrooms" aren't? (And would someone in the UK agree with you? They probably would, despite laws that affect them). Who decided that bedrooms were off limits but uteruses weren't? How? Why? Can I change that? Those are all political questions. And when you start into this meta-discussion of how do we make something political? The answer is pretty straightforward: you find people who are that there's an issue and you make noise about it. When lots of people see a problem and make noise about it that problem becomes political. Disagreements, on a societal scale, are politics. So "this shouldn't be political" isn't much more than "I don't think the status quo is worth spending resources on". And, well, the people who think there's a problem will disagree on that. And thus: politics. Yeah there are things that I wish we didn't disagree about, but I also am willing to stand by my convictions and say I disagree, instead of hiding behind "this isn't even a discussion, you're not allowed to bring up this complaint because this isn't acceptable politics". If you're fine with the way things are, say that.
    - fwn 6y ago
      > through political action (such as activism, lobbying and campaigning), societies should continuously reevaluate what topics are within the political sphere. No that's not what I've said. I talked about discourse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse This difference is important since the discourse is in itself not framed by any material boundaries. This difference also answers your question on whether political action deciding on the scope of politics might be incoherent. > Claiming that bedrooms "aren't" [political] is naive. There are still absolutely exist people who have and are and will continue to try and control what people can do in their bedrooms. A shared understanding of what is political does not require every single person to agree on the scope of politics. In the end it's all about relative stability, not unanimity or majority or something like that. > Just because one side ... won the argument ... doesn't mean that things are finished. There I agree. I don't think the concept of "finished" exists in any human context. > Who decided that bedrooms were off limits but uteruses weren't? How? Why? Can I change that? Those are all political questions. This question on who specifically might make a specific decision seems to be a reoccurring theme in our dialogue. In modern societies that's usually a multitude of interlinked processes. Very rarely there's an isolationable agent/action relation relationship. ...and that's, of course, a good thing. > ... this isn't even a discussion, you're not allowed to bring up this complaint ... Who forbade you anything, by the way? I don't get why this conversation should be so confrontational or accusatory. I have no strong feelings on any of the many crossroads in debating social science epistemology or democratic theory in general.