beatrice hibou, the force of obedience
(xiii): real transformation is disappearence of fear--too early to talk about anything else [hmm--a polite way of saying nothing has changed, yet]
(xiv): obedience was result of repression, yes, but also of inclusion -- the 'security pact,' is her term. and the movement, of course, made possible by decline of 'security pact'
(xv-xvi): decline partly consequence of objective grievances--job, bread [not enough--present in negative cases aplenty]
(xvi): elements of 'contingency' [come on...]
(xvii): business and m-class also alienated
(xviii): 'democratization' will depend on what happens with the RCD, since RCD is base of the 'security pact' -- it isn't simply a repressive institution, but also a network of clients/benefits
(xx, 278): corruption that concerned tunisian people was the 'daily' corruption; not the corruption of the ruling family
(xxi, 14-16): construction of 'economic fiction' was a mode of normalization [ah god]
(xxi-xxii): the 'economic is political,' and vice-versa
(xxii): the field is 'entirely open' , as regards the future[hmm]
(1-2): "analysis aims to restore ambiguity" [wtf? this way of writing is profoundly unhelpful]
(3): people are 'free' to manuever/negotiate, even when they seem thoroughly repressed.
(6-7): pervasive punishment of those who refuse to be 'politically normalized'
(9): these practices, though, happen to a small minority--the 'politically active'
(10): linz/stepan and 'economic society' [part of the critique here seems interesting; part seems absurd--b/c they use numbers, percentages!]
(12): distancing herself from the literature [but, in the process, plumping for something that seems pure verbiage]
(13): "domination is ambivalent' [sigh...]
(17): 'statistics is state knowledge" [astonishing]
(267): not simply authoritarian--people negotiate everyday life [of course, if you look at everyday life, people will do this in any authoritarian society]
(269-270): hyper-centralization
(272): 'legacies of colonialism'--the 'strong state', etc., citing Timothy Mitchell
(280): imp--policing state as an 'engineering' state, hostile to liberalism. liberalization didn't change this, insofar as it wasn't a 'real' withdrawal from the market [hmm--what exactly does this mean? it opens up space for the argument to be reactionary, though it probably isn't. it also isn't clear that the intervention of the state disproves liberalization, since that is common to all liberalizers. odd claim against Left--State hasn't ignored redistribution, look at all the other modes of regulation (consumption!?)]
(288): hey Hitchens--between 1989 to 1992, Ben Ali launched an attack on the headscarf
(xiii): real transformation is disappearence of fear--too early to talk about anything else [hmm--a polite way of saying nothing has changed, yet]
(xiv): obedience was result of repression, yes, but also of inclusion -- the 'security pact,' is her term. and the movement, of course, made possible by decline of 'security pact'
(xv-xvi): decline partly consequence of objective grievances--job, bread [not enough--present in negative cases aplenty]
(xvi): elements of 'contingency' [come on...]
(xvii): business and m-class also alienated
(xviii): 'democratization' will depend on what happens with the RCD, since RCD is base of the 'security pact' -- it isn't simply a repressive institution, but also a network of clients/benefits
(xx, 278): corruption that concerned tunisian people was the 'daily' corruption; not the corruption of the ruling family
(xxi, 14-16): construction of 'economic fiction' was a mode of normalization [ah god]
(xxi-xxii): the 'economic is political,' and vice-versa
(xxii): the field is 'entirely open' , as regards the future[hmm]
(1-2): "analysis aims to restore ambiguity" [wtf? this way of writing is profoundly unhelpful]
(3): people are 'free' to manuever/negotiate, even when they seem thoroughly repressed.
(6-7): pervasive punishment of those who refuse to be 'politically normalized'
(9): these practices, though, happen to a small minority--the 'politically active'
(10): linz/stepan and 'economic society' [part of the critique here seems interesting; part seems absurd--b/c they use numbers, percentages!]
(12): distancing herself from the literature [but, in the process, plumping for something that seems pure verbiage]
(13): "domination is ambivalent' [sigh...]
(17): 'statistics is state knowledge" [astonishing]
(267): not simply authoritarian--people negotiate everyday life [of course, if you look at everyday life, people will do this in any authoritarian society]
(269-270): hyper-centralization
(272): 'legacies of colonialism'--the 'strong state', etc., citing Timothy Mitchell
(280): imp--policing state as an 'engineering' state, hostile to liberalism. liberalization didn't change this, insofar as it wasn't a 'real' withdrawal from the market [hmm--what exactly does this mean? it opens up space for the argument to be reactionary, though it probably isn't. it also isn't clear that the intervention of the state disproves liberalization, since that is common to all liberalizers. odd claim against Left--State hasn't ignored redistribution, look at all the other modes of regulation (consumption!?)]
(288): hey Hitchens--between 1989 to 1992, Ben Ali launched an attack on the headscarf
No comments:
Post a Comment