[FRA:] Marcuse question

[James Rovira]

I'm sorry, but this is silly:

<<Matt, The PoMo works of people like Foucault, Rorty, Lyotard, Baudrillard,
Derrida and the thousands of feminists must still address the time worn
differences between liberals and conservatives, that is, between those who
 believe
in human rights and that the state's purpose is the protection of the
individual's rights, and those who believe that the everyday state of
affairs in  our
commuities and internationally is not what ought to be.>>

Postmodernism is a critique of the liberal tradition in the west, not a
defense of it.  Political "liberalism" and "conservatism" in the US are both
expressions of western liberalism, which manages to be oppressive all on its
own even while engaging in the rhetoric of individual rights.  Furthermore,
even if we limit the US political landscape to a simple left to right
spectrum, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other, both
sides claim that "the state's purpose is the protection of the individual's
rights."  Which rights are more important than others is where the debate
between them lies.  Is "safety" a right, as "privacy" is a right?  Which
right is more important?  If most people are willing to sacrifice some
privacy for more safety, does the government have the responsibility to
follow the demands of most people, or not?  This is all far too simplistic,
esp. for writers like Foucault who, as far as I understand him, understood
the need for the state to exercise power.  To protect "individual rights,"
the state has to weild the power to oppress specific behaviors.  You either
advocate for anarchy or are implicitly in support of some kind of mechanism
of oppression.  For example, many feminists would advocate for absolute
reproductive freedom but support the oppression of specific types of speech
-- but isn't speech an articulated constitutional right while reproductive
freedom is not? The real arguments are about what is being oppressed, by
whom or for whom or in whom, and why.  Language about individual rights is
usually only the language of special interests.

Jim Rovira