[Peace-discuss] Fwd: “If you feel overwhelmed, it’s because we face an overwhelming situation”

[Morton K. Brussel]

A thoughtful if sobering interview with Robert Jensen, with an  
introductory comment by Noam Chomsky. About 30 minutes long. Go to
> http://www.divshare.com/download/9029846-04a
to listen to it, or you can read an edited version as given below.

--mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Robert Jensen Updates" <robertjensenupdates at thirdcoastactivist.org 
> >
> Date: November 1, 2009 6:25:11 AM CST
> To: brussel at illinois.edu
> Subject: “If you feel overwhelmed, it’s because we face an  
> overwhelming situation”
> Reply-To: "Robert Jensen Updates" <robertjensenupdates at thirdcoastactivist.org 
> >
>
>
> “If you feel overwhelmed, it’s because we face an overwhelming  
> situation”: An interview with Robert Jensen on war, ecological  
> crises, and the quest for justice
>
> by Calvin Sloan
>
> The following is an edited transcript of an interview conducted for  
> the KVRX radio show “The Pursuit of Injustice.” The podcast can be  
> streamed or downloaded at http://www.divshare.com/download/9029846-04a
> An early version was published by Energy Bulletin, October 30, 2009. http://energybulletin.net/50523
>
> CS: So to start off, let’s address some topical issues. The war in  
> Afghanistan has been described in the mainstream media as America’s  
> good war and as the cornerstone of the “War on Terror.” President  
> Obama is currently debating an increase in troop levels there. He’s  
> already sent an additional 21,000 since taking office, and as the  
> Washington Post recently reported, has been deploying without public  
> announcement 13,000 additional troops. You’ve been an outspoken  
> critic of the war since its inception, what is your take on the  
> current situation there?
>
> RJ: I think any assessment of the current situation has to remember  
> that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was illegal. The  
> United States invaded the country with no legal authorization. It  
> claimed the right to do this because of the relationship between the  
> governing Taliban and Al Qaeda and the events of 9/11, but there  
> were many ways that the United States could have pursued a just  
> solution to the question of the terrorism of 9/11.
>
> So, why would it pursue an illegal and, I would argue, immoral  
> invasion? Here we have to remember that U.S. military interventions  
> in the Middle East and Central Asia, whatever the stated reason for  
> them, are really about energy resources. The Middle East especially  
> is home to the most extensive reserves of petroleum. There’s a lot  
> of natural gas in Central Asia, plus it has geostrategic importance.  
> So let’s get rid of the idea that this is about the “War on Terror.”  
> Does the United States want to end terrorist attacks against  
> Americans? Sure, but that doesn’t mean that this particular war is a  
> war on terrorism. We also should remember the phrase is a bad joke,  
> that terrorism is a method by which people try to achieve political  
> goals. You don’t have a war on a method. If you’re going to make  
> war, you’re making war for specific purposes against specific people  
> in specific places, and the “War on Terror” is simply way too  
> obscure for that.
>
> So with all of that background, if the United States were to pursue  
> a just and legal path it would begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan,  
> pay the reparations it owes to the people of Afghanistan, and  
> attempt to work with the appropriate regional and international  
> organizations to try to help Afghanistan transition to a decent  
> government. The United States has no intention of doing that.
>
> So, the proposed buildup in Afghanistan is not only immoral, it’s  
> not only fundamentally unjust, it’s also incredibly stupid. On all  
> counts, anyway you want to evaluate this, the United States is  
> making crucial errors.
>
> The fact that Barrack Obama, the alleged peace candidate in the last  
> election, is willing to pursue this just reminds us of the limits of  
> contemporary mainstream electoral politics with a choice reduced to  
> Republicans and Democrats. What we should be thinking about is the  
> whole structure of, and motivation behind, our involvement in the  
> Middle East and Central Asia, and we should also be rethinking the  
> whole structure of our political discourse at home.
>
> CS: So if this is by all means a stupid endeavor to continue this  
> occupation, why are we doing this? Who is profiting from this? What  
> are the underlying motivations of our occupation?
>
> RJ: Remember that just because people in power might be corrupt and  
> immoral doesn’t mean they’re always competent in pursuing that  
> corruption. If you look back at probably the most grotesque U.S.  
> intervention in the post World War II period, the Vietnam War, there  
> were corrupt and immoral reasons the United States invaded Vietnam  
> -- mostly to undermine independent development and try to dominate  
> the third world -- but in trying to carry out those objectives there  
> were a lot of incompetent decisions made. And sometimes incompetence  
> compounds itself, so as you get further and further into a set of  
> bad strategic decisions, there is an instinct to want to rescue  
> them, but unfortunately it often leads to even more bad strategic  
> decisions.
>
> So, why are we doing it? Well, there’s a certain amount of  
> irrationality to these strategic decision making, even though it’s  
> in the pursuit of a rational -- albeit I would say immoral -- goal,  
> which is to dominate the Middle East and Central Asia. Why are we  
> doing it? Are there profit motivations for private contractors, who  
> are making a killing? Sure. Are there oil companies and gas  
> companies that want concessions? Sure. There are always those  
> things, but I think that the driving force behind U.S. foreign  
> policy tends not to be the interest of any particular industry or  
> any particular set of contractors, but the fact that the whole  
> system is designed to perpetuate this quest for dominance. And those  
> other factors, like the interests of Blackwater (which has changed  
> its name to Xe Services) or ExxonMobil, just contribute to the  
> motive force behind the policy more generally.
>
> CS: So here we are in 2009, and we’ve entered the ninth year of the  
> war in Afghanistan and we’ve similarly occupied Iraq since 2003, yet  
> when you look around it’s hard to notice that we’re running on a war  
> economy. It’s become so normalized, and from a student’s perspective  
> it’s interesting to note that the majority of undergraduates across  
> the country have spent all of their high school and college careers  
> with our nation at war.
>
> And my question is, how do you think history will judge this  
> perpetual war? Do you believe we’ve entered into Orwell’s 1984  
> realm, are we living in a society where war has officially become  
> peace?
>
> RJ: I don’t think we have to wait for history to judge it. I think  
> we can assess it today and it’s pretty straight forward. The U.S.  
> invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. The U.S. invasion of  
> Afghanistan was a cover for other interests, and that’s all doubly  
> true with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The whole project is corrupt  
> beyond description. Yet, the propaganda industries, not just the  
> propaganda emanating from the government, but the propaganda  
> industries -- advertising, entertainment, journalism -- are all  
> perpetuating this crazed interpretation of the War on Terror,  
> because they all have an interest in doing that. They are all  
> ideologically connected to the same project.
>
> And yes, it’s Orwellian in that sense, it’s corrupt, it’s immoral,  
> it’s illegal, it’s all these things that we’re talking about, and we  
> don’t have to wait for history 30 years from now to make that  
> judgment. What we have to do is recognize it, and try to organize  
> against it. But I think what we should be doing is not just opposing  
> this war but recognizing that the disease from which this war  
> springs is more deeply set in the culture than ever before.
>
> You can clearly see that on a college campus. Remember that when the  
> United States invaded and began to destroy Vietnam, the opposition  
> to that war started, and was always strongest, on college campuses.  
> There was a kind of “natural,” if you’ll accept the term, resistance  
> from students to that imposition of power from above.
>
> Well in some sense, campuses are the most passive places when it  
> comes to anti-war activity today. To the degree that there is an  
> anti-war movement, it’s mostly rooted in the community. So, that  
> tells us something about what’s happened in universities, the way  
> universities have been turned toward a more corporate and  
> ideologically neutered position, though campuses could potentially  
> be centers of opposition, resistance, and struggle. Well, that’s  
> about not just the war, that’s about what’s happened to American  
> higher education, the corporatization of higher education.
>
> In other words, the war is an indicator not just of the depravity of  
> the war-makers, it’s a very important indicator of what’s going on  
> in society more generally. And about that, I’m terrified. The  
> direction the whole culture is heading is very scary. It’s an  
> imperial culture in decline. The United States remains the most  
> powerful country in the world, at least in raw military terms. It  
> remains the largest economy in the world. But it’s an affluent  
> imperial society in decline, and such a society is very dangerous. I  
> think we should be paying attention not only to what these wars tell  
> us about foreign policy and military affairs, but also what they  
> tell us about our society at a much deeper level.
>
> CS: So are you saying that the universities aren’t actually free? Do  
> you think that that’s affected by the politics of tenure and  
> publishing grants?
>
> RJ: It’s affected by the structure of financing, it’s affected by  
> the rewards and punishments that faculty members respond to in  
> building careers. For students, it’s about the economy that the  
> students are going into, and how students are conditioned to believe  
> that college is career training. It’s about trying to create the  
> University as an allegedly politically neutral space, but of course  
> any time you talk about political neutrality what you’re talking  
> about is de facto support for the existing distribution of power.  
> All of these things are part of it, and we should be concerned with  
> it.
>
> Is the University free? Well at some level, obviously yes. Here we  
> are in a University office, I’m a University professor, we’re  
> talking about things that will be on a University radio station. Of  
> course it’s free in that sense, but it’s also a system structured in  
> a way that is going to divert most people from the kind of  
> conversation we’re having. So there are constraints. That’s true of  
> any institution. There are opportunities and freedoms, and then  
> there are constraints. I think what we should be focused on --  
> whether we’re talking about the Universities or the media or any of  
> the other intellectual institution -- is how the freedom that exists  
> on the surface is often masking a deeper kind of pressure toward  
> conformity, a conformity that’s not enforced through the barrel of a  
> gun, as in a totalitarian society, but a conformity that’s enforced  
> in a much more complex, and in some a ways a much more effective,  
> fashion, through the rewards and the punishmen!
> ts we’
> re
> talking about.
>
> CS: I’d like to move on to your most recently published article  
> entitled “Is Obama a Socialist?” In this article you express a deep  
> concern for our evolving ecological crisis, specifically I’d like to  
> refer to the following statement: “Capitalism is an economic system  
> based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite  
> planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy.” Can you explain this  
> concept further to us?
>
> RJ: For most of the past couple hundred years, we’ve been living  
> really in a rather unique historical moment. First of all it’s a  
> moment made possible by unleashing the enormous energy of coal, oil,  
> and natural gas, the fossil fuels. That’s a blip in human history.  
> There’s never been energy like that available to human beings  
> before, and we’re quickly running out of it. So, all of this bonanza  
> of consumption and material comfort is really subsidized by that  
> energy source, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace it.  
> All of the talk of alternative fuels and biofuels and wind and  
> solar, that’s fine, they are all going to supply some energy, but  
> they are not going to replace the energy we’ve been using from coal,  
> oil, and natural gas.
>
> The explosion of this energy is also the time in which modern  
> industrial capitalism has emerged. It’s all based on a fantasy that  
> is easy to understand because of all that energy. It did look like  
> we could simply grow endlessly. But the ecological crises, and I use  
> the plural quite specifically -- multiple crises, not just global  
> warming but levels of toxicity in the air, water, loss of top soil,  
> the reduction in biodiversity -- are part of a global pattern that  
> is uncontroversial: We are reaching, and probably are long beyond,  
> the carrying capacity of the planet, and we are drawing down the  
> ecological capital of the planet at a rate that is increasingly  
> threatening, not just centuries from now, but likely in decades.
>
> That’s all part of an era in which capitalism led us to believe we  
> could have unlimited growth. It’s a crazy claim, and more striking  
> is that it is a crazy claim that is considered to be the  
> conventional wisdom. This is the kind of thing we should be worried  
> about. We’re not having a debate about capitalism in this country --  
> there’s no debate for the most part in the mainstream. Capitalism is  
> taken to be the only way to organize an economy, yet it is a system  
> of organizing an economy that is literally crazy. Well, if that  
> doesn’t scare people, then I don’t know what will.
>
> CS: If you are implying that if we are at a level of overreach, that  
> there will be, that we might reach a population crash?
>
> RJ: I think it’s inevitable. Ecological overshoot is the key  
> concept. The planet has a carrying capacity. The planet can host  
> only so many human beings, depending on the level at which we live.  
> I’m not a scientist, I’m not an ecologist, I’m not trained in any of  
> this, but reading people whose judgment I trust, and trying to  
> synthesize the information that I can, my judgment is that we’re  
> probably well past the carrying capacity of the planet already.
>
> And at the level of first-world consumption, we are dramatically  
> past the carrying capacity. That is, if you are going to expand this  
> high energy consumption and lifestyle of the first world to the  
> whole planet, it would be game-over tomorrow. If everybody in the  
> world lived like you and I live, the planet would literally die  
> tomorrow. So the only reason we can continue this system is the fact  
> that a good portion of the world’s population is living at a  
> dramatically lower level than we are. Even at that level, I don’t  
> think that the world can support this many people. So we’re in a  
> position of overshoot.
>
> When is the crash going to come? Well in some sense the answer is  
> it’s already here. You have half the world’s population living on  
> less than $2.50 a day, you have hundreds of people dying every hour  
> in Africa from easily preventable diseases, you have the beginnings  
> of ecological crises that are manifesting themselves not only in the  
> reduction of biodiversity but in the direct threat to human life.
>
> When is all of this going to come crashing? Well I don’t know,  
> because I don’t have a crystal ball and no one else does. The  
> question shouldn’t be when can you predict all of this is going to  
> fall apart. More important is the recognition that it inevitably  
> will fall apart, and we should prepare for it, in both physical  
> terms and moral terms. My own view is that, if not in my lifetime  
> certainly in yours, there will be a massive human die-off. That’s an  
> antiseptic term -- it means that millions upon millions of people  
> will die in large sweeps across the planet. What do we do about that  
> morally? What do you do if you’re living in a world in which you  
> know that simply by virtue of the luck of where you were born, you  
> are protected from a scourge that is literally killing millions  
> around the planet?
>
> Well we’re seeing small examples of that today with such things as  
> the devastation from easily preventable diseases in Africa for  
> instance, but what if that happens on a massive scale? I don’t think  
> the human species has a way to cope with that. We’re not ready  
> physically, technologically, but we’re also not ready morally. And  
> the only way you get ready for that is by openly discussing it, but  
> it’s still a culture that cannot come to terms with this. Everything  
> we’re talking about today would have been unthinkable as subjects  
> for the presidential election. No candidate could talk like this and  
> expect to be elected, because the culture is still in such deep  
> denial about the fundamentally unsustainable nature of our economic  
> system and the moral implications of that.
>
> CS: How do you think nation-states will respond to these collapse  
> scenarios?
>
> RJ: First of all I think we should recognize nation-states are not  
> inevitable for the rest of human history. My own view is that were  
> going to end up finding other ways to organize ourselves  
> politically, because the nation-state is at the center of so much of  
> this destruction.
>
> How will people respond? Well I think a lot of that has to do with  
> how the most powerful nations respond. Remember that one of the  
> aspects of being the most affluent and militarily powerful countries  
> on the planet is that what you do matters a lot. You can continue to  
> pursue insane strategies in a crazy system, or you can tell the  
> truth. And if powerful countries tell the truth, start to actively  
> reduce their energy and other material consumption, start to take  
> seriously the demands of justice in equalizing the distribution of  
> wealth around the world, give up on fantasies of control and  
> domination, well that would have a huge effect.
>
> The developing world, which clearly doesn’t trust us and shouldn’t  
> trust us, might be able to move into a posture of more cooperation.  
> Democratic movements within those countries might strengthen when  
> they know there is in fact a commitment from the powerful states to  
> real law, real democracy, real justice, real moral principles. Well,  
> all of that is possible. It’s not a guarantee of success. We could  
> do everything we can imagine in the realm of just and sustainable  
> policies and still fail. The human species does not have some magic  
> guarantee of endless success. Other species have come and gone, and  
> it’s quite possible -- in fact, I would argue it’s probably likely  
> -- were going to go that way relatively soon. And people always say,  
> well that’s a rather depressing fact. Well if it’s a fact, it’s a  
> fact, but of course there’s no way to know for sure, and we can  
> struggle to create a different future, without guarantees.
>
> But even if it does seem to be our future, what of the time we are  
> here? I think part of what makes one fully human is to resist that,  
> to struggle, even with no guarantee of success. And that’s where I  
> put my faith. Maybe it’s a faith that is going to be betrayed, but I  
> don’t see any better option at the moment.
>
> CS: If we were to inevitably make this transition, or at least in  
> the process of making it, do you believe that there will be  
> restoration of matriarchal values?
>
> RJ: I don’t think it’s about matriarchy versus patriarchy.  
> Patriarchy is a system that emerged in the last 8,000 to 10,000  
> years, and it imposed systems of hierarchy, not just around gender  
> but around other differences as well, and we are still trying to get  
> out from under those. If we succeed in that -- if we succeed in  
> realizing that power does not come only with the ability to control  
> other people, that power comes in the creative potential of human  
> collaboration, it can come in non-hierarchical ways to organize  
> ourselves -- it doesn’t mean obviously that there will be a  
> matriarchy, if by that we mean a world in which women dominate. It  
> means that we move into a real space where mutuality and egalitarian  
> values can reign.
>
> What will that look like? I don’t know. If we were to magically get  
> there in my lifetime I couldn’t begin to imagine what it would look  
> like. I know that it won’t look much like the institutions I live in  
> today -- it won’t look like the modern corporation, it won’t look  
> like the modern nation-state, it won’t look like the modern  
> University. But you don’t really predict those things, you try to  
> live them. And you live them in small steps, not in some grand  
> utopian fantasy.
>
> CS: Given our trajectory towards this cliff, this ecological cliff,  
> should college students be rethinking their career choices? Are we  
> being trained properly?
>
> RJ: Reality is going to force college students to reconsider career  
> choices, when certain assumptions will no longer hold. The most  
> important thing that Universities could do right now is be  
> laboratories for experiments outside of the dominant system, which  
> is exactly what we’re not doing.
>
> What we’re doing is still training people to be rats in a maze.  
> Well, what if we said, the maze is over. For now, the maze may still  
> exist out in the world, but we’re going to spend four years here  
> going beyond the maze, and your job as a student, and your job as a  
> faculty member, is to experiment with alternatives. That would mean  
> a dramatically different curriculum, that would mean a dramatically  
> different classroom.
>
> I would like to see that happen. In journalism education, the  
> collapse of the commercial journalism industry -- the fact that  
> there are fewer jobs for our students in the traditional journalism  
> institutions -- gives us a kind of opportunity. It’s a disaster at  
> one level, in that the way we’ve done things no longer works, but  
> it’s also an opportunity to reshape those methods.
>
> In my own experience, there is a lot of resistance to that kind of  
> change, because it is kind of frightening. If you’ve been doing  
> something on a model that in the past has worked, or at least  
> appeared to work, and now people are saying that model is over, well  
> it’s not exactly easy to jump to that position where everything is  
> up for grabs. But that’s what Universities should be doing.  
> Unfortunately, not only in journalism but in the University at  
> large, I think there is a distinct lack of that spirit. There is an  
> attempt to kind of hunker down, and make this model work, but I  
> don’t think the model can work. I don’t think it ever worked for  
> real education, but it’s certainly not going to work in a  
> dramatically changing landscape.
>
> CS: What advice do you offer UT students, or just to activists of  
> all ages, who want to participate, want to fight the system, but  
> feel overwhelmed by its strength?
>
> RJ: If you feel overwhelmed, let’s recognize that that’s a rational  
> response. If you feel overwhelmed, it’s because we face an  
> overwhelming situation. We’re facing a collapse economically, a  
> collapse of U.S. power around the world, and ecological crises that  
> defy the imagination. Well that is overwhelming. But we should also  
> look at history and realize that this is not the first time the  
> world has appeared to be on the brink, and people didn’t lie down  
> and die in the past. People organized, people committed to long-term  
> projects to create a different future, and we can still do that.
>
> In my case, I’ve moved toward a focus on helping to build local  
> community networks and institutions that can help people explore  
> other alternatives. One of the groups in Austin I’ve connected with  
> is the Workers Defense Project (http://www.workersdefense.org/), a  
> wonderful group that helps immigrant workers, especially  
> undocumented immigrant workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation  
> by employers. Through that work it offers a critique of the  
> underlying power structure and a vehicle for people to build the  
> power to change things. It’s really inspiring.
>
> If we’re going to be effective, we’ve got to dig in for the long  
> haul. There’s a paradox in all this. We may feel the crisis is more  
> urgent then ever -- and I do feel that, more than ever -- but we  
> have to recognize there’s no short-term solution, and we have to dig  
> in for the long haul. That might be difficult, but it’s the only way  
> I can see us moving forward.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism of the  
> University of Texas at Austin and a board member of the Third Coast  
> Activist Resource Center, http://thirdcoastactivist.org/. His latest  
> book is All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the  
> Prophetic Voice (Soft Skull Press, 2009). His film, “Abe Osheroff:  
> One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing,” has been released  
> by the Media Education Foundation. http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=141
>
> Jensen also is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of  
> Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness:  
> Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005);  
> Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City  
> Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the  
> Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002).
>
> He can be reached at rjensen at uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can  
> be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.
>
>
> ................................................................
> To unsubscribe, visit http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html 
>  and click the "unsubscribe" button.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091101/e2acc94b/attachment-0001.html