För att ge Karls tes om 68-tänk vs. 99-tänklite mera substans ger jag en recitering ur minnet från en debatt jag var delaktig i under kvällen (jobbar engelska eftersom jag inte orkar översätta):

roller: I=jag, 99=99-generation, 68=68-tänkare:


I: So these pharmaceutical companies... you say they don´t produce what is objectively in the interests of people?

68: No, they are intertwined in an ideology of consumerism, medicalization and don´t want to do proper science.

99: But, what then is proper science really?

68: Proper science is about reducing uncertainty what the world really is. And objective interests arise from functions in the body.

I: But since the aftermath of -68 the very notion of scientificity and objectivity has been not only criticised, but also challenged by other constructivist approaches. Today we have pragmatism, constructivism and activism...

68: But they are merely ideologies of consumerism...

99: So people are not able to decide what is good for them?

I: Right... so people are believing that they are empowered, but ACTUALLY they are merely reproducing an ideology. That smacks of false consciousness!

68: I´m a realist. I believe in the real world and real interests...

I: I never said anything about not being real... but I prefer the concept of the actual.

99: What is real then?

68: Reality is causal effects in the mind-independent reality. Nature functions by other laws than intentional human subjects.

I: So, you realists are still stuck in the Descartes/Kant/Hume paradigm...

99: Hey Chris, no need to go philosophical now... back to the present.

I: Sorry, I wish I were more down to earth...

68: You postmodernists! Relativism! Liberals!

99: What are you saying... I never put a label on my forehead...

I: You realist! Reactionary marx-freudian-elitist... who are you to judge desire...

99: Chill out Chris, you are making the same mistake... of putting people into boxes...

I: You are right... sorry... should we order more drinks?

68: Realism has the benefit of making rational judgements.

I: That is not even realism... that is rationalism.

99: Could you stop being so damn philosophical and get back to the pharmaceutiacal industry.

68: Sure... in capitalist societies the main objective of the pharmaceutical industy is to make profit. These interest does not correspond to the interests of people or public health.

I: Fine... I might agree with you. But how do we build a different future? People are sick around the world, and corporate assamblages do not have public goods as their object, but rather profit. Knowing this, how do we make a change?

68: By revealing the ideology behind it...

I: And then, what is an ideology?

68: A set of ideas corresponding to other ideas about profit and markets.

I: That's it? Ideas?

99: Gah... what is this. A course in philosophy or the sociology of medicine?

I: Sorry again, but no... yes! Bourbon! Thank you, this is how we work and fold in Gothenburg!... lets get back to the real... that is, assemblages.

99: In a knowledge society, the public may challenge the old disciplinary institutions, like science, medicine and technology because they are empowered through a critical...

68: Consumerist ideol...

I: Come on... at least let her finish the sentence!

99: ... evaluation and real life experience. The position of the doctor or of the scientist is being challenged, and in a way, this is where we have the potential of making better drugs in a new social order.

I: I agree. Expertise in the narrow sense i a historical parenthesis inherent to authoritarian societies.

68: The market, commercials and public relations try to induce a false conception....

I: So what? What matters is that people are getting healthy right? Scientifically in the modernist sense or not... I do not care!

99: Here we agree....

68: But consumption...

I: ... and production are not separate entities. It takes energy to separate them, and we should not waste our efforts into making such divides....

99: Why don´t we, for pragmatic reasons, agree upon that the combination of regulation and public participation is necessary, and what should be in focus will be the arrangements creating life and health?

I: I call those assemblages... maybe even networks.

68: If we just get rid of those ideologies... then we might arrive there.

99: Whatever concepts... what we do is what we get!

Skriven av admin den 24 april 2008