These sections made me question the ethics of a MEmorial. To what degree must an egent be "fair" or "truthful" in their representations of the issue(s)? More particularly, to what degree does Ulmer say that an egent must be "fair." In some ways, I am not sure that he allows himself to set up such an ethical scheme. If problems are multidimensional, rhizomatic even, to what degree can we claim that one perspective is "right?" It seems that that is perhaps not the point?
But maybe it should be. How are we to gauge the recipe for Reseoneon? One part Reason, One part Neon? On what basis do we make that claim? Let's take the following Advertising examples as commercialized approaches towards emblem-making and image-use:
Both of these images represent rather successful franchises - Abercombie and Sean John. The logic behind them is, well, lacking a certain amount of robustness. The Abercrombie ad is hypothetically selling clothing - something that is barely pictured in their advertisement. We know, though, that the advertisement, through certain methods of emblem-ness, is selling much more. It relies on codes shared by the audience (122), namely of beauty, power, desire, etc. The second image very explicitly violates any reasonable line of logic, in that the slogan is "Life without passion is unforgivable." The product is called Unforgivable... it is life without passion. Certainly not the intent of the producers... but who cares? Not the massive consumer base buying the product. Half part reason, Twelve parts Neon, and we have a successful campaign! Why shouldn't the egent take this same approach?
Certainly Ulmer has plenty of Neon in these chapters by way of the very... intense stories he shares from the various news stories. The fact that he shares them via news stories, though, is proof in itself of a limited portrayal of the facts as a strategic/tactical way of getting to ones ends - Neon. The stories serve primarily as Neon. Now, maybe that's the point. Maybe they are necessary in their graphicness in order to sting us who are in a world of catastrophe fatigue. The images of aborted fetuses/babies/unbornchildren/tissue may very well fit into this same category. Forcing us to see the abject in ways that may seem like too much, only because too much is the only amount that is enough. It certainly does not get us toward an ethical guideline, though.
This all begs the question of what the egent is trying to accomplish? It seems as though Ulmer is working more toward a performance of the philosophical/theological quandary that is the Problem of Evil, more than he is working toward a new form of consultancy that could influence public policy beyond the RedBlue mentality currently at play: "More power to the conventional consultants as they plan and calculate their solutions" (160 , my emphasis). They are not solutions we all should be taking part in - they are theirs. This is the problem of the Y - seeing "not solution, but impasse" (160). Why would we see it any other way? Ulmer himself knows "intellectually [...] that nothing [we] do will improve the world" (164).
He may say that he wants to consider what to do about these abject sacrifices (these sacrifices that are so intimately tied to death... talk about generating fatigue in a reader...), but I'm not sure we're "supposed" to do anything - how can you when the Y asks us to see the impasse of these competing goods/stories/testimonies/perspectives/values/etc? AND if we are supposed to "do" something, then what are the ethical guidelines - the recipe for Reseoneon? One part Reason, two parts Neon? How can one hold to the Y and still hold to a prescribed recipe? I'm not sure on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment