Skip to main content

The Reactionary Mask

Reactionary politics the world over is hardly known for its robust intellectual foundation. Whether Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, the core of this politics is built upon “the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back,” as Corey Robin has noted. This is not to suggest that reactionaries are thoughtless. Rather that many of their justifications are contrived because they are driven simply by the desire to strike back at the “the emancipation of the lower orders.” For example, Edmond Burke’s objection to the French Revolution has less to do with its gratuitous violence and more to do with the overhaul of established deference and command. Indeed, conservatism claims that unequal relationships need to be preserved, as they are necessary for the advancement of civilization. Burke plays up the violence to create an affective charge in service of that agenda. Which brings us to David Bullard.

Bullard is a minor figure in the small world of the South African press, but he is best known for his self-fashioned public persona that embodies, to borrow a phrase from Arno Mayer, ‘the persistence of the old regime.’ In the spirit of that persona, a few days ago he tweeted:
I realise this is risky (but when have I ever cared?) but maybe we need a new word to replace the K word to describe the people (not all) that we described as K's. Help me out here.....This ain't racial; it's K specific.
Bullard's remarks are rather transparent. He wants to be malicious, to work with others to craft and deploy the language of domination to racially fix ‘others in their place’ as it were. To call back to Robin, it is an impulse around “liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders.” Bullard wants the liberty to demean black South Africans at will, with licence, and without consequence. Functionally he wanted to remind his audience that racial slurs are valuable descriptions and can be usefully employed to do symbolic violence to people deemed to be beneath him.

Predictably Bullard was fired by South Africa’s Institute of Race Relations yesterday, itself a conservative think tank in South Africa. This is not the first time Bullard courted scandal or has been dismissed due to racist practices; a similar event occurred in 2008 when he was a columnist with The  Sunday Times. Yet really this event is not only about Bullard. (A bigot without institutional power is of little real consequence.) It is about the IRR. Despite traveling the same political road – Bullard was, notwithstanding his history, a known entity contracted by them after all – the IRR effectively had little choice but put him into the wilderness. Bullard’s transgression broke their own tacit discursive norms. One is not supposed to say the quiet part out loud because doing so hampers achieving reactionary political objectives. The ‘mask must stay on’ at all costs to ensure that the reactionary agenda maintains a degree of respectability.

It is imperative that this respectability be denied to them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Authority and American Autobiographies

Craig Fehrman has a piece up at Vox on the  changing trends in American life-writing. Part way  through Fehrman makes an interesting observation on authority: In the first half of the 19th century only the clergy and criminals published autobiographies.  One group had divine authority to tell their life stories. The other had nothing left to lose. His essay ends by celebrating digital media as enabling a democratization of life-stories with Instagram et al representing a broader shift of authority from the nexus of the state and civic status to the personal realm. One might even think of this near century long turn as a great recommission of private meaning, one in which things of a private nature could be recast as being of public relevance, bringing with it accountability, justification, explanation, and special pleading. These are all the kinds of exchanges that come with the giving and taking of reasons along with the implicit knowledge that o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rawls, Violence, and the State

Given the rise of the security state, one critique Rawls' work increasingly faces is that he did not give enough due attention to the problems of war and the violent capacity of the state. As an example, Paul Kahn in  Political Theology  charges that “Rawls and his followers never took seriously the violence of the state,” because the threat of “mutual assured destruction never appears within liberal political theory.” Further “the defence policies of the United States are always seen as somehow exceptional—more transitional arrangements than expressions of national identity.”  (Of secondary interest, Kahn holds that state violence derives less from conflict about political identity and affiliation, and more from the deeper realm of the apparent lawful order wherein“political violence has been and remains a form of sacrifice.” For Kahn the disadvantage of the majority of liberal political theory is that it cannot make that identification for “not reason but decision de...
Post a Comment
Read more