För att ge Karls tes om 68-tänk vs. 99-tänk lite 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!