Posted by John Hilley
on November 1, 2009, 8:26 pm, in reply to "thanks, Dan (nm)"
Much of the board space has been taken up in the past few days with exchanges on the validity of dissident writers appearing in the Guardian and other mainstream media.
In an associated exchange, I was asked, more directly, to consider the importance of anti-war and other 'critical' material found in the Guardian and to recognise the instructive value of such content.
One of my responses included the view that, yes, indeed, there is evidence of much useful writing in the Guardian, but that: a) the appearance of such is always token and well policed; and b) that we have to recognise the legitimising function, in itself, of such 'critical' inclusions.
It's a view more concerned with the liberal media's propaganda function rather than a need to conduct a laborious content balance sheet exercise of 'good' versus 'bad' Guardian output.
However, it is useful to remind ourselves just what often passes in the Guardian and other system-sustaining liberal media for radical content. Which prompted further thoughts on the very article that's spawned this lengthy board discussion.
Articles such as David Wearing's do not constitute serious radical instruction. Rather, they help dilute it by speaking in a register of soft-liberal correctionism, ever palatable to other soft-left Guardian readers.
The suggestion of such lies in much of the language used here. The key safe words and phrases are all there: “fresh start in foreign policy”; “our international relations”; “change foreign policy for the better”; “failure of the democratic system” Not invalid as literal terms. But signifiers here of a need to protect and correct 'our' 'lost' but otherwise legitimate system of 'democracy'.
The intonation and essence: Britain's foreign policy is in need of urgent 'reform' and 'overhauling', in order to 'improve/restore' the “democratic deficit”.
Seemingly obvious. Yet, this is standard liberal-speak for avoiding real radical discussion of the true issue: corporate-determined 'democracy' and, by crucial extension, the liberal media's key part in maintaining that dominant order. Thus, any inclusion of the media's, and, by significant example, the Guardian's own vital part in serving that political/foreign policy “deficit” must surely be avoided here.
David Wearing should be fairly commended for his itemisations on nuclear disarmament, the arms trade, climate change, the greedy financial sector, Britain's aggressions in Iraq/Afghanistan and support for Israel (a note advocating Britain's support for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) might have been appropriate here.)
The article's appeal, in this sense, for a more “enlightened" foreign policy seems beyond reproach, either from those who wish to see such 'improvements' or/and those who believe that such pieces, at least, help raise 'serious' debate on the matter. Thus, the article speaks as a set of 'noble concerns' felt across a range of 'decent opinion'. All of which 'reasoned' liberal argument is, again, welcomed by the Guardian – indeed, was sought out by it in this case, so we're told by the author.
Yet, content-wise, there's nothing particularly risqué in the suggestion points noted. They are all up for regular discussion in the Guardian.
Seriously risqué discussion, on the other hand, would show how the Guardian itself has specifically contributed to Britain's foreign policy “deficit” through its war-rationalising editorials. Even more risqué would be Rusbridger and the Guardian permitting any such criticism within its own pages. That's the true content measure of dissenting output.
Alas, there's not a semblance of it in David Wearing's article. Curiously, it's the kind of 'self-examining' language we might even find coming from a 'concerned' policy-maker inside the foreign office itself, liberallly 'worrying' over 'our direction' and 'waning image'.
It's the classic liberal-left 'polemic' the Guardian delights in publishing, the definitive fig-leaf 'assault' that 'proves its 'left-on' credentials.
The net effect of this and other such articles? The political class have been duly rebuked, the Guardian has reaffirmed its 'radical mantle' and 'comment remains free'.
In truth, comment is not so free for those who might more usefully try, in such pieces, to highlight the 'let's-not-go-there' link between Guardian output – editorials, articles, selective comment page writers – and the perpetuation of 'our' foreign policy aggressions.
John