>
Addition to comment below....
> In Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics the author Frederic Spotts
> explores a number of things we have talked about.
>
> First, Hitler spoke in the language of liberation, talking about
> creating a "true" "free" and "pure" Germany liberated from those who
> were tainting it. Second, he never defined exactly what the things
> oppressing Germany were. Oppression, or the enemy, was redefined in
> each speech and only spoken of vaguely except in that it was located
> in the life of the city, in modernism, in the Jewish people, gays,
> Gypsies, and the mentally handicapped.
>
> Right now I'm only making a guess, but my intuition says that to avoid
> having the word "oppression" manipulated for the purpose of tyranny it
> is better to define what it is. I would make the stipulation that in
> the definition of "oppression" should be included the use of words
> like "liberation," "oppression," "utopia," and "freedom" for the
> purpose of oppression.
>
I forgot to end by saying that Hitler also created a system wherein the
individual was so controlled that the only Katharsis was allowed
through state functions.
I think this is where my earlier post about creating liberation without
catharsis was flawed. If ordinary everyday cathartic moments are
removed or restricted then there is a problem..... If catharsis
through the arts, literature, personal creativity is allowed then a
structural liberation without catharsis could be helpful...
Alan
|