USA is most violent industrialized nations on the planet

[Celso Alvarez Caccamo]

David Boje wrote:

> Celso:
>         You have a most interesting quote. I am writing a book bout the
> violent spectacle of production and consumption. I came across a statistic
> that between 1984 and 1994 60,000 U.S. youth were killed by hand guns. . . .

Thanks for all that non-surprising information about gun
violence. The logic of Clinton's statement rests on the
relationship between literal content and background
knowledge (assumptions). The quote is, again, "We must teach
our children to solve their problems with words, not arms".

What I had in mind some process on the line of what Hodge
and Kress call an "ideological complex" (*). In the way
I understand (and apply) this notion, an ideological complex
is a *seeming* ideological contradiction which therefore invites
the public to take a position regarding its interpretation. Since
access to different forms of knowledge and to their inferential
handling is differential, differential social positionings ensue.
The message has thus various intended meanings, but *not* as a
result of semantic ambiguity. Those social groups (elites) who can
read the intended non-apparent meanings, however, can only be
accomplices in the generation of this interpelatory discourse,
as literal content flatly denies what is meant.

Therefore, an ideological complex is a form of ideological cooption.
A possible analysis would be:

1) LITERAL MEANING: Clinton says we must educate our children
not to use violence.

2) BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE:

a) We know the state is not taking action to help us do this.
b) We know we can't do this at the present time without a
state policy on daily violence.
c) Simultaneously, the state's rhetoric invites the use of violence
to solve problems with other states.
d) The state is ostensibly engaging in violence to "solve problems".

6) INFERENCES:

a) Clinton means "We must use violence to solve problems", but
b) Clinton means "Publicly, I must defend that we must not use
violence". and
c) Clinton means "Those of you who understand that what I mean
is that we must use violence to solve problems will understand
that you cannot legitimately deny that I said that we must not.
Just stay home and watch the Simpson's. Or write inane
commentaries for a living".

Elite groups who understand the logic of this rhetoric will become
(or are) good politicians... or invisible academicians. Other people
will simply either think Clinton is a "hypocrit", but a hypocritical
winner of a war is primarily a winner of a war, not a hypocrit.
Others (probably many, like the president of the National
Rifle Association himself, Charlton Heston!) will think that
Clinton is a hypocrit for NOT stating that children should be
taught to be violent and to defend themselves with violence. And
most people will likely find it more comforting to think that
military and school violence are "two different issues".

Here, of course, "Clinton" is just a metaphor for 'hegemonic
discourse'.

Best,
-celso

(*) Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress. 1993. Language as ideology.
London: Routledge.
--
Celso Alvarez Cáccamo              Tel. +34 981 167000 ext. 1888
Linguística Geral, Faculdade de Filologia     FAX +34 981 167151
Universidade da Corunha                          lxalvarz at udc.es
15071 A Corunha, Galiza (Espanha)   http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac