- What do you think of the concept of institutional "role of victims" suggested already in writings of Beauvoir's on saints?

The role of the Saint in deB's work is, of course, complex and useful for this discussion -- but I think not clarified as much as it could be, given the expansive growth of what constitutes 'media/technology' as both logic and structure/system, and what has shaped the political mass movements (around sexism, homophobias, ethnicities, religions and etc.)

Depending on a variety of factors, economic in the widest sense of the word: economy (to include libidinal, assemblages, and not only 'exchange' -- but also exchange, of course), the lens by which information is gathered, and 'kept alive' in the papers, radio and TV, not to mention the net, has their own 'lifespans.'

Take for example the story of Madeline McCann: whose the victim? The child? The parents? The 'tapas 9', Murat and his girlfriend? The portuguese police? This modern (or postmodern day) tale shape shifts the victim-hood role on a continual basis. I am working on this kind of 'institutional sexism' or 'institutional racism' and how it controls/infiltrates the media -- so I could speak on that...

- By which maneuver it happens that victims turn to out be heroes?

There is no 'one' maneuver, but there is a rhizmatic 'plane of immanence' which flip-flops (in more than binaric ways, ie more than just 'hero/victim/sadistic/accomplice. Again, this could be discussed in detail.

- Somewhere there is a power-principle in "politics of self-victimisation" of saints, own decision to finish something that has no meaning (life) by giving a meaning, making it meta-physical?

Not sure I understand this remark -- but if you're suggesting that people 'need' to make sense of their own life, I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment. My guess is that people may or may not need to make sense of their life, but they absolutely need to be in environments that are not soul-destroying. This means there are certain kinds of ethics/morals and 'honours' that must be in place otherwise a person will go mad (this theme is developed a lot in my long essay/book: 'Honour')

- What makes those victims more important than ones getting killed daily?

Nothing. Everything. Have you read Heinrich Bols 'portrait of a lady' where he asks a similar question, though more crudely: 'what makes a vagina more expensive than any other one?'

The imperative "do not forget" seems to me not functioning as the meaning of lesson of a history, which it suggests, as same events are re-appearing by-side even today..

- What is the role of a maxima "do not forget"? Is it a ground for an inscribed revenge in culture, rather than a teaching of "the lesson"?

The battle-cry 'never forgot' is usually best placed as a rallying point for the present problems rather than an actual attempt at remembering. I am thinking of Shoa, and also of the excellent work of Lyotard in this regard in his 'Heidegger and the jews' where the word 'jews' is lower-cased to mark the utter 'forgetablity' of the situation (called genocide).

- If historical victims are discussed there is a field mined with horror and warnings of "de-secration of victims" obviously making them taboos. Still, it is not a taboo to report on victims of today in distant places in manners that are not giving them enough of respect? What are you thinking about this discussion?

There is an on-line (web) network that shows 24/7 the beheading of people by various religious sects -- with no horror or warning labels attached, and certainly no taboo. Are you pointing to the 'established' networks then? Like the NY times? Or outwardly mercenary ones (I mean the ones who actually take pride in being mercenary? My thinking is that people never give up power willingly, and certainly not if they are 'proved' to be racist/sexist/nationalist etc.

Power corrupts, as the old saying goes, whereas absolute power is kind a nice (slight shift in the motto). When discourses create forms of legitimacy as though there is no problem (or never was one, etc) it has less to do with manners and a whole lot more to do with the way in which power-as-common sense gets established and reproduced.

***

Johnny de Philo (also; Sue Golding aka Johnny de Philo) A working philosopher and artist, former Head of Theory at the Jan Van Eyck Academie, Maastrict, the Netherlands, and is the professor of Philosophy in the Visual Arts and Communication Technologies, University of Greenwich, London. Her many published works involve questions around the body, genders, racisms, sexualities and pleasures. Author/editor of The eight technologies of otherness (1997, Routledge). See also "The Address Book" , in "The Book of Sodom", edited by Paul Hallam, (1993, Verso); "Sexual Manners" in Public, 8, (1993); "Pariah Bodies", (1994), in Critical Quarterly, vol. 36, no.1; "James Dean: The Almost Perfect Lesbian Hermaphrodite" in "Sight Specific: Lesbians and Representation", edited by L.Fernie, D. Forbes & J. Mason, (1988, Toronto: A Space)

Upcoming interview with a director Enrique Arroyo.

Before the official start of the Victims' symptom, planned for early 2008, a serial of interviews will be published on this blog. Besides commenting, you can send your proposals with questions or full interviews that would shape the upcoming discussion.