Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Follow-up to incredulity, that shouldn't be surprising, sure, as none of this is new, sadly, but still, yesterday:
Leaving aside BHL's close familiarity with the routines of maids at very expensive hotels...
Let's be clear again. You're actually - openly - saying that you think that the rich and powerful should not be taken "for a subject of justice like any other"? That they deserve, so to speak, special treatment?
This entire event, or at least the backing-and-forthing now, reverberates strangely through a pairing of anonymity and infamy, and it knots them closer, even as it marks the impossible material distance between the two people figured as such. As her lawyer says, "she had no idea who he was, quite honestly, in the world, until the next day," and she remains anonymous and "alone in the world", with "no agenda." For what seems unthinkable to BHL and the defenders is the prospect that someone might not, god forbid, know who DHK is. She is held out in a quadruply-closed position:
not knowing the name or the weight of the one who attacked her,
called a liar (the name given who speaks against what she knows to be the truth),
and unknowing of the letter of the law ("Shapiro described his role as trying to help her sort out her life and to explain the legal proceedings to her.").
On the other hand, a name, and a weight, that all are supposed to know, that is therefore supposed to be lifted out from the hoi polloi, that is supposed to be another subject of justice, another subject altogether, circulating in its orbit, in accordance with different laws of gravity and consequence. That is to say, that belongs to a different class of subjects.