Re Foucault,  I prefer Chomsky, see the end of their debate:

FOUCAULT:
   If you like, I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this; in other words, it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it.

CHOMSKY:
   I don't agree with that.

FOUCAULT:
   And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice.

CHOMSKY:
   Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis--if you press me too hard I'll be in trouble, because I can't sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a "real" notion of justice is grounded.

   I think it's too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don't think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real.

   And I think that in any future society, which will, of course, never be the perfect society, we'll have such concepts again, which we hope, will come closer to incorporating a defence of fundamental human needs, including such needs as those for solidarity and sympathy and whatever, but will probably still reflect in some manner the inequities and the elements of oppression of the existing society.

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm

Re suffering, like F, "I will be a little bit Nietzschean about this" - a sense of suffering isn't prior to "concepts, institutions, interpretations" as with the cogito of Descartes. Nietzsche said:

When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is.

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/18/55252/796

or that I know what suffering is.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience

'Traction' is not the first that comes to mind.

It's just a jokey reference to the ubiquity of the word in the endless US election coverage.

Interesting to note that you speak of 'we'. As if posters who responded here have important common  characteristics.

As far as I'm concerned, they just have in common that they contributed to the discussion here.

In previous postings, here and elsewhere I did get the impression there were a sort of band of posters scannen the blog, spotting rich grounds (privileged ones / victims) to, ehh,  play.

Or take up issues which they find interesting/important, which may not be seen as central by the author of the diary and, as in any group, some are more active in contributing than others.

To address your remark regarding track: I don't see how the postings relate to the point I tried to raise.

Which is: going from tabloid to esoteric, [other way round ?]  how do make progress in awareness, regarding issues commonly experienced as pressing by multitudes at the receiving end of business as usual (greed, ignorance, malice)

And after awareness: how do we operationalize the goodwill that emerges when we become aware?

Speaking just for myself, I responded to your reference to Foucault, which seemed quite central to your approach, given the extensive quotation and implicit acceptance of his approach:

I would like to take this quote from the Foucault entry at Wikipedia a step further ...

I said that I preferred Chomsky's general approach and illustrated the difference by reference to their debate. As it happened the discussion here then focused on the particular issue about justice, rather than the general difference between their approaches.

In the latter case I think Chomsy provides a very clear example of how to answer your general question, i.e. there is no mystery about it, one develops awareness in a variety of ways, which includes writing books and articles, and in Chomsky's case giving many, very well attended talks, which address issues which have a major impact on people's lives, and present readily understandable critiques of misleading media coverage. Here is Chomsky's own discussion of the contrast between his own approach and that of Foucault:

Phetland suggests starting with Foucault --- who, as I've written repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others,[Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc.]  for two reasons: I find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged elite circles.

Phetland then does exactly what I requested: he gives some illustrations of why he thinks Foucault's work is important. That's exactly the right way to proceed, and I think it helps understand why I take such a "dismissive" attitude towards all of this --- in fact, pay no attention to it.

What Phetland describes, accurately I'm sure, seems to me unimportant, because everyone always knew it --- apart from details of social and intellectual history, and about these, I'd suggest caution...

 But let's put aside the other historical work, and turn to the "theoretical constructs" and the explanations: that there has been "a great change from harsh mechanisms of repression to more subtle mechanisms by which people come to do" what the powerful want, even enthusiastically. That's true enough, in fact, utter truism. If that's a "theory," then all the criticisms of me are wrong: I have a "theory" too, since I've been saying exactly that for years, and also giving the reasons and historical background, but without describing it as a theory (because it merits no such term), and without obfuscatory rhetoric (because it's so simple-minded), and without claiming that it is new (because it's a truism). It's been fully recognized for a long time that as the power to control and coerce has declined, it's more necessary to resort to what practitioners in the PR industry early in this century -- who understood all of this well -- called "controlling the public mind." The reasons, as observed by Hume in the 18th century, are that "the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers" relies ultimately on control of opinion and attitudes. Why these truisms should suddenly become "a theory" or "philosophy," others will have to explain; Hume would have laughed.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Therefore Chomsky does not feel the need to engage in "theoretical" debate but instead acts as a public intellectual, publishing very accessible work which does raise many people's awareness (as it did for me years ago, and he continues to do so) and involves critiques of the mainstream media :

Phetland also found it "particularly puzzling" that I am so "curtly dismissive" of these intellectual circles while I spend a lot of time "exposing the posturing and obfuscation of the New York Times." So "why not give these guys the same treatment." Fair question. There are also simple answers. What appears in the work I do address (NYT, journals of opinion, much of scholarship, etc.) is simply written in intelligible prose and has a great impact on the world, establishing the doctrinal framework within which thought and expression are supposed to be contained, [cf. the criticism of the dominant economic ideology here] and largely are, in successful doctrinal systems such as ours. That has a huge impact on what happens to suffering people throughout the world, the ones who concern me, as distinct from those who live in the world that Lodge depicts (accurately, I think)[a reference to David Lodge's novels about academia, e.g. "Small World": "The unbridled greed, pettiness, buffoonery and intellectual gobbledegook in the world of higher scholarship are the topics of this thorough and thoroughly funny "roman à English department". It's interesting for a couple of reasons, aside from its humour and lampoonery: it's an insider's view of things--always the best kind."] So this work should be dealt with seriously, at least if one cares about ordinary people and their problems. The work to which Phetland refers has none of these characteristics, as far as I'm aware. It certainly has none of the impact, since it is addressed only to other intellectuals in the same circles.

Ibid.

On what we should do to raise awareness (getting involved tends to raise one's own awareness):

Question from Arthur Buonamia: What can we as citizens do to influence a foreign policy change that is humane, and just.
...
Noam Chomsky: On the first question, we should bear in mind that we are extremely privileged. We live in a very free, very democratic society. Unlike many other places in the world, we can act and speak in all sorts of ways without fear of state punishment and retribution. That leaves all kinds of avenues open to us, from meetings with neighbors or in a church or whatever organization you're in to publication to organization to demonstrations to political action to there's just every means available. It can be effective. It has been in the past and it can be now. There is no shortage of means, if there's a shortage, it's of willingness to use them. They're available.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskychat.html

Type ((*youtube 9wX_W1BB_0M)) without the asterisk.

See the New User Guide.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

Re Panopticum: the point is that you don't need effort to control people when they internalize the control. Cherish it.

This concept is an excellent opportunity for anyone with an interest in tossing people around. Marketeers, politicians, anyone who isn't / can't be completely honest with himself and you.

Who resists these temptations?

very good, emil!

the only people who can resist these temptations are those who have evidence in their own lives that believing in goodness, and aspiring towards it, will eventually bring you closer to what you dream, than grabbing what you can from life with no thought for your neighbour.

too many people learn this too late, the hard way.

after a long life of abusing one's matrix, it matters little to turn around at the end, when you are feeble, the damage is done...

it can be learned very early, if the child's innate goodness is not warped by the world around, and it is given enough examples of positive feedback to internalise, enabling sovereignty, empowering the person to trust in truth, even when it seems to be counter-intuitive.

eventually you connect the dots, in my case it took most of my life to expunge the residue from arbitrary authoritarianism, and the learned helplessness it engenders.

my children fared much better, because i put a lot of energy in sheltering them from the type of zero-sum thinking and cognitive dissonance i was exposed to as a child, consequently their integrity is natural, not affected as a virtue.

childhood psychology and wise education, not just instruction, especially in emotional intelligence, would be the fastest, most energy-efficient solution to all the grief in the human condition, i have as-close-to-absolute-as-can-be faith in that.

israeli and palestinian children are not born despising 'the other', they are taught to by ignorant adults, mired in the hatreds of the past.

given just two generations of appropriate education, i bet even that hoariest of enmities could be dissolved.

i saw 'zeitgeist', and enjoyed it, in spite of the slight 'history channel' vibe and slightly gaudy, over-the-top colours and presentation, the message of myths being recursive was a profound one.

well worth seeing, imo...up there with 'the corporation' and 'masters of money'.

welcome back, nice to see you diarying again!

If'Madness is the absence of work'(Foucault), then Sanity is the presence of play..