tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post9189085576704228607..comments2024-01-05T01:21:21.702-08:00Comments on <center>SPECULUM CRITICUM TRADITIONIS</center>: Beyond alienation: in search of a theoryskholiasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-77957712134296824122011-07-06T07:22:57.518-07:002011-07-06T07:22:57.518-07:00Ross, welcome and thanks. Pete's thinking on t...Ross, welcome and thanks. Pete's thinking on this (as pretty much in everything) is bracing and inspiring, and I got a lot of your dialogue over there. Your pointer to Adorno's reflections in his encounters w/ the 60's-generation students sent me back to his biography.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-82951996392641897822011-07-05T22:06:20.219-07:002011-07-05T22:06:20.219-07:00Skholiast,
I deeply appreciated your reflections ...Skholiast,<br /><br />I deeply appreciated your reflections in this post, particularly on Pete's work regarding Foucault. I am also pleased to see that you agree with my diagnosis of the regressive activism that is rife in recent protest culture. I will be adding your blog to my blogroll.<br /><br />Best,<br />RossRoss Wolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753431796536019173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-77228959210176470582011-07-02T08:24:33.170-07:002011-07-02T08:24:33.170-07:00Om.,
Not sure. The history of the two-party syste...Om.,<br /><br />Not sure. The history of the two-party system, insofar as I understand it, is certainly not one of two clearly-defined always-opposing sets of positions. Or rather, these positions have not remained stable over time. Since the origins of the two current parties, as is well known, their positions re., say, labor, or race, have played do-si-do. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these stances are adopted opportunistically, with the logic of competing predators in an ecosystem. Change the environmental pressures, and the actors have to adapt or get eaten. Truth is, sooner or later a third party will succeed-- by displacing one of the other two. I think (this is of course the conservative in me) that the two-party system thrives because human beings are simplistic.<br /><br />Of course there are thrivingly active multi-party democracies, but these cannot but impress us with their limited size. People like me are bound to be localists because they know damn well that their imagined solutions do not work on the largest scales. The larger the system, the more simplistic the national party apparatus. (Look at China). If parties are able to successfully stand on their differences, their efforts to "pull together" are short-lived. Compare the history of ecumenical efforts in post-reformation protestantism. (One could probably do an interesting two-track study comparing the histories of political and ecclesial pluralism.) I have the impression that the beginnings of the decline of colonial empires roughly coincides with the curtailing of centralized power of the monarch, though I'd want to do a lot of homework before I dared state this as more than a guess. <br /><br />"Globalism" seems to me the first "empire" in which the figure of the Emperor is missing. It is a parody of the Heavenly Jerusalem ("...and I saw no Temple in the city..."). Supposedly it is all run just by the invisible hand, albeit administered by the technocratic class. But in practice this class has its outer circle (public relations) and its inner. This is more or less the apotheosis of the two-party system.<br /><br />(How's that for fantasical?)skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-80411714953899847482011-07-01T23:44:27.098-07:002011-07-01T23:44:27.098-07:00Skholiast:
Silly question this, but have you ever ...Skholiast:<br />Silly question this, but have you ever considered that the American electoral system, majoritarian/fptp, might be what is producing the perennial two-party state that you have. Much the same happens in Britain and France which are coincidentally also first-growth democracies. Now they were set up when there wasn't universal franchise and the power elites shared the same culture and general attitudes. Such an electoral system cannot reflect the complexity of a modern state etc, etc. America is of course hampered because God delivered the constitution to an exceptional people via the Founders, the Septa Rishi. <br /><br />It's odd that there isn't even much talk about this. Too fantastical maybe.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-24836991614780603292011-06-29T08:26:58.764-07:002011-06-29T08:26:58.764-07:00chenroy,
yes the "commodification of dissent...chenroy,<br /><br />yes the "commodification of dissent" under capitalism is the sort of thing that makes one just despair sometimes. My tentative approach to this makes its way via Kierkegaard's read of the difference between aesthetic, ethical and religious; Rene Girard's work on Clauswitz; and Chretos Yannaras, an Orthodox theologian. These religious thinkers have a different way from Foucault's, a way that does not leave things at the aesthetic-- but even here, I don't see that they can make a knock-down case arguing for the bankruptcy of capitalism and thus enabling political action-- they are more pointers to a way of talking about what religion can do for thinking community <i>after</i> philosophy has helped one to apatheia. The critique of late-capitalism (I am not speaking of small-scale local economies, on which level I am happy for the market to have a go, because it is held in place by community norms) is something that in some ways I think can only be done <i>a la</i> Wittgenstein: don't think, <i>look!</i> And if you don't get it, look again. This is obviously not the whole story, or I would not be "in search of a theory," but I do believe it takes a kind of gestalt-shift to snap out of the commodification of dissent trap. As for <i>action</i> against late-capitalism itself -- I don't know what it will take, but it won't be argument. I suspect it will be a provisional alliance between the natural world and desperate social unrest. That's not yet on the horizon, but the thing about horizons is, you can't see what's just below them.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-35517910553591423382011-06-29T07:35:54.912-07:002011-06-29T07:35:54.912-07:00Pete,
As you noticed, the post was getting long (...Pete,<br /><br />As you noticed, the post was getting long (though maybe not by your standards!), so I have to acknowledge that I could have spelled out your point about Foucault (and that it <i>was</i> your point) more fully. What I am unsure of is whether F <i>can</i> provide these resources, or whether he is (as per Rosen) actually hobbled by his construal of ethics as aesthetics. I'll look forward to your post-- if anyone can pull it off, you can.<br /><br />I like and could probably adapt for my purposes your distinction between caution-in-acting and caution-through-inaction, though of course either sort of caution might be dictated. I am not sure whether conservativism, as I want to sketch it, can really be an intellectual position or remains inevitably more of a pre-intellectual disposition. There may really be "two kinds of people" on this score, but naturally the philosopher in me does not want to leave it there. Cohen certainly makes a convincing start of spelling it all out rationally, but even he acknowledges that it is only a start.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-41894379220613376772011-06-29T06:57:59.003-07:002011-06-29T06:57:59.003-07:00Man, I had to take break reading this but it is ex...Man, I had to take break reading this but it is exceptional so far. A rather thorough exploration of what I'm going through. When you think about Politics, and how to make changes, one can be crushed by the seeming impossibility to change anything. In each area, you're facing structures upon structures that are entrenched and nothing short of a massive revolution seems possible to change it. But then you feel that this is abdicating responsibility - does it all have to come crashing down for you to make a difference? Sadly ( or rightly?), I have yet to get beyond this stage and this the feeling of perpetual powerlessness. I figure I'll just play my role in the machine and just keep churning, leaving the work to other folks. Cowardly, but pretty much how I feel at the moment. <br /><br />Another thing that has made me very cynical is the simple brilliance of Capitalism which can turn any dissent, any counter ideology into it's own feature - everything becomes a commodity such that the "system" can co-opt everything that attempts to assail it. Not Voting becomes a spectacle or campaign as you say ( because of money) and very soon loses it's power. If we attempt a quietest rebellion it only functions to entrench the heads so one must actually play the game only for the game to flatten all. It's this sort of powerlessness you talk about - where thinking about the future, you think about the effects of what you're doing, and it seems like all of it will simply be co-opted into a grand narrative, losing any force while the world goes on...to where though? And this is what always gives me pause. For if much of what people are disaffected about is "real" then something must give...at some point. The center cannot hold indefinitely but alas it feels like it will and can which is why I have not advanced to the stage you're currently at.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-52811855279948974052011-06-29T00:41:49.207-07:002011-06-29T00:41:49.207-07:00A very nice post. I can only really add two things...A very nice post. I can only really add two things:-<br /><br />1. I certainly don't think Foucault's ethics is sufficient to underwrite political action. This was the point of the end of my post, to suggest that there needs to be a politics of collective autonomy (Justice) commensurate to Foucault's ethics of individual autonomy (Freedom). Of course, I still have to write about what this positive politics would look like, and I'll let you know when I do.<br /><br />2. I find your version of small c conservatism more amenable than the usual kind, but I still can't quite get behind it. Of course it is important not to abandon the goods we have, at least without good reason, but I think this can only be a cautionary note within the process of political change. The tricky issue is to understand how this process should work, and what ideals we are aiming for within it, because it is only this that will give any good sense to the cautionary principle. Waving the banner of conservatism strikes me as advocating caution without understanding the difference between caution-in-acting and caution-through-inaction. I prefer the language of progressivism, because implicit within it is the idea that there are things that we make progress on, and thus that this progress should be retained, albeit within the context of striving for further improvement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com