Walter Benjamin’s Philosophical Thought Presented by Two Experimental Films

Lit­er­ary the­o­rist and schol­ar Wal­ter Ben­jamin was part of a small but incred­i­bly sig­nif­i­cant cohort of Ger­man-Jew­ish intel­lec­tu­als who fled the Nazis in the thir­ties. The group includ­ed thinkers like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Han­nah Arendt, Her­bert Mar­cuse, and Bertolt Brecht. Of all of the names above, only Ben­jamin suc­cumbed, com­mit­ting sui­cide by mor­phine over­dose in 1940 at a Cat­alon­ian hotel, when it became clear that the Span­ish, with whom he had sought refuge, were going to turn him back over to Ger­many.

Of all of the thinkers above, most of whom are fair­ly well-known by U.S. stu­dents of the lib­er­al arts, it can (and should) be argued that Ben­jamin was the most influ­en­tial, even if he rarely appears on a syl­labus, except­ing one well-known essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechan­i­cal Repro­ducibil­i­ty,” a sta­ple of film and media the­o­ry class­es. All of the thinkers list­ed above adored Ben­jamin, and all of them fig­u­ra­tive­ly sat at his feet. And while Benjamin—often by ref­er­ence to the afore­men­tioned essay—gets pegged as a Marx­ist thinker, he was also some­thing else; he was a mys­tic and a sage, the crit­i­cal equiv­a­lent, per­haps, of Kaf­ka.

The 1993 exper­i­men­tal film above—One Way Street: Frag­ments for Wal­ter Ben­jamin—is part doc­u­men­tary, part low-bud­get cable-access edit­ing exer­cise. The film pro­vides an intro­duc­tion to Benjamin’s life and thought through inter­views with schol­ars, re-enact­ments of Benjamin’s last days, and mon­tages cen­tered around his many apho­ris­tic expres­sions. One Way Street opens with an epi­gram from Benjamin’s pupil Brecht, from the latter’s poem “On the Sui­cide of the Refugee W.B.,” in which Brecht eulo­gizes his mentor’s prophet­ic strain: “the future lies in dark­ness and the forces of right / Are weak. All this was plain to you.” Indeed, it is this mys­ti­cal aspect of Ben­jamin that defies his strict cat­e­go­riza­tion as a dog­mat­ic Marx­ist mate­ri­al­ist. Through the con­sid­er­able influ­ence of his friend Ger­shom Scholem, Ben­jamin acquired a deep inter­est in Kab­bal­is­tic thought, includ­ing a mes­sian­ic streak that col­ored so much of his writ­ing.

In ref­er­ence to this Jew­ish mys­ti­cism, Anson Rabin­bach, edi­tor of New Ger­man Cri­tique sum­ma­rizes Benjamin’s thought above:

The world is… dis­persed in frag­ments, and in these frag­ments, the frag­ments of the world that God has now turned his back on, reside cer­tain pres­ences, which attest to the for­mer exis­tence of their divine char­ac­ter. You can­not active­ly go about to dis­cov­er these divine pres­ences, but they can be revealed.

Accord­ing to Rabin­bach, Benjamin’s method was, sim­i­lar to Freud’s, an attempt to “unlock” these “ema­na­tions” by “jux­ta­pos­ing things that don’t quite nec­es­sar­i­ly appear to be relat­ed to each oth­er… And this is the Kab­bal­is­tic sense, that you can­not go direct­ly at the task, because the dis­clo­sure of the ema­na­tion is blocked.” Benjamin’s frag­men­tary “method” pro­duced prodi­gious results—hundreds upon hun­dreds of pages of essays, and a frus­trat­ing­ly unfin­ished book pub­lished as The Arcades Project.

His thought is so diverse that one com­menter in the film above—Michael Jen­nings, author of Ben­jamin study Dialec­ti­cal Images—says that “the way that Ben­jamin is used most in this coun­try, is to dip in and take a quo­ta­tion out of con­text, in sup­port of any argu­ment one could think of, and I used to take umbrage at this, until I real­ized that this was pre­cise­ly Benjamin’s own prac­tice.” In this way, Ben­jamin occu­pies a sim­i­lar place in the human­i­ties as Russ­ian lit­er­ary the­o­rist Mikhail Bakhtin. Where he is famous, he is famous for cre­at­ing whole con­cep­tu­al fields one can invoke by utter­ing a sin­gle word or phrase.

One of the most potent words in the Ben­jamin lex­i­con is the French term flâneur. The flâneur is a “stroller, idler, walk­er,” a “well-dressed man, strolling leisure­ly through the Parisian arcades of the nine­teenth century—a shop­per with no inten­tion to buy, an intel­lec­tu­al par­a­site of the arcade” (as Ben­jamin web­site “The Arcades Project Project” defines it). The flâneur is an indi­vid­ual of priv­i­lege and a prog­en­i­tor of the male gaze: “Tra­di­tion­al­ly the traits that mark the flâneur are wealth, edu­ca­tion, and idle­ness. He strolls to pass the time that his wealth affords him, treat­ing the peo­ple who pass and the objects he sees as texts for his own plea­sure.” The flâneur is not sim­ply a pas­sive observ­er; he is instead a kind of lazy urban preda­tor, and also a dandy and pro­to-hip­ster. Per­haps the most sin­is­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tion of this char­ac­ter (in a dif­fer­ent urban con­text) is the creepy Svidri­gailov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Pun­ish­ment.

In the 1998 film above, Flâneur III: Benjamin’s Shad­ow, Dan­ish direc­tor Tor­ben Skjodt Jensen and writer Urf Peter Hall­berg col­lab­o­rate on an impres­sion­is­tic black-and-white med­i­ta­tion on Paris, over­laid with Hallberg’s rumi­na­tions and quo­ta­tions from Ben­jamin. Benjamin’s fas­ci­na­tion with nine­teenth-cen­tu­ry Paris drove his mas­sive, unfin­ished Arcades Project, an exca­va­tion of the inner work­ings of moder­ni­ty. Where One Way Street is marked by a very dat­ed 90’s aes­thet­ic (which may look chic now that the decade’s back in fash­ion), the above film is both clas­si­cal and mod­ernist, a tes­ta­ment to the beau­ties and con­tra­dic­tions of Paris. I think in this respect, it is a more fit­ting trib­ute to the crit­i­cal and con­tra­dic­to­ry aes­thet­ic the­o­ry of Wal­ter Ben­jamin.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Theodor Adorno’s Avant-Garde Musi­cal Com­po­si­tions

Han­nah Arendt Dis­cuss­es Phi­los­o­phy, Pol­i­tics & Eich­mann in Rare 1964 TV Inter­view

Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Talks About Lan­guage, Being, Marx & Reli­gion in Vin­tage 1960s Inter­views

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Atheism Tapes Presents Lengthy Interviews with Arthur Miller, Daniel Dennett & Richard Dawkins About Religion and Unbelief

The his­to­ry of religion(s) is a fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject, one that should be cov­ered, in my hum­ble opin­ion, as an inte­gral part of every lib­er­al arts edu­ca­tion. But the his­to­ry of atheism—of disbelief—is a sub­ject that only emerges piece­meal, in oppo­si­tion­al con­texts, espe­cial­ly in the wake of recent fun­da­men­tal­ist upris­ings in the past decade or so. We cov­ered one such his­to­ry recent­ly, the 2004 BBC series Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, made by direc­tor Jonathan Miller and fea­tur­ing such high-pro­file thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Den­nett, Arthur Miller, and physi­cist Steven Wein­berg.

Miller’s series orig­i­nal­ly includ­ed much more mate­r­i­al than he could air, and so the BBC agreed to let him pro­duce the out­take inter­views as a sep­a­rate pro­gram called The Athe­ism Tapes. It’s a series in six parts, fea­tur­ing inter­views with Eng­lish philoso­pher Col­in McGinn, Wein­berg, Miller, Dawkins, Den­nett, and British the­olo­gian Denys Turn­er. At the top, watch Miller’s intro to The Athe­ism Tapes and his inter­view with Col­in McGinn. It’s an inter­est­ing angle—Miller gets to quiz McGinn on “what it means to be a skep­ti­cal Eng­lish philoso­pher in such a seem­ing­ly reli­gious coun­try as the Unit­ed States.” Many read­ers may sym­pa­thize with McGinn’s dif­fi­cul­ty in com­mu­ni­cat­ing his unbe­lief to those who find the con­cept total­ly alien.

Direct­ly above, watch Daniel Den­nett (after the intro) dis­cuss the rela­tion­ship between athe­ism and Darwin’s rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. Miller is a won­der­ful interviewer—sympathetic, prob­ing, informed, humor­ous, human­ist. He is the per­fect per­son to bring all these fig­ures togeth­er and get their var­i­ous takes on mod­ern unbe­lief, because despite his own pro­fes­sions, Miller real­ly cares about these big meta­phys­i­cal ques­tions, and his pas­sion and curios­i­ty are shared by all of his inter­vie­wees. In the intro­duc­tion to his inter­view with play­wright Arthur Miller (below), Jonathan Miller makes the provoca­tive claim that Chris­tian­i­ty believes “there’s some­thing pecu­liar about the Jews that makes them pecu­liar­ly sus­cep­ti­ble to pro­fane dis­be­lief.” Watch Arthur Miller’s response below.

One would hope that all man­ner of people—believers, athe­ists, and the non-committal—would come away from The Athe­ism Tapes with at least a healthy respect for the integri­ty of philo­soph­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic inquiry and doubt. See the full series on YouTube here. Or pur­chase your copy on Ama­zon here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, with Jonathan Miller

Richard Dawkins Makes the Case for Evo­lu­tion in the 1987 Doc­u­men­tary, The Blind Watch­mak­er

Philoso­pher Daniel Den­nett Presents Sev­en Tools For Crit­i­cal Think­ing

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Way Too Philosophical Pop Song

Sec­ond City has giv­en us many great improv com­e­dy sketch­es and come­di­ans over the decades … and now com­ic videos on YouTube too. From this video col­lec­tion comes the “Too Philo­soph­i­cal Pop Song,” whose open­ing lines resem­ble the hack­neyed lyrics of so many con­tem­po­rary pop tunes.

We’ve got to be young while we live, and live while we are young.
We’ve got to live for tonight because tomor­row won’t come.

We’ve all heard these exis­ten­tial clichés before, right? But then, the “Too Philo­soph­i­cal Pop Song” gets, well, too philo­soph­i­cal, swerv­ing dark­ly of course.

We have to par­ty like we’ll nev­er see tomor­row, there­by destroy­ing the intrin­sic val­ue of this moment and our­selves.
The cer­tain­ty of death inval­i­dates our actions tonight.
We’re thrown into this uni­verse with no pur­pose, com­pelled to fab­ri­cate mean­ing.
There is no good, there is no right, and our morals are craft­ed out of rea­son.

Makes it a lit­tle hard to get your groove on … unless you’re a UVA grad stu­dent or one of those heady guys at Par­tial­lyEx­am­inedLife. Don’t miss their pod­cast.

via Leit­er Reports

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es from Great Uni­ver­si­ties

Rap­ping About Sci­ence: Watch High School Senior Jabari John­son Talk Physics with Poet­ic Lyrics

A Song of Our Warm­ing Plan­et: Cel­list Turns 130 Years of Cli­mate Change Data into Music

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

The Feud Continues: Noam Chomsky Responds to Žižek, Describes Remarks as ‘Sheer Fantasy’

chomsky-zizek-feud-continues

Noam Chom­sky has issued a state­ment in reac­tion to our July 17 post, “Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chom­sky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empir­i­cal­ly Wrong.’ In an arti­cle post­ed yes­ter­day on ZNet titled “Fan­tasies,”  Chom­sky says Žižek’s crit­i­cism of him is com­plete­ly unground­ed. “Žižek finds noth­ing, lit­er­al­ly noth­ing, that is empir­i­cal­ly wrong,” writes Chom­sky. “That’s hard­ly a sur­prise.”

The rift between the two high-pro­file intel­lec­tu­als began, as you may recall, when Chom­sky crit­i­cized Žižek and oth­er con­ti­nen­tal philoso­phers for essen­tial­ly talk­ing non­sense — for cloak­ing triv­i­al­i­ties in fan­cy lan­guage and using the sci­en­tif­ic-sound­ing term “the­o­ry” to describe propo­si­tions that could nev­er be test­ed empir­i­cal­ly. Žižek lashed back, say­ing of Chom­sky, “I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empir­i­cal­ly wrong.” He went on to crit­i­cize Chom­sky’s con­tro­ver­sial ear­ly posi­tion on Amer­i­can assess­ments of the Khmer Rouge atroc­i­ties in Cam­bo­dia. (To read Žižek’s com­ments, click here to open the ear­li­er post in a new win­dow.) In response yes­ter­day, Chom­sky said he had received numer­ous requests to com­ment on our post:

I had read it, with some inter­est, hop­ing to learn some­thing from it, and giv­en the title, to find some errors that should be cor­rect­ed — of course they exist in vir­tu­al­ly any­thing that reach­es print, even tech­ni­cal schol­ar­ly mono­graphs, as one can see by read­ing reviews in pro­fes­sion­al jour­nals. And when I find them or am informed about them I cor­rect them.

But not here. Žižek finds noth­ing, lit­er­al­ly noth­ing, that is empir­i­cal­ly wrong. That’s hard­ly a sur­prise. Any­one who claims to find empir­i­cal errors, and is min­i­mal­ly seri­ous, will at the very least pro­vide a few par­ti­cles of evi­dence — some quotes, ref­er­ences, at least some­thing. But there is noth­ing here — which, I’m afraid, does­n’t sur­prise me either. I’ve come across instances of Žižek’s con­cept of empir­i­cal fact and rea­soned argu­ment.

Chom­sky goes on to recount an instance when he says Žižek mis­at­trib­uted a “racist com­ment on Oba­ma” to Chom­sky, only to explain it away lat­er and say that he had dis­cussed the issue with Chom­sky on the tele­phone. “Of course,” writes Chom­sky, “sheer fan­ta­sy.” Chom­sky then moves on to Žižek’s com­ments report­ed by Open Cul­ture, which he says are typ­i­cal of Žižek’s meth­ods. “Accord­ing to him,” writes Chom­sky, “I claim that ‘we don’t need any cri­tique of ide­ol­o­gy’ — that is, we don’t need what I’ve devot­ed enor­mous efforts to for many years. His evi­dence? He heard that from some peo­ple who talked to me. Sheer fan­ta­sy again, but anoth­er indi­ca­tion of his con­cept of empir­i­cal fact and ratio­nal dis­cus­sion.”

Chom­sky devotes the rest of his arti­cle to defend­ing his work with Edward Her­man on the Khmer Rouge atroc­i­ties. He claims that no fac­tu­al errors have been found in their work on the sub­ject, and he draws atten­tion to a pas­sage in their book After the Cat­a­clysm, quot­ed last week by Open Cul­ture read­er Poyâ Pâkzâd, in which they write, “our pri­ma­ry con­cern here is not to estab­lish the facts with regard to post­war Indochi­na, but rather to inves­ti­gate their refrac­tion through the prism of West­ern ide­ol­o­gy, a very dif­fer­ent task.”

You can read Chom­sky’s com­plete rebut­tal to Žižek here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chom­sky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empir­i­cal­ly Wrong’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky & Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature & Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

 

Watch Out For the Flying Folding Chairs, It’s The Noam Chomsky Show!

The word “philoso­pher” tends to con­jure up the arche­typ­al image of an ascetic fig­ure stand­ing above the fol­lies of every­day life, absorbed in thought. Per­haps that’s why so many peo­ple have found it fas­ci­nat­ing to hear of the dis­agree­ments between Noam Chom­sky and Slavoj Žižek.

Sev­er­al weeks ago we post­ed an excerpt from an inter­view in which Chom­sky accus­es Žižek, along with Jacques Lacan and Jacques Der­ri­da, of emp­ty “pos­tur­ing.” Yes­ter­day we post­ed Žižek’s response to Chom­sky: “I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empir­i­cal­ly wrong.” Some of the respons­es have been amus­ing. “The gloves are off!” wrote one read­er on Twit­ter. “Fight! Fight! Fight!” said anoth­er.

Of course, we should bear in mind that the two celebri­ty intel­lec­tu­als are not real­ly at each oth­er’s throats. Chom­sky gave his brief assess­ment of Žižek and the oth­ers in response to a ques­tion dur­ing a long inter­view back in Decem­ber. Žižek’s remarks were a small part of a two-hour pan­el dis­cus­sion on var­i­ous top­ics. It’s hard to imag­ine either man seething over what the oth­er has said.

Still, the bois­ter­ous­ness of many of the respons­es remind­ed us of the stu­dio audi­ence in this 2009 sketch (above) from The Chaser’s War on Every­thing, an Aus­tralian com­e­dy show. The sketch is a par­o­dy of The Jer­ry Springer Show and the oth­er tabloid TV talk shows that mul­ti­plied like weeds in the 1990s. It’s extreme­ly sil­ly, but good for a laugh.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chom­sky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empir­i­cal­ly Wrong’

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed “Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms”

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky & Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature & Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

 

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’

Zizek_in_Liverpool_

Ear­li­er this month we post­ed an excerpt from an inter­view in which lin­guist Noam Chom­sky slams the Sloven­ian philoso­pher and cul­tur­al crit­ic Slavoj Žižek, along with the late French the­o­rists Jacques Lacan and Jacques Der­ri­da, for cloak­ing triv­ial ideas in obscure and inflat­ed lan­guage to make them seem pro­found.

“There’s no ‘the­o­ry’ in any of this stuff,” Chom­sky says to an inter­view­er who had asked him about the three con­ti­nen­tal thinkers, “not in the sense of the­o­ry that any­one is famil­iar with in the sci­ences or any oth­er seri­ous field. Try to find in all of the work you men­tioned some prin­ci­ples from which you can deduce con­clu­sions, empir­i­cal­ly testable propo­si­tions where it all goes beyond the lev­el of some­thing you can explain in five min­utes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fan­cy words are decod­ed. I can’t. So I’m not inter­est­ed in that kind of pos­tur­ing. Žižek is an extreme exam­ple of it.”

Chom­sky’s remarks sparked a heat­ed debate on Open Cul­ture and else­where. Many read­ers applaud­ed Chom­sky; oth­ers said he just did­n’t get it. On Fri­day, Žižek addressed some of Chom­sky’s crit­i­cisms dur­ing a pan­el dis­cus­sion with a group of col­leagues at the Birk­beck Insti­tute for the Human­i­ties in Lon­don:

Žižek’s remarks about Chom­sky don’t appear until about the one-hour, 30-minute mark, but Sam Bur­gum, a PhD stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of York, has tran­scribed the per­ti­nent state­ments and post­ed them on his site, EsJayBe. Here are the key pas­sages:

What is that about, again, the acad­e­my and Chom­sky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chom­sky, my first point is that Chom­sky, who always empha­sizes how one has to be empir­i­cal, accu­rate, not just some crazy Lacan­ian spec­u­la­tions and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empir­i­cal­ly wrong in his descrip­tions in his what­ev­er! Let’s look… I remem­ber when he defend­ed this demon­stra­tion of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a cou­ple of texts claim­ing: No, this is West­ern pro­pa­gan­da. Khmer Rouge are not as hor­ri­ble as that.” And when lat­er he was com­pelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Uni­verse and so on, his defense was quite shock­ing for me. It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we did­n’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I total­ly reject this line of rea­son­ing.

For exam­ple, con­cern­ing Stal­in­ism. The point is not that you have to know, you have pho­to evi­dence of gulag or what­ev­er. My God you just have to lis­ten to the pub­lic dis­course of Stal­in­ism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that some­thing ter­ri­fy­ing­ly patho­log­i­cal is going on there. For exam­ple, Khmer Rouge: Even if we have no data about their pris­ons and so on, isn’t it in a per­verse way almost fas­ci­nat­ing to have a regime which in the first two years (’75 to ’77) behaved towards itself, treat­ed itself, as ille­gal? You know the regime was name­less. It was called “Angka,” an orga­ni­za­tion — not com­mu­nist par­ty of Cam­bo­dia — an orga­ni­za­tion. Lead­ers were name­less. If you ask “Who is my leader?” your head was chopped off imme­di­ate­ly and so on.

Okay, next point about Chom­sky, you know the con­se­quence of this atti­tude of his empir­i­cal and so on — and that’s my basic dif­fer­ence with him — and pre­cise­ly Corey Robin­son and some oth­er peo­ple talk­ing with him recent­ly con­firmed this to me. His idea is today that cyn­i­cism of those in pow­er is so open that we don’t need any cri­tique of ide­ol­o­gy, you reach symp­to­mati­cal­ly between the lines, every­thing is cyn­i­cal­ly open­ly admit­ted. We just have to bring out the facts of peo­ple. Like “This com­pa­ny is prof­it­ing in Iraq” and so on and so on. Here I vio­lent­ly dis­agree.

First, more than ever today, our dai­ly life is ide­ol­o­gy. how can you doubt ide­ol­o­gy when rec­nt­ly I think Paul Krug­man pub­lished a rel­a­tive­ly good text where he demon­strat­ed how this idea of aus­ter­i­ty, this is not even good bour­geois eco­nom­ic the­o­ry! It’s a kind of a pri­mor­dial, com­mon-sense mag­i­cal think­ing when you con­front a cri­sis, “Oh, we must have done some­thing wrong, we spent too much so let’s econ­o­mize and so on and so on.”

My sec­ond point, cyn­i­cists are those who are most prone to fall into illu­sions. Cyn­i­cists are not peo­ple who see things the way they real­ly are and so on. Think about 2008 and the ongo­ing finan­cial cri­sis. It was not cooked up in some crazy wel­fare state; social democ­rats who are spend­ing too much. The cri­sis explod­ed because of activ­i­ty of those oth­er cyn­i­cists who pre­cise­ly thought “screw human rights, screw dig­ni­ty, all that maters is,” and so on and so on.

So as this “prob­lem” of are we study­ing the facts enough I claim emphat­i­cal­ly more than ever “no” today. And as to pop­u­lar­i­ty, I get a lit­tle bit annoyed with this idea that we with our deep sophisms are real­ly hege­mon­ic in the human­i­ties. Are peo­ple crazy? I mean we are always mar­gin­al. No, what is for me real aca­d­e­m­ic hege­mo­ny: it’s bru­tal. Who can get aca­d­e­m­ic posts? Who can get grants, foun­da­tions and so on? We are total­ly mar­gin­al­ized here. I mean look at my posi­tion: “Oh yeah, you are a mega-star in Unit­ed States.” Well, I would like to be because I would like pow­er to bru­tal­ly use it! But I am far from that. I react so like this because a cou­ple of days ago I got a let­ter from a friend in Unit­ed States for whom I wrote a let­ter of rec­om­men­da­tion, and he told me “I did­n’t get the job, not in spite of your let­ter but because of your let­ter!” He had a spy in the com­mit­tee and this spy told him “You almost got it, but then some­body says “Oh, if Žižek rec­om­mends him it must be some­thing ter­ri­bly wrong with him.”

So I claim that all these “how pop­u­lar we are” is real­ly a mask of… remem­ber the large major­i­ty of acad­e­mia are these gray either cog­ni­tivists or his­to­ri­ans blah blah… and you don’t see them but they are the pow­er. They are the pow­er. On the oth­er hand, why are they in pow­er wor­ried? Because you know… don’t exag­ger­ate this left­ist para­noia idea that  “we can all be recu­per­at­ed” and so on and so on. No! I still quite naive­ly believe in the effi­cien­cy of the­o­ret­i­cal think­ing. It’s not as sim­ple as to recu­per­ate every­thing in. But you know there are dif­fer­ent strate­gies of how to con­tain us. I must say that I maybe am not inno­cent in this, because peo­ple like to say about me, “Oh, go and lis­ten to him, he is an amus­ing clown blah blah blah.” This is anoth­er way to say “Don’t take it seri­ous­ly.”

via Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life

Relat­ed con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Noam Chom­sky Calls Post­mod­ern Cri­tiques of Sci­ence Over-Inflat­ed ‘Poly­syl­lab­ic Tru­isms’

John Sear­le on Fou­cault and the Obscu­ran­tism in French Phi­los­o­phy

Phi­los­o­phy with a South­ern Drawl: Rick Rod­er­ick Teach­es Der­ri­da, Fou­cault, Sartre and Oth­ers

Down­load 90 Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es and Start Liv­ing the Exam­ined Life

Hannah Arendt Discusses Philosophy, Politics & Eichmann in Rare 1964 TV Interview

Han­nah Arendt’s work has come under some crit­i­cal fire late­ly, what with the release of the Mar­garethe Von Trot­ta-direct­ed biopic, star­ring Ger­man actress Bar­bara Sukowa as the con­tro­ver­sial polit­i­cal the­o­rist. At issue in the film and the sur­round­ing com­men­tary are Arendt’s (alleged­ly mis­lead­ing) char­ac­ter­i­za­tions of the sub­ject of her 1963 book Eich­mann in Jerusalem, as well as her ambivalent—some have said cal­lous, even “victim-blaming”—treatment of oth­er Jews. None of these con­tro­ver­sies are new, how­ev­er. As Arendt schol­ar Roger Berkowitz notes in a recent New York Times edi­to­r­i­al, at the time of her book’s pub­li­ca­tion, “Near­ly every major lit­er­ary and philo­soph­i­cal fig­ure in New York chose sides in what the writer Irv­ing Howe called a ‘civ­il war’ among New York intel­lec­tu­als.”

While acknowl­edg­ing Arendt’s flaws, Berkowitz seeks to exon­er­ate the best-known con­cept that emerged from her work on Eichmann’s tri­al, the “banal­i­ty of evil.” And while it can be com­fort­ing to have an inter­preter explain, and defend, the work of a major, con­tro­ver­sial, thinker, there is no intel­lec­tu­al sub­sti­tute for engag­ing with the work itself.

In the age of the media interview—radio, tele­vi­sion, pod­cast and otherwise—one can usu­al­ly see and hear an author explain her views in per­son. And so we have the inter­view above (in Ger­man with Eng­lish sub­ti­tles), in which Arendt sits with tele­vi­sion pre­sen­ter and jour­nal­ist Gunter Gaus for a Ger­man pro­gram called Zur Per­son (The Per­son), a Char­lie Rose-like show that fea­tured celebri­ties, impor­tant thinkers, and politi­cians (includ­ing an appear­ance by Hen­ry Kissinger).

A blog­ger at Jew­ish Phi­los­o­phy Place writes that Arendt’s interview—a tran­script of which was lat­er pub­lished in The Portable Han­nah Arendt as “What Remains? Lan­guage Remains”—is “slow and delib­er­a­tive, not sharp and declar­a­tive, mov­ing in cir­cles, not straight lines.” The inter­view touch­es on a vari­ety of top­ics, draw­ing on ideas expressed in Arendt’s ear­li­er works, The Ori­gins of Total­i­tar­i­an­ism and The Human Con­di­tion. She is some­what cagey when it comes to the so-called “Eich­mann Con­tro­ver­sy,” and she may have had per­son­al as well as pro­fes­sion­al rea­sons for indi­rec­tion. Her affair with her for­mer pro­fes­sor, avowed and unre­pen­tant Nazi Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger, dogged her post-war career, and the afore­men­tioned intel­lec­tu­al “civ­il war” prob­a­bly increased her cir­cum­spec­tion.

Arendt’s crit­ics, then and now, often remark upon what the Jew­ish Phi­los­o­phy Place writer suc­cinct­ly calls her “dis­dain for oth­ers.” While the new biopic (trail­er above) may obscure much of this crit­i­cal controversy—unfilmable as such things are anyway—readers wish­ing to under­stand one of the Holocaust’s most famous inter­preters should read, and hear, her in her own words before mak­ing any judg­ments.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Han­nah Arendt’s Orig­i­nal Arti­cles on “the Banal­i­ty of Evil” in the New York­er Archive

Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Talks About Lan­guage, Being, Marx & Reli­gion in Vin­tage 1960s Inter­views

Down­load 90 Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es and Start Liv­ing the Exam­ined Life

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Noam Chomsky Calls Postmodern Critiques of Science Over-Inflated “Polysyllabic Truisms”

To the delight and sat­is­fac­tion of hun­dreds of our read­ers, we recent­ly fea­tured an inter­view in which Noam Chom­sky slams post­mod­ernist intel­lec­tu­als like Slavoj Zizek and Jacques Lacan as “char­la­tans” and posers. The turn against post­mod­ernism has been long in com­ing, a back­lash the polit­i­cal right has made the­ater of for years, but that thinkers on the polit­i­cal left, like anar­chist Chom­sky, Marx­ist Vivek Chib­ber, and self-described “old left­ist” Alan Sokal have pur­sued with just as much vig­or (and more rig­or). In the inter­view clip above, Chom­sky makes a blan­ket cri­tique of what the inter­view­er calls the “left crit­i­cism of sci­ence” as impe­ri­al­ist, racist, sex­ist, etc. His answers shed quite a bit of light on what Chom­sky per­ceives as the polit­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions of post­mod­ern thought as well as the ori­gins of the dis­course.

Chom­sky char­ac­ter­izes left­ist post­mod­ern aca­d­e­mics as “a cat­e­go­ry of intel­lec­tu­als who are undoubt­ed­ly per­fect­ly sin­cere” (I sus­pect this is a bit of unchar­ac­ter­is­tic politesse on his part). Nonethe­less, in his cri­tique, such thinkers use “poly­syl­lab­ic words and com­pli­cat­ed con­struc­tions” to make claims that are “all very inflat­ed” and which have “a ter­ri­ble effect on the third world.” Chom­sky argues (as does Chib­ber) that “in the third world, pop­u­lar move­ments real­ly need seri­ous intel­lec­tu­als to par­tic­i­pate. If they’re all rant­i­ng post­mod­ernists… well, they’re gone.” His assess­ment of post­mod­ern cri­tiques of sci­ence echoes his crit­i­cism of Zizek and Lacan. (Chom­sky appears to use the words “poly­syl­lab­ic” and “mono­syl­lab­ic” as terms for jar­gon vs. ordi­nary lan­guage.):

It’s con­sid­ered very left wing, very advanced. Some of what appears in it sort of actu­al­ly makes sense, but when you repro­duce it in mono­syl­la­bles, it turns out to be tru­isms. It’s per­fect­ly true that when you look at sci­en­tists in the West, they’re most­ly men, it’s per­fect­ly true that women have had a hard time break­ing into the sci­en­tif­ic fields, and it’s per­fect­ly true that there are insti­tu­tion­al fac­tors deter­min­ing how sci­ence pro­ceeds that reflect pow­er struc­tures. All of this can be described lit­er­al­ly in mono­syl­la­bles, and it turns out to be tru­isms. On the oth­er hand, you don’t get to be a respect­ed intel­lec­tu­al by pre­sent­ing tru­isms in mono­syl­la­bles.

This last point is some­thing Chom­sky elab­o­rates on as the impe­tus for post-struc­tural­ism in the acad­e­my, say­ing “it’s pret­ty easy to fig­ure out what’s going on. Sup­pose you’re a lit­er­ary schol­ar…. If you do your work seri­ous­ly, that’s fine, but you don’t get any prizes for it.” He makes the claim that human­i­ties schol­ars use mys­ti­fy­ing jar­gon and cook up “the­o­ry” in order to com­pete with the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cists and math­e­mati­cians, who get prizes, grants, and pres­tige for advanc­ing incred­i­bly com­pli­cat­ed sci­en­tif­ic work.

Even more than this gen­er­al accu­sa­tion against the­o­rists in the human­i­ties, Chom­sky makes the polit­i­cal point that French intel­lec­tu­als in Paris, “the cen­ter of the rot,” were the last group of left­ists to be ded­i­cat­ed, “flam­ing” Stal­in­ists and Maoists. In order to save face, such peo­ple had to sud­den­ly become “the first peo­ple in the world to have dis­cov­ered the gulags.” It’s a very damn­ing char­ac­ter­i­za­tion, and one he could no doubt sup­port, as he does all of his claims, with a dizzy­ing num­ber of spe­cif­ic exam­ples, though he declines to name names here. He does, how­ev­er, ref­er­ence Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s sad­ly out-of-print  Intel­lec­tu­al Impos­tures, a book that patient­ly expos­es French post-struc­tural­ist thinkers’ abuse of sci­en­tif­ic con­cepts. (Sokal, a physics pro­fes­sor, famous­ly punked a well-regard­ed human­i­ties jour­nal in the mid-nineties with a pho­ny arti­cle).

Chom­sky’s cranky con­trar­i­an­ism is noth­ing new, and some of his polemic recalls the ana­lyt­ic case against “con­ti­nen­tal” phi­los­o­phy or Karl Pop­per’s case against pseu­do-sci­ence, although his invest­ment is polit­i­cal as much as philo­soph­i­cal. The inter­view­er then moves on to reli­gion. Chomsky’s thoughts on that sub­ject are gen­er­al­ly nuanced and fair-mind­ed, but we don’t get to hear them here, alas, though he’s had plen­ty to say else­where.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Noam Chom­sky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Emp­ty ‘Pos­tur­ing’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chom­sky & Michel Fou­cault Debate Human Nature & Pow­er on Dutch TV, 1971

Noam Chom­sky Spells Out the Pur­pose of Edu­ca­tion

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast