What is Deleuze?

[josef k.]

What is Bataille?

Human sacrifice, bloodthirsty suns, Aztec hieroglyphics, excellent pornography.

I will simply state, without waiting further, that the extension of economic growth itself requires the overturning of economic principles—the overturning of the ethics that grounds them. Changing from the perspectives of restrictive economy to those of general economy actually accomplishes a Copernican transformation: a reversal of thinking—and of ethics. If a part of wealth (subject to a rough estimate) is doomed to destruction or at least to unproductive use without any possible profit, it is logical, even inescapable, to surrender commodities without return. Henceforth, leaving aside pure and simple dissipation, analogous to the construction of the Pyramids, the possibility of pursuing growth is itself subordinated to giving: The industrial development of the entire world demands of Americans that they lucidly grasp the necessity, for an economy such as theirs, of having a margin of profitless operations. An immense industrial network cannot be managed in the same way that one changes a tire... It expresses a circuit of cosmic energy on which it depends, which it cannot limit, and whose laws it cannot ignore without consequences. Woe to those who, to the very end, insist on regulating the movement that exceeds them with the narrow mind of the mechanic who changes a tire.

 

[josef k.]

Getting back to power blocks...

‘It’s just the simple thing that’s hard, so hard to do’

The BIH, or Boys’ Institute for the Humanities, as the Birkbeck Institute is widely known, has had a coming of age – that is to say, gender. Long-simmering complaints in the College over the apparent inability of the Institute’s directors (Žižek and Douzinas) to think of women who might have something to contribute to its extensive programming finally boiled over when the Club’s international division (Žižekian) could muster only one female speaker among the thirteen it advertised for ‘On the Idea of Communism’. Given the publicity surrounding the event, and the already-existing disquiet about the conference organizers’ proud declaration of unanimity among all the speakers, in advance, on one ‘precise and strong thesis’, this was finally something that the Institute’s steering committee could no longer ignore.

It agreed to set guidelines for organizers of future events requiring them to ensure that speaker lists do not ‘over-represent’ any particular group. No sooner said than undone: the Institute then went on to advertise a debate on Cosmopolitanism (for the weekend prior to the Communism event) without a single woman speaker, leaving the director scrambling around for excuses, about how precipitate publication of the programme (ten days before the event) had given the impression that there were no women speakers, when there was actually to be… one more added to the publicity.

This is not just an institutional issue for Birkbeck, of course, but a symptom of the political culture surrounding the Žižek–Badiou ‘Gang of Two’, for whom the whole thirty-year period of the New Left must be travestied and its political gains forgotten (feminism, anyone?) – especially within the Left itself – in order to clear the ground for the ‘return to reason’ represented by the latest French philosophico-political vanguard.

Institutional anxiety about the event was intensified when the combination of its success at attracting an audience and its pricing policy (£100 and £45 for students) placed the Idea of Communism in danger of looking like it was even more in tune with the times than it realized: to wit, a cynical and hypercritical financial scam. But when a group of students gave advance warning of interrupting proceedings they were quickly bought off with the promise of a free live video room and a little platform time.

By the time the day arrived, an alternative, ‘updated’ programme had been composed (it is said by students at SOAS). This sprinkled women speakers in among the boys throughout and replaced Badiou’s Introduction and Žižek’s final remarks with talks by Stuart Hall and Sandra Harding, respectively; adding for good measure, Subcomandante Marcos on ‘Intergalactic Decentralized Communism’, a Skills Sharing Workshop on ‘Alter-Communisms!’ and a concluding ‘Collective Trance: Channelling Karl Marx’. Jean-Luc Nancy, whose participation had been heralded as his being ‘in attendance’ throughout, but not speaking from the platform – in the end, he was unable to make it – was to be joined by Christine Delphy and ‘members of migrant and feminist groups’.

Thus, for the first day, Angela Davis on ‘Women, Race and Class’, Lynne Segal on ‘What Feminism Did to Communism’ and Nancy Hartsock on ‘The Proliferation of Radical Standpoints’ interspersed themselves between Michael Hardt, Bruno Bosteels and Peter Hallward. At the conference itself, Hardt acknowledged at the outset of his talk that this would certainly have been a more interesting event. But he spoilt that a bit by then emphasizing, US-style, how much his thought owed to the women speakers on the ‘fantasy’ programme – sending some bemused listeners back for another look at the index of Empire. Day two saw Silvia Federici and Vandana Shiva offering papers on ‘Creating Communities of Care’ and ‘Ecofeminism and the Challenge to Western Communism’; with Sheila Rowbotham teaming up with Huw Beynon to oppose Rancière’s ‘Communism without Communists?’ with ‘Communists without Communism’, and Hilary and Steven Rose sympathizing, ‘Alas Poor Marx’. (It was a characteristic feature of the conference itself that few of the speakers dwelt on Marx, to the puzzlement and annoyance of a large section of the audience. There is little room for Marx when Badiou is setting the agenda for unanimous agreement.) The programme for the final day pitched Donna Haraway (‘On Interspecies Communism’) against Vattimo’s ‘Weak Communists’, and bell hooks (‘Ain’t I a Communist?’) against Balso’s Badiou masquerade, ‘Communism: A Hypothesis for Philosophy, An Impossible Name for Politics?’

All of which leaves a question hanging in the air: who are the more imaginative political thinkers: Badiou, Žižek, Rancière, Negri and the rest, or the anonymous students of SOAS? It’s not hard to imagine what even old Bertie Brecht would have answered to that.

VIA

 

[poetix]

That's what opinions are, self-righteous, self-serving, and severely limited by individual experiences.

Then the question "do you have any opinions that aren't..." is somewhat otiose, isn't it?

Do you have any points to make that aren't just expressions of general truculence and resentment?

 

[josef k.]

Heretics are resentful and truculent.

 

[scottdisco]

Such as his professions of support for Mao and Pol Pot...

really?

wow.

what a cunt.

 

[rockypoppy2]

How can you expect people to be "curious" and interested in becoming more "curious" about things like books (which cost money and if not that precious time) when they can't even afford to eat, their neighborhood is a war zone, their kids are on their way to jail, or they are, and they have to work several jobs to stay afloat, etc?

i think thats a bit naive

 

[nomadthethird]

Then the question "do you have any opinions that aren't..." is somewhat otiose, isn't it?

It's a question of degree.

Do you have any points to make that aren't just expressions of general truculence and resentment?

Probably not.

I think it's telling that a thread called "What is Deleuze?", a very strangely worded question, ends up focusing almost entirely on Badiou. Maybe the flavor of the month has changed.

 

[nomadthethird]

i think thats a bit naive

i think its a bit naive to expect everyone with "curiosity" to like ontology, but maybe that's just my personal downfall

i have a lot of character flaws

including but not limited to:

not taking the internet dead seriously
not giving a shit about other peoples' pieties and sacred cows
not thinking my interests are universal
not privileging intellect over every other quality a creature might have
in general, not respecting the "important" things enough

i also think it's naive to talk as if human "curiosity" actually accomplishes anything, but see above for why.

 

[nomadthethird]

I guess all of those single moms should be saving up 10 hours of their minimum wage pay to afford the latest Toscano masterpiece or other similar shining beacon of human achievement.

It's so naive of me to think they might have more pressing financial matters to attend to.

 

[poetix]

i think thats a bit naive

I call this the "not in the slums of Calcutta!" troll.

It goes like this:

A: Playing chess is good - it's a fun social activity that also teaches mental discipline. Once you understand chess, you have a deeper insight into strategic thinking...
B: Pah! Chess is an elite passtime! It takes years to become a grandmaster! Very few people have that kind of time. How dare you look down on people just because they haven't had the opportunities you've had to enjoy the game of chess!
A: Actually, it's quite easy to pick up the rudiments - you don't have to be a grandmaster to play. Most people could learn to play chess if they wanted to.
B: Not in the slums of Calcutta*!

* Or the mean streets of Baltimore...

 

[nomadthethird]

VIA

But Josef, all of that "identity" stuff, you know that Cosmo magazine female rights bullshit those disgusting American feminists engage in, is so LIBERAL and decadent. After the revolution comes, there will be no need for worrying about trifling issues like "consensual" sex, since there will be a universal standard for sexual conduct that the Politburo will draft up and enforce at all times using bedroom surveillance cams and violence when necessary. There will be no need for feminism (ick, so much estrogen, so trivial, all of that talk about "gender" versus "sex"). Women are most of them incapable of being "pure" intellectuals, who tackle the real philosophical issues--i.e. the UNIVERSAL ones. Leave that to the real thinkers, who know how to discuss how many fairies speak Being on the head of a pin.

Everyone will be so happy to churn out manual labor that all of these issues of identity will simply melt away in the blood, sweat, and tears of das Volk. We will all be one under the new Fuhrer. The poets will summarily be sent to slowly work themselves to death in camps, and we will be FREE, and everything will finally be equal.

 

[nomadthethird]

I call this the "not in the slums of Calcutta!" troll.

It goes like this:

A: Playing chess is good - it's a fun social activity that also teaches mental discipline. Once you understand chess, you have a deeper insight into strategic thinking...
B: Pah! Chess is an elite passtime! It takes years to become a grandmaster! Very few people have that kind of time. How dare you look down on people just because they haven't had the opportunities you've had to enjoy the game of chess!
A: Actually, it's quite easy to pick up the rudiments - you don't have to be a grandmaster to play. Most people could learn to play chess if they wanted to.
B: Not in the slums of Calcutta*!

* Or the mean streets of Baltimore...

Yes, how dare someone point out that "intellectual" pursuits might be less important than old white men think they are. The Central Committee won't have it!

 

[nomadthethird]

It's a good thing there are all of these deeply engaged leftists around to make sure that everybody has time and money to do the really important things--like worship Old Dead Whitey, and conform to the lofty standards of his institutions like the academy.

We have the Left alone to thank for any advance in the human condition, obvs.

 

[nomadthethird]

A: Playing chess is good - it's a fun social activity that also teaches mental discipline. Once you understand chess, you have a deeper insight into strategic thinking...

I'm pretty sure the latest in cognitive science more or less proves that being good at playing chess is not that big of a deal, and doesn't really apply to much but being good at playing chess, and that the skills that chess requires have little to nothing to do with "strategic thinking".

 

[josef k.]

The problem is, Badiou is defensible.

It's just the present company lack the self-understanding, humility and wit to do the job.

 

[nomadthethird]

The problem is, Badiou is defensible.

It's just the present company lack the self-understanding, humility and wit to do the job.

For me it's like, the set theory stuff is decent reading, it's plausible as a revival of Royal Philosophy if a little dry, and then there's the stuff on politics and the role of philosophy/art/love/science in the world-cum-events, then there's the political commitments and allegiances, and the three seem so disjointed and out of synch. If philosophy is just supposed to hang back and survey things and make pronouncements about the Forms or whatever, why are Badiou readers so convinced that anyone who disagrees on any level with Badiou is their political enemy. Perhaps it's not entirely Badiou's fault that there's a disconnect.

Then there are the ludicrously indefensible and ridiculous PR junket statements he's made that I tend to ignore. Most philosophers have those, just like most Hollywood actors or musicians do, so you take them with the salt they deserve.* It's how visibility perserves itself.

*Professor Griff, for instance

 

[josef k.]

I have to go to the world-cum-events now.

 

[nomadthethird]

Anyone who really cares about philosophy, or who is a sincere Leftist, you'd think, would be happy to admit at least this much:

-that philosophy is a leisure class activity. (Or does class suddenly and magically go poof when "intellectuals" are involved?)

-that being philosophical, Badiou's work is going to invite criticism, revision, disagreement, and counterarguments. There's nothing instantly heretical about questions as to the importance of reviving Platonism. From a philosophical perspective, it's the most obvious begged question, yet I still haven't heard any coherent answer as to why this is a Good Thing.

I waste more time than anyone. I'm not saying there's something wrong with wasting time. But it does seem completely hypocritical and lacking in broader awareness that some people who criticize anyone who doesn't buy into their particular ideological blend of Marxism with Maoism/vanguardism at the same time consider their own leisure class activities more elevated and politically righteous than everyone else's. It's so middle school.

 

[nomadthethird]

I have to go to the world-cum-events now.

I have to go to the world-cum-TV and eat lots of saturated fats now.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I call this the "not in the slums of Calcutta!" troll.

It goes like this:

A: Playing chess is good - it's a fun social activity that also teaches mental discipline. Once you understand chess, you have a deeper insight into strategic thinking...
B: Pah! Chess is an elite passtime! It takes years to become a grandmaster! Very few people have that kind of time. How dare you look down on people just because they haven't had the opportunities you've had to enjoy the game of chess!
A: Actually, it's quite easy to pick up the rudiments - you don't have to be a grandmaster to play. Most people could learn to play chess if they wanted to.
B: Not in the slums of Calcutta*!

* Or the mean streets of Baltimore...

I bet if you looked, you'd find chess players in the slums of Calcutta.

Yes, how dare someone point out that "intellectual" pursuits might be less important than old white men think they are. The Central Committee won't have it!

Not that chess is synonymous with intellectual pursuits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of chess players around the world are neither white (China, India, Middle East?) nor old - some may even be female.

A great many white males in Britain, both young and old, consider an interest in intellectual pursuits to be symptomatic of being sad, a nerd and very probably a poof to boot (or to sneer at, at any rate).