If I had known I’d spend the last hours of Sunday night and well onto sunrise Monday morning looking after a sick friend (don't worry — no one is dead and those who needed to get better are getting better), I would have saved the speculations on Doctor Who to update for yesterday. Then, that’s the nature of the unexpected.
Just a brief note today, a hodgepodge of events from the last few days. I’ve finalized the cover design of Under the Trees, Eaten, and have secured the required legal release forms so that everything can be used properly. While I’m sad my feminist Lovecraftian horror tale couldn’t drop in time for Halloween, I’m sure plenty of folks will enjoy some eldritch horror for the Xmas holidays, as we should be on track for a release in the last weeks of this year.
Regarding my philosophy work, I’ve reached a bit of an impasse regarding my research. I’m about to start my investigation into Hannah Arendt’s historical works on totalitarian politics (The Origins of Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem), where my previous engagement with her work has focussed more on her strictly philosophical contributions (The Human Condition, The Life of the Mind, and the Kant lectures). I had originally hoped that Jean-Paul Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason could supply a basic storehouse of some useful concepts for my utopias project, but I find his project too mired in the Marxist tradition.
 |
| Marx's ideas have such ubiquity in the history of radical leftist philosophy, that he seems to quash all alternatives, even when the object of ridicule. |
This last principle may be the philosophical cornerstone of fascism. I'm tempted to say that, but I'm not sure if I want to make it a definitive statement until I can put it at a climax of a completed and published utopias project book.
The more I think about this project, it’s the works of the peaceful anarchist tradition (authors like Mikhail Bakhunin and Peter Kropotkin) that have more potential in this regard. And Arendt’s historical-political work may also offer hints for goals in civil society. My work in philosophy of science has hit a strange head-scratching moment from which I’m not sure how to move on (more about this later, I think, as it develops). But my political work at least has some momentum. Same with my meta-philosophical work, but again, that’s for later.
"His tradition is useful in some respects, but also too statist, not truly attentive to the power of individuals to constitute society. Yes, individuals act in Marxism, but that action only counts insofar as it constitutes a group which subsumes individual identity to its unity. Marx, and therefore all the philosophies that follow the Marxist tradition, have that same dangerous tendency I can call Old Hegelian: that the individual is only truly free when acting in the unity of his state. "
ReplyDeleteThis is highly inaccurate, vague, and generalized concept of Marxism, Adam. Having read Sartre's work, I know you're aware that Marxism as a tradition is as trenched with various factions, sub-groups, and internal tension as Feminism is. So to categorize Marxism as being Statist is a blanket statement that doesn't really explain what you mean.
However, you hit on another aspect of the problem with Marxism, which is why I'm laying the tradition aside for the utopias project. There are simply too many factions, breaks, and divisions within Marxist thought for me to sort through quickly without an army of TAs. Because I don't want to make my entire research career revolve around Marxism, I simply decided not to navigate this jungle. I want to be able to produce the Utopias project by about 2017/8, not have it be the culmination of an entire life's work in which I immersed myself in Marxist studies to the detriment of everything else in philosophy, art, and life.
DeleteThe truth is, after some contemplation and spirited argumentation with you, among others, Borna, I simply don't want to get into Marxism anymore. Aside from my recent Sartre research, my reading of Marxism was pretty much Marx. To speak for myself, I found his ideas very insightful (especially the diagnoses of the hideous social problems of 19th century Europe, and some of his thoughts on the false production of financial manipulation in the later chapters of Capital, though my memories of this latter are pretty hazy). But there was a lot of focus, as was the fashion of the 19th century, on transforming the state, and the importance of the state in controlling the development of the people. Never mind the whole idea that the state "withers away." I have yet to work out precisely how that would happen. If you have any articles on you where people analyze this withering process, do please send the pdfs my way. I'd love to read them, and since leaving McMaster's employ, my access to browse journal archives at my leisure has been cut off.
We know from history that Marx-inspired governments tended to totalitarianism in practice. This is why I'm moving into Arendt's historical works: because the lure of totalitarianism seems to be stronger in state politics than the move to decentralization and democratic utopias.
Where Sartre caught my attention most, it was his analyses of people spontaneously organizing for practical action. This is a mode of action that anarchist theories seem to focus on. This kind of spontaneous organization is also at the heart of fascist theory: in its Italian birthplace, fascism was conceived as a kind of mass democracy, more democratic than representative assemblies. I think this tension of anarchy and fascismo is more appropriate to what I want to explore in the Utopias project.
I agree with you there. Marxism is a black hole that sucks everything and everyone into it. It's an abyss and very frustrating, actually. But I am glad to hear that you're not abandoning your project entirely. Keep it up! The intersection of philosophy and social change is crucial and we always need more exploration of it, not less.
ReplyDelete