[FRA:] From Hegel to Madonna

[matthew piscioneri]

But, aren't the latest intellectual fads and wasting students' time exactly the point of the fetish of the new? The fetish of the new is one of a number of necessary illusions to prevent the great unwashed masses from realizing there is nothing new under the sun...that life is essentially meaningless....too much of an apocalyptic realization for any regime of social consciousness to tolerate? Or perhaps: too much Enlightenment? Very dangerous to do away with the fetish of the new. Surely the fetish of the new is just one small part of the great big (ig)noble lie :-). 
 
Isn't the point that we eternally stand on the brink of just a little bit of sense and sensibility and a f*^king great abyss of chaos and moral disaster? Letting people believe in the "new" has been relatively successful in the modern era....and let's not forget the fetish of the new, of progress is a particular innovation of Modernity as Hegel would have it. Trouble is, as we all know, the useful fetish becomes a destructive dogma...newness, progress and reason is ecumenicalized :-). The path of Enlightenment is in the irreconcilable...in the anxiety of the eternal paradox...of finally laughter at the impossibility of getting IT right. 
 
cheers,
 
MP> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:25:48 -0500> To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org> From: rdumain at autodidactproject.org> Subject: Re: [FRA:] From Hegel to Madonna> > That's old news, as far as popular culture goes. Maybe it's > relatively new with respect to the academic wing of the knowledge > industry, in search of the latest intellectual fad while torturing > students and wasting people's time.> > At 02:18 PM 1/22/2009, James Rovira wrote:> >I beginning to think our real fetish is the fetish of the new. The new> >insight, the new critique, the new development, the new concept.> >> >Jim R> >> >On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ralph Dumain <> >rdumain at autodidactproject.org> wrote:> >> > > I don't know what to make of this, but I read that Adorno figures> > > into this analysis.> > >> > >