[FRA:] TELOS 8: (contemporary ideological pollution--2 posts: 04 Feb 2008)

[Ralph Dumain]

[1]

Academia breeds servility, and critical theory does not seem to be
very critical of this or very intellectually independent these
days.  The current fascination with religion, like postmodernism, is
all about the deference and capitulation to power.  That can be seen
in this group as well.  Now critical theory is itself being taken to
be religious, its borrowings from the philosophical right (read
anti-positivism) cemented into a conservative framework for critical
theory itself.  Andrew must be a first class jackass to fancy the
center of "contemporary debate" as anything of any significance
whatever.  I wonder if he's an Obama supporter. Or perhaps a Telos subscriber?

Just look at the silliness of the titles of these conference papers,
as well as the peculiar wording of the theme.  I don't know what
Balibar is up to these days, but what does it mean to re-think
secularism, if not to capitulate to the irrationalist culture of the present?

Actually, the sum total of contemporary rationalism and irrationalism
is a good barometer of a civilization on the brink of
catastrophe.   Of course, if you live a sheltered and privileged
life, you can enjoy your little circle jerk to the max while the
polar bears hang on for dear life.

At 11:56 AM 2/4/2008, Catherine Liu wrote:
 > >
 > >I, among many others, see much to recommend in a critical engagement
 > >with political theology.
 > ><http://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/issues/v30/30n2.Chakrabarty.html>
 > >and a return to modes of universality, for example, but I see little
 > >to recommend in sour, ad hominem snickering from the margins of
 > >contemporary debate.
 > >
 > >Regards,
 > >
 > >Andrew
 > >
 >
 >
 >I am not an extremist about this new romance with political theology
 >and I don't agree with Dumain's and others' characterization of
 >professors as "hacks." I don't have time to expand on my particular
 >objects to the way in which the question of universalism and
 >religious belief have been revived as the MOST theoretical of topics,
 >but let me in very very brief short hand say that my objections have
 >to do with historical materialist concerns -- I welcome discussions
 >of religion and in this sense I invoke once again in short hand a
 >scholarly, more Weberian approach and would engage in serious
 >discussion of these matters, -- what I object to is the
 >superficiality of such debates, especially at Irvine.
 >
 >But I don't know why snickering and marginality are necessarily so
 >objectionable -- the Internets are a good place for this kind of
 >venting.
 >
 >
 >--
 >Catherine Liu
 >Associate Professor
 >Film and Media / Visual Studies
 >Director, Humanities Center
 >235 Humanities Instructional Building
 >University of California, Irvine
 >Irvine, CA  92697-2435
 >tel: (949) 824-2428
 >fax: (949) 824-2464

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2]


Speaking of the catastrophe of everyday life:

Over two decades ago, Russell Jacoby's The Last Intellectuals was
published.  I know some left academics who did not like it--what a
shock that is. Jacoby has something to say beyond the cloistered
snobbishness of the Telos crowd, Piccanose always having been a snob
even before turning to the right and lying about his reasons for it.

But to the point:

Jacoby mentioned a number of factors contributing to the decline of
public intellectuals outside of academia.  One noteworthy factor was
urban geography.  The decline in cheap housing and thus marginal
neighborhoods that could foster a bohemian life and contact between
social classes was seen by Jacoby as a significant contributing cause
of the change.

Now what has happened since then?

On the ostensibly plus side, there is the Internet, which allows
possibilities for intellectual life never before imaginable.  It is
also an e-toilet for the MySpace YouTube generation, but the other
downside relates to urban geography.  A few years ago I could go to
my neighborhood non-corporate-franchised coffee house and schmooze
with other people, mostly but not exclusively of my generation, most
of whom grew up in this city and were accustomed to being friendly to people.

The owners could not afford to keep on doing business in that
location.  It changed hands a couple of times.  Now, my crew has
disappeared from that scene, which is now totally sterile, and the
patrons are all no older than 25, and sit in the coffee shop day and
night with their laptops connected to wi fi, and do not interact
personally except for whichever of their friends happen to be sharing
the laptop.

I might add that I find 20-something professionals generally ignorant
and lacking in perspective, shallow and uninteresting, perfectly
suited to the times we live in.  My guess is they'll vote for Obama,
or maybe Ron Paul.

I also find intellectual life in this city, though abundant due to
the high concentration of allegedly educated people, sterile and
backward, as befits bureaucrats, politicos, and  servants of capital.

Meanwhile, gentrification accelerates, condos are being built at a
prodigious pace, the cost of living is becoming prohibitive, and the
rest of us are going to be living in cardboard boxes before long.

Life in the inner city becomes nastier and nastier.  The church is a
backward institution.  The public school are, as are other city
services, a disgraceful mess.

I try to tell these 20-something little shits that the decline and
future prospective of reason is tied up with the fate of the labor
movement, but since they've never known of unions or industrial
workers, this notion belongs to science fiction.

I think these are Obama's most enthusiastic supporters-young and stupid.

How many obamas does it take to screw in a light bulb?


At 01:00 PM 2/4/2008, Catherine Liu wrote:
 > >Academia breeds servility, and critical theory does not seem to be
 > >very critical of this or very intellectually independent these
 > >days.
 >
 >
 >I agree...
 >
 > >The current fascination with religion, like postmodernism, is
 > >all about the deference and capitulation to power.
 >
 >Mmm..let's say an inability to think about either eclecticism OR
 >religiousity seems to characterize "theory."
 >
 > >   That can be seen
 > >in this group as well.  Now critical theory is itself being taken to
 > >be religious, its borrowings from the philosophical right (read
 > >anti-positivism) cemented into a conservative framework for critical
 > >theory itself.
 >
 >Once again, I would have to agree with Ralph on this.
 >
 > >Andrew must be a first class jackass to fancy the
 > >center of "contemporary debate" as anything of any significance
 > >whatever.
 >
 >This, unfortunately is a symptom on the "insider/outsider" nature of
 >professionalized thinking.
 >
 > >  I wonder if he's an Obama supporter. Or perhaps a Telos subscriber?
 >
 >
 >call me a liberal, but I support Obama and I do think that Telos at
 >times -- not always -- has offered a challenge to Left-wing
 >conformism...
 >
 > >
 > >Just look at the silliness of the titles of these conference papers,
 > >as well as the peculiar wording of the theme.  I don't know what
 > >Balibar is up to these days, but what does it mean to re-think
 > >secularism, if not to capitulate to the irrationalist culture of
 > the present?
 > >
 > >Actually, the sum total of contemporary rationalism and irrationalism
 > >is a good barometer of a civilization on the brink of
 > >catastrophe.
 >
 >Ummm...the catastrophe is everyday life....
 >
 >Catherine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------