I wanted to call attention to two recent texts I've read on the internet (both found via Graham Harman) that your "forgetting/stupidity" post put me in mind of. The first is a blog post which has created a bit of a furor in the SR community, comparing Harman's mode of philosophizing to a Ponzi scheme, essentially claiming that it's just playing on people's willingness to invest in a new philosophical movement without regard for "securing the assets," as it were (i.e. making sure the philosophy on offer is coherent). And the other is this review of Hardt and Negri's Commonwealth and Žižek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce by the conservative political philosopher John Gray in the Independent, in which he basically claims that their critique of capitalism and proposed return to "the communist hypothesis" is itself conditioned by the decline of historical memory under late capitalism, because they've clearly forgotten all about totalitarianism. (How's that for dialectic?)I just wanted to point out that both are good examples of what Norbert in Aramis derides as "crude sociology." In both cases, the authors produce a dense, oily substance that has its uses, but that is perhaps too effective, not specific or refined enough, for the particular critical purpose they're using it for. That is, do we need SR to reflect the structure of financialization in order to criticize its philosophical claims as excessive? Do we need contemporary communism to have literally "forgotten history" in order to disagree with its visions of what is to be done? As Latour would surely point out, these are perfectly symmetrical strategies taken up by the right and by the left. It's not ideology, or stupidity, that's clouding anybody's judgment here: if anything, it's the knee-jerk habit of accusing one's opponent of being blinded by ideology, or being stupid, or having "forgotten history." And it is assuming, as Norbert steadfastly refuses to assume, that you yourself could have "done better."
So it's not that Latour likes, or advocates, forgetting or stupidity (which, unless I'm misreading you, is something you're a bit worried about). But he does think that forgetting and stupidity are so inevitable, omnipresent, and equally shared that it's just not a good rhetorical strategy to accuse others of it. There's clearly an ethical dimension to this way of looking at arguments, and it may help account for Latour's differences and similarities with Nietzsche (a fascinating topic which I hope we can talk about more at some point), who does actually think that, under certain circumstances, forgetting history is a good thing.
7 comments:
Evan: "I just wanted to point out that both are good examples of what Norbert in Aramis derides as "crude sociology." In both cases, the authors produce a dense, oily substance that has its uses, but that is perhaps too effective, not specific or refined enough, for the particular critical purpose they're using it for. That is, do we need SR to reflect the structure of financialization in order to criticize its philosophical claims as excessive?"
Kvond: As the author of the first post (too effective, oily substance), I'm not sure I follow your point. I have criticized Harman's philosophical claims rather deeply, but part of this criticism is based upon his embrace of some rather problematic social phenomena, for instance his ADMITTED embrace of Orientalism. The role that an orientalism plays in his metaphysics (central to his theory of causation), must also be place in context of real world orientalism (the way that we project certain positive qualities upon those in the East), and even the realization that Harman himself Orientalizes (exoticizes) Egypt, where he lives and works. It would seem that this actually would make a very good sociology, connecting Harman's social/political place in the world to the kinds of concepts he comes up with when describing the world.
And, while I am not against Speculative thinking in the least, because speculation is exactly that, making certain imaginative leaps and risks, when one speculates it should be marked just as that, something more akin to poeticizing. And poems, pictures are always aesthetically weighed, or weighable, in the context of social values.
Evan writes to me, [I post it here because he is having difficulty]:
Dear Kvond,
I tried to post this in the comments section of my Latour blog, but it doesn't seem to be working for me for some reason. So here it is in e-mail form instead.
It was perhaps unfair of me to refer to your post out of the larger context of your specific critiques of Harman (which I admit I'm not familiar with). I have no doubt that you've engaged in depth with object oriented philosophy (or speculative realism or whatever it's called), and that your objections are in good faith and may have merit.
But with all due respect, I do think that the argument you put forward against Harman in that one post I mentioned is, precisely, crude sociology. Latour uses this term in his book Aramis, or the Love of Technology to describe sociological explanations that are not developed to account for a particular object or case study, but which are as it were available to anybody at any time in order to critique entities in the world from a "sociological" angle.
What you're doing, it seems to me, is "black boxing" (to use another Latour word -- sorry to lean so heavily on his vocabulary, but this is a blog devoted to his work, after all) certain very large sociological and historical concepts like "capitalism" and "Orientalism," which we can all assume to be bad, and simply claiming that Harman's philosophy, by starting out from them or leading toward them, thereby takes on or shares their "problematic" aspects. As with the black box in cybernetics or technology, all we need to know is where a certain entity or sequence (in this case, object oriented philosophy) is headed, or starts out from, in order to know how it works. The only difference is, in the case of cybernetics and technology, we want the entity or sequence in question to work; whereas in the case of ideology critique, we want it to fail.
You're in very good company with this form of argument, by the way: it's been dominant in the humanities (and particularly in English, my own field) for a number of decades now, in part due to the pioneering work of people like Edward Said and, indeed, many sociologists. But it seems to me that it's mostly exhausted these days, in all but a handful of cases. And it's an impoverished notion of sociology that sees it merely as a way to link entities one opposes to this or that "problematic social phenomenon."
Thanks a lot for your comment, though! I hope you'll keep reading, and when I have time I'll go check out what you've written on Harman in the past.
Best,
Evan
I responded:
"Lets put it this way then. I don't don't accept Latour's own "black boxing" of his Theory (and I crtique Latour on several levels). And further my comparison (and it is a comparison, and not a theory) is not a "sociological" explanation, but rather simply an analogy which MIGHT yeild to a sociological explanation. The mode of such an explanation would likely follow something Bourdieu writes of academic journalism:
"The heretical traditions of an institution based on a break with academic routine, and structurally inclined towards pedagogical and academic innovation, lead its members to become the most vigorous defenders of all the values of research, of openness to abroad and of academic modernity; but it is also true that they can encourage to the same extent work based on bogus, fictitious and verbal homage to these values, and that they can encourage members to give prestigious values for a minimum of real cost...The structural ambiguity of the position of the institution reinforces the dispositions of those who are attracted to this very ambiguity, by offering them the possibility and the freedom to live beyond their intellectual means, on credit, so to speak. To all the impatient claimants who, against the long production cycle and longterm investment...have chosen the short production cycle, whose ultimate example is the article in the daily or weekly press, and have given priority to marketing rather than production, journalism offers both a way out and a short cut. It enables them to overcome rapidly and cheaply the gap between aspirations and opportunities by ensuring them a minor form of the renown granted to great scholars and intellectuals; and it can even, at a certain stage in the evolution of the institution towards heteronomy, become a path to promotion within the institution itself."
Indeed it is in the way that Harman has positioned himself, through the invention of Speculative Realism and other sought forms of alliance, in pursuit of Symbolic Capital, that it draws its firmest comparison to Capitalist Speculation. This is emboldened I believe by his adoption of Latour as well (who has arguable connections to Capitalist expansion). I consider Harman's theorizing quite problematic both its levels, the theoretical instantiation of a mediating "exotic other", as well has his "brand name" profusion of alliance building. I have thought hard on his case and have posted the links to over 40 blogged articles on the matter: http://kvond.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/harmans-object-disorientation-anthropomorphism-at-large/. Its enough to say that I have though more than you have on the matter (if only in words). I do not resist people getting excited about Harman, what I resist is essentializing opposition to him in a rather rhetorical way, or praise which is not in some sense founded upon actually understanding his theories.
K."
I should also respond to this:
Evan: "You're in very good company with this form of argument, by the way: it's been dominant in the humanities (and particularly in English, my own field) for a number of decades now, in part due to the pioneering work of people like Edward Said and, indeed, many sociologists. But it seems to me that it's mostly exhausted these days, in all but a handful of cases."
Kvond: This is second time that Said has been invoked in the context of my claim. I should repeat I am not familiar with Said's thinking here, and I don't really care whether I am repeating it. My cricisms of Harman's Orientalism come out of philosophical analysis of his presumptions, as well as an appreciation of his place within a much projected upon "exotic" culture (Egypt). I'm not really interested whether sociologically oriented ones consider this crticism played out or not, since I am not familiar with those arguments. Harman explicitly embraces his Orientalizing as far as it leads an "exoticism", in which he claims that Orientalization is "good". We must BEGIN with Harman's affirmation of Orientalizing.
reposting again, as Evan seems to have problems, Evan writes me]
OK, fine — I accept that your critique of Harman could certainly be developed (or, in Latour's terms, "refined") into a more nuanced sociological explanation along Bourdieusian lines, that would take into account Harman's position in international academic space, his possession of cultural and academic capital, etc. I think that would be interesting, and perhaps it's part of your own project (or something you want to spur other people to do). But even that wouldn't at all invalidate the philosophy; it would just help explain its spread. After all, even "true" theories can always be explained sociologically.
Also, that Bourdieu quote (it's from Homo Academicus, right?) seems misapplied in relation to Harman: Bourdieu is talking about people trying to short-circuit the usual academic routines in search of immediate prestige, and it seems as though Harman has been working within the system (teaching at a university, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, giving conference papers, etc.) Yes, he blogs, but only in addition to this other work. Is any philosophical writing or intellectual engagement outside of traditional academia to be thought of as tantamount to charlatanry or short-cutting? I'm sure you, as a blogger, wouldn't want to say this.
Finally, certainly didn't mean to essentialize you or your position. (For that matter, I have nothing invested in defending Harman: my interest is really in Latour, and I haven't even read much of Harman yet outside of his blog.) I was just using something you wrote as an example. If we can't do that, it seems to me our options for public discourse are pretty limited.
Evan
And I write back:
Hmm. I don't see it. Harman not only works within the "system" he also publishes e-books, contributes to non-institutional journals, and infact inhabits a whole spectrum of official and unofficial, instutional and non-institutional avenues. And by far he has much, much more Symbolic Capital in these non-instutional forms. The Charlantry comes from the way that he leverages Symbolic Capital from the Institutional world (for instance how he parlays weighter, more respected thinkers folded into a movement called SR) into a prestige in the electronic blogged community. By creating the illusion that he is part of a much larger, weightier group of thinkers he gains a kind of gravity in the much lighter ether of blogging. Levi then repeats the same, trying to climb on the back of he who is trying to climb on the back of a certain kind of Symbolic respectability, all the while attempting to evade actual criticism of their work (ignored by institutional philosophy, their work gets a pass, vaguely esteemed by the blogger community, it gets another pass). All in all, Symbolic Capital just starts to accumulate. A Speculative Bubble builds. And as Bourdieu says, these processes can lead to promotion within the institution itself.
As for the truth of Harman's theory, this too I engage. Unfortunately its associated status (between institutional and blogged reality, and as a mere "speculative" position) keeps actually understanding the theory through crticism (questions of its truth) from being central to its embrace.
Aside from this one of the reasons for bringing up the Capitalist Speculative homology is that Levi Bryant who is strongly committed to the support of Harman's Symbolic Capital (an underwriter of a kind), is himself fiercely commited to the fight against Neoliberalism in everywhere corner. There is, in short, a kind of vivid Ideological hypocrisy performed in Levi's embrace of Harman as an ally (and perhaps also in his alliance with Latour).
the best, K
You can see--if I can have the last word here (and it will be the last word--that's what blogs, or at least this blog, is for: moderated, not infinitely open discussion)--how I'd say back at my own blog that this is blurring all the lines too conveniently. Evan, you're exactly right to say the following:
Is any philosophical writing or intellectual engagement outside of traditional academia to be thought of as tantamount to charlatanry or short-cutting? I'm sure you, as a blogger, wouldn't want to say this.
I think our interlocutor here is saying exactly this:
Hmm. I don't see it. Harman not only works within the "system" he also publishes e-books, contributes to non-institutional journals, and infact inhabits a whole spectrum of official and unofficial, instutional and non-institutional avenues.
He does so by means of adjusting the institutional and the non-institutional. In the end, we don't have any objective analysis of a field, but a charge of orientalism/exoticism (without caring what that means--Harman, if I remember right, is merely saying that Western philosophy has closed off the East and should return to it, and the situation is complicated anyway because the Eastern philosophers Harman talks about are, indeed, reading/reinterpreting Aristotle among other things), alongside the notion that "All in all, Symbolic Capital just starts to accumulate," as if Bourdieu thought that wherever it was, it needed also to go away (as if symbolic capital was inherently bad). Thus, blogs are sometimes academic, sometimes not. They're sometimes philosophical, sometimes places for power-grabs. Meanwhile everyone's position in the whole field is apparently known (Levi's gotta say X because he's a Lacanian, etc. etc.)--not because the field is grasped more in terms of its reality/objectivity, but more in terms of how it everywhere needs to be undermined! It seems to me Latour in particular (and Bourdieu when he's understood right) want to clarify precisely this situation. But then again, I didn't know Latour was a fascist either, because his networks were too reversible.
Post a Comment