Futures and Pasts

Listen to the conference here. .

or stay here and Release the Bats;

Jameson, it seems, was partially right. Not only is Adorno’s relevant now, (or perhaps his relevance is relevant again, according to the new canonization of Late Marxism in the new Verso series of Radical Thinkers) but the proof of this valiance is actualized in Zizek and Davis’s current work. Both of them, and countless others, prove Jameson’s thesis.

This is evident in the newest manifestation of Zizek’s critique of multiculturalism/tolerance/pluralism in his recent articles and talks such as The Liberal Utopia. Here Zizek combines his earlier critique of mulitculturalism/tolerance/pluralism with what I suspect is the argument in his new work, In Defense of Lost Causes.

In these recent articles and talks, Zizek critiques multiculturalism/tolerance/pluralism from the perspective of the lost cause of the universal critique of capitalism. He argues that calls for pluralism and tolerance alleviate the symptoms of racism, sexism etc. without addressing the structure that creates these symptoms. In The Liberal Utopia he identifies this structure as the neo-liberal capitalist totality. He further argues that this totality functions as a negative universality. This makes heterogeneous individuals- interpreted as epiphenomenal by the liberal politics of difference- a fragment or particular aspect of this universality; it makes the politics of difference an expression of capitalism’s antagonisms.

It in this critique of liberal ideology that Zizek meets Adorno. For Adorno’s parenthetical critique of pluralism- in his lectures on History and Freedom- is astonishingly like a synopsis of Zizek’s critique;

“The term ‘pluralism’ is acquiring increasing currency in our own time. It is presumably the ideology describing the centrifugal tendencies of a society that threatens to disintegrate into unreconiled groups under the pressure of its own principles. This is then represented as if it were a state of reconiliation in which people lived together in a harmony while in reality society is full of power struggles. As a minor by-product of these lectures I would like to recommend that you adopt an extremely wary attitude towards the concept of pluralism which, like the similar concept of ’social partners,’ is preached at us on every street corner. To transfigure and ideologize the elements of discontinuity or of social antagonisms in this way is a part of the general ideological trend. In the same way, it is very characteristic of our age that the very factors that threaten to blow up the entire world are represented as the peaceful coexistence of human beings who have become reconciled and have outgrown their conflicts. This is a tendency which barely conceals the fact that mankind is beginning to despair of finding a solution to its disagreements.” (93)

Parallels can also be drawn between this quote and the Angela Davis interview I just linked to. This should not be too surprising considering Davis was in the class the lectures come from. But, I couldn’t help but notice the influence of Adorno in the historical constellation she created to explain institutional racism, sexism, heteroism etc. A constellation which, like Zizek and Adorno, bypasses the liberal reconciliation of tolerance to pierce the negative, universal, heart of the matter.

Those interested in this issue may also be interested in my contribution. There is no way it will compare with Adorno, Zizek or Davis. But, I am set to deliver a paper that applies Adorno’s critique to the work of Kymlycka and Young. I will argue that their models of pluralist democratic theory absorbs previously oppressed groups into the framework that creates these oppressed groups. Thus, rather then addressing the capitalist antagonism that creates these groups, they reconcile these groups with their conditions. Exchange-value is substituted for use-value further perpetuating negative universality. I will close with some thoughts on how to bring about positive universality- i.e. non-capitalist, actual pluralist democracy- by using Zizek, Davis, Badiou, Said and CLR James. Where I will argue that it is not that tolerance/ multiculturalism/ pluralism is not an issue. It obviously is. But, following Cesaire/James and Said, it is imperative to realize that you can’t have a rendezvous without the victory.

“the work of man is only just beginning and it remains to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recess of our passion and no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force, and theres a place for all at the rendezvous of victory.”

listen here, mate.

“The current revival of interest in Bergson is at least partly due to Deleuze’s work. In his lifetime, Bergson was one of the most famous and widely read philosophers in the world, but his influence quickly waned, even in France, to the point that Deleuze would later note that “there are people these days who laugh at me simply for having written about Bergson at all.” Lévi-Strauss perhaps summarized the prevailing opinion in the 1950s when he quipped that Bergson had reduced everything to a state of mush in order to bring out its inherent ineffability.” Intuition is the deus ex machina at the center of the mush.

The Left Forum was replete with ‘68. Some panels examined its legacy, others commemorated it. When I got back from the city I checked out Tariq Ali’s Street Fighting Years and The Autobiography of Angela Davis from the library. I have been meaning to read both for ages, the ‘68 enthusiasm made it happen.

My interest in ‘68 is not purely historical. The events are fascinating on their own. But, I am also interested in the legacy and the parallels ’68’s context has with today.

Tariq Ali’s article on the legacy of ‘68 in today’s Guardian has an excellent discussion of its context and its repercussions. He has this to say about its legacy:

“Were the dreams and hopes of 1968 all idle fantasies? Or did cruel history abort something new that was about to be born? Revolutionaries – utopian anarchists, Fidelistas, Trotskyist allsorts, Maoists of every stripe – wanted the whole forest. Liberals and social democrats were fixated on individual trees. The forest, they warned us, was a distraction, far too vast and impossible to define, whereas a tree was a piece of wood that could be identified, improved and crafted into a chair or a table. Now the tree, too, has gone.

“You’re like fish that only see the bait, never the line,” we would mock in return. For we believed – and still do – that people should not be measured by material possessions but by their ability to transform the lives of others – the poor and underprivileged; that the economy needed to be reorganised in the interests of the many, not the few; and that socialism without democracy could never work. Above all, we believed in freedom of speech.

Much of this seems utopian now and some, for whom 1968 wasn’t radical enough at the time, have embraced the present and, like members of ancient sects who moved easily from ritual debauchery to chastity, now regard any form of socialism as the serpent that tempted Eve in paradise.

The collapse of “communism” in 1989 created the basis for a new social agreement, the Washington Consensus, whereby deregulation and the entry of private capital into hitherto hallowed domains of public provision would become the norm everywhere, making traditional social democracy redundant and threatening the democratic process itself.

Some, who once dreamed of a better future, have simply given up. Others espouse a bitter maxim: unless you relearn you won’t earn. The French intelligentsia, which had from the Enlightenment onwards made Paris the political workshop of the world, today leads the way with retreats on every front. Renegades occupy posts in every west European government defending exploitation, wars, state terror and neocolonial occupations; others now retired from the academy specialise in producing reactionary dross on the blogosphere, displaying the same zeal with which they once excoriated factional rivals on the far left.”

This grim picture sets the scene for addressing the parallels and speculating on why worldwide revolt hasn’t happened.

First and foremost the parallels center on Iraq. Ali’s article mentions the apt slogan Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam. Yet, in many ways the reaction is entirely different. There has been no mainstream anti-war movement that parallels the Vietnam anti-war movement, despite the fact that the majority of the American people now oppose the war. The lack of a mainstream anti-war movement must be influenced by the absence of a draft, which has removed the middle class from direct involvement in the war. There are also surely other important historical factors that mediate the different reaction. But, I also want to suggest that the legacy of ‘68 and the neo-liberal context are profound influences. I think that both inform the legitimation crisis, which is left out of most discussions on resistance and opposition to the Iraq War etc.

This is unfortunate, because I believe the legitimation crisis and its mediating influences explain a lot. For, in addition to the counter-reactionary direction Ali discusses, it seems like one of the main legacies of ‘68 is the belief that the American government, and perhaps government itself, is inherently illegitimate. This seems to be an unintended legacy of the 60’s when many people seem to have been motivated by the belief that the current American governments policies were illegtimate, but that the promise of the American government and the idealism of the American social contract were still legitimate and worth fighting for.

In addition, neoliberalism’s credos of the individual reifies any contextual affiliation. Thatcher’s famous notion that there is no such thing as society is the illustration of this. No society means no social ties; no solidarity; human interaction based on the business contract instead of the American social contract.

This is exacerbated by neo liberalism privatization of the government and stripping it of all but its coercive power. The government now solely consists of the illegitimate aspects the 60’s railed against. No wonder people view it as inherently illegimate.

The result then is the legitimation crisis form of anti-war opposition. Because nobody believes in society, the American social contract, inherently dismisses the American government and government in general, there is no point in political revolt. Instead of the outraged citizen, there is the apatetic “resistance” of the disaffected consumer. Yet, the neoliberal turn has also made us inhabitants of one world. There is unlimited potential in this. The task of revival lies in us all becoming citizens of utopia.

I’m agnostic in my rare moments of sublime sentiment. Hardened atheist in the rest. But, apart from that, I can’t find any other grounds of disagreement with Obama’s controversial Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. (well, maybe the vests) The sad thing is Obama has been forced to disown the man for voicing what the majority of the world agrees with. In breaching America’s sacrosanct delusions, he has spoken the truth to power.

Listen to the Winter Soldier. The Soldiers testimonies offer a horrifying fragment of the total catastrophe the invasion has subjected people to.

Fisk’s article gives an apt interview of the disaster;

Five years on, and still we have not learnt. With each anniversary, the steps crumble beneath our feet, the stones ever more cracked, the sand ever finer. Five years of catastrophe in Iraq and I think of Churchill, who in the end called Palestine a “hell-disaster”.

But we have used these parallels before and they have drifted away in the Tigris breeze. Iraq is swamped in blood. Yet what is the state of our remorse? Why, we will have a public inquiry – but not yet! If only inadequacy was our only sin.