PROTOCOL 3.22.11

On Tuesday, March 22nd I came into class around 11:13 and when I went to sit in my usual spot I was told that we had to sit somewhere we haven't sat before and sit besides someone new. It was only after I found my new place that I saw what Ben had written on the board, “Please sit somewhere you’ve never sat, next to someone you’ve never sat with!”

When Ben got settled he started to take attendance but not without first commenting that there seemed to be a lot of absences and he also accused Mariana of sitting in the same place as always. I was quick to defend her because I know that she normally sits along the side of the classroom and not in the back.

Ben asked how we were all doing and we talked about how we were tired. Ben seemed surprised by this since we just got back from break. But its just too easy too mess up your sleep schedule when you have nothing to do in the mornings all week. Then like good Minnesotans we discussed the weather. I commented on how at least the rain was better than snow because that means spring was coming but Ben was quick to disagree and went on to say that snow is better than rain because of the reflection of light off the snow.

We then moved the discussion toward housekeeping items. He reminded us that the second external writing assignment is due thursday and asked if we had any questions. I asked how he would like us to submit them since I would be sending my written portion through snail mail instead of regular mail. He said that whatever makes the most sense would work. Most likely emailing him a copy would suffice. Jordan asked about citations because she thought it would look a little weird to cite throughout her letter to someone. Again, Ben said that whatever makes the most sense will work, and you could explain your approach in the metacommentary portion of the paper. Ben then reflected back to before break and told us that Robin had nothing but praise when describing how class went. :) He also mentioned with a look of relief that all of our grades should have been sent out to us along with instructions on how to calculate our mid term grades. He made sure that we knew we could discuss it with him during office hours if we were confused by the process. The calcuation should show us a rough but pretty accurate estimate of our grade thus far, unless you have an unexcused absence or tardiness.

Continuing on with his monologue, Ben mentions that the blog post this weekend will be on Flynn --but no, we don't have to get through the entire novel to be able to do the post, but enough to get an idea of the novel. And no, that does not mean read just 30 pages and call it a night, he thinks a couple hundred pages should suffice. Ahmed finds that humorous since Ben makes a couple hundred pages seem like nothing. But the majority of the people in class who had already started the novel agreed with Ben that it's a fast read. I asked Ben to give us a little more background info on the main character, Mitch Rapp, because I noticed that Flynn has done a series of novels with him as the main character so I was worried we may be missing some important info. Ben said that he is basically a textbook CIA agent likened to Jack Bauer and James Bond but we should be able to pick up on everything we need to know about him from just reading this story.

Ben brings up the readings for thursday by Wolf and Vidal. He encourages us to find out more information on them and tells us that they are very interesting. He said he struggles with them but wants to like them and also that we should think of Strauss and Schmitt as we read through their pieces.

I then brought up the Libya/Japan crisis's. I wanted to put it out to the class to see if anyone else realized how fast the crisis in Japan became old news to the media and how quickly they just moved on to Libya coverage. Ben then mentioned how Japan took over the Wisconsin coverage and brought up the Hegelian logic of the World spirit and how it travels. This leads him into a monologue about European history. He wanted to point out that in the focus changes countries in different eras and relates this back to Hegel and to the media now about what they choose to cover. He then proses the questions; who is deciding what is most important? Who is deciding what is important to study?

With that he ends the discussion and tells people to move their chairs in so we can be closer together and makes a big fuss about taking off his coat. He mentions that if this were court, he would have to ask the judge for permission to shed his coat. Interesting.

After we got settled we moved on to the readings for today, Schmitt and Strauss were the authors we were focusing on and as a class we agreed that they were pretty hard to get into. Very dry and difficult to understand. We played context boggle next and while Brittney put up a good fight, Heidi ended up winning the game --- AGAIN.

Ben then told us that we had to say hi to the person next to us and split us up into three sections. Each section was told to analyze one of the readings for today and talk to another person about where the question and thesis's were in the reading.

I was paired up with Kate. We were assigned to discuss Carl Schmitt's piece, "Political Theology" We had trouble with both until Ben came over and told us how easy he thought it was to find the thesis. That was when I realized it was in the first sentence of the piece.

After the given amount of time, we all came back together to go over and discuss our findings.

Jordan says for Carl’s first piece, The Concept of the Political: the question is on page 26, “The question then is whether there is also a special distinction which can serve as a simple criterion of the political and of what it consists" She said it was easy to find since it explicitly says, "the question then is..."

Ahmed points out that Schmitt never clearly defines what “the political” is and Alyssa agreed while Ben didn't. Ahmed then said the thesis is on page 26; “the political must therefore rest on its own ultimate distinctions, to which all action with a specifically political meaning can be traced” Ben didn't agree it is that because it doesn’t answer question – but it is the ground work.

Mariana thought the thesis was a little further down the page, “The nature of such a political distinction is surely different from that of those others.” Ben says its getting there – really important but still doesn’t answer question

Sophie then says she thought the thesis was even a little further down the page “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” or at the end “ Thereby the inherently objective nature and autonomy of the political becomes evident by virtue of its being able to treat, distinguish and comprehend the friend-enemy antithesis independently of other antitheses”(27)

Ben agrees with Sophie about the first one, and I added that the second one at the end seems more like a conclusion while the first one is a better thesis. I then asked about the footnote about the difference between a enemy and foe. Ben said that an enemy is public while a foe is private. A person cannot have an enemy, but can have a foe. A state can have an enemy.

To better understand the friend/enemy relationship, Ben directs us to this quote, “The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions." and "Emotionally the enemy is easily treated as being evil and ugly, because every distinction, most of all the political, as the strongest and most intense of the distinction and categorizations, draws upon other distinctions for support." (27) and he adds, The Sovereign may mislead the followers – with us or against us. Stronger the distinction between friend and enemy the stronger you’ll be

Ben then asked for some examples from history. Heidi mentioned that this reminded her of the salem witch trials – used it to strengthen their community, to come together with a common enemy. and then Ben brought up the Nazis about what they did to the Jews. Alyssa mentions that the persecution of Jews was not new and while Ben agreed with her, he added that the need for a genocide was new. Germany chose to define Jews as their enemy to bring together their country. They are the enemy.

We then moved onto the next section that analyzed Political Theology by Carl Schmitt. As a whole, none of us had found where the question was so Ben said we would come back to that later as class time was running out. We did discuss the thesis and everyone agreed it was the first sentence, "Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" The book translation left out the "state of" but Ben said it was important to add it. Kate put it in better terms by saying the state of exception is where the normal law does not apply; and Ben added, the outmost extreme. Ben also pointed us to the quote on page 150, "The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like. But it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law." Since class time was closing in on us we moved on to the next reading, Persecution and the Art of Writing by Leo Strauss. For the question, Heidi and her partner thought that it was "How have they been convinced? And where does the time factor enter?" (22) But Ben didn't agree but placed is right before that. Kate then said he partner and her thought the thesis was (36) "An exoteric book contains then two teachings: a popular teaching of an edifying character, which is in the foreground; and a philosophic teaching concerning the most important subject, which is indicated only between the lines." Ben agreed that this is part of the thesis. He also defined Exocteric to be what is obviously there, what is explicitly written and Esoteric is what's hidden or what's in code; reading in between the lines. Ben then pointed out several quotes; "Persecution cannot prevent even public expression of the heterodox truth, for a man of independent thought can utter his views in public and remain unharmed, provided he moves with circumspection." (24) "Thus one may wonder whether some of the greatest writers of the past have not adapted their literary technique to the requirements of persecution, by presenting their views on all the then crucial questions exclusively between the lines." (26) and "Even if they had nothing to fear from any particular political quarter, those who started from that assumption would have been driven to the conclusion that public communication of the philosophic or scientific truth was impossible or undesirable, not only for the time being but for all times." (34) And Sophie also pointed out that she thought the thesis was "For the influence of persecution on literature is precisely that it compels all writers who hold heterodox views to develop a peculiar technique of writing, the technique which we have in mind when speaking of writing between the lines." (24) That brought our discussion to a haphazard end as usual, because we never seem to have enough time to fully discuss everything that we want to. And Ben brought the class to a close a little late with another reminder to read Vidal and Wolf for thursday's class.