The class begins with Ben writing the program on the board as people trickle in still. Ben says good morning to the class and proceeds to take attendance aloud while the class makes small talk. Ben says good morning again, to which no one responds. He says it again, and the class responds. He begins to discuss housekeeping items, which include:
1)External writing assignments due tonight at 11:59pm
2)Blog posts will be up this weekend
He then asks the class for any other logisticals, and then proceeds to pick up where we left off on Tuesday, incorporating what we read for today.
He asks the class to stand up for a "temperature exercise"
Those of us who understood what was going on in the class completely were asked to stand at one end of the room, while those who had no idea what was going on were asked to stand on the opposite side. We were then asked to look at where we were in relation to others and to find someone who is halfway across and make eye contact. Once we had our partners, we were asked to put our hand on our heads to show that we were ready to go on. We were then asked to find somewhere to sit and discuss questions and/or issues we had with what we had read.
The class disperses, and Ben offers help.
We discuss for a few minutes, then come back together as a full group.
Ben asks for questions.
Jordan-talked about dialectic concept and was still fuzzy on the meaning.
Ben asks for help from the class... "What the hell is a dialectic?"
Heidi defines it broadly as a complex relationship.
Ben defines it (while quoting Hegel) as a "pop, new-age philosophy where everything contains or is equal to itself and its opposite"
Hegel was the first to theorize dialectics in terms of history.
Ben asks, "Did anyone read my blog post about Chicago?" and then goes on to tell us about it. He raises the question, "What created that city?" (Oppression and hardship)
He goes on to discuss dialectic in relation to reason and unreason, and uses Glenn Beck and Howard Beale as examples of unreason (irrational)
Historical dialectic in Hegels' terms are the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis-however this is imperfect because the thesis contains the antithesis in it, and for that matter, synthesis is not a compromise (Ben uses the Dakota as an example).
Ben asks, "Are other things unclear?" ... "Nothing?"
Sophie then brings up the connection between Strauss and Schmitt.
Ben asks what a Schmitt fortune cookie would say (2 things)
1) Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception... meaning...(Elissa) the person who is sovereign decides when you are above the law.
Ben tells us he can use his sovereign power to keep us here past 12:30 (and that if we stay we submit to this sovereign power) but according to the University, we can leave. A state of exception example was that if terrorists were outside the door, we would accept his sovereign power and stay. However, he says that the state of exception is not ALWAYS an emergency.
Definition: Sovereign-king, boss, fuhrer
In the US no one is sovereign because of checks and balances, however Schmitt says whoever decides there is an exception is sovereign (aka the president)
2) (Mandy) The friend/enemy distinction is politics or "the political" and the political is defined by the friend/enemy distinction-the stronger you make it, the more powerful a sovereign can be.
Ben asks if this makes sense. He then invites us to go back and look at the texts
Mandy says that Schmitt wouldn't agree with keeping enemies close, that it's good to have enemies separate.
Ben talks about the political being the enemy distinction and how the propaganda technique is used by the sovereign in convincing others that there is a threat.
Ben asks for questions on Schmitt.
What if Strauss were put on a fortune cookie?
1) (Kate Grayson) If writers are persecuted and not given freedom of speech, there will be a hidden meaning in the text
Ben tells us that in the state o exception there will always be hidden text because all writers have done this at all times. For Strauss, the exception is the rule, should always be taking place.
"All great writers give two messages in their texts-exoteric (the obvious, explicit) and the esoteric (the secret, true, implicit message that is visible only to the elite). He tells us that it would be bad if everyone could see the implied message
Brief Mini-Lecture to bring it together
We are in a class on the history of reading and the politics of history. In order to understand this and our current world, we have to understand Hitler.
(Ben quickly complains about the white board marker, and finds a new one)
Ben tells us that Hitler was a metanym for WWII, genocide, and fascism that all led toward a WTF moment in history. The question raised was how did this happen?
Before Hitler there was Hegel, Weber, capitalism/individualism/modernity
After, we have studied 3 different perspectives on why the Hitler era happened
1) Hayek/Rand-history was going along, then Hitler broke it. "The Abandoned Road" is the first chapter in "The Road to Serfdom". They discuss how we were headed toward Hegelian freedom, then the totalitarians happened and then the world "went to hell in a hand basket"
2) (Schmitt)/Strauss-tactically don't engage with this debate, instead challenge democracy. Schmitt is moved behind WTF moment, Strauss-democracy/equality lead to mob rule, fascism, etc.
3)Adorno/Arendt-opposites, but agree here that "captialism caused this" They argue that Hitler wasn't a break, but an inevitable outcome of the way the world was headed
Hayek/Rand and Adorno/Arendt argue opposite things.
What do all of these people have in common? They were all refugees fleeing fascist Europe, they all have personal stake in how their civilization was destroyed
Mandy asks "Can White Noise be up there?"
Ben asks the class for their thoughts. Invites everyone to look at the White Noise concept map on the back wall, and asks where it fits in.
Ben says that he doesn't think that Delillo consciously engages with the debate, but implicitly takes a side
Elissa asked why we took Schmitt out and put him before the "WTF moment"
Ben says that Schmitt doesn't ask WTF Hitler, and acts as more of a ghost on Strauss.
Ben says that Delillo would put himself at the bottom, because the whole book is about the saturation of media, and it tends to agree with Adorno and Arendt.
Ben asks for other questions.
We then turn to our same partners and discuss what we learned about Libya. Ben handed out a piece of paper with "Article 48" on it, and reads aloud.
When we came back together as a group, he asked what we'd found.
Gina-fox news article, reporter upset that Obama went without Congress declaring War. Problems? Weird situation, what side are we on? Very confusing. Don't know why we are still in Iraq
Kate G.-Biden called for impeachment when Bush invaded county without declaring war
Jordan-Obama might become enemy of US. The tea party sees Obama as an enemy
Sophie-Problem with it not being defined, US operates on Schmittian principles. Who is the enemy? decmocracy?
Bush doctrine-fight enemies of freedom over the world
why not Saudi Arabia?
Lindsay-If we don't do something it could hurt Obama's electoral chances...Bush never found Osama Bin Laden but got re-elected
Is it important for sovereign powers to defeat the enemy?
Kate G.-you don't want to find the enemy
What would Vidal and Wolf say about Libya and our governments' role in it?
Vidal (p. 159)
Big (implicit) issue: The US legally has been at war since 1941
Think about that, it changes how you think about "our history"
WWII-went to fight Japanese, which was the last time that the US went to war, and the troops never came home
Before WWII, the US had to build up military-it was a small military, no standing army
BUT standing army = profit (keep American sovereignty)
Republican leadership didn't want it (isolationist)
Soviet Union didn't start as a threat-US provoked them
1947-Department of Defense created-the President doesn't need to declare war to fight/use military
Lindsay-What would it take for it to have to go through Congress? (war)
Vidal-US would have to go bankrupt
How do you legitimate something that will benefit few and hurt many?
Vidal: Schmittian logic
Potsdam Conference: Truman could have negotiated with Russia, but had an atomic bomb to show power
Explains our history
Strauss p.98 exo, esoteric
Esoteric elite decide on and propagandize the state of exception. After the Soviet Union fell, national security continued. Wolf (p. 43) "Peace is bad for business"
What happened between 1989 and 2001 when there was no "enemy"?
War has been a perpetual state
How is it legitimized for people who haven't read Schmitt and Strauss?
2 Final Thoughts:
1) Ben is torn about Libya. Based on the reading, it's terrible, but on the other hand people are being slaughtered, are we going to stand aside or invade?
Obama would be criticized either way, it's a good move politically
When you are in a state of exception, you will rally around the sovereign
2)Anyone find anything about Wolf?
-Jewish, feminist writer/journalist, wrote about beauty, divorced from a speech writer for Clinton, big fan of the Tea Party
"More on this next time"
Ben will send articles and links in an email.
No comments:
Post a Comment