The words “Please sit somewhere you’ve never sat, next to someone you’ve never sat with!” were written quickly on the board by Ben as people began to file in closer to 11:13am. Ben took role sitting at a desk along the wall by the door, and made mention of the numerous absences. Upon discussing the gloomy weather, Mandi debated that at least the overcast sky was preferable to it snowing. Ben retorted by saying that, “The real romantic metaphors in idealist history is that light is a sign of progress and I think that has been internalized at least in my body. When there is light, I feel better about the world. Heidi is documenting all of my thoughts, I feel like the pharaoh sometimes.” I rapidly typed away. Ben went over the fact that we are to have our external writing draft #2 by Thursday and that he needs a copy of what we are sending. He also said to make clear in the metacommentary what is being sent whether it is an email or letter. He needs both a copy of the text and the metacommentary by Thursday. He answered questions regarding the citations and said to do them in a way that makes sense; do what’s appropriate. You do not need formal MLA citations, but do put them in the metacommentary so Ben knows where you’re coming form. It is not formal writing; tell him what you did, why you did it, and describe in the most detail as possible. He asked about further questions about the writing which was met by silence. Ben also made mention that Robin sang our praises apparently and found us a delightful class.
Ben also went over the grades that were sent out; the only thing not included were things about absences and lateness; if you’ve been absent and not excused, expect that grade to be lowered a little bit, but otherwise that should be good. He is not too worried about anybody at the moment but is always willing to go over things with people.
Next Tuesday after the external writings are in (there will be a blog post this weekend) he will give you both of the big assignments for the rest of the term; they are not due for a while but he wants to give us time to think about them, plan them, and the final assignment will be a group assignment. You can work in groups of 4 to 6; much more information on that next Tuesday. Start reading Vince Flynn, it reads like an action movie. For the blog post, you’ll just have to get into it, as much as you can, perhaps a couple hundred pages. Ahmed found it humorous that Ben didn’t consider a couple hundred pages as a lot, but was reassured that the book flies and regarded the book’s entirety to the equivalence of reading 10 to 20 pages of Hegel.
For Thursday, two short articles; one by Gore Vidal and one by Naomi Wolf- find out things about them. Ben claims that they are really interesting and that he wrestles with them: he wants to like them, but struggles. Ben encouraged us to seriously look into Schmitt and Strauss when reading Vidal and Wolf; think about how those two are in their text, and consider how Vidal and Wolf respond to Schmitt and Strauss. Come into class having read both, and if you can, bring in one or two things in your head about what is happening with the Libyan conflict that is relevant.
Mandi sparked a conversation about how interesting it is that Libyan conflicts are much more prevalent in the news and media as opposed to the Japan crisis. It opened discussion among the classroom about where the media’s coverage priorities lie. Ben then urged us to note the Hegelian elements in this- how the world spirit works- first it was with Japan, then it was with Libya, when was it with Wisconsin? Upon asking that question, he continued, “Senate took out all the provisions in the budget so they could pass the bill at union quorum. People were pretty furious, and still massive protests are happening and we are not hearing anything about it. This is Hegelian, Rankian logic. Who decides it?” Ben furthered his point with a comparison of how in European history classes, the focus is typically on “what’s most important at any time”. Ben questions again, “What exactly is the criteria of what is most important? It is usually not talked about. What do we know? It’s not like important things aren’t important just because it is not covered by the media. It is always something to think about- who is deciding what is worth studying and what is not implicitly?”
After closing his “much-too long” monologue, Ben proceded to “shed some bureaucratic authority” and take his jacket off. He explained that in court, you need to ask permission to take your jacket off. That’s how strict things are.
Ben asked us to rate our comprehension of the Schmitt and Strauss readings on a scale of 1-10, 1=totally incomprehensible, 10=I got every word of it. People said 5, 6… said it was dry, had to try really hard to read between the lines, had to read it out loud. Then we context boggled, and shared a lot of Strauss and Schmitt knowledge. Ben explained that what was emitted from our sharing of context boggle facts, however, was that Strauss is generally considered, though it is controversial in saying so, the grandfather of the movement called neoconservatism. He continued by explaining that many of Strauss’ acolytes were in the Bush administration including Paul Wolfowitz, deputy of secretary of defense who more or less invented the Iraq War. Ben then ordered, “Turn to the person next to you, say hello. I am going to make an arbitrary decision in a Schmittian sense.” He advised a third of the classroom to look at the political first little piece by Schmitt, another group to look at the political theology, and the last section of the class to delve into ‘Persecution and the Art of Writing’. In our pairs, we were to share where we put the question mark in the circle and where we put the T in the circle. “See if you agree, if you disagree, see if you can come up with an agreement,” Ben encouraged. “See if you can convince the other and then we’ll share. Take about 5 minutes.”
After taking said five minutes to discuss these topics, we came together as a cohesive group again, and Ben asked the first group to share where they placed their question mark. Jordan shared that she put it by the statement, “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.” Ahmed asked for a definition of what “the political” is, and Ben answered that It is a good idea to reference a title whenever confused- put the words “what is” before the title- in this case, you would ask “What is the concept of the political?” Ben disagreed with Ahmed that there is no explanation of what “the political” is in Schmitt’s explanation. Ben went on to say, “Schmitt is trying to make the argument that there exists something called “the political” opposed to ‘the aesthetic’ or “’the moral’ or ‘the economic’. When you’re talking about aesthetics, the question is, is it beautiful or ugly? With economics- is it profitable or non profitable? With morality- good or evil? He sets up a premise for his argument.” Mariana and Shukri were asked what the thesis would be. They were unsure, but answered with “The nature of such a political distinction is surely different from that of those others. It is independent of them and as such can speak clearly for itself.” Ben said that they were getting there. Sophie put the thesis at “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” Ben said that he put his T there too. The third thesis was agreed upon as, “The inherently objective nature and autonomy of the political becomes evident by virtue of this being able to treat, distinguish, and comprehend the friend-enemy antithesis independently of other antitheses.” He reiterated that the political is in the ability to distinguish between friend and enemy. “So what’s up with this friend and enemy business?”, asks Ben. Brittany answered that it’s somewhat how politics are divided into fashions with who is with you, who is against you. Mandi said that in her class last year, it was emphasized how important it is to read the footnotes. She asked for clarification of a Feind which could be interpreted as friend or foe in German, Ben answered. Ben went on to say, “What’s new about Schmitt is the insistence that the political should have nothing to do with the other spheres. Take a look at bottom of 26. ‘The distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity for a union or separation, of an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions. 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. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.’” Ben broke from the reading to exclaim rather enthusiastically, “For you are all my subjects, and I am your ruler and the decider of the exception, in order to persuade you emotionally that Liz should be the enemy of our state, I could tell you that she is ugly, no offense, or evil. You’re either with us or against us, and the stronger you make your friend and enemy distinction, the stronger your politics can be. Can anybody think of any real life examples?” We discussed the connection between the Salem witch trials and this idea. There was great fear in the community falling apart, so there was that much more strengthening in the community by persecuting others with charismatic persuasion, Ben explained. He furthered this connection by introducing the Jewish isolation. “If you are Hitler, or head of the Nazi party, you can make the Jews the enemy because you will frame them that way.” Ben shared an “amazingly terrifying quote” that he had to translate on the spot. Hitler: “If the international finance Jews should try to succeed in bringing the people once more in the world war, then the result will be the limitation of the Jewish race in Europe.” I failed to have that quote word-for-word what Ben said, but the overarching message remains. Alyssa made mention of the fact that the persecution of the Jews wasn’t a new concept, and Ben said that was a really good point and that “The classification of Jews as the absolute and total political enemy and the need therefore to exterminate all of them- genocide- was new; that’s the difference.” Ben explained that they thought that stronger politics are based on having an enemy. There’s very similar logic in how you have a very set view of what Asian people or African-American people are by the American media, there’s a Schmittian reason to that.
We then shifted over to the second group, and Ben asked where the thesis lay. They cohesively decided that it is stated in the first sentence: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Ben corrected that the words “state of the” should be placed before exception because it was translated incorrectly. He advised that we remember these words and the friend and enemy thing from earlier. He then asked, “What the hell does the exception mean?” Kate answered, “The idea that laws can be broken because of a state of emergency.” To add onto that idea, Ben read from the text: “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.” We discussed how there is an agreed-upon idea in the modern state, but that Schmitt says there is always an exception.
We moved along to the third group; Ben mentioned that the thesis is a tricky one. We were asked to start off with the question before the thesis this time. I shared that I put my question mark toward the beginning when Strauss questions how the younger generation has been convinced and where does the time factor enter in regards to accepting the government-sponsored truth. I found that the article works to address that focal thesis. Ben said that he wouldn’t call that the overarching question; Kate shared that she put her question mark right before that statement: “It may be worth our while to consider briefly the effect of that compulsion, or persecution, on thoughts as well as actions.” This was where Ben put his question mark as well. After coming to that agreement, Ben proceeded to read from the text, “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 asked if anybody knew what ‘exoteric’ or ‘esoteric’ even mean. Brittany shared the definitions. She explained that exoteric is public knowledge, common sense, what’s obvious and out there whereas esoteric is secret, private knowledge much like a master giving to a disciple. Ben added, “It’s what’s hidden, what’s in code, what you can’t obviously see: the opposite of exoteric. Schmitt describes that persecution has always been there. He goes onto say that Rankian historiography has basically made it invisible to historians. Schmitt has an interesting viewpoint of Rankian history: Basically, it rules out the idea of text analysis which is something that I don’t think is entirely wrong. This I think is the other part of the thesis: ‘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 from the time being but for all times….But he would defeat his purpose if he indicated clearly which of his statements expressed a noble lie, and which the still more noble truth.’”
As the class drew to a close, Ben told us to enjoy Wolf and Vidal, as well as to bring things in on Libya- this will be our case study. Ben apologized sincerely for being out of it for his head cold. At 12:30pm, we packed our things, and exited the classroom, with, I would argue, more on our minds than when we entered.
No comments:
Post a Comment