I set up my computer in the classroom while my classmates trickled in and Ben set up a video. He began playing a scene from Network, the section where Arthur Jensen approaches Howard Beale in the boardroom. Ben wrote on the board, “Remember him? He’s back – and his name is Francis Fukuyama” and shut off the lights in the classroom while onscreen, Jensen yelled, “You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale!”
Ben returned to the board to write up the days program which was (as follows):
0) The return of (Chayefskyan) repressed
1) Housekeeping: Making bureaucratic truth (you and me) – Volunteers?
2) The philosophical and political consequences of (supposedly) being at the end of history
3) Who’s “we?” Who’s “America?” – back to historical agency
4) “From an old chronicle:” Introducing Kohlhaas
The scene ended and Ben stopped the video, echoing Jensen: “You just might be right, Mr. Beale.” He wished us good morning and stated that he wanted to get Network back in our collective consciousness before we discussed Fukuyama. Pointing to the statement about Fukuyama written on the board, Ben said it was obviously making somewhat of an argument, one that was we were welcome to dispute when we discussed it. While taking attendance, Ben noted that we were, “dropping like flies,” as many were absent. We arranged the chairs into our usual circle and Ben thanked us for coming to class despite the glorious weather, though if he himself were not teaching, he would be writing sixty pages before next week. Hallie suggested that we should hold class outside next week but Ben argued that about 2/3 of the work gets done outside, thought it is not always a bad tradeoff.
We started with housekeeping, on making bureaucratic truth. Ben apologized for making a breech in his duties regarding Loewen. He asked if we noticed what it was and informed us that our reading had been missing footnotes. Did none of us want to look up footnotes? When none of us confessed whether we had, Ben shamed us and handed the footnotes out. Loewen is good at making bureaucratic truth and at we should check the sources, for this reading and others. Ben described the book as very neat and said that Loewen believes there is truth and that it is distorted, reminding us that not everyone we’ve read or our fellow classmates may agree with that statement. Next, we began discussing our new external writing ideas. Elissa asked if the paper was like external writing two and Ben replied that it was different. The previous assignment started with a truth that we set out to legitimize to a given audience. Now, we all have a similar audience to write to. We should being writing by not focusing on a truth, but a question, something we want to know more about that we can make work or connect back to the WTF diagram we made. After we have a question, we should research it and find out more, refining the question into something we can answer in five pages. Elissa asked if it had to be a question from our class. Did it have to be a social thing? A history thing? Ben said it depended on what we were asking, and called for us to give a few examples of ideas we had. Emily said she wanted to write something about Fort Snelling, to look and see if they ever tried to give the land back to the Dakota people. “Who is they?” Ben asked. Emily said she didn’t know yet and Ben offered that as a sub-question to look into. Emily continued to explain that she planned on researching why that didn’t work, why they were unable to give the land back. Ben said that in five pages, she should try to find one instance of contention and ask why it didn’t work in that case. Ben called on me to share my idea and I mentioned that I wanted to write about White Noise and the culture of the 1980s. Ben continued on, saying I could go a more literary route or in a more historical vein, looking at DeLillo’s book as a primary source and what made this book popular in the ‘80s. I had a broader more philosophical question while Emily had narrower, more specific one and Ben said either way works. Ben also encouraged us to check out the archives on the West Bank and that we could learn more about Ranke there than in class. Overall, Ben said our questions should pass two tests – 1) Do you care? And 2) Does anyone else care? If the answer is no to either question, we should pick a different topic, something we care about and something we want to spend time writing about. Karrie asked if it had to deal exactly with what we studied and be so specific. Ben replied that we can take an outside thing and link it back in, something we’ve never mentioned in class (such as if it refers to the state of exception). We were encouraged to look back at our blogs, the other writing we had done, things about Libya, Glenn Beck, Wisconsin, etc. and to “steal from ourselves.” We should also look at the other bureaucratic writings we have read, such as Schmitt, Wolf, Vidal and look at their writing styles. Our content shouldn’t be boring, nor should our form. We should think about the writings we read that draw us in the most. Nothing is purely bureaucratic truth or purely charismatic truth and we should write something that will draw people in. Ben asked if there were any questions and, when met with silence, uttered, “Fantastic,” and added that he would be having “office minutes” after class and, if need be, would gladly converse on the phone back at his writing desk.
As a last matter of housekeeping, Ben asked for four volunteers who do not have class right before ours to come a half hour early on Tuesday. Brittany, Heidi, Liz, and Elissa accepted and Ben told them they were going to be part of a little difficultation that would not be too much work and fun on their part.
Next, we moved on to the philosophical consequences of being at the end of history, approaching from three different ways: Fukuyama’s position/ argumentative structure, the philosophical implications (specific to Hegel), and the political/ historical implications. There were three large sheets of paper in the center of the room and Ben told us to break up into groups and make explanatory posters to start the discussion, based on the three different perspectives. We were also to keep in mind how we read Fukuyama in light of Loewen, Flynn, Strauss and Vidal.
I joined the argumentative group with Sophie, Brittany and Liz. Sophie suggested that we should break the text into levels, looking for questions and the thesis. Ben told the class that we should talk first then start writing things on the paper. Brittany mentioned that the title of the work was interesting and Sophie agreed, feeling that Fukuyama wasn’t asking but rather arguing that we are at the end of history. We broke the text down into terms of ideas: Hegel’s idea of what the end of history means, not the end of events happening, not the end of consciousness; rather, a fully developed consciousness has been established. Fukuyama takes this idea, looks for evidence against it and the challenges to liberalism, and how these challenges haves failed or are failing. Ben asked if we needed help and Sophie said that we were trying to break down the basic structure but it was difficult to find the question and the thesis. Ben suggested we start with Fukuyama’s arguments and agreed that it is important that there is a question mark in the title. He also told us that it is important to understand Fukuyama, as he often becomes an easy punching bag, and the names at the beginning of his essay are all Straussians. Brittany asked if Fukuyama was more right-leaning, and Ben replied that he has more right-leaning friends and now refutes that he is righting-leaning. Ben went on to check in with another group and Brittany commented that she is definitely a political minority in this class. She suggested we start with a central thesis on the poster paper while Ben brought up a webpage on his computer – the Project for the New American Century. Brittany came up with an idea of one of Fukuyama’s arguments – that history has an ideological level and events are still happening but we have reached the same level of human consciousness. Sophie wrote on the giant paper “end of history = full development of human consciousness” and Brittany and Heidi complimented her handwriting. Sophie suggested that after this, liberalism is the end of history because no problem exists that cannot be resolved within it. Brittany agreed and mentions how Fukuyama states that liberalism has no enemies except religious fundamentalism and nationalism. Sophie writes down, “Liberalism = the end of history because there are no ‘contradictions’ which can be resolved within it (page 94).” Brittany posed the idea that maybe the central question in Fukuyama’s piece is like Jeopardy, that’s it not exactly in the text and more esoteric. Ben wondered whether we were implying that Fukuyama was as Struassian. We focused on the esoteric and exoteric questions in Fukuyama’s writing, deciding that the exoteric was, “Is this the end of history?” while the esoteric was “Has liberalism won?” which Liz also rephrased to, “Have people actually made it to the point where liberalism has no contradictions that have not been resolved within it?” Brittany mentioned that it was interesting how Fukuyama wasn’t exactly advocating that we’d reached this point in history but that we should. Ben added that it was a self-fulfilling prophecy – we’ve reached the end of history and here’s how to reach the end of history!
It was time for the groups to present and Sophie hurried to finish our poster while Ben encouraged, “Write, Sophie! This is how I’m going to feel Tuesday night!” We rearranged ourselves in a circle so none of us were “blocking the view of history” and my group presented first. Britany explained how we felt the question wasn’t quite explicit in the text and that it was more like Jeopardy with the exoteric and esoteric questions. Ben said that by stating this, we were implying one of two things: either the writer is a Straussian and has written this way consciously or that we call for people to read between the lines; both are deeply political, giving an obvious message for the masses and a message between the lines that only smart people get; it is deeply disgusting to some. Sophie stated that Fukuyama was a Straussian, referencing page 89: “Most of theses analyses lack any larger conceptual framework for distinguishing between what is essential and what is contingent or accidental in world history, and are predictably superficial” and, “And yet, all of these people sense dimly that there is some larger process at work, a process that gives coherence and order to the daily headlines.” Sophie emphasized the word choice of “dim” it the second passage and Ben suggested the image of a caveman, noting that this makes Fukuyama at least somewhat of an elitist. Ben called for more evidence of this and Heidi mentioned page 93: “The answer must be found in the consciousness of the elites and leaders ruling them.” She stated this showed the idea of reading between the lines and only certain people can tell what’s being said. Ben argued that this could also go back to Ranke, leading men and telling you what is being said. Heidi also mentioned page 94: “If we accept the idealistic premises laid out above, we must seek an answer to this question in the realm of ideology and consciousness.” Ben disagreed that this was Strassian, stating that this was Fukuyama’s reading of Hegel, an idealist reading in terms of progress.
Ben instructed us to look at the first page of Fukuyama’s article and told us he felt like a school teacher rapping us on the knuckles today. We looked at the description paragraph on the first page and Ben asked us who the RAND Corporation was. “Ayn Rand?” Hallie offered. Ben informed us that RAND was a policy out fit that leans right-wing. He pointed out the mention of University of Chicago and informed us that John Olin was guy who gives lots of money to right-wing political causes. Nathan Tarcov and Allan Bloom, in turn, are two of the most famous Straussians in American history. They were on the Committee of Social Thought at the University of Chicago, major disciples of Strauss and players in intellectual elitist conservative movements. Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind that had been mentioned in class on Tuesday and Ben said it was a scary book from his political perspective. He suggested that if we wanted to understand culture wars, we should read that book. This information in the Fukuyama’s description didn’t prove that he is a Straussian but he does have interesting friends. Ben encouraged us to look people like this up, especially if they are linked to funding. A copy of Kojeve’s Introduction to Reading Hegel was passed around and Ben told us Kojeve (whom Fukuyama mentions repeatedly) tried to read Hegel in a way that is not Marxist, taking Hegel back from the left. Ben noted that in this edition of the book was edited by Bloom.
After this digression, albeit an important one, Ben went on to ask if liberalism had won? Sophie said Fukuyama was viewing this as philosophical and political, reapplying Hegel to more current times with a political agenda underneath. Liz stated that his arguments were about full development of human consciousness, mentioning this passage on page 94: “Are there, in other words, any fundamental ‘contradictions’ in human life that cannot be resolved in the context of modern liberalism, that would be resolved by an alternative political-economic structure?” Brittany added that Fukuyama argued that communism and fascism won’t work and that nothing can appose liberalism. Ben asked us to define liberalism, pointing at a poster on the wall behind us, then told us it was the same as Hayak’s definition, not having anything to do with Obama but the Enlightenment and free market capitalism.
The group on philosophy and Hegel went next. Heidi mentioned on the first page of the article mentions the World Spirit with a larger process at work. Ben agreed that the larger processes are the World Spirit, morning the loss of our diagram that used to represent this. He drew on the board the thesis – anti-thesis – synthesis diagram to remind us of Hegel’s idea of the end of history. Elissa mentioned the idea of an absolute moment that relates how everything is leading up to this, leading to one point. Ben asked what she meant by absolute moment and she referred to page 90 of the article: “a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious.” Ben reminded us that the thesis and anti-thesis are dialectically related, and that this moment is the time when the last thesis and anti-thesis battle and a final thesis emerges victorious. The thesis would be Hayakian liberalism (meaning “democracy + capitalism”) fought of the anti-thesis of communism and before that, fascism. Fukuyama argues that 1989 is the absolute moment when capitalism won. Emily mentioned page 93: “For Kojeve, as for all good Hegalians, understanding the underlying process of history requires understanding developments in the realm of consciousness or ideas, since consciousness will ultimately remake the material world in its own image.” Ben stressed that this was an important passage and asked why Fukuyama was arguing against the Marxists. Emily suggested that they were not interpreting Hegel in the right way and I offered the idea of proletariats versus bourgeoisie. Ben clarified the idea of history based on classes fighting each other and Hallie added that on the path to a utopian idea, Hegel is different than how Marx spells it out. Ben agreed, saying the stages were different.
We moved on to talk about 1806, which was the end of history for Hegel. Ben wrote 1806 on the board and goes on to talk about the Battle of Jena, when Napoleon and his armies (or to be Hegelian, Ben notes, Napoleon) destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Michael Kohlhaas is the mythic story of how this happened, though it takes place earlier in history. Napoleon destroyed the last institution of feudalism, 300 tiny states run by feudal lords. These states had nothing to do with rights – people worked on the land but had to do what the lords said. “Not a lovely way to live,” Ben added. This institution lasted for 1,000 years until Napoleon destroyed it. At this moment, liberalism destroyed feudalism and this is the point Fukuyama is making. Ben states that this is not a great reading of Hegel and that Fukuyama is saying what matters is the rise of ideas and concepts, not that feudalism is completely gone. There is simply no major force of feudalism that could stop the rise of liberalism, the “vanguard of humanity” has gotten there and won it. “The Europeans,” Hallie said and Ben replied, “Of course.” We looked at the passage on page 92 where Yukuyama states, “The materialist bias of modern thought not only of people on the left who may be sympathetic to Marxism, but of many passionate anti-Marxists as well. Indeed, there is on the right what one might label the Wall Street Journal school of deterministic materialism that discounts the importance of ideology and culture and sees man as essentially rational, profit-maximizing individual.” Fukuyama does not like the idea of “materialist bias,” saying it’s the ideas that are important. It’s not that the whole world has become capitalist; the point is there is no longer a beacon to the world of progress and light that is not capitalism. We looked at a passage on page 93-94 where Fukuyama states, “Hence it did not matter to Kojeve that the consciousness of the postwar generation of Europeans had not been universalized throughout the world; if ideological development had in face ended, the homogenous state would eventually become victorious throughout the material world” and Ben mentioned he has written in the margin: “How, pray, do we do this?” He argued that Hegel is much more dialectic than this and, though Fukuyama takes this into account on page 91, he later contradicts himself in the article. Emily asked about the realm and Ben explained that the realm is the consciousness of the ideas. In the realm of ideas, there are no contradictions to liberalism while in the material world, there are plenty of contradictions. Fukuyama would view the Middle East as an area where countries are “catching up” to the rest of the world.
The final group on politics and historical context presented their poster and Kate mentions how this article was written in ’89 before the Berlin wall fell and before Japan had an economic boom. Hallie mentioned it was also before Japan had a bust and China became a superpower without liberal principles. The article legitimized the US as a superpower, the idea of the American colossus and that the ideas we stand for are the best ones because they work so well. The first page of the article points this out, with the “triumph of the West, of the Western idea…” Ben says that Hallie has suggested about political opportunism is connected to the selection by Loewen and that illegal acts in a state of exception by the US is the motive force of history and that by doing this we’re helping other countries catch up. Hallie mentions page 95 where Fukuyama discusses that the class issue has been resolved in the West. Without Marxism, the West has actually resolved the class issue. Sophie added that issues such as poverty and slavery, in Fukuyama’s opinion were not the fault of liberalism but because of history that hadn’t resolved itself yet. Ben added that in the Hegelian sense, racism is a residual element, not an inherent part of capitalism (“Something I wouldn’t agree with,” Ben said). He mentioned how the Mall of America is a major place of white slavery, where many girls are taken there to be sold as sex slaves. This information can be found on the Amnesty International Website (“Not to freak you out,” Ben added). Though slavery persists, Fukuyama would argue that slavery like this is a black market problem and needs to be rooted out.
Ben went to make two final statements:
1) There is no place in Fukuyama but a single voice of America, the one ideal of the west. This overlooks people who don’t agree with this opinion. When we see “China said…” in the news, what about the people there who don’t agree, who didn’t say?
2) Fukuyama practiced what he preached. Ben pointed out the Project for a New American Century website. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)
We looked at their statement of principles and Ben asked us if we were hearing Loewen in it. “We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role,” Ben read aloud, stressing unique. Down at the bottom of the page, the statement has been signed people such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Fukuyama. Ben added that after 9/11, Fukuyama had said perhaps history is not over and partially renounced this now.
In the last five minutes, we looked at the fist paragraph of “Michael Kohlhaas” and Ben promised that soon all of this would go together. “I promise that this will make sense in three weeks,” he said. “From the end of history, we’re going back to the start of history.” Marika read the paragraph from the story aloud and Ben noted that this story is one of the great examples of literary irony. “What’s important here? What do you see?” he asked.
Marika said that how Kohlhaas is described makes him sound like Mitch Rapp, being one of the best and the worst men in history. Ben agreed and said there was a dialectic there. Elissa commented that this it felt like reading something about the United States, that we go in there feeling like the good buy and doing bad. Ben called our attention to the parenthesis and asked if we knew what a chronicle was. He explained that it was a Medieval way of writing history before Ranke. He wrote on the board:
1296 – King X invades Country Y
1297
1298 – Great Famine
History was recorded this way, with wars and major events while some years nothing would be written. The story “Michael Kohlhaas” is not totally fiction, as it is drawn from an old chronicle, drawing from an archive. Ben mentioned the part of the paragraph where a “village still bears his name” and showed us on his computer that there is a town outside of Berlin called Kohlhasenbruk. Ben told us the story is about 100 pages and one of his favorites. “Hope you like it and see you Tuesday!” he said and, as the class left, he and Heidi, Emily and Brittany helped hang up the posters we had made on the walls.
No comments:
Post a Comment