I'm a philosophy student that tends to post about really serious things unseriously and about really unserious things seriously.
I was once described as a "beautiful, intelligent iguana".
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Perhaps, Badiou’s matrix of four basic responses to an Event (the faithful subject; the reactive subject; the obscure subject; resurrection) should be complicated a little bit, so that there are six responses:
1. The responses to the Freud-Event were: (1) fidelity (Lacan); (2) reactive normalization, re-integration into the predominant field (ego-psychology, ‘dynamic psychotherapy’); (3) outright denial (cognitivism); (4) obscurantist mystification in a pseudo-Event (Jung); (5) total enforcing (Reich, Freudo-Marxism); (6) resurrection of the ‘eternal’ Freud’s message in ‘returns to Freud.’
2. The responses to a love-Event are: (1) fidelity; (2) normalization, re-integration (marriage); (3) outright rejection of the evental status (libertinage, the transformation of the Event into sexual adventure); (4) thorough rejection of sexual love (abstinence); (5) obscurantist suicidal mortal passion a la Tristan; (6) resurrected love (re-encounter).
3. The responses to the Marxism-Event are: (1) fidelity (Communism, Leninism); (2) reactive re-integration (Social Democracy); (3) outright denial of the evental status (liberalism, Furet); (4) catastrophic total counter-attack in the guise of a pseudo-Event (Fascism); (5) total enforcing of the Event, which ends up in an ‘obscure disaster’ (Stalinism, Khmer Rouge); (6) renewal of Marxism (Lenin, Mao…).
Slavoj Zizek, “On Alain Badiou and Logiques du mondes”
(this is a really great essay BTW, highly recommended — available here)
Karl Marx (via heteroglossia)
Marc Bousquet, The Waste Product of Graduate Education: Toward a Dictatorship of the Flexible (and other essays on contemporary academia as corporatized institutions under neoliberalism)
Formats Available
Excerpt from The Waste Product of Graduate Education:
The core of any redescription of the linkage between graduate education and the system of academic labor more generally has to begin by discarding the Fordist assumption that the situation of the doctoral degree holder can be grasped by a manufacturing analogy to production. Under casualization, it makes very little sense to view the graduate student as potentially a product for the job market: most graduate students are already laboring at the only academic job they’ll ever have. (Hence the importance for organized graduate student labor of inscribing the designation “graduate employee” in law and discourse.) From this standpoint, it has to be acknowledged that increasingly the holders of the doctoral degree are not so much the products of the graduate employee labor system as its by-products, insofar as that that labor system exists primarily to recruit, train, supervise, and legitimate the employment of nondegreed rather than degreed teachers. This is not to say that the system doesn’t produce and employ holders of the PhD, only that this operation has become secondary to its extraction of teaching labor from nondegreed persons, primarily graduate employees and former graduate employees now working as adjunct labor—as part-timers, full-time lecturers, postdocs, and so on. This essay argues that the organized graduate employee has a better description. Against the dominant second-wave heuristic of the “job market,” and as a corrective to the lapsed and too-often residual labor knowledge of the first wave of faculty unionism, a third wave of thinking about academic labor is emergent in the graduate employee union movement. While this emergent knowledge is based in the particular experience of casualization by two generations of graduate employees and former graduate employees, I hope in the next few pages to suggest that it is not only a better knowledge of the “local” circumstance of the graduate employee (because how can the graduate employee be localized, exactly? Every other “location” in the system, from perma-temp to university president, is filled by someone who has been a graduate employee) but, further, that this third wave is an emergent better knowledge of the labor system as a totality. Consistent with the insights of psychoanalytic Marxism, it is in the graduate employees’ character as incipient by-products, their understanding that the system’s constant pressure is not toward their incorporation but toward compelling their recognition that they must serve as the system’s indigestible remainder, that provides the partial standpoint from which we can most usefully and justly accept a description of the whole.
OTHER ESSAYS:
The “Informal Economy” of the Information University (Marc Bousquet)
How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation (Marc Bousquet)
Excerpt from the “Informal Economy”:
One of the reasons that graduate employees are so vocal is because the transformation of graduate education accomplished by the three-decade conversion of the university to a center of capital accumulation needs to be viewed as a profound form of ‘employer sabotage’—most graduate employees find that their doctorate does not represent the beginning but instead the end of a long teaching career: as I’ve observed in another venue, the ‘award’ of the doctoral degree increasingly represents a disqualification from teaching for someone who has already been teaching for a decade or more. In the course of re-imagining the graduate student as a source of informationalized labor, the academy has increasingly evacuated the professional-certification component of the doctoral degree (the degree plays a key role in the way professionals maintain a monopoly on professional labor; however, now that work formerly done by persons holding the degree is done by persons studying for the degree, the degree itself no longer represents entrance into the profession). The consequence of this evacuation is that the old Fordist sense of the doctoral recipient as the ‘product’ of graduate education has little meaning—instead, the degree holder must now be understood in systemic terms as the waste product of graduate education—not merely ‘disposable,’ but that which must be disposed of for the constantly-churning system of continuously-replaced student labor to function properly.
As much as we think we know about the modern university, very little has been said about what it’s like to work there. Instead of the high-wage, high-profit world of knowledge work, most campus employees—including the vast majority of faculty—really work in the low-wage, low-profit sphere of the service economy. Tenure-track positions are at an all-time low, with adjuncts and graduate students teaching the majority of courses. This super-exploited corps of disposable workers commonly earn fewer than $16,000 annually, without benefits, teaching as many as eight classes per year. Even undergraduates are being exploited as a low-cost, disposable workforce.
Marc Bousquet, a major figure in the academic labor movement, exposes the seamy underbelly of higher education—a world where faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates work long hours for fast-food wages. Assessing the costs of higher education’s corporatization on faculty and students at every level, How the University Works is urgent reading for anyone interested in the fate of the university. From page 21:
Under casualization [of academic labor], it makes very little sense to view the graduate student as potentially a “product” for a “market” in tenure-track jobs. For many graduate employees, the receipt of a Ph.D. signifies the end, and not the beginning, of a long teaching career. Most graduate students are already laboring at the only academic job they’ll ever have – hence, the importance for organized graduate student labor of inscribing the designation “graduate employee” in law and discourse.
From the standpoint of the organized graduate employee, the situation is clear. Increasingly, the holders of a doctoral degree are not so the products of the graduate-employee labor system as its by-products, insofar as that labor system exists primarily to recruit, train, supervise, and legitimate the employment of nondegreed students and contingent faculty.
As Andrew Ross (author of the highly-recommend “Mental Labor Problem” essay) puts it:
[T]he research university is behaving more and more like an adjunct to private industry in the “concentration of power upward into managerial bureaucracies, the abdication of research and productivity assessment to external assessors and funders … the pressure to adopt an entrepreneurial career mentality, and the erosion of tenure through the galloping casualization of the work force.
This is probably extremely relevant to a good portion of this blog’s followers and may prove a welcome eye-opener.
This is really important. I don’t know how much of this is particularly eye-opening - I think most people heading into graduate and post-graduate work already know about a lot of this (maybe only intellectually instead of experientially, but they still know it), but it’s still something that needs to be grappled with.
I know for me, regardless of the stupidity of current graduate and post-graduate systems, and despite my knowing how stupid they are, I’m still probably going to join into all of it. Because I’m not particularly good at anything else other than philosophy (I even fail at just being a person).
(Actually, I especially fail at just being a person).
“Self-Appreciation; or, The Aspirations of Human Capital” in Volume 21, Number 1 • Public Culture
This piece by Michel Feher in Public Culture is one of the most compelling/interesting/exciting things I’ve read gesturing towards a Leftist “art of governance”/rethinking the terms of resistance re: neoliberalism, etc. This is a free excerpt online, but if you have journal access through your university, there’s a link at the bottom for the full text. It sums up a lot of what I’ve been thinking about lately, some of which I’ve mentioned on here about how I think the Left needs to start thinking about practices that work within a neoliberal framework instead of just denouncing the “evils of neoliberalism.”
(via rhizombie)
Sounds kind of like a Zizekian “work within the system to destroy the system” sort of approach, from what I can tell. I’ll have to read the rest at a later date though.
(Also makes me think more about the whole ‘limits of critique’ thing I’ve been on lately.)
And there was one from his wife, Jenny, that said she would “lay down [her] head as a sacrifice to [her] naughty boy…”
I don’t know why, but I find that to be the funniest line in regards to Marx.
Sterling and I talked about how performative sexting is and this is what is happening now.
So, this is a thing that happened.
The way I see it, it doesn’t really matter. Heidegger was a Nazi, but what matters is how we use the ideas that he left us, not how he did. Same thing here. No one, no matter how brilliant, can escape all the cultural moors they’re born into.Yeah, that’s precisely the point I was trying to make (although I take exception with Heidegger and I do see resounding similarities with what I see are the implicit points in his philosophical anthropology/pastoralism and Nazi ideology) that it may just be something where we say, “this person was taking part in a cultural ideology and they should be held responsible for that, but this doesn’t mean that they are the same as a Nazi” (which is also why I find Heidegger an exception to this).
No, I agree. I just mean that you shouldn’t discount Heidegger wholesale because of his Nazi status (obviously, but the fact seems to need repeating in this discussion). There’s still valuable gold in that polluted mine. Same with Marx.
Besides, the critique - that Marx has anti-Semitic roots because of that piece - is boring. And why engage in boring theory? If you could show that Marx’s theories are somehow inherently tied in with the logic of anti-Semitism, then that would at least be somewhat interesting.
It’s like when we critique libertarianism for being racist: the claim isn’t that one piece of libertarian thought is racist, or that a specific ‘pro-libertarian’ piece of legislation is, but that the structural logic underpinning Libertarianism is racist. That is, you can’t consistently be a libertarian and not be racist.
For Marx, it’s the opposite issue: all you can do is point to individual articles and bills and say “that piece is racist” or “that one Marxist was racist”, but I don’t think it would be intellectually honest to claim that Marxism as such is racist.
Also, as a side note, I think I’d claim similar things for Heidegger as well. I don’t think his theoretical edifice has too much to do, explicitly, with his Nazism. At least nothing I’ve seen on the issue has been very convincing. I really hope that doesn’t make me some closet Nazi or something though :(
Aaron Leonard: You write, “Capital is not a book about politics, and not even a book about labour: it is a book about unemployment.” Could you talk about why you think that is true?
Frederic Jameson: I know this is probably surprising for people who always think of Marx in political terms, but there is really very little mention of any political action in Capital. There is certainly the implication of the kind of society that could come out of capitalism and also of the contradictions that could lead to the end of capitalism and I am not saying that Marx was not political or didn’t constantly think of political strategies, but Capital is not a book about that. It is a book about this infernal machine that is capitalism.
It is a book about unemployment in the sense that the absolute general law of capitalism, as he enunciates it, is to increase productivity — as a result, as he writes, “The relative mass of the industrial reserve army [the unemployed] increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth.” I think this corresponds very much to what is happening in the present. I heard the most revealing thing recently from a venture capitalist, obviously annoyed by the constant talk of both Republicans and Democrats about supporting business so it can ‘create jobs.’
He said look, “Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, I wanted to increase my payroll because I think it’s good for the American economy.” This is a pretty direct way of saying business does not exist to create jobs; it is there to make money. That is exactly what Marx lays out in Capital. There is no direct connection between productivity and creating jobs.
This was not so clear as long as Keynesian economics were being applied in certain countries — Keynes understood there had to be workers with enough money to buy all these goods being produced. Since Reagan and Thatcher, however, we get something more like the fundamental logic of capital Marx described. It is not just job flight to other countries; this is part of a worldwide process.
You want to bring factories back to the United States but on the other hand you want them to be productive? Well that means more and more automation and less and less workers, it is obvious. So I think there really is a profound contradiction between employment and what the system does. In that sense it seems to me, a political demand of the kind that there used for full employment is a demand for something the system can’t possibly provide.
(Jameson showing how [unfettered] capitalism and job creation don’t go hand in hand - in fact, they might be opposed).
Marx, above of all, is incredibly, incredibly impressed by the fluidity and the dynamics of capitalism.
Anyone who thinks they have “refuted” the LTV or “Marxism” needs to watch this lecture by Professor Santy Claus Harvey.
“Professor Santy Claus Harvey”
That makes me extremely happy.