« Talking honestly about race | Main | Palin is a neocon puppet; Kristol is Geppetto »

October 09, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe

"If this is the collapse of neoliberalism, we have to push a positive, affirmative view of state action. But it can't be a kind of apologia for the wrong sort of state action."

I think this is going to be a lot harder than it sounds. For all the positive reception of the House's initial defeat of the bailout, much in the MSM and politicians were deriding them as irresponsible. Likewise, lots of middle-class Americans with homes or stocks or 401k plans in danger want to see the State step in and "do something," but not as a matter of renewing collectivity so much as to secure for them their private security. People may stop "going through the motions," but they're further off from having a positive grasp of why than I think we can assume right now.

Bob Allen

Very good analogy to the collapse of Communism, except this crowd loves the system; this God that failed's trappings were actually manifest, not mere imaginings of a distant after;life, you could SEE the wealth and bling, and now what will the suburban cowboys do with their anger and dillusionment? Go to a neo fascist Palin rally or a college football game (events of about the same order)? They just don't train and indoctrinate fascists like they used to, there's too many darkies runnin' around and nobody believes in much of anything anymore. Schadenfruede at its finest, it is almost fun to watch...

chakira

Jodi, I am glad that you are overdosed on the porn and now ready to get working on the crisis of imagination. I believe we need to set the stage for this new drama as sparsely as possible. We must get down to the essential phenomena and address those, since we are in the midst of a referendum on these essential phenomena and phenomenology-- the making conscious of these phenomena and ipso facto of this referendum, must have a vote. This means questioning ideas like those of money. Money, recognized by Hegel as mutual recognition, and extended by Lacan into mutual titillation, has always held wide disseminatory potentials which cannot be controlled. The question of when our desire for regulated jouissance will emerge, is thus the most important one on everyone's minds. How much porn can we take?
What we do not need is more theorizing in a Habermasian vein; thinking of the stilling of reason via the proliferation of communicative alternatives. As we have seen, State Regulation of capitalism, like state regulation of jouissance, can never cover the unthematizable or within that jouissance. Thus we do not need more EU style structures where the government intervenes. What we need is rethinking of that space between the unnamablity and unregulatability of jouissance and the paradoxical, violent and ultimately connected DESIRE to regulate it. The impossibility of sinning must be thought in conjuction with the inevitability of sinning, and from there we can create some kind of metaphilosophy: one that takes into account this perspective of the world.

Joe

[...In a similar vein Jodi Dean concludes...]

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo