Drift away

Slowly, over time, I've found myself blogging less. Part of this is because of other work--finishing a big project, travel, a new term. But this isn't the only explanation. In the past, I've blogged when busiest, most extended. It could be symptomatic of a larger shift, the critical energies and debates part of what I thought of as my bloggy neighborhood have changed, moved to other topics, other places, generally dissipated and reconstituted. It could also be a matter of changes in the technologies and interfaces, not just moving to Facebook and Twitter but changes others have made to their layout as well as my alienation from Typepad. Typepad has enacted a total remake of its entire interface (it's now a lot like blogger). I hate it.

But there is something else. I think it's my greater pessimism or maybe even hopelessness. Differently put, it's pessimism and despair as customary, as daily habit, as the overall mode of life rather than as a reaction to events. I've always written posts that have been pretty pessimistic about political change. Yet the very act of writing, of documenting the torture, the move to fascism, the declines in symbolic efficiency, the venality of finance capital, gestures toward the possibility of something else. It's as if one says something, writes something, because the addition of voice and view could make a difference, could add to flow in one direction and resistance in another. So even when one writes that it doesn't make a difference, the very act of writing or speaking suggests otherwise; there is a difference between enuciating and the enunciated content.

I've written here before about whether or not the world has already ended and we are just caught in the wake and disintegration of its memory. Seeing previews for so many of the horror films about to be released, as well as the harsh ugliness of District 9 and Zombieland, not to mention the upcoming The Road and 2012, it seems as if the culture itself is now realizing the end, the end not just in itself but for itself. It's like our whole world looks like Southland Tales, like we've become a kind of screen of violence and filth.

The awfulness of the summer, with the ludicrous town halls and open displays of brown shirted thuggery, as well as the mindfuck of the birthers and anything that erupts out of Sarah Palin's and Glenn Beck's gaping maws, reached a new level with the total contempt for the President, Congress, and political process demonstrated by House Republicans this last week. It all gives me the same feeling as the poor professor debased in a crowing bird costume at the end of the Marlene Dietrich film, The Blue Angel. The overall feeling of decay, decadence, collapse is overwhelming.

The Republicans create the people who elect them: people who have no faith in government (and the Republicans always prove that they can screw up more than anyone can expects--we all learned this with Katrina), people who are suspicious, people who think that the government will lie to them (George W. Bush proved the truth of this one), people who think the government protects the rich (top one percent has had a great ride over the last decade while everyone else is at a 20 year low). The Democrats don't even try--they just look to the next 2 years, try to compromise, and fail to realize that 25-29 percent of the people will oppose them no matter what; these are the folks who kept confidence in Bush, the Republican base. The Democrats should ignore them completely, rather than enabling the Republicans to let their appeals to these people determine the debate. Rather than communists or socialist--like their opponents allege--the Democrats are not ideological enough. They have no principles at all--just short term tactics, like they were run by second tier network programming executives or marketing folks laid off from the Gap. 

Death panels are a symptom--a symptom of our denial of the fundamental inequalities structuring our society and our projection of this inequality onto the old who we are suspect are taking more than their share, whose need and dependency now feels like a kind of parascite that sucks up our energy and resources as it kicks back and enjoys golf and a Viagara powered sex life most of us only dream of. We resent having to support these white haired golfers and so work to suppress our fantasy of just putting them down, of being freed from their old, wrinkled faces and our own miserable future (imagine Synedoche, New York, a shockingly depressing film). Death panels express a kind of wish fulfillment. More than just the displacement of the truth of private insurance onto the government, they are ways that some of us transfer and deal with fear and anger. No wonder the old people don't want any change--they can feel the underlying fear, now the fodder for so many zombie films and references. Zombies are the new aliens.

So popular culture hasn't even been able to cover it all up or deflect us from encountering the overall horror. It's exacerbating it rather than providing some kind of compensatory enjoyment. We saw "The Soloist"--not great, but interesting insofar as rather than the complete cliche of the triumph of the human spirit, the message was more generally one of accepting limitations and coming to grips with one's inability to change the world, that and images and statistics reminding us that there are 90,000 homeless people in LA.  That's more than four times the size of the town I live in. At any rate, pop culture's failure to divert us from or compensate us for the overall decline is likely because of the catch 22 of the economy--it's hard to kid ourselves or placate our anxiety with shopping as therapy. Now with the swine flu, back to school and fall football are also fraught with fear and anxiety. A student died at Cornell a day or two ago. 

More of my friends, from different countries and not all academics, talk about a new test: are we alcoholics yet and how do we know? Some are cutting the problem off at the pass, looking to yoga and meditation. Others say that if you worry about it that's the sign that you are fine; the real problem is when you don't care anymore. Is this middle age, the stage of life where we realize that it's half over, and that's if we're lucky--most don't make it to 94. Or is it something more? 

The thing is, even if it's something more, we won't even know.

Comments

[Bob Allen]

Oh stop it, your blog rocks, Twitter and Facebook suck. You need to get out in the street and fight like we did in Bellevue Nebraska, humiliating those Operation Rescue idiots. Dare I say, you are spending too much energy looking at the media and its representation of how things are going-- of course the fascists shoot first, that's what they do. But our situation is far from hopeless, it just requires a real fight in meatspace. Theory can't be just theory, it must be applied (yeah, I made that up myself, maybe it should go on my tombstone? lol). Go on and drift away from blogging if you like, just know that I've learned alot from it (your blog)that I'd have never learned any other way and I appreciate it....thanks

[Jodi]

Bob--that's the best comment ever. You are completely right about too much time with media and not enough time in the streets; I actually had intended to link to a new anarchist/action sort of online journal (although that's kinda a fold back in on media rather than action, but I had thought of it as a link to something more attuned to acting in the moment rather than getting caught up in stupidity. It's really exciting that you were out there against the operation rescue folks--on a personal note, one of the guys who assassinated an ob-gyn doc took shots at my brother in law a number of years ago--right through the plate glass window in his house.

[Alain]

I have to second Bob's comments. Your blog rocks and it has been a great site for information and discussion. If you want to drift away so be it - I know it is hard not to be discouraged. But as someone once said, "miracles do happen."

[Marco]

More than Bob's comment, Jodi maybe it is time for america to see Academics taking part in union organizing, especially this time of crisis. Another, try to look at the third world, their revolution is getting enormous, an exemplar of tireless persuasion and organizing of the masses. Sometimes we tend to articulate so much the capatialist system but we have to remember that from the materialist conception of history, it is the same order and things that we can get being located on this stage of mode of production. The challenge for the left today is to push back again the relevance and validity of a proletarian revolution and nothing more.

[Jodi]

Marco--thanks for your comment. I confess that I am not knowledgeable in the least about revolution in the third world; in fact, I'm confused about whether third world refers to countries and regions or whether, as I tend to think, it designates the oppression and inequality accompanying the extremes of wealth connecting global capitalism (in the US case I'm thinking of places like Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit).

I appreciate and agree with your point about the challenge for the left today. I might think of various ways of phrasing it (like holding open the space for revolutionary aspiration or marking the loss of this aspiration or even appreciating anew the ways proletarian is a political category), but these ways would definitely involve the push back you mention.

The union organizing part is a bit more complicated. I applaud those who are active organizers (and find the bravery of those who undertake organized strikes inspiring). I'm not sure, though, exactly what academics' taking part means. I say this in part because faculty where I teach (and many other places) aren't considered workers with respect to collective bargaining agreements.

I have friends and colleagues who have worked tirelessly with organizers in specific locals (mostly farmworkers), following their lead and learning from the issues they encounter. Where I have seen academics make mistakes is in entering a situation and presuming to know in advance exactly what the union should demand and what is involved in these demands. I've also seen academics get caught up between union interests and community interest in ways that helped no one (a conflict over a construction project; on the one hand, the work was supposed to be down by unionized labor; on the other, there was no unionized labor in the immediate community, which meant that workers in the community were automatically excluded from employment on the project).

All in all, I think that you and the other commenters are right to emphasize action on the ground rather than inaction in the ether.

[Lowell Rice]

Jodi:

I think this piece sums up your ennui perfectly

http://www.truthout.org/091509A?n

[Jocelyn Atkins]

hi Jodi:

I have always wanted to comment but just figured ah, what is the difference; but now I feel like I must . I am a 32 yr old union carpenter with a degree in Philosophy. I have been laid off since January and just lost my health insurance. I am applying to PhD programs in Philosophy despite the fact that I will probably be in a worse situation than I am now, as a "contracted" worker without any union representation, not to mention the bleak landscape of jobs in the academy. But I am doing this because I believe there is another option, a different analysis. It is your work and that of Zizek that have, no doubt, streamlined many of my convictions and well, I know it sounds cliche, but really, given me some hope. I agree with the others: do what you must regarding the blog but please know that your work here has been very helpful for me in understanding much of your work and that of Zizek's. Not only has it been helpful but sort of a coping mechanism. So, thanks.

[Jodi]

Lowell--great link; thanks.

Jocelyn--thanks for writing, I really appreciate it. And best of luck with your application to programs in philosophy. Losing your insurance is awful. It seems to me that unions should be sources of health insurance (maybe some are??). I really hope things turn around for you (and very much admire the fact that you have carpentry skills).

[Tokyo.]

The west coast says that Teachers can act like part of collective bargaining agreement, even if they're not officially part of it:

http://ucfacultywalkout.com/

Dude, apathy is the lubricant of capitalism. (Among other things). Don't stop believing blogging.

[joe]

"apathy is the lubricant of capitalism."

It's a nice line, but I'm trying to think of what isn't the lubricant of capitalism. Sometimes I tell my students that "friendship" might stand as genuine oppositional thinking/acting/judging, but capitalism can deal with that, too, that is, it can thrive within the terms set by any social form or gluten.

So your charge to Jodi appears to be a nonsequitur: the command "Don't be apathetic because you're then a stooge, therefore, blog" doesn't make sense. The question should be instead: does Jodi's blogging have any political efficacy?

I think quite obviously it does not. But what then might make her blogging defensible? She is having a hard time justifying its continuation. Perhaps it filled a (psychological) niche that is now full. Perhaps she is writing so much elsewhere in a tone that she developed here that she doesn't need to be here anymore.

I have been thinking for a while about 'professionalization.' Perhaps Jodi's professional duties have so merged with her off-the-cuff stuff that, again, she doesn't need this forum. (It is for those without sufficient, other, inroads to the ears that matter, and she's got their ears now in a way she didn't before.) In this vein, a friend, a long time ago, said, "mostly these days I read professionally." We can see here a Weberian/Habermasian insight about the modernization process. Home-brew doesn't cut it. We've become glass. I mean to say: Jodi is becoming herself, with one voice, regardless of the audience (she doesn't need to reserve an "exploratory" voice for some audiences, this audience). This comes with age and power (or defeat).

[Bob Allen]

it is what we do without needing to do that is important-- for those of us in her audience who aren't academics, this blog has political efficacy galore, and to say it obviously doesn't reveals a class bias however unintentional. But this doesn;t mean Jodi shouldn't stop blogging, either, for whatever reason- not blogging doesnt make one a "stooge", obviously.

[Alain]

I have to say as another non-academic that Jodi's blog has had political efficacy for me as well. Unless one has a very narrow definition of "the political" what Jodi does here (among other things) is bridge the divide between academic theory and the current situation. My engagements with her and others at i cite have been an impetus for me to personally engage in politics in a way I would probably never have done otherwise. And as someone who would best be described as a traditional new deal liberal, Jodi's provocations have awoken me to more "leftist" views of our current politics. What ultimate efficacy this influence has in the larger society is hard to quantify - but it is a mistake to discount.

[Bob Allen]

Yes! Alain, thanks for fleshing out what I meant to say; I apologize to Joe for the "class bias " comment, it was a simplification.

[Vesa]

Hello,

I might as well confess to liking the blog, though my involvement in it is limited now -and likely in the future- to just reading it. Basically I don't think I know enough to comment on it -understanding the blog at times is hard enough for my non-academic brain.

But reading the blog is nice enough. It gives nice leftist insights into global and American politics. I also appreciate the fact that the blogs approach is profoundly psychological and isn't too afraid of pessimism. Frustratingly, most public political discussion seems to assume there are no really implicit dimensions in politics hidden to the public eye. Of course some implicit political phenomena like bribery or other illegal forms of corruption sometimes make it to the public discussion, but discussion on such things always seem to presuppose that the normal, smooth functioning of the (political) system is somehow unproblematic and that the criminal transgressions against the system are the problem. I get much more excited about analysis, that explores the underside of what is considered normal. I think the blog does rather well in this respect.

I doubt this blog has much political efficacy for me. I do think that exposure to this blog and to Zizek's thinking has somewhat soured my good faith towards the liberal leftist movement. Maybe this blog has made me more skeptical of capitalism in general.

Anyway, thank you for all your blogging so far, Jodi. I hope to read more from you in the future.

[aidan]

It's a very strange and disquieting time in the blogosphere. The speculative realists have made Badiou and Zizek look a little like they belong to another era. Perhaps the most disquieting was how quickly that happened. Almost within the space of a few months. To me it was really momentous, and made me realise how contingent our attachments are. I don't believe SZ and AB no longer have relevance, but I don't think it is possible to approach anything now as if SR hadn't happened. I just wonder about the politics that will arise from it. Perhaps that will be its biggest test.

[Jodi]

Vesa--thanks for your comment (and for reading).

Aidan--that's a good point, if disquieting. Part of the weirdness for me is the fragmentation: previously, I felt a convergence/overlap/commonality in the Badiou/Zizek discussions I encountered in f2f and academic settings with the discussions in the blogosphere. It was rare that I would encounter folks in theory or media spheres without some kind of interest or investment in discussions around Badiou, Zizek, Ranciere, or Agamben. But none of this seems at all current or intense or like it matters on the blogs now. What matters is the SR debate. Yet, I don't find that a lot in f2f/academic circles yet. A qualification: folks have been talking about Latour for a while. And, more and more folks are aware of Meillassoux. But there is still a gap that the SR discussion hasn't crossed. And the weird thing is that you remain completely right that this gap in no way means that those of us aware of the discussion can simply ignore it (which I confess to have been doing but now feel like I need to catch up with...)

[aidan]

Sometimes catching up seems so endless! I'll be very interested to see what you make of it.

[Jonathan]

Jodi: your blog is great as everyone says. I forget about it for a while but then when I have to write something about democracy or I am thinking about Zizek or just for some reason because your name pops up in my mind, I come back. And it is always worthwhile.

I don't agree that other technologies like Facebook are totally useless (though if anything called for being brought into public ownership it is FB). However the blog is still very worthwhile. And when it ceases to be this is because there will be a technology that is better. And there is not at this time.

Jonathan

[Joel]

...great post...great comments...great blog

[Nate]

hi Jodi,

I can totally relate. One way I've dealt with similar sorts of feelings has been to start paying attention to groups and attempts I'd previously dismissed or been bored by, like Solidarity for example -
http://www.solidarity-us.org/

or ZNet -

http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/reimaginingsociety.htm

I mean this respectfully, but from reading your blog I wonder if you might not find engaging with this sort of project would provide some satisfaction of a sort that your post says you lack (ugh that's a torturous sentence, sorry). I suspect you wouldn't find engaging with that kind of stuff as intellectually exciting as some other work, but might find it worthwhile in other ways.

take care,
Nate