|
Dear Trichur,
What an explosion of Dostojevskyite discontent! You have truly rendered the letter and the spirit of the "Notes From Underground", which he in turn grasped from Max Stirner's "Der Einzige Und Sein Eigentum". Well, in my part of the world, where Russian culture - and Dostojevsky - are still to a large extent a stuff of everyday life, people say "Dostojevsky, no v mieru", which means "Dostojevsky, but to a certain point". What that means practically is that there is always a danger of getting hooked on Dostojevsky's nihilism and miss his pronounced "humanism".
Regards,
Dr. Yurek Gierus
-------Original Message-------
Date: 07 luty 2003 17:22:06
Subject: Re: so what?
This is my response. I cite Wagar's text and then respond to it below.
(1) "In my original post, I asked what "our" world-view should be
in the 21st Century. I was referring to those of us attracted to
world-system analysis and especially to Wallerstein's vision of a
democratic "socialist world-government" as the next stage of human
history--a stage not inevitable but much to be desired and sought
after.If such a stage is ever reached, I think it will need the sustaining
power of a very widely shared world-view..." (Wagar).
My response:
To keep a vision of a democratic socialist world-government is not, in my mind at least, the same thing as being a "humanist". One can be a democrat and a socialist in a world government without having to purchase the hypocrisy that falls under the label of "humanism".
(2) "I find it hard to believe that a democratic and
socialist world-government can even come into existence, much less thrive
and prosper, unless vast numbers of people everywhere on Earth reach some
sort of rough consensus on fundamental values, goals, and priorities. So,
yes, it's either that or multiplying chaos and division" (Wagar).
My Response:
What you are saying here applies not just to 'democratic socialist world-governments', it applies equally, to non-democratic and non-socialist world hegemonies as well. To use your words again, "vast numbers of people everywhere on Earth" did indeed "reach some sort of rough consensus on fundamental values, goals, and priorities", and it was indeed "either that or multiplying chaos and division". Wallerstein's essay on "The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism" shows how liberal humanism provides the ideological underpinnings of such a hegemony. ( Powerful analyses of the multiple contradictions in liberalism, and of humanism as liberalism, are there in two successive chapters in Polanyi's Great Transformation). It is necessary to manufacture consent of the ruled for the complex of business and governmental agencies that combine to produce order in the world system. The loyalty of the vast numbers you speak about, of multitudes in the core and the periphery, is obtained partly by consent and partly by coercion, partly also by the means of payment. And all this because of a demand for order....(For more on this cf. Ch.2 in Arrighi's Long Twentieth Century).
(3) "Let's not turn this into a metaphysical conundrum. Feminism is a
belief in the dignity of womanhood and in whatever advances the well-being
of women. Humanism is a belief in the supreme value of our species, Homo
sapiens, and in whatever advances the well-being of humankind. It teaches
ultimate and highest loyalty to the species, rather than to separate
nations or tribes or Fuhrers or corporations or sects alleging direct
private communication with omnipotent supernatural entities." (Wagar)
My Response: Not a "metaphysical conundrum", Warren, but an anti-humanist non-conundrum. I do not have the faith that you may have in liberal humanist values. In the long and barbaric history of a Euro-centered capitalism, I see the multiple employment of humanist slogans, humanist arguments, to further the projects of reason and capital. The cunning of reason is that it has so successfully employed humanism as its ideological tool so effectively. Toussaint Overture's revolution in Haiti was against the hypocrisy of Enlightenment humanism. In short, the Enlightenment ideology of 'liberty, equality, and fraternity' has never been consistently applied to embrace what you call 'humankind', but always selectively, one that also excluded women for a very long time and still does; one that has exploited peoples in the Third World consistently but all the time using humanist arguments to do so - 'they need to be civilized', or as Bush says today, 'they need to be liberated'. Then as now the pathetic humanist story is the same. "Belief in the supreme value of the species"? Where have you seen this applied? Or perhaps you mean the Western man as the species whose 'supreme values' have no doubt been consistently upheld all through your 'human' history. "Ultimate and highest loyalty to the species"? Where? When? How? Unless again you mean Western man (white man) as the ultimate of the species to whom of course the highest loyalty has always been declared in the West and sought to be enforced over the non-West. In short, I do not see any historical instances of what you see to be resident in the content of 'humanism'. What I do see in history is multiple different resistances against the hypocritical sham that has been paraded around as "humanism" and "Western humanism" in particular. The utter emptiness of that concept may be seen in the rejection of Western humanism in the struggles of the oppressed, the majority of whom are located in the periphery of the world system, but what they clearly reject is "Western values", "liberalism", "developmentalism", "globalization", because they see in it its utter hypocrisy. It is all fine to define yourself as having descended from the Enlightenment and the values of the Enlightenment - I have no such fascination with the Enlightenment and its humanist representatives. It certainly is not for me a principle on which to base my thinking, my work, my aspirations for a freer and better life. You and I ofcourse differ here! As for your statement regarding feminism - many feminists would strongly disagree with your definition of feminism as 'a belief in the dignity of womanhood'. Womanhood? What is womanhood? Are you saying there is an essential woman that can be defined? That correspondingly there is a "manhood" as well? Is that your "humanism"? Well then, all the more reason for the distance I keep from that useless concept. I do not believe in essences, and I do not believe in the 'humanistically' constructed division between 'man' and 'woman'. You may (or may not) want to read a most powerful, most engrossing, narrative called Hercule Barbin with an introduction by M.Foucault. If that does not challenge your attachment to 'manhood' and 'womanhood', I may probably convert to your humanism. But please do give that text a chance.
(3) "Humankind is not dead. There are now 6.3 billion of us, all with
beating hearts and teeming brains. We have behaved atrociously to one
another, there are many ways of imagining how we could get along better,
and we have learned a lot more about our dependence on the terrestrial
biosphere and how vital it is to preserve that wondrous envelope of air
and water and soil that supports our existence, but humankind is not dead." (Wagar).
My Response:
To say that there 6 million people living on this planet is not the same thing as asserting that "humanism" is alive and well. Not very good logic here, Wagar! Humanism is a concept, it is a way of looking at the world, and in my mind not necessarily the best way or even a very productive way. In fact it is a contested concept, contested by those see its limited utility. It is the reason why I mentioned Marx's "ensemble of social relations" which is really anti-essentialist (your definition appears to me as essentialist) why I mentioned Doestovsky and Nietzsche, thinkers who did not think with an essence for all who live on this planet. It is also about how you think and how I think that differs. You and I are different : I can never be Wagar, Wagar can never be Ganesh, I can never live or love or die as Wagar, and Wagar can never live or love or die as Ganesh....I think there are better ways of coming to terms with these realities other than through the empty use of the word 'humanism' to describe the multiplicity and singularity all that lives, of all that is alive, of the infinite richness of encounters and experiences that only through a certain poverty of thought and imagination one would want to reduce to the 'human'.
(4) " Really? Then we will put an end to our discourse on ourselves. I
think not."
My Response: Who is the one who wants to enagage in this 'discourse on ourselves'? And who is the 'self' in the 'ourselves'. You think you know about that 'self' because you think in terms of essences. I do not. I think there are multiple 'selves' in any person, there are in fact only multiplicities, and it is often through violence (humanist violence?) that all these selves are made to collapse into one single 'authentic' or essential self. Keep lumping so many differences in experience under that concept of the 'human', and it becomes as empty as I pointed out earlier. Not to say reductive, reductive of the richness, the diversity, the manifold contexts into which I enter which often completely transform me sometimes beyond all recognition. It takes a certain amount of reductive 'humanist' violence to subsume all those experiences into the category of the 'human'.
(5) "Violence is committed every day, sometimes senselessly,
sometimes for pleasure, or in the "name" of everything from Almighty God
to humanism, none of which proves a blessed thing about the validity or
utility of humanism as the basis of a world-view. Same with socialism.
"Stalin was a socialist. Stalin killed millions of innocent people.
Therefore, socialism kills millions of innocent people." Bad syllogism".
My Response: (i) A lot of the violence that has been committed in the long course of world history has indeed been committed in the name of 'humanism'. To you it may prove nothing about the utility of humanism as the basis of a world-view. To me the connection between violence and humanism is quite clear. You can of course will yourself not to see it that way. That is not of interest to me. (ii) What you call a "bad syllogism" arises out of a particular reading of Soviet history and of the poor reading of the passage I wrote. Of history first - you perhaps think that Stalin was a socialist, I have never done so. Of the passage - I wrote that in the name of socialist humanism a lot of violence has been committed. If you choose to equate 'socialism' with 'Stalinist socialist humanism' - and I do not - then obviously you will see only what you look for, a bad syllogism. The problem with your mode of thinking is what I have already referred to as essentialism. You, Wagar, can speak so confidently of "womanhood", "mankind", "humankind", as if these terms contained within them the essence of what it is to be a "woman", a "man", and a "human". I believe in so such thing. So likewise you claim to know what 'socialist humanism' is. Unlike you, I make no such claims but I do not believe you either when you make these claims. No doubt you and I are very different. You can be as "human" as wish to, I refuse to allow your essentializing thought process the generalization it seeks to impose in and through its "humanness".
(6) "The difference is quite simple. Humanism says that all human
beings are human. Even George W. Bush. If he impregnated Aung San Suu
Kyi, the child of their union would be a full-fledged human being." (Wagar)
My Response: Bravo! As you say, it is indeed very simple, it is the complete absence of any depth in the concept of humanism that you so clearly, so simply reveal, that demonstrates all that I have to say. I like to think of those whom I respect as my friends as complex beings encountering different situations, leading complex, beautiful, and irreducibly different, singular lives, none of which has anything to do with your attachment to the "simple". Therein again, resides the difference, between your humanist way of thinking, and my non-humanist stance. As for your statement about humanism 'believing in the dignity and sanctity and humanity of all members of the species' - I will ask you again a question I have already asked: who is 'the human' you are talking about? Bush? Aung San Suu Kyi? Yourself? I would recommend that you speak for yourself.
(7) " Humanism believes in the dignity and sanctity and
humanity of all members of the species. Fundamentalists demonize."
My Response: If you look for historical evidence for the first part of your statement you would be hard put to find it. If anything, to repeat what you call my bad syllogism, it is in the very name of humanism that all kinds of indignities against life have been performed. You may believe anything you like about anything, but its materiality is in its moment of translation from mere belief to acting out your belief. The record of Western civilization has been pathetic in this regard. It has called itself all kinds of fine-sounding names like liberal, like humanistic, and it has duped many - like you - into thinking that there is something sacred, something beautiful, something sublime, about it. I see nothing but hypocrisy, a sham through and through. As Walter Benjamin says, 'there is no document of [Western] civilization, that is not also a document of its barbarism'. Call it humanistic if you wish but do not forget that its roots, its forms, are barbaric through and through!
Have a good night Dr. Wagar. Ganesh K. Trichur.
wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Trichur Ganesh wrote:
> The problem, in my opinion, in formulating the question in the manner in
> which Dr. Wagar does, is to present it in the form of an 'either-or', that
In my original post, I asked what "our" world-view should be in
the 21st Century. I was referring to those of us attracted to
world-system analysis and especially to Wallerstein's vision of a
democratic "socialist world-government" as the next stage of human
history--a stage not inevitable but much to be desired and sought after.
If such a stage is ever reached, I think it will need the sustaining power
of a very widely shared world-view, so in a larger sense when I write "our",
I am also thinking of a substantial number of human beings, not only the
few hundred of us, or the millions of people with a Left orientation now
scattered around the globe, but millions more, most of them still unborn.
I wouldn't call this an "either/or" situation. There must be plenty of
room for dissent and freedom of conscience in any world order that seeks
to be democratic. Yet I find it hard to believe that a democratic and
socialist world-government can even come into existence, much less thrive
and prosper, unless vast numbers of people everywhere on Earth reach some
sort of rough consensus on fundamental values, goals, and priorities. So,
yes, it's either that or multiplying chaos and division. But not, "either
you become a scientific humanist or you'll lose your job and maybe we'll
torture you to death in Room 101."
> is to say in asking about scientific humanism there appears to be a
> supposition, implicitly or otherwise, on a generally agreed preference for
> humanism in particular. But what is humanism? After the death of God -
Let's not turn this into a metaphysical conundrum. Feminism is a
belief in the dignity of womanhood and in whatever advances the well-being
of women. Humanism is a belief in the supreme value of our species, Homo
sapiens, and in whatever advances the well-being of humankind. It teaches
ultimate and highest loyalty to the species, rather than to separate
nations or tribes or Fuhrers or corporations or sects alleging direct
private communication with omnipotent supernatural entities. Do humanists
disagree on practically everything else? Of course. Do they have
different ideas of what's good for humankind? Of course. But is there
anything mysterious about pledging allegiance to humankind? Not a bit.
> already announced in the West in the 19th century by different writers
> (Dostoevsky, Nietzsche)- are we not living in an epoch that bears witness
> to the death of 'man'? A death of 'man' in different inter-related senses
> of the term - one sense is that in which we have been introduced to the
> death of the subject from very different theoretical perspectives, another
> is the sense in which 'man' is a contested agent resistances against whom
> opens up a whole new world of the possible, a third is the sense in which
> one may elaborate non-reductively on 'the ensemble of social relations'
> (Marx) as well as the possibility of transforming those social relations in
> differently productive spaces of interrogation and possibilities, a fourth
> is the sense in which students of 'deep ecology' (Naess) have questioned
> the centrality of the human in different ecosystems....
Humankind is not dead. There are now 6.3 billion of us, all with
beating hearts and teeming brains. We have behaved atrociously to one
another, there are many ways of imagining how we could get along better,
and we have learned a lot more about our dependence on the terrestrial
biosphere and how vital it is to preserve that wondrous envelope of air
and water and soil that supports our existence, but humankind is not dead.
> Emerson's concept
> of the 'overman' is another useful critique of the model of 'human-ness' or
> 'humanism' that informs so much of our thinking. As is Nietzsche's
> formulation of the problem in his critical references to the 'human,
> all-too human'. Humanism appears everywhere, in everyone's tongue today as
> in the past, in such reified manner. Perhaps it is as empty a concept as
> 'culture' and 'excellence'. I am tempted to say that perhaps the 21st
> century will put an end to this discourse on humanism, scientific or
Really? Then we will put an end to our discourse on ourselves. I
think not.
> otherwise. The means by which that may happen will perhaps be more violent
> than we care for, but then humanism itself has always carried with it both
> reason and violence. We like to speak about humanism, and yet we are
> surely aware how in different geographical spaces random and 'senseless'
> acts of violence are constantly being inflicted on 'humans' in the name of
> some form or the other of humanism itself, whether it be liberal humanism,
> Soviet-style humanism, or religious humanism. Where lies the difference
Violence is committed every day, sometimes senselessly,
sometimes for pleasure, or in the "name" of everything from Almighty God
to humanism, none of which proves a blessed thing about the validity or
utility of humanism as the basis of a world-view. Same with socialism.
"Stalin was a socialist. Stalin killed millions of innocent people.
Therefore, socialism kills millions of innocent people." Bad syllogism.
> between humanism and
> fundamentalism? Are not fundamentalists very
> fundamental precisely about their particular claim to humanity and the
> non-human character of some remainder of humanity? In our epoch and in the
The difference is quite simple. Humanism says that all human
beings are human. Even George W. Bush. If he impregnated Aung San Suu
Kyi, the child of their union would be a full-fledged human being. I
apologize for the incongruity, and especially to Aung San Suu Kyi, one of
the finest people on Earth, just as W. is among its most nauseating, but
the fact remains. Humanism believes in the dignity and sanctity and
humanity of all members of the species. Fundamentalists demonize.
> terrible tensions of the coming days and weeks and months, is not war
> itself being waged in the name of a military humanism? Are not its
> champions using 'liberation', and calling themselves 'liberators' even as
> they seek to inflict utter violence on the perceived un-humanness of other
> humans?
Military humanism? That's new to me. The last time I checked
with W. (State of the Union) he claimed to be an agent of Almighty God.
> And what about art and the realm of the beautiful and the sublime? Can
> that be so faciley subsumed under the rubric of the 'human'? I doubt it.
Please let me know any definition or identification of what is
beautiful and sublime not provided by human beings.
> Some of my doubts were a long time back aroused in the context of what
> Benjamin referred to 'mechanical reproduction'. Art was then already
> embedded in an age of mechanical reproduction, along with its experience of
> the loss of the auratic. More on this later. I have a student waiting for
> me. Ganesh.
>
> Respectfully, Ganesh.
Respectfully,
Warren
> Boris Stremlin wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > "Since scientific humanism produced virtually
> > everything bad associated with
> > religion (intolerance, conformity, inquisitions, etc)
> > and left out the good
> > (spiritual ectasy, art, communal rituals) why exactly
> > are we supposed to
> > believe it is THE path for the twenty-first century?"
> >
> > I don't think that's right, actually. There is plenty
> > of evidence that "scientific humanism" (if by that we
> > mean the state religion of the Socialist Bloc
> > countries, or something very close to it) included the
> > "good" elements of religion - there were certainly
> > communal rituals (the popularity of which is often
> > understated or ignored in the West and among Soviet
> > emigres), there was a large amount of world-class art
> > (either in the early stages, or, in the case of the
> > later periods, usually in more traditional pursuits
> > such as ballet, opera, symphonic music). As for
> > spiritual ecstasy, we must understand under this
> > rubric not only sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but also
> > that which is sometimes called "the pursuit of Truth"
> > - in other words, all scientific research. The
> > categorization of such as a merely practical, material
> > pursuit is a legacy of orthodox Christian theology,
> > though because they accepted it and propagated it,
> > proponents of "scientific humanism" bear a share of
> > the blame as well.
> >
> > On the larger point - that there is no reason to
> > accept "scientific humanism" as THE path for the 21st
> > (or any other) century, Steve is, however, absolutely
> > correct.
> >
> > Warren Wagar wrote:
> >
> > "The
> > point is, to follow up on Steven Sherman's question,
> > what should our
> > world-view be in the 21st Century? If not scientific
> > humanism, then what?
> > If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it. I think
> > the question is
> > important precisely because I believe that religion in
> > the sense of shared
> > beliefs about the good and the real and the ground of
> > knowledge is vital
> > to our mental health. But reversion to Christianity,
> > Islam, Hinduism,
> > and the rest violates reason and promotes human
> > divisiveness. Is there an
> > alternative? People like Marx and T.H. Huxley and
> > Bertrand Russell and
> > Sigmund Freud thought so. Were they so wrong?"
> >
> > Why should there be a 21st century worldview which is
> > "ours" (who are WE, anyway?)? Who will be in charge
> > of enforcing that this view will remain "ours"? The
> > problem with "scientific humanism" as described above
> > is not that it fails to incorporate genuine religious
> > experience. It is that it sees only certain, and very
> > limited types of such experience as legitimate,
> > specifically those types which are generally
> > associated with the 19th century. This 19th century
> > religion is then counterposed to equally hypostasized
> > religions like Islam, which is assigned a century of
> > its own, the experiences of which it supposedly
> > fossilizes and carries into the present day. But
> > Islam is very diverse, and as a living religion, it
> > incorporates a variety of religious experiences
> > through the ages - there is nothing "7th century"
> > about "Islamic" art, "Islamic" science, or Sufism. It
> > is only when certain Muslims begin to prattle about
> > restoring the Medina Caliphate that Islam becomes
> > truncated (and not particularly religious). The same
> > is true about a religion that exists on sacralizing
> > the experiences of Marx or Freud at the expense of all
> > others. If that is what the legacy of Marx, Freud,
> > Russell and Huxley is, then one can only say that they
> > were, indeed, wrong, irrational, and divisive. If
> > they are to have a legacy, it is as proponents of
> > democratizing religious experience - in undermining
> > the clergies which claimed a monopoly on it, rather
> > than in building up a new scientistic orthodoxy. Can "scientific
> > humanism" become a living tradition and come to terms with other
> > traditions, instead of offering us a "humanistic civilization" obsessed
> > with 1848 or 1917?
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
|
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here