From: "Lowe Laclau" <lowelaclau-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: AUT: teleology
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:26:00 -0400





Angela,

 

The teleology is there, but what type is it? Its by no means an ordinary one, or the old, typical. Its not in any sense the old eschatological teleology that people made of Marx's "prophetism". One has to be careful not to let their signifiers precede them when reading Negri. He tends to elide quite a bit, which means that one has to be familiar with the entire network of other statements. And what is the nature of his ontological project? I would say that both of these aspects of his thought are novel with respect to the Marxist tradition. Though I'm not saying they are novel in and of themselves, but in their application to this tradition and with respect to issues like value, to many concepts within the western political philosophical tradition... they are not so well established paths. I think (though I could be wrong), that because of this, people tend to want him to justify himself with respect to his difference vis-a-vis the hegemonic traditions.. or vis-a-vis things that are well-established. His discussion of Rights for example--I've not read Multitudes so I've no idea what or if he says more about it there--is a consideration outside "representation". One could read the word "right" and assume he's talking about the same thing a Rawls might talk about. When you said it presuposses recognition, I'm not quite sure what you means but if you meant it in a sense that presupposes mediation, that wouldn't be consistent. 

 

>From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au> 



>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 

>To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> 

>Subject: RE: AUT: Marazzi's La Place des Chaussettes 

>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 02:08:12 +1000 

> 

>Hi Michael, 

> 

>I'm honestly not sure at this point about the 

>dialectic. There are times in _Empire_ and 

>elsewhere when Negri is perfectly clear about 

>that.  (I happen to particularly like those 

>aspects, especially his analysis of Keynsianism, 

>mediation and so on in earlier works.) But there 

>are also times when it is not so clear, and not 

>just in _Empire_ or in what you describe as its 

>most weakest parts.  Rights, after all, assume 

>recognition. It's difficult to see how that schema 

>doesn't deploy some kind of dialectic.  That said, 

>the teleology is certainly there, as is the 

>ontology, both explicitly so.  I have to say that 

>I'm no fan of either. 

> 

>Anyway, I'm hoping we'll discuss this more fully 

>in a few weeks' time. :) 

> 

>Angela 

> 

> 

> 






------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more!
------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
text/html (html body -- converted)
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---