File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_2001/baudrillard.0110, message 8


Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:45:08 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Baudrillard and Lecourt


K

New Philosophers argued from reactionary positions founded on a belief 
that left and especially marxist descended left positions lead 
inevitably to the 'gulag'. The gulag was constructed by them into a 
motief as important as the representation of the holocaust has been and 
is for others. Additionally the work of deleuze anf guattari, foucault, 
lyotard and others belong to an age of unreason charecterised by the 
political dissapointments of the late 60s and the failure of 
revolutionary politics.  They attack in short the Neitschean descended 
politics of the day but most critically they engage in supporting the 
reactionary politics of the end of the 70s, the era of Thatcher and the 
intellectual dominance of the right. Neo-liberal economics, the return 
to pre post-structural positions. A nostalgia for earlier more 
understandable days...

All preached from the new soap box the media - written in an 'emergency' 
style supporting supposedly just causes but from blindly unjust 
positions. Sarajevo, Kosovo and so on.. All positions mediated across 
late night programmes on the TV or Radio and represented as a return to 
real philosophy.... They adapted their philosphies in the way of cynical 
media men to corner and satisfy the market.  Behind their discourses 
lies the petit-thoughts of theoretical discourses structured for 
narrative-as-money... The new-philosophers became intellectual 
terroists, policemen - they became mostly liberal democrats, 
anti-marxists, anti-neitschean, anti-hegalian... they attempt on an 
ongoing basis to construct and lead moral positions of the day from the 
soapbox of the media... there is no radical dissensus in their work no 
uncertainty of moral positions, no questionning of the day... from one 
emergency to another all badly placed in he present because all theory 
is badly marked by the horros of the 20th C. Thus no history...

What Lecourt is attempting to argue is the the NP is derived from two 
critical points in european history which are now collapsing - firstly 
the anti-marxist shift of the mid to late 70s. The second is the hatred 
that they developed for the anti-humanism of Foucault, Deleuze, Lyotard 
and others.  He argues that the reactionary positions that the new 
philosphers occupy seeks to not interpret the world, except in the face 
of mediated events, but instead aims to support the hegemonic forces of 
globalisation.

The charge that you need to answer is how Baudrillard does not fit 
within the framework outlined above?

The Davis/Baudrillard was related simply to the differnt handling of 
discussions of colonialism, globalisation and the media. Where davis 
attempts to draw out a history of  empire based atrocities inflicted on 
the thrid world - baudriallard discusses a singular mediated example 
without reference to its relationship to globalisation and western 
history in the third world.

regards

sdv





Kenneth Rufo wrote:

>Steve, there's a number of claims in your recent posts that have me somewhat
>confused.  First, when Lecourt announces that the (homogenized) New Left lacks
>"important supportive work", what kind of theoretical backdrop qualifies as
>both important and supportive?  Second, without having a chance to read the
>Mike Davis text you suggest at present, I am curious if the two books address
>the same 'event' per se... your email asks that we inquire of them which one
>better explains 'the truth' of the G8 involvement in the Persian Gulf war, but
>I read JB's work on that subject as a description of the media history of the
>event, and not the event itself.  Any chance you might clarify what we are
>supposed to be looking for in this regard?  Third, I am interested in who
>comprises Lecourt's conception of the New Left?  Are Derrida and Foucault
>included?  Is it simply French, post-Sartre?  And how does Lecourt deal with
>such a diverse group of thought/thinkers, in terms of providing evidence for
>his claims?
>
>As a reactionary post, and as a reaction that may change with your answers to
>the above, I am curious as to why this particular pronouncement interests you.
>I am generally unmoved by claims that 'none' of the 'french New Left
>philosophers' have 'produced any reasonable work.'  Apart from the foundational
>assumptions required to give voice to that opinion, the sweeping generalization
>at work seems indicative of the garden variety historical materialist who, by
>dint of his/her theoretical constitution, needs to think history in blocks
>(rather than in radical cotingency) in order to always figure out a means of
>returning the discussion to what he/she finds 'reasonable' (where reasonable is
>defined by the driving and defining force of historical periods).  For most,
>that's going to return the discussion to modes of production, which while a
>useful and interesting trope, is not the final (or perhaps even the most
>productive) register for discussion.  The call to the list to defend
>Baudrillard against claims of mediocrity awards presumption to a claim that I
>think rests on already spurious foundations.  I am reminded of Mike Gane's
>discussion and dismissal (see _Critical and Fatal Theory_) of Marxists who find
>problematic in Baudrillard his explicit rejection of Marxist ways of knowing
>through the mirror of production; the critics Gane writes of complain about
>JB's telos (or lack of it) as if that is in itself a sufficient response to
>JB's methodological arguments.  Thoughts?
>
>Lastly, let me  highlight a parenthetical remark of yours: 'In wars the
>technologically advanced always win.'  I appreciate the Jared Diamond
>perspective to be sure, but I think America's 'New War' points to its
>limitations - not because it is incorrect, but because it is insufficient.
>Having travelled this past weekend from Georgia to a wedding in Kentucky, I was
>surprised by the 'United We Stand', 'America Will Prevail' t-shirts and signs
>that pervaded the country.  I realize now that there's no reason to be
>surprised; we've been told by the media and the white house that we are in the
>middle of a new war, a war unlike all other wars, a war of politics as well as
>shadow military operations.  And folks seem to believe it.  No one seems to say
>'heh, we've already prevailed.'  Instead, thanks to the media pundits and John
>Ashcroft, the threat of terrorism looms on the experiential horizon (as much a
>textual event as Mutually Assured Destruction and nuclear winter), and the
>populace responds.  This is a war of the media _before_ it is a war of
>economics, and to that event, I find Baudrillard's work much more 'important'
>and 'supportive' than I do Sartre.  Point being: times change, perspectives
>change, technologies change.  It would be the absence of that understanding
>that comprises, for me, true 'Mediocrity'.  I don't suppose you'd want to
>defend Lecourt in that regard?
>
>Kenneth Rufo
>
>
>



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005