File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2004/bhaskar.0409, message 5


Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 13:37:02 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Ontology of War


 Emrah Goker <emrah_goker-AT-hotmail.com> writes

>The old separation of politics and war, and the "temporary" suspension
>of democracy during times of conflict ("the state of exception")

But this is arguably something of a liberal myth, or the illusion of
separateness (and of genuine democracy). In Marx's (and I take it
Radha's) view, war has always been intrinsic to the dynamic of
capitalism, and in that sense there's been an 'ontology of war'. What's
new is the thoroughness with which it's now been woven into the circuits
of reproduction. But you're right, H & N's understanding of ontology is
very different. No depth.

Mervyn


>I'm half way into the book, and came to think that the introductory
>chapters theorizing about war and violence are, though nicely
>philosophical, not historical enough. H&N basically repeat what Giorgio
>Agamben has lately been saying: The old separation of politics and war,
>and the "temporary" suspension of democracy during times of conflict
>("the state of exception") no longer operates the way it did in our
>"postmodern" times. Both Agamben and H&N draw upon a famous
>piece by Walter Benajmin, "The Critique of Violence" here (there is also
>Machiavelli in the background, who praised the imperial insitution of
>dictatorship, and also Derrida's famous take on law and justice[*]). The
>"ontology" of war here refers to a state of affairs where "the state of
>exception" is rendered permanent and war colonizes every coordinate
>of the "smooth space" that is the Empire.
>
>I think the usage of "ontology" here is a bit confusing, especially for us
>critical realists, but then H&N subscribe to the "radical empiricist"
>philosophical ground prepared by Deleuze. Immanentism in this model
>is highly allergic to transcendental arguments.
>
>All in all, H&N still cannot convince me that immanentism (and
>immaterial labor) is the new name of the Marxist game. (Yet what is
>interesting about the new book is that they are engaging with the
>criticisms of the first book, especially of the concept of "multitude", and
>this time try very hard to recast the concept as a "class concept".)
>
>peace,
>
>Emrah Goker
>Department of Sociology
>Columbia University
>
>[*] "Force of Law: 'The Mystical Foundation of Authority' ", in
>Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Drucilla Cornell
>and Michael Rosenfeld, (New York: Routlege, 1992)
>
>>Radha D'Souza <rdsouza-AT-waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
>>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>In Hardt & Negri's new book *Multitude* they speak of an "ontology of
>>war"; the argument being war is no longer contingent on other factors
>>e.g. politics etc but has acquired an ontological status.
>>
>>I wondered if people on this list have a view on this, and the ontology
>>of war generally.
>>
>>Radha
>>
>>
>>
>>READ E.O. WILSON IF YOU WANT TO BE INFORMED
>>INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT WAR AND AGGRESSION.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>    --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005