Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 10:57:59 -0400
From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain-AT-igc.org>
Subject: Re: Sloterdijk and Adorno


This may not be so helpful as far as the professional/academic
appropriation of Sloterdijk is concerned, but you might be interested in
knowing a little about the dissemination of Sloterdijk's ideas among the
general public.  When CRITIQUE OF CYNICAL REASON came out in English, I
spotted it in a local bookstore, and just seeing the title, I concluded,
now this is the book I've looking for.  About the same time I came across a
book review in a magazine about the media, it may have been PROPAGANDA
REVIEW.  Several of my friends read parts of this book and it showed up in
reading circles, though I'm not certain that any of them finished it, and
come to think of it, I don't believe I did either.  It seems that what
captivated us all was not so much the detailed presentation of Sloterdijk's
ideas, but his general conception of cynical reason as enlightened false
consciousness, a peculiar state of culture in which all the dirt is out in
the open, people think they see through everything but still manage to be
fooled all the time and complicit in society's crimes.  Hence the
traditional enlightener's conception of exposing illusions and revealing
hidden truths needs to be revised in light of this changed situation.  This
powerful conception has influenced many people here who may not have
appropriated Sloterdijk in detail.

This might be a lesson in the cross-cultural propagation of ideas.  Perhaps
Americans whose specialty is German philosophy and/or history of ideas know
what role Sloterdijk plays in his own country, or how he fits into the
history and flow of Germanic intellectual life. But many Americans have no
real context for Sloterdijk other than to incorporate him into their own
agendas and interests, which may have little to do with whatever role he
plays in his home intellectual environment.  I suspect this is, so because
I recently came across some news article, in a journal or on the Internet,
which revealed to my surprise that Sloterdijk now plays the role of a very
controversial gadfly much reviled by progressive thinkers, I think for some
remarks on eugenics ro genetic engineering.

There is an additional factor which this group here may not appreciate
given their own investment, but I think there is something quite different
in how European intellectuals operate and most people with an intellectual
bent here outside of specialists making their careers in intellectual
history.  It seems that Europeans cannot just espouse ideas and apply them
to current conditions; no, they have to ingest and excrete huge quantities
of cultural capital in the process, so that they can distinguish themselves
in the crowded intellectual field by digesting and positioning themselves
in relation to their entire history of abstract ideas.  Hence I suspect
that Sloterdijk's own agenda differs from the much simpler position of many
of his American admirers who are just interested, as I am, in exploiting
the idea of cynical reason and applying it directly to our own
circumstances.  (I've also read THINKER ON STAGE, in case you are curious.)

However, since I know little of the position Sloterdijk occupies in his
home territory, so I hope you will inform us about it in some detail.

There are at least some scholars here who reference Sloterdijk, but their
agenda is not completely clear to me.  I read Timothy Bewes' CYNICISM AND
POSTMODERNITY, but my memory of it has long vaporized.  I recall having
some suspicions about his agenda, which ought to arise from the title
alone.  But, as an unreconstructed enlightener, I'm on guard against any
assault on the enlightenment project.

At 06:34 PM 04/30/2000 +0200, Wouter Kusters wrote:
>-My entrance to the Frankfurter Schule-list is because I am interested in
the work of Peter Sloterdijk who has his roots firmly in the  Frankfurter
Schule, although he thinks that the critical theory is dead with respect to
its view on humanism as represented by Habermas. Does anyone have any
opinion or evaluation of the work of Sloterdijk? Or is his influence
restricted to Germany and its neighboring countries?
>