Category Archives: Academic Commentary

When political philosophy goes viral…

 

Pretty mad example of how political memes can emerge…

For background, see also: http://takethecrosstown.com/2012/03/01/when-faculty-go-viral/

WIL WHEATON dot TUMBLR, (via my teacher says some smart shit. thought you….

TRIP, Wendt, and IR’s Disorder

So, here we have an excerpt from OSU’s Mershon newsletter – which is a nice way to introduce the below excerpt from the Disorder of Things blog…

In a survey of faculty at more than 1,400 colleges and universities worldwide, Alexander Wendt was named as having the most influence in the field of international relations over the past 20 years. Wendt is Ralph D. Mershon Professor of International Security.The survey was part of the Teaching, Research, and International Policy TRIP Project done by the Theory and Practice of International Relations at the College of William and Mary. This is the projects fourth survey since 2004.Wendt was also named for producing the best work in the field of international relations over the past 20 years, and third for producing the most interesting scholarship over the past five years.Wendt is author of Social Theory of International Politics Cambridge, 1999, widely cited for bringing social constructivist theory to the field of international relations. His book argues that international politics is determined not primarily by material concerns such as wealth and power, but by states perceptions of each other as rivals, enemies, and friends. Social Theory of International Politics was named Best Book of the Decade by the International Studies Association in 2006 and has been translated into 10 languages.Wendt is also co-editor, with Duncan Snidal, of International Theory: A Journal of International Politics, Law and Philosophy. His recent publications include New Systems Theories of World Politics Palgrave, 2009, edited with Mathias Albert and Lars-Erik Cederman. Based on a 2005 Mershon Center conference, the book uses a number of systems theoretical approaches to analyze the structure and dynamics of the international system. Wendt’s contribution, “Flatland: Quantum Mind and the International System,” compares the international system to a hologram.

via Mershon Memo.

And now a quote from this excellent Disorder of Things commentary:

The self-image of the discipline continues to shift within the American heartland, not least with respect to the Big Other of Realism. The 2009 TRIP Survey recorded the percentage of self-identified Realists among US respondents at 21%, with Liberals at 20% and Constructivists at 17%. Things have progressed some way since then, with only just over 16% now willing to call themselves Realist against a steady 20% of Liberals and a narrowly triumphant 20.4% of Constructivists (and given the rankings awarded to Wendt within the ‘top four scholars’ sections, the shorter TRIPS may be rendered more simply as: ALEXANDER WENDT MADE ME A CONSTRUCTIVIST). Agnostics and Refuseniks together continue to outnumber these main categories with 11.5% naming themselves ‘Other’ and a further 25.7% declining to name any paradigmatic preference (a slight increase, but essentially the same levels as in 2008).

Read more here…

Occupy Foreign Affairs | FPIF

With thanks to Pablo K:

When Foreign Affairs puts inequality on its cover – and hosts a debate on the topic at the tony offices of the Council on Foreign Relations – the Occupy Wall Street movement has achieved a major victory that eclipses even the generally favorable coverage in liberal bastions such as The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker. It’s also a sign that a profound anxiety gnaws at the foreign policy elite in this country. The question is: why are foreign policy mandarins suddenly so fretful? Or, put another way, why does Foreign Affairs want its readers to take this issue so seriously?

via Occupy Foreign Affairs | FPIF.

Insurgent Notes | The Next Step for Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Buildings, Occupy Workplaces

Whatever happens in the immediate future, a wall of silence on the accumulated misery of four decades has been breached.  Every day brings further news of attacks on working people as world capitalism spins out of control.  Never has it been clearer that capitalist “normalcy” depends on the passivity of those it crushes to save itself, and from Tunisia and Egypt, via Greece and Spain, to New York, Oakland, Seattle and Portland, that passivity is over.  The task today is to throw everything we have into approaching that point of no return where conditions cry out: “We have the chance to change the world, let’s take it.”

via Insurgent Notes | The Next Step for Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Buildings, Occupy Workplaces.

Police Crackdowns on Occupy Protests from Oakland to New York Herald the “New Military Urbanism”

An interview with Stephen Graham, professor of Cities and Society at Newcastle University. His book is “Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism.” “What the Occupy movement is so powerful at is demonstrating that by occupying public spaces around the world, and particularly these extremely symbolic public spaces, it’s reasserting that the city is the foundation space for democracy,” Graham says.

via Police Crackdowns on Occupy Protests from Oakland to New York Herald the “New Military Urbanism”.

Occupy DC: one dimensional international politics

As seen today on McPherson Square

20111112-154724.jpg

Hardt and Negri on “The Problem of Transition” – Harvard University Press Blog

Antonio Gramsci’s notion of “passive revolution” and its limitations helps us understand how the relation between political diagonal and biopolitical diagram addresses the conundrum of the transition. As he does with many of his key concepts, Gramsci employs “passive revolution” in a variety of contexts with slightly different meanings, using multiple standpoints to give the concept greater amplitude. His first and primary usage is to contrast the passive transformation of bourgeois society in nineteenth-century Italy with the active revolutionary process of the bourgeoisie in France. Passive revolution, Gramsci explains, is a revolution without a revolution, that is, a transformation of the political and institutional structures without there emerging centrally a strong process for the production of subjectivity. The “facts” rather than social actors are the real protagonists. Second, Gramsci also applies the term “passive revolution” to the mutations of the structures of capitalist economic production that he recognizes primarily in the development of the U.S. factory system of the 1920s and 1930s. “Americanism” and “Fordism” name what Marx calls the passage from the “formal” to the “real subsumption” of labor within capital, that is, the construction of a properly capitalist society. This structural transformation of capital is passive in the sense that it evolves over an extended period and is not driven by a strong subject. After using “passive revolution” as a descriptive tool of historical analysis, regarding both the superstructural and structural changes of capitalist society, Gramsci seems to employ it, third, to suggest a path for struggle. How can we make revolution in a society subsumed within capital? The only answer Gramsci can see is a relatively “passive” one, that is, a long march through the institutions of civil society.

via Hardt and Negri on “The Problem of Transition” – Harvard University Press Blog.

Of American Revolutionaries and American Occupiers | Britannica Blog

“Five similarities between the 1773 destroyers of the British tea and the 2011 occupiers of Wall Street”

via Of American Revolutionaries and American Occupiers | Britannica Blog.

Failure Mode?

How comfortable are people with the idea that recent events bespeak a sort of collective overreaching on the part of capitalism? I’m sure its a truism at this stage to suggest that the financial elites exhibited a form of economic stupidity in putting us in this predicament in the first place. But are they politically stupid, too? Today’s commentary from Jacobin seems to suggest as much. The piece starts by stating the protests seem to be exceeding the systems ability to manage them. Here, once again, the crisis is framed in Graeber’s terms:

What’s going on here? A clue, I think, is to be found in a remark that comes near the end of David Graeber’s recent magnum opus on debt: ‘The last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At its root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world . . . with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, flourish, or propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win’.

In this, Graeber is echoing one of my favorite, often-quoted lines from Fredric Jameson: “The mass of people . . . do not themselves have to believe in any hegemonic ideology of the system, but only to be convinced of its permanence.”

But, as the piece continues, a certain fragility has crept into the system, as is no evident from recent global events. Perhaps it is because capitalism has so perfected its ability to perform efficiently? It is incredibly vulnerable now to asymmetrical shocks. There are ways of mitigating this, of course, but only expensive, Keynesian ones.

Thus neoliberalism has systematically dismantled the supports and failsafe systems that kept dissent in check, and has relied instead on preventing dissent from arising in the first place. The 99% have been cut off from institutional channels for influencing policy or voicing their grievances, and thus have been left with no choice but to take it to the streets. And now that we have done so, we are seeing the chaotic and unpredictable failure mode of neoliberal governance.

via Failure Mode.

Hmm, failure mode? I guess we’ll have to see. But certainly asserting something doesn’t make it so, as Kautsky reminded Lenin. And while it took some time for Kautsky to be proved right, in our own time its not clear that we’re even close to seeing a replay of that debate in the offing. Which raises the sort of question a Mick Cox might be willing to ask: at what point WOULD we want to start asking that question? What sort of things would we have to see going on around us before we started to talk about the demise of (the current mode of) capitalism? The main players in the EU are obviously hoping to bid for time and eject Greece gently from the Euro. Papandreou’s hand grenade notwithstanding, that probably remains the plan. In the meantime, the Greeks have been given what Zizek would no doubt call an “unfree” choice. As economic theorist Yanis Varoufakis puts it:

In short, rather than an exercise in participatory democracy, the referendum is a shoddy, strategically ill-fated, morally corrupt and politically damaging ploy. Contrary to what is implied by the Greek PM’s  minders, the referendum was never meant as a means of strengthening Mr Papandreou’s bargaining power over his European colleagues and the IMF. Had he cared to oppose the October Agreement, he ought to have done so in Brussels. No, the referendum is a means of extracting, first, a vote of confidence from his party’s battered MPs and, secondly, to impose upon the Greek people a hideous dilemma which identifies consent to the terrible October Agreement with a continued commitment to remaining in Europe. Rather than a gesture of granting Greeks a voice, this referendum is an attempt to gag the electorate.

Via Yanis Varoufakis

 

Anthropology, Moral Optimism, and Capitalism: A Four-Field Manifesto

Thanks to Kole Kilibarda for referring us to this excellent manifesto from the world of Anthropology scholarship. The list of demands towards the end are particularly important, as are the parting words: “Let the deep modification of the human sciences begin. Anthropologists have nothing to lose but our irrelevance.” Might not scholars of IR and IPE say the same for themselves?

It is high time that the Anthropologists openly set forth before the whole world their perspective, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this fairy tale about Capitalism with a Four-Field Manifesto. To this end, Anthropologists of the most diverse nationalities and subfields assemble on open threads like Academia and #OWS, informing the following Manifesto. Please read, share, and comment, joining our contentious anthropological tradition.

via Anthropology, Moral Optimism, and Capitalism: A Four-Field Manifesto.