Caught in this double declaration of faith on the one hand in an idea of Marxism, on the other in the cause of all the exploited, Sartre reassures himself of the fact that he really does have a role to play, beyond the 'Words' he produces and regards with derision, in the inhuman history of our times, with a theory of 'dialectical reason' which assigns to all (theoretical) rationality, and to every (revolutionary) dialectic, the unique transcendental origin of the human 'project'. Thus in Sartre historicist humanism takes the form of an exaltation of human freedom, in which by freely committing himself to their fight, he can commune with the freedom of all the oppressed, who have always been struggling for a little human light since the long and forgotten night of the slave revolts. (RC, p. 142)
(ouch this hits close to home... I'd like to recognize Sartre's bad faith and yet refrain from letting it go)
An implicit part of Althusser's critique is the accusation that Sartre doesn't own to up what he's actually doing - writing philosophy. Regardless whether the notion of praxis collapses the distinction between theoretical and political practice, Sartre is still writing philosophy, not fighting on the barricades. Of course, neither is Althusser, but he owns up to the fact in a different way.
3 simple questions that might help understanding their incompatibility:
1. What are they doing?
2. What do they think they are doing?
3. How does what they think they are doing affect what they are doing?
I think one reason these thinkers talk past each other (or alternatively, one reason they could both occupy different places in a philosophical division of labor) is that questions #2 and #3 are much more relevant for Sartre than for Althusser. This is a gross oversimplification, but Althusser only needs to describe the complexly veiled object (Capital) whereas Sartre takes this object for granted because Marx has already analyzed it.
So do we reread Marx and (re)do an analysis of Capital, or do we assume that Marx's task in that book has been completed - there is nothing left to do - and set about trying to understand why Capital is not mandatory reading in public schools?
I want to spin Naveh's question around with another Zizek tidbit (Zizek is sorta like S/A smooshed together in a way): Zizek constantly rhetorically asks the question: "Do you think the problem is that voters need more information so they'll be convinced of the evil of capitalism, imperialism, etc? No, the problem is precisely the opposite, they have too much information."
As much as I'm attracted to Althusser, I'm suspicious of this attraction for the following reason: I want to believe that there exists a vast unexplored epistemological terrain full of complicated hidden structures and apparatuseses (I do hate that word). It's the lure of esotericism - of exploring new, mind-bogglingly complicated worlds that are completely invisible. The question is whether production in this specific domain is actually worthwhile. It's also too easy to slip into an easy affirmation of the academic division of labor by saying something to the effect of, "I sure am glad somebody's writing about this object-domain so I don't have to."
On the one hand, I feel like I could argue that Althusser is co-opted by information society, technocrats, etc. (don't act yet - keep analyzing!). On the other, one could argue that Sartre is co-opted by neo-liberalism, hippies, etc. Do we attack freedom by pushing it to the limit so that it self-destructs (Baudrillard: pataphysics - Sartre's version of freedom sometimes sounds completely suicidal) or do we attack freedom by showing that it's an effect of interpellation? Both?
Also, went to a talk at Todai today that pointed out that Althusser is also linked into the Husserl-machine via Jean Cavailles, Jean-Toussaint Desanti, Bachelard and a bunch of anthropology of technology people like Bertrand Gille. They all did phenomenology of math, science, and technology stuff (linked to post-Kantian set theory). He gave the following simple explanation: two rivers flow out of Husserl - one leads to the subject via Heidegger (French dudes like Levinas and Sartre underestimated the conflict between Husserl and Heidegger). The other river emphasizes the "back to the things themselves!" part of Husserl. These people love objects (Cavailles, Desanti, Gilbert Simondon, etc.).
No comments:
Post a Comment