Upload
javier-suarez
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Civic Humanities
1/5
Civic Humanities
Javier Suarez
Re-reading tradition(s)
Contemporary world is one of parricide. From Nietzsche and Freud, we live in the age of
suspicion about everything. And, of course, suspicion about our family, and especially,
about our father, the great dictator. Well, nowadays, it is easy to say lets kill God (if it is
not completely dead). Lets destroy the paternal figure because it is the space of trauma. All
authority is apparently1
banishing within this race of, for instance, Lacanian jouissance
party of deconstruction and post-modern consumption. Ok, this may seem a bit extreme (or
ever worse, too rhetorical). However, what I want to express in the following lines is not s
critique of Plato from the comfortable sofa of Ranciere, but instead I would like to
understand the Greek philosopher in connection with the potentialities and liberal
(conservative?) limitations of Kant.
Well, Plato lived in a decaying Athens, the shining splendor of the Agora was
banishing as Socrates had already prophesized. Consequently, Plato tried to save the city
(that is, of course, saving himself too as part of it) from what he believed is one of the worst
political systems at that time: democracy. He has seen the corruption of a democracy that
stinks to imperialism and corruption (cf. Thucydides). That is why he wanted to conserve
certain structures that can stabilize, or even improve, the State. From this perspective, of
course, poetry, with its appeal to emotions, can be dangerous for a city which, according to
Socrates, had been taken by his most egotistical drives. For this reason, Plato banishes the
poets from the city. It is not, as Popper have suggested, that Plato is the father of
totalitarianism. On the contrary, he is a man who is trying to save a system that he
1 Is the freedom to consume (products as well as signifiers) freedom?
7/29/2019 Civic Humanities
2/5
considers the best. In this sense, he is being political: he is concerned with the future of the
people he considered valuable, the aristocratic Greek. (Please, do not say that it is not
democratic or that he was the father of totalitarianism; we know that, but Plato did not
count with the two millennia experience that we have).
Poetry has power. Plato knew that. But this power can have positive or negative
effects, unless we have an essentialist understanding of poetry or art, and we just say that
art is always good, art for the sake of art. Or maybe I should restate my argument saying
that it is not art which is good or bad, but people who can act and speak. I think we need to
take into account all the power of art if we want to be honest with ourselves. The power of
art is really limited (and maybe that is its best feature). I was reading the other day that
Hitler had some of the best classics, Shakespeare for example, in his library and that he
enjoyed reading. And we know that many of the Nazis officials and supporters were highly
educated people that could appreciate art and probably they had in mind the Critique of
Judgmentwhile doing it (this is just a guess and maybe a provocation). However, artistic
education does not prevent the atrocities committed. Ok, so we should re-envisage our
understanding of art. OK. But, who would do that, the academy, the government? We need
power for that, and an educational system that enable us to introduce this understanding
of art. Maybe aesthetic experience is completely spontaneous and it does not need any
education.
So, lets go to Kant. Beauty was for him something that is disinterested, it is
different from practical reason that dictates and orders what is good and what is bad. For
Kant, the aesthetic judgment of beauty emerges from what he calls an inactive
complacence (Unttiges Wohlgefallen), a merely contemplative pleasure. And one word is
crucial for my point, inactive. From my point of view, two are the limitations of Kants
7/29/2019 Civic Humanities
3/5
Third Critique: his lack of intersubjectivity in the understanding of beauty and the
indifference to the world of aesthetic judgment. Before continuing, I would like to say that
what I want to do is to point out the limitations of modern and contemporary thinkers; I
agree with them in many things, but as Ranciere says, disagreement is in these cases more
productive. Lets continue. Kants ethics is based in the isolated ego that can give himself
an a priori moral law in the sense of the practical reason (morality). However, this ego is
not incarnated in the world. On the contrary, it has to go outside it and, with his reason
alone, it has to find the categorical imperative of morality. Something similar happens with
the judgment. Aesthetic judgment is indifferent to the existence of the object, it refers only
to the felling of pleasure or pain (p. 40). This reminds of a person that can be reading a
book made with human skin and feeling pleasure because of the great poems he is reading.
If we really want to understand Kant, we need to think about this indifference to the
object that is part of the Kantian formalism that also permeates its morality. Aesthetic
judgment is always connected with the object or, in any case, the object (and its history or
its stance as a document of barbarity, as Benjamin would say) must not be forgotten. And
the oblivion of objects is one of the pitfalls of Kantian aesthetics . Epistemologically, the
encounter with the work of art should bring us back to reality like a shocking thunderbolt.
Beauty impresses us, but if it take us apart from reality or bring us back to it depends on the
context. Beauty causes impression. However, from that fact it does not follow that it has a
moral value; this latter is given by its specific context. The truth of art is its context and the
recurrent calling that it makes to us saying that it deserve to be taken into account. Lets
imagine something disinterested and completely contemplative: maybe and angel. We are
not angels.
7/29/2019 Civic Humanities
4/5
Lets take Kant from a political perspective (and Ranciere too). Kant belongs to a
capitalist and bourgeois society; it means that he is concerned with the raising ego of the
modern subject/individual. His understanding of aesthetic contemplation (as with morality)
starts from the self, not from community or from a reciprocity of community and self, a
yosotros (I-we). That is a problem because the political potentiality of art would be
diminished by its individual and atomistic understanding of the contemplator. Some
parts of Kants Third Critique remind me of Habermas public sphere: ok, I have my
subjective universal, beauty; now, I have to convince the others about it, because it cannot
be universal as physical law or even moral law (objective universals). Well, if we were in a
Divine City of Dialogue (the Habermasian ideal) this would be possible, but not necessary.
In fact, reality is more complex and it is intertwined with interests, inclinations, etc.
But what would happen, and this is my point, lets say, if, starting from the
contemplation of beauty, an alternative absolute that is not compatible with the political
system (absolute) appears? What is more, what would happen if that aesthetic absolute is
shared but many people isolated? What would happen if they come together and want to
introduce their absolute in their life-world? (Art is never innocent.) Would that change be
possible? How can power (political absolute) permits that a different absolute (aesthetic
absolute) enters into action? It is highly admirable that art is used to reform our neoliberal
system. However, for me, the question should go deeper. What happen with all the people
who think that reform is not possible, but who believes that we need a change of the
economic system and all its consequences? Sure, if we share a(n) (ideal) public sphere, art
can reform the system; but if the problem is not the public sphere but the entire system? I
think the question is to be honest and said to ourselves if we believe in this system or if we
want to change. Is it possible a third way? I finish with two quotes that maybe can express
7/29/2019 Civic Humanities
5/5
some of the things I am trying to convey here; and maybe they can make us understand that
our Fathers, our tradition, have much more things to say that some contemporary
parricides:
It is sweet, however, to imagine constitutions corresponding to therequirements of reason (particularly in a legal sense), but rash to propose
them and culpable to incite the populace to abolish what presently exists.
() However late it may be, to hope someday for the consummation of apolitical product, as it is envisaged here, is a sweet dream; but that it is
being perpetually approached ill not only thinkable, but, so far as it is
compatible with the moral law, an obligation, not of the cit izens, but of
the sovereign (Kant,An Old Question Raised Again: Is the Human Race
Constantly Progressing?).
There neither is nor ever willbe a treatise of mine on the subject. For it
does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after
much converse about the matter i tself and a li fe l ived together, suddenly
a li ght, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it fr om
another, and thereafter sustains itself(Plato, VII Letter, 341 c-d).
What do you think?