Provocations: Polemics, Manifestos, Theses and Interpretations

8/9/2019 Provocations: Polemics, Manifestos, Theses and Interpretations

1/9

Critical Theory Today: A Polemic

R. G. Tepper

It is well known that, in the Anglo-American academy, analytical philosophy predominates.Correspondingly, philosophical thought of any other pedigree is of diminished stature. Indeed, the veryterm used as a catch-all for non-analytical philosophy indicates a virtual expatriation of other forms ofphilosophical reflection. The term 'Continental', in referring to the european continent, relegates socially,culturally, psychologically and politically oriented philosophical reflection dictates that this mode ofreflection, from the perspective of the entrenched academy, is foreign in nature. In accepting and adoptingthis descriptor, we are to a degree complicit in our alienation. To my knowledge, the reasons for thisalienation are not well-understood, and have not been subject to intense scrutiny. Thus, we ask threefoldquestion:

(1) Why the hegemony of apolitical philosophy, supposedly pure philososphy, which in its 'disintrestedness'and 'purity,' bears no urgency. Nuclear war could break out; the world could become embroiled in endless

turmoil; this would not have the slightest effect upon philosophers or the philosophy of 'disinterested','pure' and 'logical' thought. Furthermore, and equally unsettling is the question of (2) why this hegemonyhas not been subject to serious examination and why it is seen as equitable to partition the domain ofphilosophy into 'analytical' and 'continental.' This leads further toward our final question: (3) Is purephilosophy, indeed, possible at all, and if not, why is purity an aim of philosophy?

The answer to these questions is in actuality one and the same. My use here of the singular is perhaps a bitmisleading. I should rather say that the answers to each of these questions have all the same root. This is tosay, more specifically, that the dominance of apolitical, purely theoretical philosophy derives from socio-political praxis. This question of the theory-praxis relation is central to what is known as critical theory; itis the centerpiece to the thought of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Louis Althusser, as well as Gilles

Deleuze and Michel Foucault, thinkers whose affinity to the Frankfurt school has been frequently noted.Furthermore, and quite intriguingly, the selfsame question has been posed by philosophers of the politicalright as well, such as Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger. I will draw upon the theory of both opposingschools in this essay and outline a number of theses regarding this relationship and its significance forphilosophy. Then I will examine the peculiar status of the Anglo-American aversion to socio-politicallyinformed philosophy and a forteriori, critical theory.

Thesis I: THE NATURE OF THE THEORY-PRAXIS RELATIONSHIP PROHIBITS ABSOLUTEPURITY OF PHILOSOPHY.Philosophy may attempt to rid itself of socio-political referents, however, insofar asthought itself is pureits genesis and reception are socially and politically conditioned.(Max Horkheimer, The SocialFunction of Philosophy, Eclipse of Reason) Moreover, Deleuze, in conversation with Foucault, points out that

the theory-praxis relationship is complex and localized, and forms a network of theory-praxis relationshipsin place of a totalized relation, and as such is subject not only to a single social-political referent, but to anentire network of them. This is what Foucault calls micro-politics, innumerable focal points of powerrelationships govern not only social and political relationships, but all cultural and philosophical productsthat emerge in that locale.

Thesis II: PURITY OF PHILOSOPHY IS A RUSE. The philosopher who claims absolute purity of thought withoutfirst acknowledging the specific socio-political conditions that may have affected the work, but have been filtered out, and whoclaims absolute disinterest has something to gain from that claim. Carl Schmitt, a non-Marxist thinker if there everwas one, cites Hegel in defining the bourgeois, a definition equally well fitted to the ostensibly apolitical


2/9

thinker: The bourgeois is an individual who does not want to leave the apolitical riskless private sphere.He rests in the possession of his private property, and under the justification of his possessiveindividualism he acts as an individual against the totality Consequently he wants to be spared braveryand exempted from the danger of a violent death.(Carl Schmitt The Concept of the Political, pp 62-63) Theallegedly pure philosopher is the bourgeois of thought. The philosopher risks nothing, and as such, gainslittle if anything aside from security. The pure philosopher is one for whom the putative risks of socio-political criticism outweigh the possible gains or even merely the benefits of debate.

Thesis III: CORROLARY TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THESIS II, THE ALLEGEDLY PUREPHILOSOPHY ARISES IN SOCIO-POLITICAL SITUATIONS IN WHICH GENUINE CHANGEBEARS GREAT RISKS OR IS SEEN AS IMPOSSIBLE. This, perhaps helps to explain why critical theory andsocio-politically informed philosophy is predominantly present in continental Europe, especially Germany and France. In bothFrance and Germany, the political system is eminently mutable; in the past two-hundred-odd years Francehas had five republican constitutions in addition to monarchial governments. In the same period, Germanyhas been unified, territorially reduced, divided, re-unified and has had innumerable governments prior tounification and since unification, a monarchial state, two republican constitutions and a dictatorship. This isin stark contrast to the great monotonous continuity of government in the United Kingdom and theUnited States. At no point were the fundamental governing principles dramatically altered in the same

period. Juridical thought in the United States turns upon fidelity to a document written over two-hundredyears ago, and as such, juridical thought is merely interpretation. Even during civil war, governmentalprocedure was preserved under modification. This constitution, furthermore has only been amended withgreat infrequency, with the most recent politically significant change occurring nearly a century ago withthe modification of the electoral process for Senators. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, juridical thoughtconsists of an accumulation of laws and acts, without ever a radical change in form-of-governance. Theseobservations are obviously limited by the nature of this essay, but I believe that these are criticalobservations.

Furthermore, the ostensible enfranchisement of oppositional groups and a political system composed oftwo large parties inhibits socio-politically informed philosophical reflection because views that do not

conform to the party-line stand no chance of being enacted, whereas the ideal of an open system in whichanyone may form a political party diverts energies that could form a cogent critique, into the formation ofpolitical organizations whose attempts at action will be immediately rebuffed.

Thesis IV: DISINTERESTED THOUGHT IS NOT DEVOID OF INTEREST. IT HAS AS ITSINTEREST THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATUS QUO. Once again a corollary to Thesis II, theostensibly disinterested thinker has an interest in not perturbing the establishment because he is providedfor and allowed to work in peace. Pure philosophy is impossible in times of turmoil. However, the purephilosopher writing on impure topics will disclaim said writing as non-philosophical.

Thesis V: THE PARTITION OF PHILOSOPHY INTO TWO BROAD FIELDS SERVES THISINTEREST BY STIFLING ARGUMENT OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES PHILOSOPHY. In essence,there are two fields claiming the name of philosophy, in many institutions constituting separatedepartments, between whom communication is difficult, if not impossible. Continental philosophersoften end up in departments of Political Science, English, Comparative Literature, Humanities, etc. Wouldit not be more fruitful for the development of philosophy if debate were more intense and this divisionabolished?

As noted in the title to this essay, this is intended more to stimulate argument than to settle it. In fact, werethis to be the final word on this issue, we should be sorely disappointed. I should hope simply that thisprovokes thought and demonstrates that pure and disinterested thought is of


3/9

(E)utopian Divinity: A Manifesto

There is little difference between agnosticism and the deist conception to which I can assent. If weconsider consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of the complexity neural electrical activity and structuressuch as consciousness as founded on complexity, we may consider any system of sufficent complexity ashaving a structure corresponding to human consciousness. Levels of consciousness can then be seen as theresult of complexity crossing successive thresholds. Thus, the often reported phenomenon of cities orcountries having 'characters' or 'personalities' might not be merely be metaphorical. Thus by definition, theuniverse, as the most complex and ordered (contrary to the opinion of the cosmos as chaos, the universeas a totality would be the most ordered of things because as totality it would constitute both laws andexceptions in a law-governed manner) would have a consciousness correlate to which we can attach thename 'god,' 'dieu,' 'deus.' I prefer the latter. However, despite the increased complexity's possibility of newforms of consciousness, the evolution of consciousness in animals has shown that no matter the increasein consciousness, consciousness has no direct means of affecting its constituent parts (neurons, neuronalconnections). This would be an impotent, impersonal deus, a deus born with the universe and brought toself-consciousness through its experience of the nullity preceding its birth and the growing nothingnesswithin of entropy. Its own presence-absence immanent within it, deus grows more conscious andomniscient (omniscience admits of degrees) in the phase of universal growth. However, this is no creator

deus; deus is bound by the laws of physics in the same manner as the laws of physics dictate the behaviorof the brain on the neural level. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that while the full presenceof deus is immanent in the birth of the universe, deus' progressive decline and death is also immanent.After the first eschaton of the greatest complexity and order of the universe, the universe begins to decayinto chaos and heat death - whether or not time turns out linear or cyclical - the second eschaton, the deathof deus is indicated by a negative crossing of the same thresholds of complexity and consciousness. Deusslowly becomes limited, insensate, falls asleep and enters into an eternal coma and dies without he universe.At that point time comes to an end or else the universe is reborn and deus with it.

Deus or god cannot be an empty signifier. This is why I cannot be content with mere agnosticism. Despitethe fact that deus is indemonstrable, it is ultimately a moot point and becomes a mere narrative choice and

an act of signification in the affirmation of its possibility. In affirming agnostic deism I affirm thepossibility of deus and produce a signified to the signifier deus or god. At the same time, human possibilityis affirmed at the same time, as we would be the neurons of deus.

Deus also comes to stand for utopia if we assume that we have not reached the pleroma of the universe'saphelion of complexity and consciousness. In producing great social complexity we contribute to thisimpersonal, implanetary, immanent pleroma. We are also bound to the metastability of society -equilibrium, not stasis - progress and the leap into the future achieved through the militant optimism ofhuman possibility and action. Without us, the full presence of utopia can not come to pass!

Thus we may reclaim and resignify deus or god in the wake of his death as the christian god. We reclaimand resignify in the name of a utopian future. A utopia that may one day, through our action, become not autopia but a eutopia. Utopia is only u-topos in the present, it may be our very topos in the future if we butimagine it.


4/9

Toward a General Economy of Pleasures

Let us take as a starting point the position of Georges Bataille, the position of an ontology ofbecoming and energy. This is to say that the universe, both physical and human is comprised of energy,which importantly cannot remain in stasis, even for a moment. Following Nietzsche, being is but a vaporand an empty fiction. Therefore, to understand human activity, it must be viewed as a series of energyflows and accumulations. A person is an accumulation of energy that takes in energy and lets out energy inall activities. Further, we borrow from Bataille the notion that we, as subjects or objects are always in a stateof excess. The energy output generally exceeds energy intake. This can be excepted with the caveat, thatcomplying with the laws of thermodynamics, for this to be possible, order must generally decrease. Withan appropriate ontology established, we may proceed to the issue at hand. What is really at stake in legaland religious interdictions on certain behaviors and activities, notably sex and drugs. Michel Foucault hasdealt with this issue from another perspective, but, in his conclusions I agree that these interdictions arisefrom the fact that when engaged in these prohibited activities, one is not a productive member of society.This is to say, ones expenditures, in this case, of energy to not further the aims of legitimate society. I wishnot to contradict Foucaults conclusion, but radicalize it and explicitly show why there is a hierarchy ofprohibitions, and why, in contemporary society illicit substances and deviant sexual activities compose themost violently prohibited acts.

Every activity is a channel of energy. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari consider it (somewhat)metaphorically as machines hooked into other machines. However, I will avoid the machinic description toemphasize the excessive and (for figures of authority) terribly free aspects of the flux of energy. Eating isan intake of energy, movement and the pursuit of sustenance or pleasure constitute expenditures ofenergy. Licit actions, generally speaking, are actions that aim at the conservation of energy and thepromotion of order. Whether working to obtain food, eating the food, or maintaining ones house orbuilding new structures, these licit acts have in common the intake of energy or the expenditure of energyto produce order. Frowned upon activities, in general, are those which merely expend energy or do notpromote order. We must recall that in certain varieties of Christianity, Calvinism as a perfect exemplar, allleisure activity is discouraged. Sexuality should be aimed only at procreation (a net gain of energy andorder) and at no other aim. Life should be austere and never in excess of needs. I assert that this is merely

the extreme example of this principle. This is an essential rule of civilization: entropy and excess arethreats to the common weal and must be prohibited and stamped out.In recent times these interdictions have lessened in strength, and in certain cases become almost

extinct. The sexual prohibition, while ostensibly still in effect in an attenuated form weakens over time. Sexfor pleasure is now acceptable. However, as Foucault notes in Discipline and Punish, as soon as theeconomic levy on sexual pleasure is carried out more efficiently by the sale of contraceptives, or obliquelythrough publications, films or shows, the archaic hierarchy of prostitution loses much of its formerusefulness.(D&P 306) Sexual activity becomes useful to the social order as an economic resource and thusbecomes incorporated into legitimate society. However, deviant sex, sex that does not employ economicallyuseful prophylactic; these become even more strongly prohibited than sex itself was originally prohibited.To frame the issue in the ontology sketched out initially, an accepted, tolerated expenditure of energy mustcontribute some of that energy to society itself. Money, as the crystallized form of the exchange value ofthings, is but another form of energy flow. No wonder sales taxes are ubiquitous, acquisition of objects isan expenditure of energy, society must take its tithe.

Thus we are in a position to see why drugs and prostitution are two of the most profoundlyprohibited activities. Drug use and sexual activity are pleasures that are solely dissipative they expendenergy that is never recouped. Furthermore, the black market of drugs and prostitution exact an economiclevy on these activities that is not contributed to the social body. This is to say, they are doubly prohibited becausethe expenditure of energy is both dissipated andcontributed to an othersocial body. The legitimate societyis the beneficiary of neither. Thus, these acts, under the guise of being harmful to society are doublyprohibited because they deny society its due. The harm, however, is merely a privation, despite the


5/9

panicked arguments otherwise by social conservatives. Ideology is the dogmatic law of energy exchange.Were it not for ideology, society, no doubt would have already harnessed these illicit acts for more energyresources, and possibly extend its apparatus to every level of the social fabric.


6/9

28:06:42:12: to nun kairoor: the time that is left to the teenage Messiah

an interpretation of Donnie Darko

Rowan G. Tepper, M.A.

Instructions for Use

To be read shaken, not stirred.

More to the matter at hand, these are a few guidelines that should be kept in mind while reading this essay.First, as a matter of critical principle, I regard this film, like all films, works of art and texts, as a textdivorced from its author. While there may be an intended meaning, the task for interpretation is not todiscover this meaning. Just ask the author if youre concerned with authorial intent. Second, the categoriesused herein are drawn from all areas of the philosophical tradition, however, I am drawing most

significantly upon Benjamin, Agamben, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I will attempt to thematize myinterpretation in terms of these thinkers, however, undoubtedly many possible connections that I do notaddress.

Comments and discussion are welcomed.

Finitude and Concealment: The Dialectic of Authenticity and Inauthenticity

Shortly after the opening of Donnie Darko, we see a brief shot of a sign for the Halloween Carnival. This

seemingly innocuous and inconsequential sign sets the social/ cultural framework in which the film takes

place. Halloween carnivals were the inventions of people concerned with the moral implications of

celebrating Halloween, an originally pagan holiday. Halloween carnivals were invented to shunt celebration

of the holiday into a controlled form that most importantly detracted from the amount of celebration on

Halloween itself. This is suggestive of the nature of the inauthentic, they-pole of the dialectic of

Authenticity in the film. This is to say that the thrown, fallen world in which the film is set is a society

greatly concerned with propriety and morality, a society exemplified in the false messianic figure Jim

Cunningham.1 To this extreme figure of inauthenticity is opposed the character of Donnie Darko, one to

whom authentic experience in the Heideggerian sense is most proper and inescapable. Indeed, one could

argue that Donnies entire experience in the course of the film is dominated by the mood that Heidegger

describes asAngst, a dread without specific object, which is, however, revelatory of Being, or of the truth

of being. In a similar manner, I propose, the characters of Frank and Roberta Sparrow are opposed, being

instead opposing aspects of god, the finite, negative and destructive as opposed to the infinite, positive

1 One should note the initials, J.C., a symbol that, nigh universal in western literature, is seldom used unintentionally or

with other intent than connoting a messianic figure. In this aspect then, the symbol is here used ironically.


7/9

and redemptive. Thus, in the film we have a dialectic of authenticity and inauthenticity, concealment and

un-concealment. However, if the world is largely inauthentic and this inauthenticity constitutes itself as a

concealment, what is concealed in the inauthenticity of the they? Precisely that which is revealed to

Donnie, i.e. human and cosmic finitude, revealed through Frank, the figure of human and divine finitude.

This finitude is revealed as the radical solitude of being unto death, the fact that everyone dies alone.

This solitude is radically opposed to the being-with of the inauthentic. Authentic being-unto-death tears

us from the company of the they and throws us into an intimate relation with oneself and with ones own

finitude If the sky were to suddenly open up, there would only be you and your thoughts, your memories

and the choices youve made, there would be no law, just you This is precisely that which everyone

conceals from themselves in everyday existence, this is what the false positivity of the false messiah wishes

to cover over. He urges us to eradicate and overcome fear, while fear is a necessary ontic modification of

the ontological angst which colours our existence in the experience of being unto death. The false messiah

essentially urges us to render ourselves forever incapable of authenticity. Thus Donnie is rendered forever

incapable of inauthenticity by his constant proximity to the experience of radical finitude; and in following

Franks instructions, he works to shatter the calm complacency of the inauthentic world.

Cosmic Finitude/Messianic Time

As insinuated by this essays title, the time proclaimed to Donnie by Frank that indicates the time of the

end of the world should be seen not as a chronological interval, but as the time in which it takes the world

to come to an end. This end should not, however, be seen in the customary apocalyptic sense. This endshould be seen in light of Walter Benajmins Theses on the Philosophy of History, in which Benjamin describes

the redeemed world as not another world, but this world only with a slight alteration. I assert that this

slight alteration between worlds in the Benjaminian sense is the life of Donnie Darko himself. The death

of Donnie Darko is to the outside world but an instant, but to him, it takes four weeks and six hours.

These durations correspond despite their disparate durations, for according to Giorgio Agamben,

messianic time is characterized as a contracted time, time no longer in the regular chronological mode.2 As

such, we can construe the entire duration of the films events one now, and as one moment, in the sense

of the termAugenblick in Nietzsche and Heidegger as opposed toMoment.3

In this messianic interval, Donnie is in dialectical opposition to the everyday world and Jim

2 Giorgio Agamben, The Time that is Left inEpoche Volume 7, Issue 1 (Fall 2002), 1-14.

This is suggested in the film by the increasing frequency of screens indicating the date and the amount of time left of themessianic interval.

3 Thus the significance of the affirmations of existence expressed by Donnie and Gretchen. If the duration is considered

to be theAugenblickof the Eternal Recurrence or theAugenblickof authentic time, then these affirmations acquire an

entirely new stratum of significance, and this interpretation is furthered by Donnies speech about Destruction as a form

of creation, with its Niezschean-Dionysian overtones.


8/9

Cunningham. He must negate them because of his own experience of radical finitude and thus his

authenticity; he cannot slip back into being with others anymore than he ever was with others.

Furthermore, Frank, the specter of finitude and the negativity of the cosmos, prevents any slippage back

on his part. His actions indeed attempt to draw the world into an authentic experience, however, this

always is halted, theres always a blockage, a stopping-short.

This blockage and stopping short is exemplified by the repetition of a car nearly hitting Roberta

Sparrow, the interference of Frank in the discovery of Donnies activities, etc. Thus, on both sides of the

dialectic of Authenticity a blockage occurs, and it is Donnies task to remove this blockage. The removal of

this blockage can be seen as the messianic event and the difference between the two aions. This is suggested

by the final moving tableau of people awake in bed, seemingly startled, upset or in tears. That which is

intimated there is that in the moment corresponding to the entire prior duration of the film, each character

has an experience of authentic being toward death, notably even the false messiah, to whom it seems to

have the most impact. Thus, in the end, the messianic event is accomplished and the dialectical standstill

ended. Thus, the world has ended, and yet it continues.

The Tombs and Sepulchers of God

Just as Jim Cunningham and Donnie Darko are opposed, so are Frank and Roberta Sparrow. The finite,

negative and destructive aspect of the cosmos/god as opposed to the infinite, positive and redemptive

aspect. One should note at the outset that the only words spoken by the latter are consonant with the

actions and message of the former, Every living creature on this earth dies alone. Thus, the truth and

significance of the radical solitude of being unto death is doubly affirmed. It is significant to note thehistory of Roberta Sparrow, once a nun, then a philosopher and scientist, and now author of a book that

offers Donnie truth; blind, alone and nearly mute, the figure of god, paralyzed after his own death

evoked by Jean-Luc Nancy in his essay Dei Paralysis Progressiva.4 This brings us back once again to the

Nietzschean themes, this time, however, to the theme of the death of God. Importantly, the death of God

is either prerequisite for or concomitant to the experience of the Eternal Recurrence.5 Furthermore, with

this incarnated deus absconditas, we may see the radical urgency of Donnie/Franks message that one must

face ones death in radical solitude, because the infinite, transcendent answer is forever shut off to us. Thus

we can see Donnies mission almost a false sacrifice, because in the end, in going to Roberta Sparrows

basement, he finds the final impetus toward his end in what can be called in consonance with Nietzsche,

the tomb and sepulcher of god. And with this, the blockage is removed by the swerving car not stopping

4 In Jean-Luc Nancy The Birth to Presence,

5 One should note that there is no indication that either moment, the one in which Donnie lives the end of his world for 28

days or the singular moment, are ontologically or otherwise prior to one other. Thus there is no reason to believe that the

events of the film are singular and non-repeatable in the sense of Eternal Recurrence this is to say, that if one were to

recur, both would.


9/9

short, but this time missing the paralyzed figure of god and causing the death of an innocent; the first

sacrifice, which is immediately followed by the second, that of Frank, and then the third, that of Donnie

and his world.6 Thus through these sacrifices, Donnie enacts Benjamins messianic redemption through a

Nietzschean cruelty. And with this, the first world comes to an end and the dialectical blockage removed

for the world.

6 Compare to NietzscheBeyond Good and Evil#55

Documents

Provocations: Polemics, Manifestos, Theses and Interpretations