Both tried to gain authority over their audiences by a two-stage rhetorical process – first, professing their own weakness and thus identifying with the weak recipients of that message; second, stressing their status as one of the chosen few whom their listeners could join if they would only submit to their authority. To be a successful Fuhrer or charismatic radio preacher, Adorno argued, one be what he called the ‘great little man’.

Stuart Jeffries on Theodor Adorno, in Grand Hotel Abyss

Can’t see that approach at work anywhere at all now. Nope, not anywhere.

 

Advertisements

On Cosmopolitanism – Jacques Derrida

Reading Derrida’s essay on cosmopolitanism, hospitality and the treatment of refugees what is most striking is how the mood on immigration has shifted so dramatically since it was written in 1997.

During the 1990s the ideas of cosmopolitanism and global human rights were relatively high on the agenda. In this context, Derrida argues in On Cosmopolitanism that when you deconstruct the concept of cosmopolitanism and how states should respond to claims for asylum or protection by refugees, it is divided between two poles.

On the one hand is a universalist normative ideal of hospitality which says everyone should be given refuge, regardless. On the other is the pragmatic consideration of the economic impact of accepting unlimited refugees. The principle is one of openness, of borderless-ness; the pragmatism is around what is financially possible. How these are negotiated, where the line is drawn, is the stuff of politics.

Derrida is aware in the essay, of course, that cosmopolitanism is not the only force driving nation states, and points to France as an example of a country that wants to be seen and understand itself as offering hospitality to exiles, refugees and migrants but also had started to crack down on migrants in order to control them. He refers to an ideal of ‘cities of refuge’ or ‘free cities’ as possible alternatives to state power, where we might see individual cities (he cites Strasbourg) offering hospitality to refugees regardless and despite what the state does.

Where we are today is light years from here – not just from these ideals but even the hopefulness that would allow someone like to Derrida to write this essay. The idea that the treatment of refugees comes from a negotiation between the universal of hospitality and the particular of what is possible seems almost impossibly utopian. Arguably, today the negotiation is wholly more negative.

On the one hand is the pragmatic need for a country like France to absorb migrants in order to ensure that the economy is viable. And on the other is the normative idea that there is an established nation with a people, an identity and a set of values that needs to be preserved. Debates about burkinis in France, Polish plumbers in the UK and Syrian refugees in Italy are all about borders and identity, with the concept of hospitality at best a marginal sentiment. Right wing populism, nationalism and borders are common currency now.

In typical Derrida fashion, On Cosmopolitanism is dense and at times obscure but ultimately sheds light – in this case on what was at stake when we were talking about ideals of cosmopolitanism.  But more than anything it makes you realise that question being asked in parliaments and city halls around the world is no longer, given we have an obligation to provide hospitality how many migrants can we practically take but, given we need migrants to power the economy how many can we take without diluting out national identity.

It makes you realise, put more simply, that our thinking on citizenship and immigration has taken a turn for the worse.

Slavoj Zizek – Event

Event

Read June 2014

Slavoj Zizek’s short guide to the concept of the ‘event’ is his usual whistle stop tour of philosophy, psychoanalysis and pop culture. I studied for a PhD in critical / social theory and I struggled to understand a lot of it! He has an incredible ability to explain Lacanian theory, although he assumes too much understanding of the original concepts and, as always, fails to put ideas into their intellectual context. He tends to pluck them out of nowhere and use them to explain a particular phenomenon before tossing them away and grabbing another. But I love Zizek.

You come out of this book with a least three things. First, your imagination and critical faculties are sparked by a host of counter- counter- counter-intuitive ideas about society, politics and culture. It’s what Zizek does best. Second, you get a thorough understanding of the concept of the event. Not a definition as such (little in Zizek can be definitively defined) but you understand that an event is something occurring which transforms the frame through which both the present and the past is viewed. An event colours everything. Third, you get some brilliant concepts and ideas that can be applied to understand the things going on underneath the surface, the ‘unknown knowns’, as he puts it.

Here’s a classic Zizek-ism (pp148-9):

We all know the classic scene in cartoons: the cat reaches a precipice but goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is no ground under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks down and notices the abyss. When a political regime, say, loses its authority, it is like the cat above the precipice: in order to fall, it only has to be reminded to look down.