Ерик Хобсбом / Eric Hobsbawm почина на 95 годишна възраст: четейки възторжените некролози, човек се пита дали не сме се върнали във времето, когато възрастта е била гарант за мъдрост. Когато всеки успява да е звезда - за 15 минути - успешна кариера, продължила 5 - 6 десетилетия е изумителна, няма спор. Така в един момент Пол Рикьор започна да изглежда значим философ - просто бе надживял всичките си именити сънародници (Сартър, Фуко, Барт...).
Кой е Хобсбом и струва ли си четенето? Първата част на въпроса лесно намира отговор, докато втората остава проблематична: статиите, които могат да бъдат изровени из мрежата едва ли успяват да предадат впечатлението, което биха правили по дългите
му текстове. Но и в тях има какво да се чете примерно леко пророческото усещане за кризта от 2008, каквото само един връстник на октомврийската революция би могъл да си позволи.
The old toolbox of Labour is available again - everything up to nationalisation - so let's just go and use the tools once again, which Labour should never have put away. But that suggests we know what to do with them. We don't. For one thing, we don't
know how to overcome the present crisis. None of the world's governments, central banks or international financial institutions know: they are all like a blind man trying to get out of a maze by tapping the walls with different kinds of sticks in the hope of finding the way out. For another, we underestimate how addicted governments and decision-makers still are to the free-market snorts that have made them feel so good for decades. Have we really got away from the assumption that
private profit-making enterprise is always a better, because more efficient, way of doing things? That business organisation and accountancy should be the model even for public service, education and research? That the growing chasm between the
super-rich and the rest doesn't matter that much, so long as everybody else (except the minority of the poor) is getting a bit better off? That what a country needs is under all circumstances maximum economic growth and commercial competitiveness?
I don't think so.
full text (The Guardian, April 10, 2009)
на български (Нова зора 21 aприл 2009)
Библиография; преводи на статии и разговори
(най-често под името Хобсбаум)
1.Възраждането на повествованието
сб. Историци за историята, с.377-82, СУ 1988
2. Ехо от Марсилезата
Култура XXXVI, 16 (17 apr. 1992), s. 4
3. Създаването на "буржоазната революция" [във Франция 1789 г.]
Lettre Internationale [1] (1992), s. 26-31
4. Новата заплаха за историята
Lettre Internationale 7 (1994), s. 3-7
5. Новите заплахи на историята
Изток-Изток/East-East 14 (1994), s. 6-11
6.Варварството - начин на употреба
Lettre Internationale 8 (1995), s. 58-62
7.Етносът и национализмът в Европа днес
Политически изследвания V, 4 (1995), s. 331-340
8.Към новото хилядолетие: Заключителна гл. от кн. "The Age of Extremes"
Култура 8.- XLIV, 50-51 (22 dek. 2000),
9.За ролята на скептичните историци : Разговор с Е. Хобсбаум
Култура XLVI, 46 (13 dek. 2002), s. 6
10.Империализмът на човешките права : Разговор с Е. Хобсбаум
Култура : XLVII, 34 (19 sept. 2003), s.5
11. Последният романтик Разговор с Е. Хобсбаум
Литературен вестник : XIV, 6 (11 - 17 fevr. 2004), s. 13
12.Работилница на света
Култура LII, 43 (12 dek. 2008), s. 12
12.Социализмът се провали. Сега капитализмът банкрутира
Нова зора XI, 15 (21 apr. 2009), s. 8
бел. статиите от в. Култура са достъпни онлайн
четвъртък, 4 октомври 2012 г.
сряда, 20 юни 2012 г.
Гърция и Нормалното
На тазгодишния икономичеки форум в Тренто Джордж Сорос коментира, че Германия заслужава доста порицание за това, че е "планирала недъгава система, наложила недъгави договорености, преследвала недъгава политика и вършила прекаленo късно прекалено малко".
The ‘centre’ (i.e. Germany) deserves quite a bit of blame, Soros said, for “designing a flawed system, enacting flawed treaties, pursuing flawed policies and always doing too little too late”, continuing that “In the 1980’s Latin America suffered a lost decade; a similar fate now awaits Europe.”
Амартия Сен говори в едно неотдавнашно интервю за демократическия провал в Eвропа.
Жижек в London review of Books апелира за солидарност с Гърция.
и т.н.
The ‘centre’ (i.e. Germany) deserves quite a bit of blame, Soros said, for “designing a flawed system, enacting flawed treaties, pursuing flawed policies and always doing too little too late”, continuing that “In the 1980’s Latin America suffered a lost decade; a similar fate now awaits Europe.”
Амартия Сен говори в едно неотдавнашно интервю за демократическия провал в Eвропа.
Жижек в London review of Books апелира за солидарност с Гърция.
и т.н.
понеделник, 30 април 2012 г.
Някои го предпочитат...
...Херменевтичен.
Ако ги имаше, проповедниците на научния комунизъм сигурно шяха да ни обяснят, че херменевтичният комунизъм е просто антикомунизъм. От другата страна, при хора, изпатили или дресирани, една първосигнална реакция също гарантира, че херменевтичният комунизъм няма никакъв шанс. Тогава може да се предположи, че заглавието, избрано от Джани Ватимо и Сантияго Забала, е преднамерено провокативно. А дали под тази субект-предиктна форма, отблъскваща и от двете си страни, стои нещо трето, остава да се спори. Оказва се, че налице е именно практиката на един 'научен капитализъм',а онова, което се загатва от заглавието, е утопията на неговия негатив.От ляво никога не са приемали херменевтиката, макар че, както, Джани Ватимо и Сантияго Забала настояват, тя никога не е била собствено политически проект. Те самите поясняват, че заангажираните с херменевтика наистина са се оказвали в десния край на политическия спектър, но това било обстоятелство, а не принцип. И една съществена част от аргументацията е именно в тази поска: че повече от всяко друго херменевтичното търсене (и намиране) е по-необвързано с предварителни постановки, че то единствено има изгледи да каже нещо нетривиално, относно това, което (предстои да) се случва. Примерни герои на тяхната херменевтична транспозиция се оказват Лутер, Фройд и Томас Кун - всеки един от тях успял по един или друг начин в разчупването на идеен монопол. За ролята на злодей пък е избран Джон Сърл, навлязъл в полето на неаналитичното мислене с опитите и там да пренесе стандартизирани методи; конфронтирането му с Дерида обаче далеч не се оказа печелившо, а награждаването му с медал от Дж. Буш го доказва като апологет - на философията, която, предполагаемо, върви най-добре с Кока-кола. "La droite ne pense pas", това е реално тавтология доколкото "Дясно" е именно онова мислене, което се задоволява с наличното като го обявява, ако не за единствено възможно, то за оптимално. "Какво да се прави?" познатият въпрос, не намира пряко отговор, освен в настояването, че е добре алтернативите да се мислят още преди статуквото да рухне. Опитът на Ватимо и Забала в последна сметка извежда в някаква близост до Рорти и неговия опит за "разговор", отдалечавайки се от Жижек и неговите жизнерадостни издевателства.още за книгата - от издателя+the wikipedia entry+
and an other review
сряда, 25 януари 2012 г.
Aмнести / Amnesty
В подкрепа на Амнести Интернешънал
DISC ONE
01 Raphael Saadiq – “Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat”
02 Patti Smith – “Drifter’s Escape”
03 Rise Against – “Ballad of Hollis Brown”
04 Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman – “Blind Willie McTell”
05 Pete Townshend – “Corrina, Corrina”
06 Bettye LaVette – “Most Of The Time”
07 Charlie Winston – “This Wheel’s On Fire”
08 Diana Krall – “Simple Twist of Fate”
09 Brett Dennen – “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere”
10 Mariachi El Bronx – “Love Sick”
11 Ziggy Marley – “Blowin’ In The Wind”
12 The Gaslight Anthem – “Changing of the Guards”
13 Silversun Pickups – “Not Dark Yet”
14 My Morning Jacket – “You’re A Big Girl Now”
15 The Airborne Toxic Event – “Boots of Spanish Leather”
16 Sting – “Girl from the North Country”
17 Mark Knopfler – “Restless Farewell”
DISC TWO
01 Queens Of The Stone Age – “Outlaw Blues”
02 Lenny Kravitz – “Rainy Day Woman # 12 & 35″
03 Steve Earle & Lucia Micarelli – “One More Cup Of Coffee (Valley Below)”
04 Blake Mills – “Heart Of Mine”
05 Miley Cyrus – “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go”
06 Billy Bragg – “Lay Down Your Weary Tune”
07 Elvis Costello – “License To Kill”
08 Angelique Kidjo – “Lay, Lady, Lay”
09 Natasha Bedingfield – “Ring Them Bells”
10 Jackson Browne – “Love Minus Zero/No Limit”
11 Joan Baez – “Seven Curses (Live)”
12 The Belle Brigade – “No Time To Think”
13 Sugarland – “Tonight I’ll Be Staying Here With You (Live)”
14 Jack’s Mannequin – “Mr. Tambourine Man”
15 Oren Lavie – “4th Time Around”
16 Sussan Deyhim – “All I Really Want To Do”
17 Adele – “Make You Feel My Love (Recorded Live at WXPN)”
DISC THREE
01 K’NAAN – “With God On Our Side”
02 Ximena Sariñana – “I Want You”
03 Neil Finn with Pajama Club – “She Belongs to Me”
04 Bryan Ferry – “Bob Dylan’s Dream”
05 Zee Avi – “Tomorrow Is A Long Time”
06 Carly Simon – “Just Like a Woman”
07 Flogging Molly – “The Times They Are A-Changin’”
08 Fistful Of Mercy – “Buckets Of Rain”
09 Joe Perry – “Man Of Peace”
10 Bad Religion – “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”
11 My Chemical Romance – “Desolation Row (Live)”
12 RedOne featuring Nabil Khayat – “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door”
13 Paul Rodgers & Nils Lofgren – “Abandoned Love”
14 Darren Criss featuring Chuck Criss and Freelance Whales – “New Morning”
15 Cage the Elephant – “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll”
16 Band of Skulls – “It Ain’t Me, Babe”
17 Sinéad O’Connor – “Property Of Jesus”
18 Ed Roland and The Sweet Tea Project – “Shelter From The Storm”
19 Ke$ha – “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”
20 Kronos Quartet – “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”
DISC FOUR
01 Maroon 5 – “I Shall Be Released”
02 Carolina Chocolate Drops – “Political World”
03 Seal & Jeff Beck – “Like A Rolling Stone”
04 Taj Mahal – “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream”
05 Dierks Bentley – “Senor (Tales of Yankee Power) (Live)”
06 Mick Hucknall – “One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later)”
07 Thea Gilmore – “I’ll Remember You”
08 State Radio – “John Brown”
09 Dave Matthews Band – “All Along the Watchtower (Live)”
10 Michael Franti – “Subterranean Homesick Blues”
11 We Are Augustines – “Mama, You Been On My Mind”
12 Lucinda Williams – “Tryin’ To Get To Heaven”
13 Kris Kristofferson – “Quinn The Eskimo (The Mighty Quinn)”
14 Eric Burdon – “Gotta Serve Somebody”
15 Evan Rachel Wood – “I’d Have You Anytime”
16 Marianne Faithfull – “Baby Let Me Follow You Down (Live)”
17 Pete Seeger – “Forever Young”
18 Bob Dylan – “Chimes Of Freedom”
DISC ONE
01 Raphael Saadiq – “Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat”
02 Patti Smith – “Drifter’s Escape”
03 Rise Against – “Ballad of Hollis Brown”
04 Tom Morello/The Nightwatchman – “Blind Willie McTell”
05 Pete Townshend – “Corrina, Corrina”
06 Bettye LaVette – “Most Of The Time”
07 Charlie Winston – “This Wheel’s On Fire”
08 Diana Krall – “Simple Twist of Fate”
09 Brett Dennen – “You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere”
10 Mariachi El Bronx – “Love Sick”
11 Ziggy Marley – “Blowin’ In The Wind”
12 The Gaslight Anthem – “Changing of the Guards”
13 Silversun Pickups – “Not Dark Yet”
14 My Morning Jacket – “You’re A Big Girl Now”
15 The Airborne Toxic Event – “Boots of Spanish Leather”
16 Sting – “Girl from the North Country”
17 Mark Knopfler – “Restless Farewell”
DISC TWO
01 Queens Of The Stone Age – “Outlaw Blues”
02 Lenny Kravitz – “Rainy Day Woman # 12 & 35″
03 Steve Earle & Lucia Micarelli – “One More Cup Of Coffee (Valley Below)”
04 Blake Mills – “Heart Of Mine”
05 Miley Cyrus – “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go”
06 Billy Bragg – “Lay Down Your Weary Tune”
07 Elvis Costello – “License To Kill”
08 Angelique Kidjo – “Lay, Lady, Lay”
09 Natasha Bedingfield – “Ring Them Bells”
10 Jackson Browne – “Love Minus Zero/No Limit”
11 Joan Baez – “Seven Curses (Live)”
12 The Belle Brigade – “No Time To Think”
13 Sugarland – “Tonight I’ll Be Staying Here With You (Live)”
14 Jack’s Mannequin – “Mr. Tambourine Man”
15 Oren Lavie – “4th Time Around”
16 Sussan Deyhim – “All I Really Want To Do”
17 Adele – “Make You Feel My Love (Recorded Live at WXPN)”
DISC THREE
01 K’NAAN – “With God On Our Side”
02 Ximena Sariñana – “I Want You”
03 Neil Finn with Pajama Club – “She Belongs to Me”
04 Bryan Ferry – “Bob Dylan’s Dream”
05 Zee Avi – “Tomorrow Is A Long Time”
06 Carly Simon – “Just Like a Woman”
07 Flogging Molly – “The Times They Are A-Changin’”
08 Fistful Of Mercy – “Buckets Of Rain”
09 Joe Perry – “Man Of Peace”
10 Bad Religion – “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue”
11 My Chemical Romance – “Desolation Row (Live)”
12 RedOne featuring Nabil Khayat – “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door”
13 Paul Rodgers & Nils Lofgren – “Abandoned Love”
14 Darren Criss featuring Chuck Criss and Freelance Whales – “New Morning”
15 Cage the Elephant – “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll”
16 Band of Skulls – “It Ain’t Me, Babe”
17 Sinéad O’Connor – “Property Of Jesus”
18 Ed Roland and The Sweet Tea Project – “Shelter From The Storm”
19 Ke$ha – “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”
20 Kronos Quartet – “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right”
DISC FOUR
01 Maroon 5 – “I Shall Be Released”
02 Carolina Chocolate Drops – “Political World”
03 Seal & Jeff Beck – “Like A Rolling Stone”
04 Taj Mahal – “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream”
05 Dierks Bentley – “Senor (Tales of Yankee Power) (Live)”
06 Mick Hucknall – “One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later)”
07 Thea Gilmore – “I’ll Remember You”
08 State Radio – “John Brown”
09 Dave Matthews Band – “All Along the Watchtower (Live)”
10 Michael Franti – “Subterranean Homesick Blues”
11 We Are Augustines – “Mama, You Been On My Mind”
12 Lucinda Williams – “Tryin’ To Get To Heaven”
13 Kris Kristofferson – “Quinn The Eskimo (The Mighty Quinn)”
14 Eric Burdon – “Gotta Serve Somebody”
15 Evan Rachel Wood – “I’d Have You Anytime”
16 Marianne Faithfull – “Baby Let Me Follow You Down (Live)”
17 Pete Seeger – “Forever Young”
18 Bob Dylan – “Chimes Of Freedom”
вторник, 20 декември 2011 г.
В началото бе...
...едно злодейство: описано по-разговорно чрез "загадъчни хищници", за които пък има и "преки (научни) доказателства"
Следват накратко и двете:
Мystery predators contributed fiscal collapse
The study authors at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) retraced events to show that at a critical point in the financial crisis, the stock of Citigroup was attacked by traders by selling borrowed stock (short-selling) which may have caused others to sell in panic. The subsequent price drop enabled the attackers to buy the stock back at a much lower price.
This kind of illegal market manipulation is called a bear raid and the new study supports earlier suspicions that the raids played a role in the market crash.
"There used to be a rule that prevented it from happening by forbidding borrowed shares from being sold in large blocks that drive the price down," said Bar-Yam. "The Securities and Exchange Commission repealed that rule, known as the price test or uptick rule, on July 6, 2007."
On November 1, 2007, the number of borrowed Citigroup shares jumped by 100 million shares, a value of almost $6 billion. Six days later, a similar number of shares was returned on a single day.
Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam, President of NECSI, maintains this was no "freak" or coincidental event. "When 100 million shares are borrowed on a single day and then returned on a single day, the evidence that this is a concerted action is hard to refute."
Last year, the authors of the report sent preliminary results of their study to the financial services committee of Congress, and Congressmen Barney Frank and Ed Perlmutter sent it to the SEC. Unfortunately, Professor Bar-Yam says that he hasn’t seen any action by the SEC to identify or prosecute those responsible or to prevent its occurring in the future.
After the market crash, the SEC received thousands of requests from the public to reinstate the price test rule. Hedge funds that invest the money of wealthy individuals opposed its reinstatement. Eventually, the SEC put into place an "alternative" rule that only applies a price test when the price of a share drops more than 10 percent.
Professor Bar-Yam points out, "This watered-down rule would not have stopped the bear raid on Citigroup on November 1, 2007. This is only one example of the deleterious effects of the weakened rule. The overall effect of unregulated selling of borrowed shares is surely much larger and continues today."
Evidence of market manipulation in the financial crisis
Vedant Misra, Marco Lagi, Yaneer Bar-Yam
(Submitted on 14 Dec 2011)
Abstract
We provide direct evidence of market manipulation at the beginning of the financial crisis in November 2007. The type of manipulation, a "bear raid," would have been prevented by a regulation that was repealed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2007. The regulation, the uptick rule, was designed to prevent manipulation and promote stability and was in force from 1938 as a key part of the government response to the 1928 market crash and its aftermath. On November 1, 2007, Citigroup experienced an unusual increase in trading volume and decrease in price. Our analysis of financial industry data shows that this decline coincided with an anomalous increase in borrowed shares, the selling of which would be a large fraction of the total trading volume. The selling of borrowed shares cannot be explained by news events as there is no corresponding increase in selling by share owners. A similar number of shares were returned on a single day six days later. The magnitude and coincidence of borrowing and returning of shares is evidence of a concerted effort to drive down Citigroup's stock price and achieve a profit, i.e., a bear raid. Interpretations and analyses of financial markets should consider the possibility that the intentional actions of individual actors or coordinated groups can impact market behavior. Markets are not sufficiently transparent to reveal even major market manipulation events. Our results point to the need for regulations that prevent intentional actions that cause markets to deviate from equilibrium and contribute to crashes. Enforcement actions cannot reverse severe damage to the economic system. The current "alternative" uptick rule which is only in effect for stocks dropping by over 10% in a single day is insufficient. Prevention may be achieved through improved availability of market data and the original uptick rule or other transaction limitations.
Следват накратко и двете:
Мystery predators contributed fiscal collapse
The study authors at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) retraced events to show that at a critical point in the financial crisis, the stock of Citigroup was attacked by traders by selling borrowed stock (short-selling) which may have caused others to sell in panic. The subsequent price drop enabled the attackers to buy the stock back at a much lower price.
This kind of illegal market manipulation is called a bear raid and the new study supports earlier suspicions that the raids played a role in the market crash.
"There used to be a rule that prevented it from happening by forbidding borrowed shares from being sold in large blocks that drive the price down," said Bar-Yam. "The Securities and Exchange Commission repealed that rule, known as the price test or uptick rule, on July 6, 2007."
On November 1, 2007, the number of borrowed Citigroup shares jumped by 100 million shares, a value of almost $6 billion. Six days later, a similar number of shares was returned on a single day.
Professor Yaneer Bar-Yam, President of NECSI, maintains this was no "freak" or coincidental event. "When 100 million shares are borrowed on a single day and then returned on a single day, the evidence that this is a concerted action is hard to refute."
Last year, the authors of the report sent preliminary results of their study to the financial services committee of Congress, and Congressmen Barney Frank and Ed Perlmutter sent it to the SEC. Unfortunately, Professor Bar-Yam says that he hasn’t seen any action by the SEC to identify or prosecute those responsible or to prevent its occurring in the future.
After the market crash, the SEC received thousands of requests from the public to reinstate the price test rule. Hedge funds that invest the money of wealthy individuals opposed its reinstatement. Eventually, the SEC put into place an "alternative" rule that only applies a price test when the price of a share drops more than 10 percent.
Professor Bar-Yam points out, "This watered-down rule would not have stopped the bear raid on Citigroup on November 1, 2007. This is only one example of the deleterious effects of the weakened rule. The overall effect of unregulated selling of borrowed shares is surely much larger and continues today."
Evidence of market manipulation in the financial crisis
Vedant Misra, Marco Lagi, Yaneer Bar-Yam
(Submitted on 14 Dec 2011)
Abstract
We provide direct evidence of market manipulation at the beginning of the financial crisis in November 2007. The type of manipulation, a "bear raid," would have been prevented by a regulation that was repealed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in July 2007. The regulation, the uptick rule, was designed to prevent manipulation and promote stability and was in force from 1938 as a key part of the government response to the 1928 market crash and its aftermath. On November 1, 2007, Citigroup experienced an unusual increase in trading volume and decrease in price. Our analysis of financial industry data shows that this decline coincided with an anomalous increase in borrowed shares, the selling of which would be a large fraction of the total trading volume. The selling of borrowed shares cannot be explained by news events as there is no corresponding increase in selling by share owners. A similar number of shares were returned on a single day six days later. The magnitude and coincidence of borrowing and returning of shares is evidence of a concerted effort to drive down Citigroup's stock price and achieve a profit, i.e., a bear raid. Interpretations and analyses of financial markets should consider the possibility that the intentional actions of individual actors or coordinated groups can impact market behavior. Markets are not sufficiently transparent to reveal even major market manipulation events. Our results point to the need for regulations that prevent intentional actions that cause markets to deviate from equilibrium and contribute to crashes. Enforcement actions cannot reverse severe damage to the economic system. The current "alternative" uptick rule which is only in effect for stocks dropping by over 10% in a single day is insufficient. Prevention may be achieved through improved availability of market data and the original uptick rule or other transaction limitations.
сряда, 7 декември 2011 г.
Niklas Luhmann, the Radical and Occupy Wall Street
Niklas Luhmann, the Radical and Occupy Wall Street
Hans Georg-Moeller:
Unfortunately, the radicalism of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of society has often been ignored, misunderstood, or watered down. This is unfortunate because the theory is probably the most powerful one out there right now for explaining how society works. Its radicalism is much needed. And why is that?
Simply put, because the dominating ideologies currently available still operate with the humanist vocabulary of early modernity, with all its notions of freedom, rights, recognition, the other, justice—you name it. These concepts may sound appealing, but they are theoretically shallow—for instance, with respect to understanding the social phenomena connected with the recent financial crisis. It happened because of “greed”? Is this all that the “Occupiers of Wall Street” can offer us as an explanation? We need a radical theory so that those protesting in the streets will begin to comprehend what it is that they are protesting against, and so that they may begin to drop their moralistic jargon (which they share with the Republicans, by the way).
In his 1997 essay “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive of Modern Society?” Luhmann already described the “new centrality of international financial markets; the corresponding marginalization of production, labour, and trade; and the transfer of economic security from real assets and first-rate debtors to speculation itself,” which created an economy focusing on “financial products” rather than goods and undermined traditional economic couplings with, for instance, infrastructure, means of production, or the legal system. Luhmann understood that the “volatility of the financial market with its new derivative instruments for simultaneously maximizing security and risk with unpredictable effects” had led to the following situation: “He who tries to maintain his property will lose his fortune, and he who tries to maintain and increase his wealth will have to change his investments one day to the next. He can either use new derivative instruments or trust some of the many funds that do this for him.” For Luhmann all this cannot be explained on the basis of the traditional vocabulary of “exploitation” or tackled with ethical appeals.
What we need is a radical departure from seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century thought, and the guts to look into the mirror without old wigs and fancy dresses that show us in all our assumed human dignity and moral beauty. Most disappointingly, in the course of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment,” the radical options that were once available, like Marxism, have now become the opium of the bourgeoisie. Luhmann’s theory is “radical” in the sense that it provides an entirely new framework for understanding how global society operates on a basic level, how social complexity emerges, how we are immersed in a relentless matrix of communication that has swallowed us and that provides us with a variety of comfort and illusions. Marx had meticulously and coldly described how the capitalist mode of production had shaped a society of industrialist production of goods and, in line with that, a merciless dictatorship of money. Luhmann, equalling Marx in meticulousness and coldness, describes how, in “postindustrial” times, communication systems have taken over and allow for a rich variety of modes of “exchange,” in which any claim for human control or for “making a difference” that the Wall Street occupiers hope for must seem absurd.
If society actually evolves, and this is one of Luhmann’s most basic premises, then it cannot be steered. The main difference between evolutionism and creationism is that the latter believes in “intelligent design” and “guidance from above.” Evolutionism, however, does not. Unfortunately, the illusion of intelligent design and guidance from above still dominates “postenlightenment” social theory, only in a secularized version. Once this was the job of God and His helpers on earth. Now the helpers claim that they can do the job alone. But this is not how the real world has ever operated. Perhaps we should finally liberate ourselves from the liberal premises that we can determine basically whatsoever on the basis of our “free will.” The free will and the free market are specters that still haunt contemporary society. To exorcise them, a little radicalism may be needed, and this will imply, as was the case with Marx, a radical departure from the values and ideas of bourgeois moralists, leading far beyond what is currently offered by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
We do not need to despair, however. Just as we survived the insights of not being at the center of the universe, of not being the crown of creation, and of not being the master of our unconscious drives and social constraints, we can also survive Luhmann’s sociological insult. The sociological insult finally liberates us from the illusion that we can, and therefore must, control society (or communication). It may be at first disappointing to let go of illusions of control and controllability, but it can turn out to be a relief. In a surprising turn, Luhmann offers us a new form of radical theoretical stoicism and thus enables us to find a degree of intellectual tranquility in the midst of the follies and the frenzy of a globalized world.
Hans Georg-Moeller:
Unfortunately, the radicalism of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of society has often been ignored, misunderstood, or watered down. This is unfortunate because the theory is probably the most powerful one out there right now for explaining how society works. Its radicalism is much needed. And why is that?
Simply put, because the dominating ideologies currently available still operate with the humanist vocabulary of early modernity, with all its notions of freedom, rights, recognition, the other, justice—you name it. These concepts may sound appealing, but they are theoretically shallow—for instance, with respect to understanding the social phenomena connected with the recent financial crisis. It happened because of “greed”? Is this all that the “Occupiers of Wall Street” can offer us as an explanation? We need a radical theory so that those protesting in the streets will begin to comprehend what it is that they are protesting against, and so that they may begin to drop their moralistic jargon (which they share with the Republicans, by the way).
In his 1997 essay “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive of Modern Society?” Luhmann already described the “new centrality of international financial markets; the corresponding marginalization of production, labour, and trade; and the transfer of economic security from real assets and first-rate debtors to speculation itself,” which created an economy focusing on “financial products” rather than goods and undermined traditional economic couplings with, for instance, infrastructure, means of production, or the legal system. Luhmann understood that the “volatility of the financial market with its new derivative instruments for simultaneously maximizing security and risk with unpredictable effects” had led to the following situation: “He who tries to maintain his property will lose his fortune, and he who tries to maintain and increase his wealth will have to change his investments one day to the next. He can either use new derivative instruments or trust some of the many funds that do this for him.” For Luhmann all this cannot be explained on the basis of the traditional vocabulary of “exploitation” or tackled with ethical appeals.
What we need is a radical departure from seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century thought, and the guts to look into the mirror without old wigs and fancy dresses that show us in all our assumed human dignity and moral beauty. Most disappointingly, in the course of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment,” the radical options that were once available, like Marxism, have now become the opium of the bourgeoisie. Luhmann’s theory is “radical” in the sense that it provides an entirely new framework for understanding how global society operates on a basic level, how social complexity emerges, how we are immersed in a relentless matrix of communication that has swallowed us and that provides us with a variety of comfort and illusions. Marx had meticulously and coldly described how the capitalist mode of production had shaped a society of industrialist production of goods and, in line with that, a merciless dictatorship of money. Luhmann, equalling Marx in meticulousness and coldness, describes how, in “postindustrial” times, communication systems have taken over and allow for a rich variety of modes of “exchange,” in which any claim for human control or for “making a difference” that the Wall Street occupiers hope for must seem absurd.
If society actually evolves, and this is one of Luhmann’s most basic premises, then it cannot be steered. The main difference between evolutionism and creationism is that the latter believes in “intelligent design” and “guidance from above.” Evolutionism, however, does not. Unfortunately, the illusion of intelligent design and guidance from above still dominates “postenlightenment” social theory, only in a secularized version. Once this was the job of God and His helpers on earth. Now the helpers claim that they can do the job alone. But this is not how the real world has ever operated. Perhaps we should finally liberate ourselves from the liberal premises that we can determine basically whatsoever on the basis of our “free will.” The free will and the free market are specters that still haunt contemporary society. To exorcise them, a little radicalism may be needed, and this will imply, as was the case with Marx, a radical departure from the values and ideas of bourgeois moralists, leading far beyond what is currently offered by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
We do not need to despair, however. Just as we survived the insights of not being at the center of the universe, of not being the crown of creation, and of not being the master of our unconscious drives and social constraints, we can also survive Luhmann’s sociological insult. The sociological insult finally liberates us from the illusion that we can, and therefore must, control society (or communication). It may be at first disappointing to let go of illusions of control and controllability, but it can turn out to be a relief. In a surprising turn, Luhmann offers us a new form of radical theoretical stoicism and thus enables us to find a degree of intellectual tranquility in the midst of the follies and the frenzy of a globalized world.
понеделник, 14 ноември 2011 г.
Six Questions for Žižek
Six Questions for Slavoj Žižek
(by J. Nicole Jones in Harper's, Nov. 11th)
Ideology is not only ideas. Ideology is something which structures our daily practices. Ideology is not that you think money is something mystical; ideology is in how you deal with money everyday. Legal ideology is that even if you don’t trust the legal, you use it, you rely on it.
(by J. Nicole Jones in Harper's, Nov. 11th)
Ideology is not only ideas. Ideology is something which structures our daily practices. Ideology is not that you think money is something mystical; ideology is in how you deal with money everyday. Legal ideology is that even if you don’t trust the legal, you use it, you rely on it.
Абонамент за:
Публикации (Atom)
