If we cannot do away with borders, then they must remain out
of necessity. This necessity is discrimination. As Nairn rightly argues,
"cultures...depend upon conflicts unsustainable without borders".
Contrasts and distinctions are internal to any logic of identity, as Balibar
similarly suggests; "the very representation of the border is the
precondition for any definition". Once identity is philosophically
understood as differential and not self-sufficient, globalisation raises a very
modernist dilemma. How to make the very diversity (of choices, cultures, of the new) that modernisation and globalisation
make possible, resist the paralysing repetitive logic of what Walter
Benjamin terms the 'ever-same' (i.e. the temporality of the contemporary)?
The time of the nation: negotiating global modernity | openDemocracy - 0 views
-
-
The mythological language of nationalism asserts an enduring order, paradoxically so inasmuch as the precise origin or origins of any nationalist discourse remain a shrouded mystery. Myth, as structurally detached from historical or circumstantial origin, becomes a vehicle of interpretation and pathos, splitting into a potentially infinite number of manifestations in each 'national' subject (where each standardised narrative is appropriated as a personal one).
-
By arguing the case for global modernity in the form of the nation-state, however, one faces the immediate problem that modernity is almost unthinkable without capitalism (despite any such attempt to render modernity as a democratising force tied to a conception and experience of time).
- ...1 more annotation...
How to break the stranglehold of academics on critical thinking | Razmig Keucheyan | Co... - 0 views
-
A weird law in New York forbids the use of electric microphones in public space so the only way for the speaker's voices to get through was for the front rows of the crowd to loudly repeat each of their sentences. The resulting litany resembled a kind of postmodern ritual. These speeches were then rapidly posted on YouTube.This of course is not the first time committed intellectuals have spoken in support of a movement of occupation. The Zucotti Park scene recalls a famous speech given by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre at the Renault automobile plant, at Boulogne-Billancourt near Paris, in 1970. Perched on a cask, Sartre addresses the workers on strike, and tells them that the alliance between intellectuals and the working class that once existed should be rebuilt. These were times of revolutionary upheaval, in France and elsewhere, and intellectuals were urged to take sides.
-
Žižek, Butler and West, moreover, spoke not in front of an occupied factory, as Sartre did, but in a public place. The occupation of public places is a trademark of these new movements, and the difference is crucial. If occupying public spaces is a matter of "reclaiming the street", or of demanding a "right to the city", then it is simultaneously a symptom of their not knowing what else to occupy.
-
A final difference between these two scenes is that Sartre was not an academic. He was so distrustful of bourgeois institutions that he refused the Nobel prize for literature in 1964 (as Guy Debord said at the time, refusing the Nobel prize is nothing, the problem is having deserved it).
- ...5 more annotations...
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page