Comments on: Closure at critique? http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/17/closure-at-critique/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:11:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: David Smith http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/17/closure-at-critique/#comment-1737 David Smith Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:34:52 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/17/closure-at-critique/#comment-1737 Your post here has set me to thinking about the ways critique is accompanied by the anxiety that you're writing about here. In particular, I'm wondering how the critical engagement of the self might play into this whole situation (I think to call it a problem). In short I'm wondering if what makes one uncomfortable with critique is that, if it seems to deaden what one enjoys, perhaps when turned towards (against?) the self it will deaden the self. I hesitate to rephrase that last sentence in terms of secularism rather than critique; and I think the reasons why, point out, perhaps, how value laden the initial question is, despite my attempts to render it as impersonal as possible. To do so would, from the first, identify secularism with destructiveness, and perhaps lock the discourse back inside of the kind of "subtraction stories" which Taylor works so hard to refute. (Secondly it would seem to complicate matters by implying that the question can't be asked without certain pre-conceived religious commitments.) But perhaps there is a kind of subtraction story involved in critique as well -which is to ask if at any point in the history of critique we have come to think of a stripping away from a text or a national policy, etc, the very elements which we thought was its "life" against which we might envision its more material, immanent, efficient causal, etc properties. But I'm not quite sure how well I know the history of critique, nor quite what I mean by "life" in the previous sentence. I guess I'll sum this up as 1) is the anxiety with critique compounded by a self-reflexive stance, and 2) Are there subtraction stories involved in our understanding of critique? Your post here has set me to thinking about the ways critique is accompanied by the anxiety that you’re writing about here. In particular, I’m wondering how the critical engagement of the self might play into this whole situation (I think to call it a problem). In short I’m wondering if what makes one uncomfortable with critique is that, if it seems to deaden what one enjoys, perhaps when turned towards (against?) the self it will deaden the self. I hesitate to rephrase that last sentence in terms of secularism rather than critique; and I think the reasons why, point out, perhaps, how value laden the initial question is, despite my attempts to render it as impersonal as possible. To do so would, from the first, identify secularism with destructiveness, and perhaps lock the discourse back inside of the kind of “subtraction stories” which Taylor works so hard to refute. (Secondly it would seem to complicate matters by implying that the question can’t be asked without certain pre-conceived religious commitments.) But perhaps there is a kind of subtraction story involved in critique as well -which is to ask if at any point in the history of critique we have come to think of a stripping away from a text or a national policy, etc, the very elements which we thought was its “life” against which we might envision its more material, immanent, efficient causal, etc properties. But I’m not quite sure how well I know the history of critique, nor quite what I mean by “life” in the previous sentence.

I guess I’ll sum this up as 1) is the anxiety with critique compounded by a self-reflexive stance, and 2) Are there subtraction stories involved in our understanding of critique?

]]> By: Chris Nealon http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/17/closure-at-critique/#comment-585 Chris Nealon Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:03:41 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2007/12/17/closure-at-critique/#comment-585 Great post -- as a fellow teacher of literature I've also bumped up against the charge that critique -- even just criticism! -- deadens what's live in poetry or novels. I thought your gloss on Hardt, though, didn't quite do him justice. I'm no fan of Multitude or Empire, but I do think he's not quite saying what you say he is. First, it's not "religion" he's describing a relation to, here, but "theological scholars." I keep thinking how important it is to remind ourselves that what we in the nominally secular academy say about "religion" is always, for better and for worse, just that: academic. Second, I think Hardt might agree with you that religious movements can have both critical and tranformative aspects -- he does, after all, call the transformative a "moment." I don't think he's describing the opposite of critique, but something that succeeds it, or responds to it, or depends on it. Not that you need him to support what you're saying, but there's a funny way in which his remarks actually make your own remarks even more persuasive. Great post — as a fellow teacher of literature I’ve also bumped up against the charge that critique — even just criticism! — deadens what’s live in poetry or novels. I thought your gloss on Hardt, though, didn’t quite do him justice. I’m no fan of Multitude or Empire, but I do think he’s not quite saying what you say he is. First, it’s not “religion” he’s describing a relation to, here, but “theological scholars.” I keep thinking how important it is to remind ourselves that what we in the nominally secular academy say about “religion” is always, for better and for worse, just that: academic.

Second, I think Hardt might agree with you that religious movements can have both critical and tranformative aspects — he does, after all, call the transformative a “moment.” I don’t think he’s describing the opposite of critique, but something that succeeds it, or responds to it, or depends on it. Not that you need him to support what you’re saying, but there’s a funny way in which his remarks actually make your own remarks even more persuasive.

]]>