Sunday, February 06, 2005
(1:03 PM) | Old - Doug Johnson:
Immanence v. Transcendence, or ...
I basically stayed out of the recent pissing match for a variety of reasons. There is, for one, the fact that I haven't seriously read the major figures behind the various camps. Not only do I not "have" Badiou (since, as of yet, I haven't read much more than the Paul book), but I additionally lack Millbank, Deleuze, and others for the most part. This lack, however, is most definitely related to another, greater reason why I didn't get involved. à Gauche suggested that Christian philosophy is for those of us who don't like math. Probably. But Adam's assertion that the Pauline Resurrection Event "definitely didn't happen" reminded me why I've yet to get sucked into the transcendence/immanence question (which, as Belcher concluded, is the crux of the debate between scoffers and believers). I get the sense that the sides are either evenly matched, or more likely, that the immanentists have the upper hand. Here I am perhaps relying too heavily on my friends à Gauche and especially Discard the Name whom I definitely know has seriously worked through Kierkegaard, Barth, Aquinas, Millbank (and David Hart), Nietzsche, Heidegger, Lacan (before he'd heard of Zizek), Derrida, Badiou, and that's not all (simply put, Discard is a machine). Nevertheless, the strength of the immanentists' position hasn't forced me into the literature to either pitch my tent with Radical Orthodoxy or give up the faith for two reasons.First, philsophies that a priori rule out involvement with the messy details of 1st century history cannot dislodge my confidence in the historicity of the Resurrection. Now, I am not an apologist either philosophical or historical. I was, however, introduced into the academy by apologists, particularly a historical apologist who very much persuaded me. à Gauche was schooled by the same folks and perhaps he has a good response to me here. However, I am quite sure that it would take someone like Daniel Boyarin (on the undercard at Syracuse) making a historically sensitive immanentist case against the Resurrection for me to get my hands dirty in the transcendence/immanence imbroglio.
Second, and perhaps more probative for this crowd, my interest in current continental thinking is driven by political and legal interests (which includes the psychiatric) rather than apologetics. I am not sure exactly which of the aforementioned thinkers I'll eventually have to wrestle through (certainly not all since my aim isn't to conquer "western thought"). However, as of now, it appears to me that whatever it's strength against transcendent philosophy proper, the immanentist tradition comes up short when the question of sovereignty (tabled by Adam - see the comments under "Book Recommendations") comes into play. Besides Barth, Foucault saw the problem most clearly, and that was part of the reason he rejected communism, which has now for all intents and purposes run its course/is perennially susceptible to being tamed by the nation state. Perhaps Agamben, Foucault's heir apparent, will eventually be able to save the day for the immanentists. Currently, I see things as follows: Deleuze and Foucault's answer to questions of sovereignty is suicide (the most honest answer, but it's not for me). Hardt-Negri probably concede to much to capital and Empire (i'm open to arguments otherwise). Early on Badiou rightly flat out rejected the nation state, but now his weak ass OP (organization poltical) champions a politics that vacillates between nostalgia ('68! '79! Save the factories!) and grovelling (Merci, French citizenship for all) - here I am drawing from Hallward's chapter on Badiou's politics. Zizek aroused my interest intially by inviting Jews and Christians to join the communists behind the barricade against new age religions, fundamentalism, and Empire, but when we got over the top we discovered that what Zizek called a barricade was nothing more than a couch.
And that brings me to a final reason for refraining from the cockfight. I agree that Jews and Christians should join up with communists on the other side of the barricades (though maybe there is too much at issue for it to be the same barricade). But it will have to be on more equal, less conditional terms than Zizek's. I am willing to forego launching attacks against Foucault and Deleuze, Zizek and Badiou, and their friends and heirs for their lack of faith; it is in the interest of all, though, for the immanentists to accept the fact that some of us will maintain our allegiance to the Biblical tradition. It would perhaps be helpful too for our comrades who don't share our faith to entertain the possibility that some of us are capable of more than lazy, pilfering, misappropriation. Perhaps, then, more of my fellow believers would be willing to recognize that for the last century and a half the Marxist tradition has been miles ahead of us on most justice issues, even if it now lacks the internal resources to overcome the logic of the nation state.
On Sovereignty and Law, Suggested reading:
Foucault: Society Must Be Defended lectures 3 and 4, along with "Right of Death and Power Over Life" (in Foucault Reader and part V of History of Sexuality)
Agamben: Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (I'll read State of Exception soon Adam).
Robert Cover: "Nomos and Narrative"
Coming Soon:
1. Excerpts from my wife's paper on Barth and Foucault on Sovereignty and Suicide
2. My long ago promised post on Paul's temporary suspension of the juridical
