At least in part, what I took Dave to be talking about was exactly what Bonhoeffer says in his prison laters concerning both a "secular" Christianity, a time of ecclesial repentance, and the reinstitution of the arcane disciplina. On the basis of the fact that he is most likely developing these ideas from that source - one that could hardly be understood as politically "passive" - I do not quite see what this assessment even has to do with Dave's assertion.

What is it that you take monasticism to be? Because I do not think it means what you think it means.
JD | 06.24.05 - 2:10 pm | #

Prison Letters, excuse me.
JD | 06.24.05 - 2:11 pm | #

Do "we" think it might be helpful to define what we mean by "politics"? I ask because: (1) Dave's position seems to be saying not "Christians should stop being political," but "Christians should rethink their concept and/or mode of politics." This might cut through any perceptions or misperceptions about mysticism/monasticism; (2) Gabe seems to be arguing that Christians need to change their politics to a Marxist one, or at least to "go through" a Marxist conception of the political.

So, to focus the debate, perhaps we could talk about "politics." And in the case of Dave as well as Gabe, there would be no "passivity."

Also, as a very late comment to Dave's post (and i ask this without having read Breton's text): could more be said about the contrast between a mysticism of "dispossession" and a will to power? Does this mean that will to power = possession? Also - and this might be related to Gabe's argument (perhaps not) - the argument for such dispossession seems to assume that power is with God, not something in the potency of "the world," "man," etc. (we know these are outdated concepts, so let's just say "earth"). Dave, is this what you are getting at? This might be helpful in thinking about a defintion of "politics".
discard the name | 06.24.05 - 3:42 pm | #

Not to be picky, but I'm pretty sure that remark from Zizek goes "Marxist go through the Christian experience, and vice versa". I agree with your sentiment though, Gabe: it's not the Marxists that need to made major changes.
Jared | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 3:47 pm | #

Discard, I believe you are right to resituate Gabe's conflict with Dave's post in terms of what is meant by the term "politics." I am not sure I know what he means, but it appears to me that oftentimes he borders on saying something like a complete indifference to what Gabe is putting at the forefront. This, of course, would not mean, for Dave, indifference to suffering or injustice. I know that is not his meaning. However, the conflict is most likely over the meaning and purpose of assuming such a posture. I do think that Dave's comments were directed more toward those with a definitive commitment to Christianity than to those with a definitive commitment to politics. This is all something of informed conjecture, of course.

Thus, could you offer us your definition of politics?

Jared, what could "it's not the Marxists that need to make major changes" possibly mean? That is too broad of a declaration for me to discern what is or is not being advocated. Are you talking about the analyses of capital, the structure and nature of the Party, etc.?
JD | 06.24.05 - 4:25 pm | #

I thought the Thesis of the Puppet and the Dwarf was that there is no Big Other damnit, so stop thinking there is.

No God. Just us. Here. Now.

That Jesus' ultimate realization on the cross is that he is just a poor deluded forsaken SOB like the rest of us.
Pat Rock | 06.24.05 - 4:46 pm | #

The big Other isn't God! GOD!
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 4:52 pm | #

the big other isn't.
Pat Rock | 06.24.05 - 5:09 pm | #

I'm not trying to argue that Zizek really believes in God -- I'm just not sure that he or Lacan would think of the big Other as "God." In fact, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't.

Partly, it's Lacan's own fault for using terminology in an aggressively idiosyncratic way, but "other" does not mean "some other person," for Lacan. To assume that the big Other is God seems to me to be translating Lacan's usage into the more familiar Levinasian terminology of the other.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 5:24 pm | #

Thanks Gabe - I have never had to look up the meanings of so many words in one sitting, and from only four paragraphs! That is an accomplishment. Seriously, though, I appreciate the contribution, and the vocabularic challenge.
Brannon H. | 06.24.05 - 5:47 pm | #

Adam is right re: the Big Other & God. For Lacan, God is only thinkable (and thus possible) at all, as God, because of the Big Other. Functionally, of course, denying the Big Other is a denial of the possibility of anything resembling a traditional transcendental God.
Brad | 06.24.05 - 6:23 pm | #

If we're talking about something like a Barthian God, though, that would belong to the Lacanian Real -- a disruptive, undermining force, rather than a principle of order.

I think we can all agree that a God who functions merely to underwrite the symbolic order is not worth one's time.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 7:04 pm | #

...a God who functions merely to underwrite the symbolic order...

Question, revealing my ignorance: would that be (something like) Tillich's God? i.e. Being beyond being, the object of ultimate concern (or whatever)? I don't know much about Tillich, but this would explain why nobody around here likes him.
Brannon H. | 06.24.05 - 7:20 pm | #

JD, I only mean that while Christians have plenty to gain from 'going through' the Marxist experience, I'm not sure that Christianity grants any unique benefit to someone who's already a Marxist. 'the Freudian experience', maybe.

If one wants to rebut that there would be no Freud or Marx without the Jews and Paul, great. I just see the 19th c. as having taken what's best of Christianity and Judaism and moved on. I'm still not convinced Zizek's religious fascination isn't just because it's great fodder for talking Lacan/Hegel - just like films are.
Jared | 06.24.05 - 8:00 pm | #

Jared, re: I'm still not convinced Zizek's religious fascination isn't just because it's great fodder for talking Lacan/Hegel - just like films are.

Neither am I, quite frankly.
Brad | 06.24.05 - 11:12 pm | #

Jared, I pretty much agree with your assessment of Zizek's use of Christianity. However, I do believe that he sees in it a kind of real transformative power, particular with respect to love and what Sartre would call "fraternity." I think, in many ways, he's attempting to address what Sartre admitted at the end of his life that he couldn't supply: a coherent philosophical basis for a genuine Marxist "fraternity." That's what Merleau-Ponty was always digging on him about. I think that this is at least part of the reason that he emphasizes love over faith a la Badiou.

This is why I am not convinced by your assessment. It seems that Marxism hasn't adequately taken what is best from Christianity and moved on. From what I have been able to glean about Adam's work, it seems to harbor many of the same concerns.

I am not going to make any type of argument to the effect that Freud or Marx were only possible because of Christianity. I have always thought the claim that Marxism was a secularized Christian eschatology to be utterly inane. And that is why I find it humorous that Zizek concedes the point. Nonetheless, I don't know what aspect(s) of the 19th c. you are referring to; it certainly was not a monolith.

In addition, I do not know what "the Marxist experience" is precisely. Just as I am not sure I know what you are talking about when you talk about "the Christian experience." I am really not trying to be an ass, but I sincerely don't know what you are comparing. It seems to me that just like any "experience" these two are going to diverge, conflict, and unite according to different various different aspects of what makes them up.
JD | 06.24.05 - 11:53 pm | #

Yes, it all requires some precise definition and careful formulation. But frankly, if the gist of my comment isn't clear enough as it stands, then it's just a throwaway comment to a blog post anyway and probably not worth either of our time.
Jared | 06.25.05 - 3:25 am | #

Wow. this is just all very ridiculous. I am really pissed off right now. I don't know if it's because I just woke up and so I'm cranky, or if it's just because I felt like I made myself *really damn clear* and this kind of shit happens...oh well; I guess that's the meaning of Milbank's statement about the contingency of our language--in that once we say something, we can't take it back, it's left to interpretation and even transformation. I'm pretty sure if you mine the archives Adam has written some great posts about this in the past. Anyways, I will simply write a post to respond to all of this. Let me say here and now that there is a strong link between *elements* of Christianity and Marxism...but they are *not the same thing.* The funny part is that I just wasn't talking about this at all in my post! peace
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 9:26 am | #

Dave --

I don't think there's anything to be especially pissy about. There have been far more inflammatory reactions to things people have written here -- including, I might add, past posts of yours! I've not yet spoken to Gabe about his (I'm assuming) email to Adam, but I do not think he was coming out all guns blazing against your post; nor was he simply trying to pick up what you wrote and provide a commentary. It was, after all, just some supplemental thoughts of his own. They, in turn, led to conversations about Marxism and Christianity. The fact that your original post didn't address this isn't really the point. I would have thought that the robust conversation that ensued from your original post would've been a sure sign that we got what you said (i.e., you communicated it well). The fact that it's been taken in a different direction should not be surprising, that being the nature of blogs & such.
Brad | 06.25.05 - 9:49 am | #

Brad, I was more pissy because of my first inclination--I had just woken up and only to find out that I have to give answers to questions...I usually don't like people asking me questions in the morning, that's all--even my wife!...I know that's not good. I wasn't particularly pissed at Gabe...though I do feel like there was a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was saying in his response. I was more pissed at seeing JD having to go back and forth on my behalf, saying that he could only conjecture as to what I would say (though I am of course grateful for his "defense" or whatever you might call it which was pretty much *right on* about what I would have said--especially about Bonhoeffer), and then hearing Discard--which was a very nice and extremely helpful comment--ask me to give a definition of politics....it was just the demand for a response when I just wanted to be lazy today. In the end it will probably be better for me not to be lazy, so I am retrospectively happy about it. It's always good to get a chance to try out ideas here.

Thanks for the comment. I will gladly indulge such a discussion since I'm sure it needs to take place.
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 11:47 am | #

Dave, I know exactly what you mean about not wanting to answer questions in the morning. I don't like them in general. And if someone wants me to repeat myself, either because they didn't hear me or didn't understand, it's really frustrating. That's why I hate talking on the phone anymore.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 06.25.05 - 12:00 pm | #

I suppose my having missed the plot on this -- i.e., not seeing how Gabe's response is incredibly critical -- stems from corresponding from him often, and knowing that he is not about (I think, anyway) rejecting the work of Christ, etc. In some ways, I feel as though I've been reproved, or at least challenged, by him when I reject this notion too quickly.
Brad | 06.25.05 - 12:09 pm | #

Adam. Yeah, I actually think I might hate repeating myself more than answering questions in the morning. Brad. I have to remind myself often the nature of the blogosphere which is so superficial...I have no idea what kind of person Gabe is from his response...I had no idea what kind of person you are when you first started responding in comments and posts here--and still don't I guess, though I'm learning. I think it's all too easy to jump to conclusions based on a line which could easily be taken out of context with no sense of tone or thoroughly misconstrued. I am as guilty of this as anyone. And again, I think this is sort of the language of nature, so I just need to get over it and work harder at being a more "responsible" communicator. God, I'm horrible at that. Ask my wife.
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 12:21 pm | #

By the way Brad, The Invention of Solitude is absolutely incredible...but in a very eerie sort of way. I find myself on the verge of tears, like an uninvited spectator looking in on the life of one who has just lost a father, and yet I can't stop reading--in a sort of addictive kind of way. I also just got the Dekkers book. Will read after I finish Auster...then I think I will probably take up Brannon's advice and read Moon Palace. Thanks again for the tip.
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 1:07 pm | #

Dave --

Far be it from me to preach about the natures of the blogosphere. Was just noting . . . I am, I suspect, similar in person as I am in text. That is to say, lots of ellipses and hyphens.

I'm glad you like Invention of Solitude. One of the most haunting things I've read in quite some time. His reflections are Pinocchio are quite moving, too.

A few years ago, I had a very Auster-esque episode you might appreciate. See here.

Dekkers' book is freaky, too, but in the life-affirming sense that only death can bring.
Brad | 06.25.05 - 1:18 pm | #

Discard, on the dispossession bit and the will to power. Breton does define it as "where willing ceases, especially the willing of oneself in any form" (1).
JD | 06.25.05 - 1:21 pm | #

I'm waiting for my copy of Breton's book (I've already forgotten the title) to arrive on interlibrary loan ... but does he make any differentiation between Christian disposession and the Buddhist notion of cessation. Surely, there's a difference in his mind ... but, a lot of the Christological formations thrown around sound like it has that in the background. Not a major criticism if it doesn't, mind. Just curious.
Brad | 06.25.05 - 1:47 pm | #

No, he doesn't. But, he does distinguish between Sufi mysticism and Christian mysticism--which is characterized by a sort of dispossession. He actually is quite clear that Christianity can not be so arrogant as to assume that it can "possess" faith...he opens faith up to the universal. In this way, there is a self-critical element to faith which is found in every religion (or many at least)...this is one of his criticisms of Bultmann's "demytholgization" which for all its talk of a dispossession of disposal makes faith purely the possession of Christianity.
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 2:21 pm | #

By the way Brad, it's "The Word and the Cross" [Le Verbe et la Croix].
Dave Belcher | 06.25.05 - 2:21 pm | #

JD, for me, to think the political is to do some kind of political ontology. And here, let's just say i would take up Deleuze's "politics before being." Politics is at base our capacity for organization of various productive forces, these forces residing in immanent potency. So, though i may not disagree with Christians who see political action residing in various spheres of life, i do disagree rather substantially, because I'm opposed to virtually any Christian metaphysic (be it analogical, via negativa, God as wholly other, God as "save the name"). As Marcos said, when asked what he thought about liberation theology: "I like it, but the liberation part, not the theology part" (paraphrase). So, for me, communism of immanence, as Deleuze says, believing in this world here. As for examples of a politics i like, i'd point to some of the autonomist experiments, to the Black Panthers, there are lots but it could get boring. Coming back to Marcos, however, there's an example. And this could become a "live question" for us - a good friend of mine has made the case (and i agree) that the event we are seeing with the Zapatistas is basically their coming out of the jungle. So far from expectations that they are starting a war, they are, he predicts with good reason, going to be doing some sort of national/international, etc., organization. It is going to be exciting, i think.
discard the name | 06.25.05 - 5:09 pm | #

The big Other is not, but what it could be in the yearnings of human inspiration.

Both "God" and the telos of "Marxism" ARE the big Other: that is, they serve to represent a reification of what human beings strive to achieve in the Real, while perpetually deferring the ultimate instance where the unachievable has been achieved.
Tying shoelaces | 06.25.05 - 5:31 pm | #

I forgot to come back here and follow up.

Yes, I know that Big Other is not god specifically, or maybe even generally. But at the end of the puppet and dwarf discussing jesus forsaken on the cross Zizek seems be using God and the Big Other more or less interchangeably.

For that particular instance of Christ of forsaken by his Big Other.

that's all I meant.
Pat Rock | 06.28.05 - 11:55 am | #