Month: October 2017

Two Eco Events this Week at MUN

The first is the Philosophy Colloquium:
“Let’s Not Talk About the Anthropocene”
Dr. Jay Foster (Department of Philosophy)
Thursday 2 November, 4:30-5:45 pm
Science 4078
Special Event
St. John’s first and only public showing of Terrance Malick’s masterpiece
The Voyage of Time (2016), which visually narrates the beginning and end of the universe
Sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and For a New Earth
Thursday 2 November,
IIC-2001. 7:30 PM-9:15 PM with discussion to follow

Stuart Elden on Reading and Citing

I missed this post but caught it recently: Eleven Thoughts on Reading and Citing.  I would have thought the 11th would be: “Philosophers have only cited the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” But the advice for 11—citation is not endorsement—is an important one nonetheless.

More responses to the Hannah Arendt Center’s Jongen Invitation

Here (on the page below Roger Berkowitz’s response to the open letter in the Chronicle). There are critics of the invitation who, either out of friendship or disagreements with formulations in the open letter (or both), nevertheless have weighed in, including Patchen Markell and Peg Birmingham. A longer, more formal critique, “The Hannah Arendt Center’s Dark Thinking,” by John Ganz, is here.

Overview of the Human Condition


My podcast is here, going over the work as a whole and its major theses, including her underread claims later in the book about “earth alienation” (based in many parts on an undedited version of my contribution to The Bloomsbury Companion to Hannah Arendt, due out next year and co-edited by me with Yasemin Sari).

Arendt Democracy Conference at Bard sparks controversy

The “Crises of Democracy: Thinking in Hard Times” two-day conference October 12-13 (available online here) included an invited lecture by Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) politician Marc Jongen, whose reactionary, neo-fascist views are discussed in the NYRB here and whose reputation was such that it led to a guilt-by-association critique of Peter Sloterdijk (Jongen was once his assistant and applies his views on rage) in another NYRB piece by John Gray here, has come under fire for his inclusion. An open letter with a number of well-known signatories is in the Chronicle here. Below is the core of the critique:

Questions of responsibility have been further compounded in the aftermath of the event, especially because of the fact that the Hannah Arendt Center livestreamed the conference, posted videos of all the sessions, and broadcast statements of conference participants on its official Facebook and Twitter accounts. Accordingly, the center lent its institutional legitimacy and communicative power to Jongen’s statements.What remains to be taken into account by the organizers is how this online content serves the interests of far-right propagandists. For instance, on October 14, 2017, Jongen shared the center’s post on his own Facebook account and official website, celebrating his invitation as a victory for the AfD’s “cause.” Arendt’s name and the center’s reputation have now been used to legitimize the AfD’s far-right politics. That is a direct threat to the plurality the Arendt Center says it wants to promote and defend. Professor [Roger] Berkowitz [the Arendt Center’s director] suggests that there was no need “to belabor the obvious” by stating that the Arendt Center does not endorse the AfD’s agenda. However, one of the “crises of democracy” in our time is that “the obvious” can no longer be taken for granted, especially when esteemed institutions broadcast racist and xenophobic views to a wide audience without critical commentary.

I should mention Berkowitz has kindly offered work for my co-edited, with Yasemin Sari, Bloomsbury Companion to Arendt, but I found it unsettling at the time that the Center livestreamed his views on Twitter (where the character limit allows for no distance from these views). This of course comes at a time that Berkowitz recognizes is a time of crisis for democratic pluralism, precisely, though, because far, far right wing white supremacists are utilizing that plurality for the dissemination of their views. An invitation is obviously not an endorsement, but there is the performative effect of language that Arendt herself realized was a part of politics whenever she talked about words as deeds. The Arendt Center is an important place where her work is considered, largely because of Berkowitz’s efforts there. His response to the above letter is here. He writes:

The only way to respond to this crisis is to listen to, engage, and reject these arguments. That is precisely what happened at the conference. …Hannah Arendt spent her entire life on the receiving end of mass criticism. She was mercilessly attacked for her opinions on Zionism, Soviet totalitarianism, and Adolf Eichmann, and each time she joined the fray to argue that “debate constitutes the very essence of political life.” Arendt taught self-thinking against the tyranny of intellectual mobs. She celebrated universities as fragile bastions of free thought and contestation.