New Pope Francis

Pope-Francis-010

Why do I think the Vatican insiders are going to eat this guy alive? I’m sure it means nothing, but I like the new Pope’s face. Isn’t that how visual information works, though? Visual information is necessary, but insufficient. Politics comes “after.” That’s me, being liberal and “sentimental.” Anshel Pfeffer may have got it right at HaaretzPeople in Rome today are talking about his kind face and how they will like having his picture on the wall, instead of Benedict XVI’s harsh visage. But neither his countenance nor his humility will help him in his gargantuan task. We’ll have to see what’s “behind” the face.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

New York Jewish Philosophy Place (After Europe)

A too quick coffee with a friend and then a walk in the neighborhood. I realize how much my world in Jewish philosophy is framed and determined by a sixteen block radius between Central, Morningside, and Riverside Parks and how much my work in Jewish philosophy determines the way I look at this little world.

Re: the place couplets mentioned in my previous post, it occurs to me now how horizontally and vertically, the small place is tucked into a larger space: text-image, Israel-Middle East, U.S.-World, [God]-Makom. And how the large space gets tucked into the small place.

In my own conception of a Jewish philosophy place, it strikes me how little Europe has to do with any of it. A little closer, to be sure, but it feels to me like it belongs to the past, like medieval Sepharad. What would Jewish philosophy look like without a single European, or at least a single German?

I wonder what Jewish philosophy would look like if even a little background attention went to the kind of places that actually frame the work of my colleagues and friends –California, Hong Kong, Jerusalem, and Toronto, small towns in Texas and the boonies of Indiana, Tallahassee, and Bethlehem, PA.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Place of Jewish Philosophy Place

007

Is there a coherence to Jewish Philosophy Place, which seems to ramble between and to get caught in so many competing topoi? Combining aesthetics, culture, politics, religion, technology, what is the place of Jewish Philosophy Place at this actualization?

From small to large, there are these 4 rough couplets that define the sense of place at Jewish Philosophy Place:

–Text-Image

–Synagogue-Museum

–Israel-Middle East

–America-[World]

–[God]-Makom

Perhaps Makom constitutes the plane of immanence along which emerge the first three couplets, more physical and actual in nature. Perhaps all four couplets subsist along or as a plane of immanence, pocked by transcendence, all four combining virtual and actual elements. Inclined towards a kind of metaphysics, I lean towards the former possibility, but am not ready to commit conceptually.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Syria (Rebel Destruction of Holy Sites) (Against Political Theology)

Syria

Important article by Matthew Barber  explaining the shift in thinking at Syria Comment, a blog run by Joshua Landis, for which and for whom I have boundless respect and admiration. Barber explains how Syria Comment has tried to come to terms with regime brutality on the one hand, versus sectarian violence on the part of Islamist resistance groups. Included in this piece are two video clips documenting the destruction of an Alawi holy site and a Shite mosque at the hands of Sunni, Islamists rebels. I share these not because I have anything useful to say about the politics of a conflict that veering out of control, every day for the past two years, but because, very simply, I find these clips so very painful to watch, the mutilation of a religious site and its the human-all-too-human face of God.

http://youtu.be/0PFowslfXm4

http://youtu.be/aX8KUUKSWgc

About the larger contours of the conflict, Barber writes: Yesterday I spoke to a Sunni Syrian friend who recently found out that her fiancé (though not having participated in any demonstrations or resistance activity) was arrested by Syrian mukhabaraat while at his job teaching in a university. He was tortured to death in a detention center. Would the sectarian terrorism against minority civilians in the regime’s absence be worse than the current terrorism on the part of the regime against Syrians in oppositional territory? This is the enduring question, and will continue to be hotly debated. The answer depends on gaining an accurate sense of regime violence vs. violence of extremists within the opposition—something that we do not have and about which there is no consensus.

My only criticism of this excellent piece is that with more information we could figure out the analytic and come to some half decent answer. Even were one able to assess all the relevant data, I don’t think you could come up with anything apart from a composite image of wanton destruction and the incalculable loss of life. But I’m sure Barber understands this better than I do. Whatever might have been done early on to somehow tap this down is now too late. But then again, that something was probably nothing, even from the get-go.

About the destruction of holy sites, Barber comments: Watching it is almost more painful than the many videos of wounded people, because more than a physical attack on the body of a political rival, it represents a spiritual attack on the soul of what others consider most sacred. I think I would put it this way. The holy site stands in for God, constitutes the place of God. What people do to God is an index to or crystalization of  what they do to other people. It is the finality of the act that puts a definitive end to something that once stood for a long span of time.

For my part, I’m pretty sure why this post by Barber and these clips explain my intense dislike for the rarified discourse extolling “resistance” and “divine violence” and even “fanaticism” in left-left wing critical theory and political theology. Off the bat, I’m thinking of Benjamin, Butler, Derrida, Zizek, as well as others. I know that one will say that you can’t conflate the one with the other, symbolic violence versus real violence, the violence that you want and the violence you don’t want, that the one is not the same as the other, and that this is not what is meant. I just have my doubts that you can split that hair.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Cold [Rational] Hatred — These Kids Like Hitler, They Don’t Like Jews

antisem

A fascinating Youtube clip with Dutch kids of Turkish descent about Jews, Palestine, and Hitler, and not for the obvious reasons per se. What makes this clip particularly interesting are not the opinions themselves (“Hitler should have killed all the Jews,” “Hitler had his reasons,” “millions of Jews were killed by Hitler and the Jews kill millions [sic] of Palestinians,” and so on), or the obvious specious link between this kind of anti-Semitism and Islam or between this kind of anti-Semitism and Israel/Palestine. This is run of the mill doggerel about which there is nothing original. It is what it is and not much else.

More  interesting is the affect that carries the conversation, the critical pushback by the interviewer, who is horrified by these kids, and the frank and cool exchange, from their part and point of view, of something narrow, unpleasant, dangerous, and frightening. The critical pushback actually makes the anti-Semitism worse, more deeply embedded. There’s not even a lot of nervous laughter. You can see the kids listening, mulling, responding, thinking, thinking very hard, and retrenching deeply held assumptions and prejudices. I’m not even sure these kids are angry; and religion, Islam, and religious passions have nothing to do with it. Were it that simple. It’s that heartless, it’s that cold and calculating, it’s that “rational.”

Best not to over-moralize over much or to try to come to some kind of didactic political conclusion. I’m trying to understand what this means, that online you can see something so hateful at such an intimate scale, that something so hateful and intimate presents itself to hand in the language of new media. It  underscores, at a small scale, Arendt’s famous point about evil and banality.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Feminism, Liberalism, Socialism, Zionism (Meirav Michaeli)

merav

Maybe you know not a lot about Zionism, but are trying to assess the recent kerfuffle here in the United States surrounding BDS, especially as it gets picked up by this or that public figure or academic superstar; or maybe you grew up ruined by a little too much of the wrong kind of religion and don’t think Labor Zionism has or ever had something coherent to offer, either because you remain right wing, or because already a long time ago you jumped the fence, ideologically, into something more radical; or maybe you’re just sick of the whole damn thing; and maybe you won’t be impressed by this.

Is this Zionism? Is this kind of Zionism a dead dog? All I can say is that I felt a little shock of recognition, listening the other night to this clip of Meirav Michaeli’s inaugural speech as a newly elected member of the Labor Party in the current Knesset.  Reflecting the bad place that is modern Israel, Michaeli’s speech represents a more contemporary mutation of more progressive form of Labor Zionism.

Refusing to play the victim bound up in aggressive, racist bunker mentalities, this is what the critical combination of moral and political clarity looks like and sounds like –standing up to privilege, ending the occupation, committing to critical historical memory, to equality for women, to social justice and to peace, to the creation of a more democratic place based across open lines of class, ethnic, gender, national, racial, and religious difference. Dead dog or not, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything like this delivered from a political podium. Michaeli clearly crystallized how I want to understand myself and my own moral and political commitments; as a Jew, an American, a human being, it makes no difference.

So is this form of liberal or left wing Zionism coherent or incoherent?

Labor and liberal Zionism were always incoherent because their proponents did not understand the true state of relations between itself and its Arab-Palestinian environments. Historically, they either ignored the indigenous people who people those environments and/or underestimated the full nature or force of the conflict with them, believing as if the problems could be fudged, somehow. The same can probably be said regarding many of today’s advocates of a one-state solution.

As for the incoherence of what passes today for right wing Zionism: if liberal and Labor Zionism understood anything, going back to Herzl and Pinsker, and then on to Borochov and Gordon, it was that Zionism depends upon universal values, progressive dynamics, and international agreements. Absent those values and agreements, the whole project withers on the vine. If liberal Zionism remains delusional, then rightwing Zionism is super-delusional in refusing to recognize the world outside the bubble it creates for itself. This to me seems true today of Naftali Bennet’s hi-tech ultra-right wing Zionsim and of Yair Lapid’s neo-liberalism.

As for the image of placeless upon which so much recent Diasporist theory depends, that too is another incoherence, the inability or refusal to recognize that cultures are constituted, in part, by more or less discrete spatial-worlds.

So many arguments about Zionism and Israel have to do with the problem of scale. About all this, Peter Sloterdijk throws a little light when he writes about the attempt “to pose the question of ‘where’ anew in a radical fashion [by restoring] to contemporary thought its feeling for absolute localization, and with it the feeling for the basis of the difference between large and small” (Bubbles, p.28).

In this, Michaeli gets it better than most.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Consumption, Fertility, Orthodox Judaism (David Brooks)

Brooks_New-articleInlineBamba_snack

Open-orthodox friends of mine at FB were all over the recent David Brooks paean at the NYT to orthodox fertility and constricted possibilities. After going through and telling his readers about the assembled glories at the snack section of a luxury kosher grocery store in Brooklyn, David Brooks is ready to have us do, what, jump into the Mitzvah Tank? In his view of things from the aisles, there a natural link between fertility, consumption, and the coherence of conservative religion, which he holds out over against the presumed blandishment of liberal society.

With the retirement of Pope Benedict and the backlash against ultra-orthodox Judaism, isn’t it time to reconsider the rise of conservative and ultra-conservative political religion as it begins to show signs of self-destruction?  Consider the attention in the press on the kinds of internal crises that afflict these communities; these relate to large super-sized families, high rates of poverty, and the terrible forms of moral and criminal vice that breed in insular communities. Regarding  Israel, perhaps Brooks missed the recent news coming out of the recent elections, where the liberal mainstream has proven itself to be less charmed by the formation of ultra-orthodox entitlement society.

Brooks reports back from the field, on tour in Brooklyn with Meir Soloveitchik, the non-official chief rabbi of the neoconservative Tikvah Fund, combining together to give people the wrong impressions about religion, modern life, and conservative religion at that cusp point just prior to it crack-up, both in Israel, and perhaps here too in the United State. Oh the wonders of “dairy-free cheese puffs in case you want to have some cheese puffs with a meat dish… precut disposable tablecloths so you don’t have to use scissors on the Sabbath…specially designed sponges, which don’t retain water, so you don’t have to do the work of squeezing out water on Shabbat?”

Here are some first impression last night from the incomparable Larry Yudelson, writing, skeptically, from the liberal-progressive fringe of the modern orthodox world:

When reading David Brooks, the challenge is to find the moment of precise, maximal wrongness. My initial guess would be that here, it is Meir Soloveitchik’s paen to Orthodox marriage norms. I’ve heard of a burgeoning divorce rate in the too-early-wed Orthodox 20 somethings. Have you? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that David Brooks was wrong — and left his readers less informed and therefore stupider than if they had never read his piece at all.

So David Brooks praises Orthodox Judaism today. I can’t think of a better indicator that we are now at the moment of Peak Orthodoxy and that it’s all down hill from here. For some perspective on Brooks as an observer of human nature and a prognosticator of the future, here’s a report of what he was saying 10 years ago.

The bottom is this, perhaps, not whether the orthodox Judaism is a challenging counterculture to the norms of liberal autonomy, but whether orthodox Judaism is a challenged counterculture. I’ll never forget my last trip to Sefad, in Israel, and the piteous physical poverty of what was once a beautiful and spiritual place. I’m pretty sure that that’s not on Brook’s itinerary. It might be more probably the case that conservative forms of orthodox Judaism represent a bubble phenomenon highly dependent upon the secular world whose values it putatively challenges, but effectively mimics, and whose culture is made to look so ridiculous when presented in what an outlier thinks to be its best light.

 

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

What Students Want/Need (Jewish Studies) (Complements/Supplements)

012

Regarding my recent posting about what students want from Jewish Studies at Syracuse, Brian Small, Director of Programming and Student Engagement, and also Interim Executive Director of Hillel at Syracuse University had this to say. As always, I defer to his better expertise in regards to all things student related. His take is far more granular than mine, reminding us that different students are going to want different things from Jewish Studies relating to (other) major and minor areas of study. At a time when students double major, this should be pretty easy to finesse. Here’s what Brian had to say in a private email about what he hears from students every day at Hillel. Brian has graciously permitted me to pass along:

I am told, over and over, that the students want specialized topics that apply to their majors.  If they are pre-meds, they want Bio-Ethics in Judaism 101.  If they are Newhouse, they want the Holocaust in the Movies 101.  Architecture students want the Architecture of Israel 101.  If they are in business, they want Business Innovations in Israel 101 (like they have at WUSTL, see the link below).

 This seems to ring true around the country and many programs have introduced immersion experiences that take advantage of the socio-economics of the student demographic: http://news.wustl.edu/news/pages/23520.aspx

 Birthright this year provided further insight.  A small, but significant percentage of the students WE DO NOT SEE at Hillel on a regular basis indicated that they were International Relations Majors interested in attending the trip to learn more about the region.

The problem with presenting Judaism as history is that Jewish students here at Syracuse do not perceive history as relevant to their current experience.  I believe that they really seek to understand where Judaism fits into their specific areas of relevance.

The “trick” is to figure out how to integrate Jewish Studies into broader areas of intellectual and professional interest as either a complement or as a supplement. It It sounds cynical, but it’s not. Wouldn’t any academic want to want one’s own more specialized area of primary interest to branch out and speak to other people for whom this interest is not necessarily or at first primary? And if we can’t, then what’s the point? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge? We can’t make them listen to us if they’re not interested, and if they’re not interested, well, maybe there’s plenty of fault to go around for that, in Jewish Studies and the Humanities writ large.

I’d like to say that I use the term “supplement not unaware of Derrida’s insight in Grammatology about how a secondary point of interest, in this case Jewish Studies, might always have already worked to dis-place or even overtake the first term or interest, onto which it comes to add. But frankly, I’d be happy enough if Judaic Studies or any other humanistic inquiry remained a secondary point of interest for even the majority of our minors and even majors. Ideally, one could get them to work together –in tandem, at critical intersections, or along parallel tracks.

 

 

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

What Students Want/What Students Need (Intellectual Equality Against Critical Theory) (Part II)

009

Apparently it’s not just Syracuse undergraduates who want to talk or read about “spirituality,” “technology,” and “the Holocaust.” Yesterday’s post about my students at SU brought the second highest number of all-time visits for a single day at JPP. I will, of course, grant that this may have something to do with the fact that I linked this post on several list-serves. I received feedback from three responders, including colleagues who tend not to agree about anything but who both agreed in the strongest possible terms that it’s not our job to provide students what “they want.” Our job is to teach them what they “need” to know.

But if the kids don’t show up, then who has been taught what?

I think a little “intellectual equality” is in order here. I think the better wisdom not to regard as imbeciles the people whom we as educators seek to educate, in this case, our students. This means trying to respond to what our student interlocutors say to us from the point or places at which they stand and from which we stand, without any abdication of our responsibility to “the truth” as we see or claim to know it. About “intellectual equality” between persons, I’d point to Jacques Rancière. I posted about him a couple of days ago. And now again.

The view rejected by Rancière is the view that “What the pupil must learn is what the schoolmaster must teach her. What the spectator must see is what the director makes her see.” Instead, this is the meaning of “the ignorant schoolmaster: from the schoolmaster the pupil leans something that the schoolmaster does not know himself.” Rancière goes on to refer to avant-garde or political artists who claim to “simply wish to produce a form of consciousness, an intensity of feeling, an  energy of action. But they always assume that what will be perceived, felt, understood is what they have put into their dramatic art or performance” (p.14).

Sounds familiar, yes? The problem, of course, is that it never really works out this way; nor should it.

Watch out for critical theory theorists overinvested in notions of ideology critique and false consciousness. About treating people like idiots, Rancière has us consider, “Forty years ago, critical science made us laugh at the imbeciles who took images for realities and let themselves be seduced by their hidden messages. In the interim, the ‘imbeciles’ have been educated in the art of recognizing the reality behind appearances and the messages concealed in images.  And now,, naturally enough, recycled critical science makes us smile at the imbeciles who still ting such things as concealed messages in images and a reality distinct from appearances exist” (p.48)

Rancière’s own approach is to assume “that the incapable are capable, that there is no hidden secret of the machine that keep them trapped in their place. It would be assumed that there is no fatal mechanism transforming reality into image; no monstrous beast absorbing all desires and energies into its belly; no lost community to be restored…It means that every situation can be cracked open from the inside, reconfigured in a different regime of perception and signification…I believe that today there is more to be sought and found in the investigation of this power than in the endless task of unmasking fetishes or the endless demonstration of the omnipotence of the beast” (pp.48-9).

I’m not going to assume that our students don’t know what they need. Who cares, for now, if they don’t know how to place an apostrophe. That’s easy enough to learn. Treating people like idiots is not, in general, the best way to understand people or to do things. In fact, that nasty habit might be much harder for academics to unlearn that is for an undergraduate to learn how write a term paper. I’m going to assume that they are plenty capable, even more so than me, the ignorant schoolmaster.

Posted in uncategorized | Tagged , | 4 Comments

ZJB: One day, I’ll stop reblogging every post at Home of Schelmiel Theory. Just not yet. More on Walter Benjamin, and now Bataille. Is Benjamin a tragic schlemiel or a childish one?

Posted in uncategorized | Leave a comment