A Lesson in Polemic
Something marvellous from Alain Badiou on the poverty of so much philosophy:
[Mao said] “Cast away illusions, prepare for struggle.” Hold to the truth, cast away illusions and fight rather than surrender, whatever the circumstances. The trouble is that, nowadays, the word ‘philosophy’ is used in an attempt to force upon us quite the opposite maxim, which might read: ‘Cling to your illusions, prepare to surrender.’
We have seen a ‘philosophy’ appearing in magazines that looks like a vegetable-based natural medicine, or euthanasia for enthusiasts. Philosophizing would appear to be a small part of a vast programme: keep fit and be efficient, but stay cool. We have seen ‘philosophers’ declaring that, as the Good is inaccessible, if not criminal, we should be content to fight against various forms of Evil, whose common name seems to be ‘communism’, when it is not ‘Arab’ or ‘Islam’.
And so we revive ‘values’ that philosophy has always helped us to get rid of : obedience (to commercial contracts), modesty (in the face of the arrogance of the ham actor on TV), realism (we must have profits and inequalities), utter selfishness (now known as ‘modern individualism’) colonial superiority (the democratic goodies of the West versus the despotic baddies of the South), hostility to living thought (all opinions have to be taken into account), the cult of numbers (the majority are always right, obtuse millenarianism (the planet is getting hotter under my very feet), empty religion (there must be Something), and I could go on.
So many ‘philosophers’ and ‘philosophies’ do nothing to stop this, and instead wear themselves out trying to infect us with little articles, debates, blazing headlines (‘The Ethics of Stock Options: Philosophers Speak out at Last’) and boisterous roundtable discussions (‘Philosophers: The G-String or the Veil?’). This permanent prostitution of the words ‘philosopher’ and ‘philosophies’ will get you down in the long run. At the rate things are going, it is not just cafes that will be described as philosophical. We will end up going to the philosophical outhouse. (Pocket Pantheon, Verso 2009)
I find it hard to read that without thinking of this pathetic excuse for an intellectual:
Reader Comments
Also, If you click on the link at the end of the quote it takes you to a competition to win Badiou’s collected works, all good fun.
Hmm. Worries about climate change (at least, I assume that’s what he’s talking about) are nothing more than “obtuse millenarianism”? And he really believes that philosophers spend most of their time on De Botton-style trivialities? Interesting.
I have some sympathy with the point he’s making, but he’s attacking a few straw men there too.
I agree with you Owen. Yet (still agreeing with you) I also think there’s a kernel of truth in Badiou’s attack: but for reasons other than he seems to give. My problem with much public and popular philosophy these days is very much the problem of ‘what passes as philosophy these days’. Ironically, though I respect his learning, Badiou is an example of my grievance.
I know it’s always a controversial thing to say but I have very little patience with the ‘continental’ style of doing philosophy. ‘De Botton-style trivialities’ abound. Continental philosophers spend too much time ‘system-building’ — an ambition that ought to have died with the ascendancy of Analytic programme — or making a few interesting, but ultimately unfounded, observations that are of limited use. One result in the difference between the ‘continental’ and ‘analytic’ styles, I’d venture, is that the two schools have divergent expectations from philosophy, the former perhaps being to ambitious. Badiou’s curious though, in that he employs the rigour of analytic philosophy, on continental-type issues. Forgive my boldness in wondering whether he might consequently falls between two stools.
Ultimately, I disagree with him. There’s a lot of very interesting, and sgnificant work going on in analytic philosophy today. Cohen, Rawls, Dworkin, Amartya Sen and others have done some very relevant, far reaching and enlightening work in the last couple of decades. I think we have every reason to be optimistic about philosophy’s progress. There’s some really interesting stuff going on in philosophy, even as we speak (though perhaps I focus on America and Britain, where the bulk of ‘analytic’-type work is coming from at present).
He doesn’t actually say that philosophers spend most of their time on trivialities, but I think it is the case that most of the people presented by the media as philosophers don’t go much beyond that. Also, I don’t think they are exactly ‘trivial’. People like BHL have yoked themselves to power and are pernicious.
More generally I don’t think the accusation of attacking straw men is totally fair. He has a very specific conception of what philosophy ought to be and is entitled to polemicise in its defence.
As for climate change, I don’t speak for Badiou, but you don’t have to be a sceptic to acknowledge that not all of the narratives around climate change are particularly useful.
I’m perfectly happy to accept that some public intellectuals are a harmful influence – I never questioned that. It’s also probably true that most people presented in the media as philosophers might be people like De Botton, but it hardly seems fair to blame the real philosophers for that, as Badiou seems to do. And Badiou’s entitled to polemicise about whatever he likes, but I don’t understand the relevance of that to a discussion of the merits of the views he holds. (That last sentence isn’t meant to be sarcastic – I can believe that it is relevant, I just can’t see how.)
I’m also happy to accept that “not all of the narratives around climate change are particularly useful”, but the way he’s phrased it makes it sound dismissive of the very idea of climate change. If that wasn’t his intention it seems to me he could be a hell of a lot clearer about what he really did mean.
Tendai, is it really controversial to say you have little time for the ‘continental’ way of doing things? My experience studying philosophy in this country is that this is a commonplace.
I think saying that Badiou uses uncharacteristic rigour is a misunderstanding of how French phenomenology developed. It’s unfair to say that Badiou took the projects of those who’d gone before him and used the techniques of analytical philosophy on them.
I don’t personally see great value in Rawls, Dworkin et al, but nonetheless it would be a mistake to see Badiou as attacking those individuals, or analytic philosophers in general, and I’m sorry if my quote gave that impression. The book I cite is a very, very recent collection of essays about a number of French philosophers, from Althusser to Sartre, and the quote is taken from the introduction where he proposes to use them as ‘witnesses in the prosecution’. I think he’s targetting people like BHL and Andre Glucksmann who have come to populate French public life. Don’t forget that Rawls and Foucault were more or less contemporaries, and it seems pretty clear that Badiou’s invective is a aimed at a much more contemporary target.
I’ve updated the post to add a pair of inverted commas I’d left out before, possibly crucial
.
The reason I raise the issue of Badiou being entitled to polemicise is to point out the reason I liked this so much, which is that it’s a fantastic example of a polemical style, which does occasionally generalise too much, but nevertheless rings true to me. That’s why I think the accusation of straw men is a bit unfair, because whilst no individual (except perhaps Christopher Hitchens) is quite as awful as he describes, his attacks hit home with force.
Dan,
Oh, I may have misunderstood certain aspects of your post and Badiou’s statements, then. I understood Badiou to be complaining about ‘the state of philosophy today’, hence bringing up Rawls et al, but this was perhaps an over-generalised understanding.
I still think, continental philosophy tends to be too ambitious. Yet I suspect, it’s not going to be easy to reconclie the disciples of continental and analytical schools. The reason I imagined it’s controversial to speak in terms of continental/analytical distinctions is that there’s often crossover between the two schools (e.g. Rorty) and valid reasons to consider the distinction to be unhelpful.
As for Rawls and Dworkin, we probably can’t profitably exchange opinions at this time…but a little part of me dies whenever somebody dismisses them
Well, to be honest both the way I presented it and the quote itself is a little unclear. For what its worth though I think that whilst Badiou would disagree with Rawls on much he would acknowledge him as a serious philosopher who sincerely committed to a ‘true Idea’.
Lol at Bernard-Henri Levy, what a fuckwit! He says, “fascism was born… maybe in Germany, maybe in France”, yes, or maybe in Italy you pig ignorant wanker.