Reading notes of Secondary lit on Derrida on Schmitt

COP: friend/enemy
Movement essay by Agamben = ‘politicization’
-like chantal mouffe?  (use of arendt?)
-“people” = biopolitical existence
derrida = non-politicization?
///////
secondary lit on POF, on Schmitt
Adam Thurschwell — agamben against derrida (but spectrality of friend/enemy = friend could be enemy…)
John Caputo — (p193 of article)
woman is the partisan to schmitt’s theory (PF156-7)
Advertisements

Civil War?: Spivak on Derrida on Schmitt

I’ve been thumbing through the recent translation of “Introduction to Civil War” but haven’t given it a systematic read.  As I’ve discussed, I’m reticent to accept Schmitt’s notion of politics which seems to be a rejoinder to the ongoing depoliticization produced by the abstract machine ‘Empire’.  I haven’t done a close read yet, so I’m not sure if the text explicitly advocates a re-politicization (or by what means) or if it’s merely ‘obvious’ in the sense that Jason’s paper noted the ‘ontological obviousness of communism.’

Continue reading “Civil War?: Spivak on Derrida on Schmitt”

Outline of Lecercle on D&G’s Linguistics

Lecercle:

In any Marxist text, L expects (Four Theses): p37(3)

1)    an analysis of capitalism via Capital but with whatever adaptations needed

2)    a political programme

3)    conception of history: how the future is contained in past&present

4)    conception of time (temporality) centered around conjecture capable of guiding political action (lenin’s contribution)

Six key dichotomies p37+(3)

1)    collectivism/methodological individualism

  1. collective = class/party
  2. method individualism – society = aggregate of individual agents (rational choice) Continue reading “Outline of Lecercle on D&G’s Linguistics”

Linguistics: Austin, Derrida, Searle, D&G, Lecercle

please excuse the typos…

Austin’s text serves as the foundation for the remaining texts read for this week.  Instead of spending too much ink on Austin proper, I will work through a few key concepts and then deal with his reception.  The first distinction he makes is between constative speech acts which describe something that ‘is so’ and performative acts which ‘makes something so’ in its saying (“I do take this woman to be my lawful weeded wife”, “I name this ship…”, “I give and bequeath my watch…” pg 5).

Continue reading “Linguistics: Austin, Derrida, Searle, D&G, Lecercle”