‘A Norway of North Africa’

Anthony Giddens on Gaddafi in The Guardian in March 2007.

As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gadafy seems genuinely popular. Our discussion of human rights centred mostly upon freedom of the press…

Will real progress be possible only when Gadafy leaves the scene? I tend to think the opposite. If he is sincere in wanting change, as I think he is, he could play a role in muting conflict that might otherwise arise as modernisation takes hold. My ideal future for Libya in two or three decades’ time would be a Norway of North Africa: prosperous, egalitarian and forward-looking. Not easy to achieve, but not impossible.

[Update: Clive Barnett sets this quote in a wider context, including Benjamin Barber’s comments, here]

Update 2: another piece from Giddens on Gadaffi and Libya from 2006 here.

Posted in Politics | 5 Comments

Unileaks and Student Fees

This might be interesting, although there is almost nothing there yet – http://www.unileaks.org

There is an open letter to UK vice chancellors here; following a similar one to those in Australia, here. Their statement of purpose is here.

On the new fees regime, in the British system, see Thom Brooks here. Most of the opposition at the time, and continuing, was against the principle. This raises some serious questions about the competence of the policy.

Posted in Universities | Leave a comment

Hardt & Negri and Badiou on the Arab uprisings

Hardt & Negri have a piece in The Guardian here; Alain Badiou’s piece in Le monde is now available in translation here.

Posted in Alain Badiou, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Politics | Leave a comment

Reading at ANU

Since I arrived here I’ve been doing quite a lot of reading, as I am at that interesting stage of a new project where you have a few ideas and begin following promising leads. Some of them, of course, turn out to be deadends.

One that has so far been a little frustrating was an attempt to revisit some work on geophilosophy – going back to Deleuze & Guattari’s What is Philosophy? and the Bonta & Protevi collection Deleuze and Geophilosophy for a start. I own both, but they are currently out of the library here, so although I’ve recalled them that didn’t quite work. I took a look at Massimo Cacciari’s chapter on ‘The Geophilosophy of Europe’ in his The Unpolitical but it didn’t help.  I followed up what looked like a promising Nietzsche and geophilosophy lead only to find it was a somewhat oblique reference to something I’d written myself. There was a collection of essays on geophilosophy in Collapse a couple of issues ago which I also have in England, but the library here doesn’t seem to have. (This D&G link was one of the reasons I went back to the Theweleit book I mentioned yesterday.)

I did have better luck with some less obvious pieces that I’ve been meaning to read for a while – some of the chapters in David Campbell & Morton Schoolman (ed.) The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the Contemporary Global Condition (especially the pieces by Wendy Brown, Michael Shapiro, and David Campbell, plus the interview with Connolly); and Kathleen Stewart’s Ordinary Affects. The latter is a book I think it is unlikely I will ever use, but it’s a compelling read and she has a sense of style that puts many novelists to shame, let alone academics. I also followed up a few stray Sloterdijk references too – a piece by Sjoerd van Tuinen in The Catastrophic Imperative and an old one by Sloterdijk himself in a 1991 collection entitled Art and Philosophy (Parma: Novastampa, 1991). And I looked at the translation of Foucault’s piece on the ‘Utopian Body’ in Caroline A. Jones (ed.), Sensorium. This is a piece that appears in the French collection on heterotopias I discussed a few weeks back.

The plan is now to start looking at some work on human origins (i.e. David N. Livingstone’s Adam’s Ancestors), and then start investigating palaeontology for the first half of the ‘fossils’ paper. This will link up to the little reading I did on Leibniz and fossils last year. I read Livingstone’s earlier Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders, which was helpful in reinforcing my vague sense that Darwin was far too late for the issue I’m interested in, and I have Adam’s Ancestors out, along with Jean Dulumeau’s History of Paradise which has a chapter on ‘the Questions Raised by Fossils’. But the reading list with library shelfmarks is growing already, and it looks like it might take me back as far as Aristotle…

Posted in David N. Livingstone, Fossils, Gilles Deleuze, Klaus Theweleit, Michel Foucault, Peter Sloterdijk, The Space of the World, Wendy Brown, William E Connolly | 1 Comment

Finishing books

In our Singapore discussion, Matt Sparke reminded me of a book I read several years ago when beginning my PhD but haven’t looked at since – Klaus Theweleit, Male Fantasies. Despite what the title might suggest, it’s actually a reading of the Freikorps and in particular the literary works that ex-soldiers produced (sometimes ‘literary’ in a very loose sense). Matt’s point was that it was a good example of de/reterritorialisation in the sense that Deleuze and Guattari mean it in Anti-Oedipus. His suggestion was that many readings of de/reterritorialisation miss what D&G were trying to show, and that in Anti-Oedipus something more akin to de/relocalisation or de/recentralisation is what is implied. I think this is right, though I did point out that in A Thousand Plateaus they do use the terms in a more obviously biological/environmental sense with the bird and the refrain, and in so doing engage with some of the early 20th century theorists of territoriality, and the ethological work of Jakob von Uexküll.

Anyway, I took another look at Theweleit’s monstrous two volume book today, and its just as disturbing, impressive and sprawling as I’d remembered. What struck me today, and probably wouldn’t have registered with a beginning PhD student, was the section on finishing books, entitled ‘The Last Page’ (Vol II, p. 495)

A book is ‘completed’ not so much because the author has ‘finished’ thinking it through and writing it, but because of a decision to do so, because of financial or other reasons.

Comparing quotes with the original, checking dates, checking whether much of what I wrote ‘off the top of my head’ really relates to the authors I have referred to (it often doesn’t), augmenting incomplete footnotes, inventing sources for quotes I can’t find again, making the manuscript readable, makling corrections, writing the foreword I never got round to, and so on and so on. In the process reading my own work to the point where I doubt I was all there when I wrote it.

It took six months to get the manuscript ready for publication. It was a period worse than all the years of writing… You shouldn’t do this sort of thing very often; it’s not worth it…

I’ve omitted some of the more personal reflections because what he says here is – if not quite universal – surely something anyone who has finished a major project can relate to, at least in part.

Posted in Gilles Deleuze, Jakob von Uexküll, Klaus Theweleit, Publishing, Territory | 1 Comment

Mal faire, dire vrai

Foucault gave six lectures in Louvain in 1981 entitled “Mal faire, dire vrai”, on confession. I suspect they are close to material he used in his De Gouvernement des Vivants Collège de France course – not yet out in French. This site suggests the Louvain lectures themselves are coming out in both French and English. (A few weeks ago I posted the video of Foucault being interviewed at Louvain on this trip. Find it here.)

[update: see also here which reports on some lectures by Harcourt on these lectures and gives a bit of background; and this piece on the Foucault archives at Berkeley which has a transcript. That last piece, by Alain Beaulieu, notes that a bit of these lectures was published elsewhere in the ‘Sexuality and Solitude’ piece]

[I also fixed a typo in the title – it should be Mal, not Mai -but have left the page address the same as otherwise links won’t work]

Posted in Michel Foucault | 1 Comment

Todd May interview

The latest APPS interview is with Todd May. This focuses mainly on his background and training in and out of philosophy, and also the current state of the discipline. Forthcoming ones include Graham Harman, Levi Bryant and me. Mine – which covers my background, training, career, writing practices, collaborations, teaching experiences, future plans, and even my childhood – should be out in mid-March.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Orders of translation

In his comments on the Sloterdijk review, Peter Gratton ends by suggesting:

It might have done Sloterdijk a favor to publish this work after the forthcoming English translations of the three volumes of Spheres.

In this he’s absolutely right. To be honest, I doubt anyone is going to get why Sloterdijk is worthwhile, and why it’s worth putting up with the problems and politics, until that is accessible. (They still may not, of course.) Or perhaps his book on globalisation, which takes a chunk of Spheres II and develops it. Both are coming out in English, but with Semiotext(e) for Spheres and Polity for The Inner-world of Capital. And that’s the problem that I think part explains the order of translation – different publishers get rights to different books, and they come out in slightly odd order. Polity and Semiotext(e) both tested the water with shorter works first; as far as I know Columbia University Press who published Rage and Time just got the rights to that – I will be happily corrected. His earlier books on cynical reason and Nietzsche were both with University of Minnesota Press. I know Continuum were trying to get some rights, but have been unsuccesful as far as I know. And then Springer published that little pamphlet on the theory of the post-war period.

It got me thinking about translations of other thinkers, and whether the order they appeared was helpful to the author or their reception. I’ll take the three I know best. Foucault was translated pretty much in the order they came out in French, with some slightly out of sequence and a few years delay, although anglophone readers had to put up with Madness and Civilisation for years until History of Madness finally came out. The lecture courses have come out in pretty much the same order too more recently. Of course, we still don’t have a translation of Dits et écrits in its entirety. The laughably named Essential Works is a poor substitute. And there are some co-authored, or edited works that are not in English.

Lefebvre was, and is, poorly served. Rather peripheral works such as Dialectical Materialism and The Sociology of Marx, or his reflections on May 68 or on The Survival of Capitalism were the only ones out in his lifetime. He died at the age of 90 in 1991, the year that Critique of Everyday Life I and The Production of Space came out. The resurgence of interest in him dates from around that time, and those are surely much more representative works that show both his strengths and weaknesses. When I was working on Lefebvre in around 2002, I found a letter from Lefebvre’s friend, co-writer and sometime translator Norbert Guterman, proposing a collection of Lefebvre’s urban writings in 1977. It really would be interesting to think about what kind of an impact that would have had at the time – for two reasons: first, the impact Lefebvre’s urban and spatial writings had when they were translated; and second, that figures like Manuel Castells and David Harvey were discussing Lefebvre in the 1970s, but unless people read French they were hearing his ideas second-hand, and from people who were critiquing him. And Lefebvre’s philosophical works – such as Métaphilosophie and Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche are probably the best – are not available in English other than in short pieces in Key Writings. And there are many more books of his unlikely ever to come out in English – in some cases probably just as well, but there are some that it would be great to have available.

And Heidegger. There can’t be many people still active in Heidegger scholarship who were working on him in English before Being and Time came out in 1962, but that was 35 years after the German original, and before that there were only a few shorter pieces and that odd Existence and Being collection that pairs two essays on Hölderlin with ‘What is Metaphysics?’ and ‘On the Essence of Truth’, if I remember right. The Question of Being – actually a piece on Ernst Jünger – was also early. So even in the late 50s a reader without German would have had a very skewed sense of what that particular thinker was concerned with and what there was a fuss about…

Posted in David Harvey, Henri Lefebvre, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, Peter Gratton, Peter Sloterdijk, Publishing | 3 Comments

REF panels announced

If you’re not in British Higher Education then this won’t be of concern or interest.

The panel under which Geography is assessed is here. There are several very good people listed, and if we have to have this system, then it’s surely better that good people are involved in it. Thinking of areas of my own work that are likely to be in a future submission, I am reassured that the likes of Noel Castree, Chris Philo and Charles Withers are going to be sitting in judgment on it.

Posted in Universities | Leave a comment

Sloterdijk; Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos reviewed

Two interesting reviews on NDPR –  on Peter Sloterdijk’s Rage and Time and on Peter E. Gordon’s Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. The Sloterdijk one is pretty critical. I think it might miss what is worthwhile in Sloterdijk, but he is a frustrating writer certainly, and Rage and Time is hardly his finest hour. The review of Gordon’s book, by Hans Sluga, is much more positive, though it ends with a somewhat strange and I think unnecessary complaint about Cassirer.

[update – Peter Gratton adds some thoughts on the Sloterdijk review here]

[update 2 – Eric Schliesser also comments on this review, here]

Posted in Ernst Cassirer, Martin Heidegger, Peter Sloterdijk | Leave a comment