Saint-Exupery’s
The Little Prince (Le Petit Prince) is a heart-cry against the
alienation of mass society. Yet, as we saw in part one of this Postcard, the
phrase “mass society” is only a superficial description of what in reality is
advanced industrial capitalist society which – again, we saw earlier – is
really an indissoluble combination of two essential defining features of
capitalism – overpopulation and consumerism. Saint-Exupery masterfully and imaginatively
denounces the ravages of the capitalist mode of production by highlighting its
“dis-enchantment” through the “enchanted” eyes of the little prince.
To be
sure, every fable – from Alice in Wonderland to (going from the classic
to the jejune) Harry Potter – delights and lights our fantasy in stark
contrast with the miserable petrified forest in which late capitalism has left
humanity and the tarnished, polluted ecosphere with which we are left. But
Saint-Exupery has the merit to conjure his “enchantment” as a direct vitriolic
critique of the morass and mephitis that globalized capital has swindled upon
us. – Unlike the obscenely mawkish Harry Potter tales which, if anything, are
the direct adjunct of the most execrable and pernicious aspects of social life in
late capitalism and again, if anything, only serve to reinforce its most
deleterious consumerist ferocity.
The candid
innocence of the little prince stands in stark contrast to the seemingly inescapable
nightmare that life under late capitalism has become for most humans –
environmental pollution, social dislocation, cultural desecration, scarcity of
the most basic vital resources from clean water to clean air, persistent and
pervasive social conflict and wars within and without national boundaries, penury,
insecurity, planned obsolescence, precarious social life, degraded social
services, mental disorder and harmful addictions. The list goes on and on. That
is why The Little Prince will endure through the ages as a denunciation of the
potential for human brutality and debasement, whereas Rowland’s Harry Potter is
destined to go the way of the dodo.
Seemingly,
there is no way out of this horror. Sensing perhaps that the “bent wood” of
humanity could never be straightened, Kant formulated his third transcendental
question as “What can I hope?” (in the Critique of Practical Reason) –
because remember, hope was the only thing left in Pandora’s Box once all the
world’s evils had escaped from it. Saint-Exupery proposes and resolves that the
answer lies in our effort and ability to “apprivoiser” the world to
rediscover its enchantment. The verb apprivoiser, which unfortunately
has no noun form, has been variously translated as “to domesticate” or “to
privatise”. Both translations, however literal, are wildly inappropriate and
indeed represent an affront to the author’s meaning and intent. The meaning of apprivoiser
is much closer to the English infinitives “to empathise” and to “to confide” –
to share feelings (Greek, em-pathos) and emotions with the life-world so
as to be able to have faith in it, to con-fide in it (Latin, con-fides).
This “empathy” is a trope that runs deep in Western philosophy – from the
pre-Socratics (the a-perion, un-bounded, in-finite of Parmenides and
Heraclitus) to Schopenhauer (Mit-leid, leaning on Oriental religions) to
recent literary variants ranging from, say, Herman Hesse to Arthur Koestler’s
“oceanic feeling” in Darkness At Noon. Like religion, the oceanic
feeling – the mental effort to envisage oneself at one with the world, to
identify with it and to abolish all differences (cf. Heidegger’s Identity
and Difference) – is a constant trope in the human contemplation of
the world, especially the religious dimension.
True: all
human activity is objectification and therefore separation, diversity,
difference, and thence inequality – all life is exploitation, Nietzsche would charge.
Yet, the aim of human activity is reconciliation, re-union, communion and
finally universality as the goal or end or com-pletion (full-ending, Voll-endung,
con-clusion) of human labour or living activity. The philosopher of this
supreme agon is Hegel. The agon, the strife and toil of humanity
is an “activity” (Latin, agere, actus) that implies a “wishing”,
an auguration (the Roman augurs divined the future in hope – cf. our “inauguration”,
to begin an activity with good omens and wishes), to auspicate (cf. the Latin
phrase, augusto auspicio, with best wishes).
In direct
contrast to the oceanic feeling comes the notion of identity. Id-entity (Latin,
id, same, plus ens, being, hence “same being”). The oceanics
among us wish to identify with the rest of the world. We do not indulge
in identifying ourselves from the rest. Yet this is the sole aim of
Identity Politics! The sole purpose of identity politics is to divide humans
into separate beings, to provoke a schism in human being, a division, a
separation, a chasm, not a union or a communion. This is antithetical and
anathema to our Western Judaeo-Christian religion and civilization which is
founded upon the fundamental equality of human beings or souls before God. The Fall
occasioned by the Original Sin – on which our crucial distinctive notion
of Guilt and therefore of “conscience” is based – is the separation from
divine grace or banishment from the Garden of Eden. The Original Sin is the
origin of difference, and thereafter of inequality and injustice. A
self-estrangement that constitutes a loss of freedom – freedom intended as the
ultimate identification of the Real with the Ideal in the
Absolute Spirit (Hegel). It is the “reconciliation” (Versohnung, Hegel
again) of fallen secular humanity with the eternally divine.
Time – mundanity, secularity – is corruption. Eternity is perfect, divine.
Identity
Politics goes in the opposite direction: its aim is to affirm the equal right
of all different cultures to remain different, to assert their “right” to
remain different – to be treated “equally” in this “right”. But this is a banal
contradiction of repulsive enormity! The existence or recognition of a “right”
presupposes a system of values that allows or enables such recognition. A
“right” presupposes the existence of an egalitarian framework whereby different
sets of values can be homologated. Yet that is precisely what Identity
Politics steadfastly and violently denies! By privileging difference,
identity politics destroys the very idea of id-entity (same being) – because if
the aim of identity politics is to locate and elevate differences between
humans and even (schizophrenically) within humans, then the end-result
will be, not a universal justice, but a universal Eris, an apocalyptic cosmic
conflict – a Hobbesian war of all against all!
Identity
Politics can exist only on – its sole raison d’etre is – the premise
that differences (separate id-entities) can be resolved -
reconciled and superseded - in a higher system of “legal rights” that makes
possible their egalitarian recognition and preservation. Yet, once again,
this is precisely what identity politics makes impossible! – Because its supporters
and promoters – we call them identitarians - are fixated on the
uncritical and uncompromising individuation of differences among and within
humans, on what separates humans, rather than on what unites
them. Consequently, no number of declarations of “ human rights” – however
“universal” or “natural” – will ever be able to find a common ground, a
common foundation, a system of laws and political criteria that can do
“justice” to the various identities claimed and propagated by Identity
Politics!
The most astonishingly
paradoxical aspect of Identity Politics is this: - that in their zeal to etch
the “rights” of each identity grouping into stone, identitarian fanatics throw
fuel on the fire of difference, division and conflict – by backing in every
imaginable manner and unreservedly the influx of ever-more “different”
groupings that lay claim to their own ethnic, religious, sexual, ideological or
sectarian “differences” or “identities” in ever-growing and evermore
arcane distinctions that resemble a
nuclear chain reaction. To the point where we are fast reaching a dizzying
vortex of potential social conflict where every man, woman, bi-gender,
transgender – whatever! – becomes an island unto itself in an endless downward schizophrenic
spiral of conflictual differentiation and resentment and hatred
leading finally to civil internecine fratricidal, sororicidal,
hermaphroditical, and God knows what other Wars!
Not only
are identitarians rampantly insane in exasperating the existing
differences between (and even within!) humans: what is most alarming is
that they are just as belligerently eager to introduce fresh and inventive
differences amongst and even within humans that no-one hitherto thought
possible or even imaginable! Seen in this light, the right-wing reaction that
this cataclysmically colossal insanity invites is only too - the word comes irresistibly
to mind - natural!
Among the
myriad examples of the unspeakable lunacy of left-wing identity politics and
globalism is this absolute pearl from (what else?) that irrepressible font of
identitarian nonsense - The New York Times:
That nativist
rhetoric — that immigrants are invading the homeland — has gained ever-greater
traction, and political acceptance, across the West amid
dislocations wrought by vast waves of migration from the Middle East, Africa
and Latin America. In its most extreme form, it is echoed in the
online manifesto of the man accused of gunning down 22 people last weekend in
El Paso.
In the
nationalists’ message-making, Sweden has become a prime cautionary tale,
dripping with schadenfreude. What is even more striking is how many people in
Sweden — progressive, egalitarian, welcoming Sweden — seem to be warming to the
nationalists’ view: that immigration has brought crime, chaos and a fraying of
the cherished social safety net, not to mention a withering away of national
culture and tradition.
Fueled by an
immigration backlash — Sweden has accepted more
refugees per capita than any other European country — right-wing
populism has taken hold, reflected most prominently in the steady ascent of a
political party with neo-Nazi roots, the Sweden Democrats. In elections last
year, they captured nearly 18 percent of the vote.
To dig
beneath the surface of what is happening in Sweden, though, is to uncover the
workings of an international disinformation machine, devoted to the
cultivation, provocation and amplification of far-right, anti-immigrant
passions and political forces. Indeed, that machine, most influentially rooted
in Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia and the American far right, underscores a
fundamental irony of this political moment: the globalization of nationalism.
The central target of these manipulations from abroad — and the
chief instrument of the Swedish nationalists’ success — is the country’s
increasingly popular, and virulently anti-immigrant, digital echo chamber.
Notice how
here the writer – insanely blinded to the reality she is describing by the apocalyptic
stupidity of her mind – on one hand concedes that there have been “dislocations
wrought by vast waves of migration from the Middle East, Africa and Latin
America”. And she also adjures that “Sweden has accepted more refugees
per capita than any other European country”. But then, in her utterly
mesmerizing imbecility, she goes on, first, to attribute this “natural”
reaction of defence of Swedish values and heritage to some unspecified cosmic
plot originating (where else?) in Putin’s Kremlin or Trump’s White House. And
then, second, this blithering fool proceeds to regurgitate the identitarian
and globalist mantra that the (obviously understandable) reaction by native
Swedes to the insanity of the dislocation of their polity is the
“ironic” by-product of “the globalization of nationalism”! Luckily it is nationalism
that is going global and not the cosmic lunacy of perfect morons such as this
reporter from the Times! The reporter is more interested in sound bites
than in lucid reasoning: by definition, nationalism cannot be globalized
because it is the antithesis of what is widely meant by “globalization”; nationalism
can only “spread across the globe” if necessarily separate nationalist
movements spread across individual nation-states. “Globalised nationalism” is a
contradiction in terms because genuine nationalism is necessarily
the antithesis of globalization as the words are currently universally
understood! So, evidently, whilst “globalised nationalism” is an oxymoron, this
Times reporter is just a plain moron.
No comments:
Post a Comment