Thursday, November 09, 2006

The Wrong Geometry

We are not lines; we don't and shouldn't fall along a linear political trail comprised of the detritus of past ideologies. Yet, we see the world in these terms and we're increasingly worse off for it. It's inescapable in many ways since there is no such thing as a total revolution of consciousness. But we're not doing too well with the possibilities of human imagination unless we can sell the product or rally enough troops into marching off the cliffs.

Left-Center-Right. That is largely the extent of our flaccid political imaginations. Why not trapezoids? Roughly-hewn circles and marvelously vertiginous spirals? Feedback-loop evolution? Hilbert space? Asterisks embedded within asterisks? The unprovable proof that there is no mathematics to politics, ethics?

In the US, we gravitate towards an imaginary center of moderation, along with its imaginary valuative judgment that this magnetic center is somehow good, godly even (except that the US God hates faggots). That's the logic of the line. The old "natural" geometry, that is, the one Socrates had Meno draw from his mind. The one that ultimately articulated a left and a right - arbitrarily - so that politics could be understood by the benighted masses. You have two hands and two feet, see? One is bad and the other is good. You are maladroit (literally, "bad with the right"), left-handed, a practitioner of the dark arts. The political "right" got the better arbitrary prize with the simple equation of right as in right/wrong with a direction we eventually turn when our right foot is smaller than the left foot. "Moderate" means somehow being able to switch-hit, adjust to political pitches, maybe even think briefly about opposing issues. Good enough, our geometry says. A few random policies have in the interim come to settle on either side, depending on whichever side you fall out of bed. For the most part, however, the alleged virtue of moderation prevents Americans from really ever getting out of bed, or that famous slumber.

Elsewhere - say, among Latin American leftists - the other side of mindless linear geometry reigns. In DC, we obviously hear endless insipid arguments for the "right" or for "moderation." But we "lefties" also hear endless insipid arguments for "leftism." People sell lots of books making the case for their leftism. I'm invited to plenty of their readings. Sometimes I go, and the authors tell me something that was already intellectually boring 40 years ago. Tariq Ali told us a few weeks ago things about American imperialism in Latin America that we already knew to death, into the ground, screamingly boringly, insipidly, awfully, and linear-confirmingly known. Without a proposal, an idea, even much of a thought, which is nearly as awful. And everybody in the leftist audience clapped vigorously, startling me from a much-needed, but unfortunately front-row nap. Doomed they are to the linear geometry of left and right, they have nothing to propose that's novel, that does anything but swing a political pendulum back and forth for eternity. This excites a lot of people, this ticking, danceable metronome; and, given the basic limitations of human mortality, it has an ever-fresh generational army of new recruits and tap-dancers. Tick tock tick, until the next linear move. Good luck, revolutionaries - your philosophy was both sparked and killed at the moment of the Eighteenth Brumaire. There is nothing to revolt against except your masters, who have already set the terms of your revolt, which you will reset until you face the revolt. Live it up while you can. Your book-signing lecturers are closer to this knowledge than you realize.

Yet,... endless tracts, endless shopworn bromides, endless fame out of endless shopworn bromides, endless pointlessness with nary a novel note floating in the bromidic air. Who set up eternity in such terms?

I refuse to accept this geometry. I can't take it from American politics while real problems become increasingly entrenched. I can't take it from Chavistas (or their power-greedy, corrupt opposition), who shag all the appropriate leftist slogans but with barely an original thought in their heads, and have great difficulty competently handling what they do have. Living in DC, spending time in Venezuela, France, Japan, and other places around the planet, I see nothing except the same geometry running its see-saw course, creating demons out of the other end of the line so that their own point, dot, spurt might look just a little better for the brief time they can legitimately suspend it in Euclidian space for pay and power. One bold-typed line with the number of hungry, oppressed, uneducated, diseased, poor people growing minute by minute, living in increasingly grotesque environmental conditions on a dying planet regardless of where their leaders place themselves in the archaic, feeble geometry of modern politics.

I'm not a nihilist. I believe in something - if nothing else, a kind of loyalty and generosity we owe to each other, whoever we are. I just don't believe in your political geometry any more, whoever/whatever you are.

15 comments:

troutsky said...

Give us a glimpse into the new geometry helmut, this spinning and drifting is exhausting. What i am wondering is, when will a new physics seep ito the collective conciousness?

helmut said...

Ummm, I ain't got it, Troutsky. Just needed some venting to open the possibility.

Anonymous said...

Is it a problem of language? Of vocabulary?

What I mean is, if you try to articulate a new geometry but are forced to use the language and vocabulary of the old order, doesn't that somehow reenforce or confim the old order?

I'd just be happy if we could retire the tired, stale "liberal" and "conservative" labels. In U.S. politics, they are virtually meaningless at this point, except perhaps as the name of a team, a la sports. But, the media relies on simple dichotomies. It pays the bills and keeps "fans" happy.

Anonymous said...

I tend to think in terms of political spectra, not one dimension: Left Center Right, but multiple dimensions: approach to economics, church vs. state, technology vs. tradition, as many dimensions as there are "quasi-linear" spectra. I tried to map it all out once and got to about 10 dimensions before I lost interest / decided it would take to much effort to build a meaningful model out of it.

MT said...

Tough Love/Nurture? Optimism/Pessimism? Individuality(liberty)/Collectivity(discipline)

troutsky said...

There is definately some kind of continuim needing new coordinates.So much theory uses the language of "terrain", a geographical context that limits discourse to two dimensions. Some introduce elements of time into the matrix, as in "moments" but again we end up in a linear mode.I know Helmut can help us on this. I for one am unwilling to succumb to some weary, non-antagonistic,model of centrism. I like the fight.Tariq is a good example of what happens when you go from public intellectual to spokesperson.

helmut said...

You've been reading your Laclau/Mouffe, Troutsky. I also find something attractive in an agonistic idea of democratic politics. I get it more from the pragmatists, but I do like Mouffe. And I agree that that kind of language (I'm guilty of this too) like terrain or site or moment are all really vague while at the same time intimating at something potentially measurable. It's kind of cheap language. More soon about this - maybe a regular post.

Russ - vocab is definitely part of it. We're always limited by what we can say - poetry often points this out - not the words so much, but the meta-linguistic ideas. Wallace Stevens always seemed to me after something rather radically beyond language through the medium of language.

Former student - who are you? Email me at either my university email or my blog email. I'm happy to hear I confused you enough into doing such projects.

MT - the worry for me, stupid pragmatist me, are these kinds of dualisms wreaking havoc all over the place. I think this is where the impulse to escape comes from for me. The prags thought most dualisms analytic instrumental distinctions unfortunately reified into ontological conditions/distinctions. That, and teaching, when students see either absolutism or relativism, etc. but not everything in between or outside of the distinction.

And we shall call it "Vyojni."

MT said...

We could specify our political positions by latitude and longitude. Let latitude be liberty and longitude be privatization. We tend toward the Canaries. Or since politics has cycles we could express our world views as wave functions and issues as operators with which we probe them.

MT said...

Running the wave mechanics metaphor into the spectral one...we could represent each person's world view as a quantum mechanical state of an electron around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Or a blend of such states, also called orbitals. The highest energy or completely ionized state I guess would be the John Birchers. The ground state would be pure Orwellian. We could call gay marriage "fine splitting" and abortion or choice "hyperfine splitting."

troutsky said...

I like how murky thinks! Lets bend politics!

helmut said...

Still relies on the world turning around individuals, however. That's what runs current politics/policy/economics. The drawback is that individuals don't know what their interests are, their preferences, or really who they are until they're embedded within society.

MT said...

Ah. Ensembles. Now I think I understand why you invoked Hilbert space. Maybe borrow some language from crystallography by X-ray diffraction, in which practioners have ways to deduce and talk not only about the average but the demographics of the units in imperfect crystal samples (via Hilbert space). Unfortunately, it's not physics everybody learns in high school or ever, and probably technical and utterly uninteresting sounding to everybody else. It's bothered me before to think that social and cultural theorists tend not to know much math and physics. There's many flavors of real causation and real organization that we really understand in nature, and scientists themselves analogize to what they understand in hypothesizing an explanation for what they don't. Waves are everywhere, for example. It's not just figurative speech to say DeBroglie and Schroedinger discovered how to explain and understand quantum mechanical phenomena by drawing on a metaphor. Waves imply a wave equation, and an equation enables you to predict what will happen under conditions you haven't even looked at yet. Metaphors like this generate tests and experiments, so it's clear when it's time to pick or to invent another one. Hmmm. I notice the topic was "geometry" not "metaphor." I guess I take the relationship for granted. All the years of neoplatonist posturing makes us think we're only talking about geometry when we're really talking about physics.

MT said...

Oh...so, ensembles: A natural place to look would be thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics. Orwellian society could be like superfluid Helium or Bose-Einstein condensates. Anarchy could be the ideal gas. Carl Rove is Maxwell's Demon.

MT said...

It's bothered me before to think that social and cultural theorists tend not to know much math and physics.

Not to say that social and cultural theorists don't learn habits of mind and history that wouldn't have value to most physicists and mathematicians, if they'd schooled themselves like the others, or that anybody should compromise their schooling in the one tradition for the other. I ain't wading into that science wars stuff if I can help it.

helmut said...

No one in the US learns philosophy either in school, and perhaps only one or two courses in college. Good not to wade into the science wars. Scientists tend to express their ignorance of value (which philosophers study) and philosophy of science when they do. In fact, it's really only the physicists and the philosophers who truly get each other.