archive : s0metim3s

April 6, 2006

Badiou as bolshevik mysticism. Sociology as auto-theology of social order. Or intellectuals and the responsibility of a response, but nevertheless contra the mystifications of authorship and event.

8 Comments »

You’re getting good at this:)

Matt [April 7, 2006 @ 12:07 am]
I’m afraid to ask what “this” is.

s0metim3s [April 8, 2006 @ 11:36 pm]
The pithy summaries without summary.

Matt [April 9, 2006 @ 4:16 am]
It was the “something” in conjunction with “certain” that threw me.

Craig [April 9, 2006 @ 4:30 am]
Ah, but here I was thinking that I was being much less subtle than in the Tronti ’summary’ over at LS. Though, I admit that the paradoxical conjuction between the indeterminacy of something and the various senses in which certainty might be understood (as guarantee, facticity, objectivity, or decision, etc) would probably make more sense in view of that post. To put it bluntly, labour is that ‘certain something’. That’s what, to gesture toward Spivak, makes the difference.

Blanchot, for all his obscurity, is far less mystificatory about this certain something than sociology (or Durkheim in particular) is about ’society’ or Badiou is about the ‘event’.

s0metim3s [April 9, 2006 @ 11:57 am]
I have to convince that subtlety is usually lost on me. But it’s probably ‘cos I’m thick.

Jon [April 9, 2006 @ 1:24 pm]
By “convince” I meant “confess.” See. Thick as a plank.

Jon [April 9, 2006 @ 1:36 pm]
Does this help any? Not about Badiou, Blanchot and Durkheim directly, but maybe as to the inflections.

s0metim3s [April 9, 2006 @ 2:24 pm]

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here