Karl Marx
What possible relevance could a hard-core nineteenth-century atheist possibly have for religious studies? Alberto Toscano attempts to answer this question, with an eye on “the present reenchantment of catastrophic modernity”, by suggesting the need “to link capitalism as religion with religions in capitalism”.
Toscano’s article, “Rethinking Marx and Religion” is over at Marx au XXIe siècle : l’esprit & la lettre. Couldn’t be that good – his bibliography missed “the first systematic Marxist engagement with religion and religious belief since Ernst Bloch“.
Hat tip: An und für sich
Advertisements
I’ll have to get up him about that! Actually, Alberto and I know each other pretty well, except he’s way smarter than me. The problem is that Criticism of Earth, where I deal with similar issues, isn’t out yet.
Ah – I guess I can’t blame him for failing to read unpublished books.
I stayed with Alberto when Roland’s Criticism of Heaven had just come out and he was really very enthusiastic about it. Bibliographies don’t mean shit.
It was actually how I first heard of Roland’s work.
I was just having a bit of fun with that last comment of mine, Anthony. For the avoidance of doubt, I reckon Toscano’s article is a damn good read.
No, no. Sorry, I wasn’t taking you seriously! Just, well, thought it interesting none the less.
it’s senseless phrases like this-
”the present reenchantment of catastrophic modernity”
that put people off. what exactly is it supposed to mean? or is it intentionally obscure just so the author can feel himself a tad superior… the way twins do when they invent their own secret language? because, frankly, as a phrase, the above is perfectly insensible.
if the purpose of communication is to communicate, authors are duty bound to do it and not to preen their own bird dropping infested feathers.
Jim, you seem to be under the false impression – explicitly opposed by (Eric’s man) Jean Baudrillard – that the role of the scholar is to elucidate! However, I don’t think Alberto Toscano was trying to confuse anybody with this particular phrase, or indeed with his article.
The “present reenchantment” refers to what has been widely recognized as the disproof of the secularisation thesis (Marx, Weber, et al) and in fact its reversal into myriad forms of religiosity in late modernity (see Partridge, The Re-Enchantment of the West as a starter).
“Catastrophic modernity” refers, perhaps, to late modernity, with its succession of catastrophes – the economic, ecological, military, psychological, etc.
The article links this religious “reenchantment” to some of the religions/myths of Capitalism itself.
Yes, I fail to see how the sentence in question falls into the category of nonsense. It is simply dense, by which I mean it does the work of a whole paragraph by contracting meaning into a unpackable phrase that requires some attention to context. In this sense it is clear. Clear, but difficult. Is the claim here that we have to write easy prose?
The phrase “as a phrase, the above is perfectly insensible” is actually nonsense, however, as ‘insensible’ means unsusceptible to being sensed by the physical senses. Invisible ink? I’m sorry but if we are to be reduced to a pure funtional communication of word-technics, this is the kind of pettiness one must resort to.
Alberto’s coming over to a workshop on religion and politics in Copenhagen in September, where we should make a little more progress than another recent gathering in that great city.
Deane where did your blog posts attacking Matt, I mean, attacking Matt’s arguments on moral relativism go?
Um… they got transferred into another folder where I was accumulating largely off-topic things before I transferred them somewhere else, and have since tragically disappeared – I know, because I was trying to recover them all just yesterday. Don’t tell Gavin. He might get upset.
And I’m pleased to see you differentiate between attacking Matt and attacking Matt’s arguments. So many people have trouble distinguishing the two. ;-)
That must be so frustrating. I hate it when things get lost. Pop over to MandM; handily we have copies available of both ;-)
Distinguishing between an ad hominem attack and an attack on an argument is an important skill that anyone claiming to be a scholar should posess; it is up there with not venturing into areas one knows nothing about.
A clear sentence: I wish Jim West would fuck off. The sentence is perfectly clear and communicates information just fine.
Who’s “off”?
APS Tyrone explained it for Jim even though Jim was quite possibly being facetious anyway. Was your little expostulation really necessary?
Stephanie,
I realize you really like Jim, but the man accused me of being a rapist and child molester so until such time as he apologies and takes down that post I see no reason to treat him as anything other than a vile, evil man who lacks all sense of decency and polite conversation. So, yeah, he can fuck off.
I vaguely remember the post because you have alluded to it several times since. I don’t remember him calling you a rapist and a child molester – in fact I don’t think he did. But perhaps it might be easier for you if you just laugh it off. Jim is Jim – I hardly every agree with him and I think he’s generally quite mistaken but he’s actually a good friend to alot of people and he’s got a blinking sense of humour which is quite rare in the blogosphere which tends to take itself too seriously. I like alot of people I completely disagree with.
No, he implied I was a rapist and child molester. I don’t find that funny as I’m a victim of sexual abuse. It’s not a “sense of humor” issue, it is a decency issue. He’s a bad person and bad people can have friends too, but it doesn’t mean I have to like him or be nice to him because you do.
Humour about suicide victims, homosexuals, atheists, fat people and even Christians, is never funny. It’s cruel and sometimes even dangerous.
Is Jim a Graham Harman of these corners of the blogosphere?
No: He implied everyone who has ‘underage sex’ is a child molestor and or a rapist. I don’t know why you felt it necessary to take it so personally. You know his ‘biblical’ view of sex and marriage and if you have a conversation with someone about sex holding such strong beliefs you’ll get the same response. He is not a ‘bad person’. If you can’t be nice or you have to be ‘bad’ back, try to ignore him instead.
That’s not what he said. Do I need to cite my source?
I wouldn’t bother. Let it go.