Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘End of History’ Category

Hull begins his essay with Marx’s ‘Jewish Question’ in order to speak about nationalism. Hull asserts that Marx is not the first to speak of nationalism. Benedict Anderson finds evidence of what is called the ‘nation’ in the middle ages. Marx believes that to formulate a question properly is to answer it, which is to say that to answer a question is to disperse it into other questions. Thus, when the nationalism question is answered, the question turns on a responsibility to the ghosts of non-present or partially present cultures. Not only is an inheritance, as Derrida would say, among the voices of Marx, but to betray that voice, as Marx does, explains his failure to adequately formulate the nationalist question. (more…)

Read Full Post »

When reading Spectres of Marx and coming across the phrase “the time is out of joint” again and again, I recalled the explorations of Foucault in Society Must Be Defended. (more…)

Read Full Post »

So on class Wednesday I tried to raise the point that Derrida is subject to his own criticism. I would like to develop that point in this post. First I will go over my argument in terms of the discussion in class, and then I will try to ground it more in the text (which I freely admit I did not do well in class). Finally, I will synthesize the two readings. (more…)

Read Full Post »

After watching Jon Stewart’s interview with Evo Morales on The Daily Show on my dvr (thanks for the heads-up, Jay), I was reminded again that I wanted to propose the relevance of Specters of Marx for a very interesting scenario – the upheaval about Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia, the complete silence around Morales speaking at Cooper Union. Let’s of course set aside the question of whether or not there should or should not be such upheaval or silence and ask instead: what does this crossing of events mean? (more…)

Read Full Post »