Prof. Gabriel Rockhill on Zizek-Foucault, postmodernism, socialism, & identity politics,
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ค. 2024
- Gabriel Rockhill is a philosopher, cultural critic, and activist who publishes in French and English. His work is dedicated to a materialist analysis of the social totality, and it has thus far focused primarily on the three intertwining themes of history, politics, and culture.
He holds master’s, doctoral and postdoctoral degrees in philosophy, the historical social sciences, and political theory from the Université de Paris VIII and the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, where he worked under the supervision of Luce Irigaray (M.A. Director), Jacques Derrida (M.A. Director), Jean-Louis Fabiani (M.A. Director), Alain Badiou (Ph.D. Supervisor) and Étienne Balibar (President Ph.D. Committee). He also holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Emory University, which was completed under the guidance of Thomas R. Flynn.
He is currently a Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University, Founder and Executive Director of the Critical Theory Workshop/Atelier de Théorie Critique, former Directeur de programme at the Collège International de Philosophie and Member of the “Laboratoire Sens et Compréhension du Monde Contemporain” (Faculté des SHS - Sorbonne). He has also been a Research Associate at the Centre de recherches sur les arts et le langage (CNRS/EHESS) in Paris and a Visiting Scholar at the Centre Franco-hongrois en Sciences Sociales at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary. Prior to his appointment at Villanova, he taught French and Francophone theory, culture, film, and literature in Paris at the following institutions: Institut d’Études Politiques, Institut Catholique, Collège International de Philosophie, Centre Parisien d’Études Critiques (Sorbonne Nouvelle), New York University in France, American University of Paris, Université de Paris VIII.
He is the author of Contre-histoire du temps présent: interrogations intempestives sur la mondialisation, la technologie, la démocratie (CNRS Éditions, 2017; available in English as Counter-History of the Present: Untimely Interrogations into Globalization, Technology, Democracy via Duke University Press, 2017), Interventions in Contemporary Thought: History, Politics, Aesthetics (Edinburgh University Press, 2016), Radical History & the Politics of Art (Columbia University Press, 2014) and Logique de l’histoire: Pour une analytique des pratiques philosophiques (Éditions Hermann, 2010). He co-authored and co-edited Politics of Culture and the Spirit of Critique: Dialogues (Columbia University Press, 2011), which was also published in French and Spanish. He also co-edited and contributed to Jacques Rancière: History, Politics, Aesthetics (Duke University Press, 2009) and Technologies de contrôle dans la mondialisation: Enjeux politiques, éthiques et esthétiques (Éditions Kimé, 2009). Along with numerous book chapters and scholarly articles-in academic journals such as Philosophy Today, Symposium, Philosophie and Rue Descartes-he edited and co-translated Cornelius Castoriadis’s Postscript on Insignificance (Continuum Books, 2011), as well as Jacques Rancière’s The Politics of Aesthetics (Continuum Books, 2004).
In addition to his scholarly work, he has been actively engaged in the art and activist worlds, as well as a regular contributor to public cultural and political debate. His writings have appeared in outlets such as The New York Times, Libération, the L.A. Review of Books, CounterPunch, Black Agenda Report, Mediapart, Common Dreams, and Truthout. His media appearances include interviews on BreakThrough News, On Contact with Chris Hedges, Clearing the FOG, The Real New Network, Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp, Against the Grain on KPFA, France
We are also looking forward to funding. If you are interested, please write to us at indiagloballeft@gmail.com
Follow us on Twitter: indiagloballeft
#postmordernism #identitypolitics #foucault #derrida #criticaltheory
If you watch our content and forget to hit like and subscribe, please take out a moment to do that. It helps us continue making the content we do. Solidarity!
Also, if anyone is in a position to make any small donations, it does matter a lot. Feel free to drop a superchat, or reach out to us at indiagloballeft@gmail.com
How have I never heard of Professor Rockhill before?? This was brilliant, he is an exceptionally clear communicator of ideas. Much appreciated!
This is a brilliant interview and a brilliant guest. The topic of the intellectual left's role, starting in the 1960's, of becoming a counter revolutionary tool of capitalism is the core issue today. America's left is a middle class bourgeois cultural/identity fashion statement. The goal of solidarity of the working class and winning power is neutralized by American and Western "left" intellectuals. Thank you for such an amazing interview and amazing channel.
Thanks a lot. Hope we stay in touch. Solidarity.
Yessssss professor Rockhill da intellectual MVP holding the theoretical fort of true progress and radicality.
How do you keep consistently finding the most interesting people on the left today? I emailed my admiration after your very first episode and it remains unflagging.
Thanks Nick. Nice to be in touch. We haven't received any email from you. Would love to hear more at indiagloballeft@gmail.com
To some of us who grew up on French/ Anglo theories from identity, to arts/ postmodernism... It's a shock and awakening. But now what is to read and restructure our brains ... Maybe after your shows provide some reading material, or ask speaker to do as wel... You are great interviewer, I enjoy your channel.
This was a fantastic conversation - so rich! I learned a lot, appreciated the rootedness in history, and it really answered a lot of the questions I have been having about what causes the antagonism toward a class analysis in today's cultural leftism. We materials leftists have A LOT of work to do! Thank you for introducing me to Dr. Rockhill - I will be looking more into his writing to learn more.
This is just fantastic! Thank you. We need these discussions.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Stay in touch. Solidarity, IGL
I love honest people like those two. and people who really care about this world.
If people knew about Michel Foucault's private life, they'd think twice before adopting his worldview.
the french intellectuals were/are OBSESSED with defending legal child r*pe amiright???
you only have to listen to a couple of Zizek speeches to realize that he is a limited hangout/con artist
yes!!!!!
Zizek is a collaborator. Ever notice all of these Leftists from Chomsky to Zizek make you leave demoralized and depressed? Not a coincidence. They'll tell you what's wrong but never tell you how to successfully organize.
The right-wing is always talking about "Cultural Marxism", I think most of the people they are angered about are not even Marxists. I'm not sure which cultural theorists are behind the ideas the right-wing doesn't like, but the vast majority of these theorists are not Marxist at all.
The right is not concerned with any actual theorists or ideas on the left. The whole objective of conservative ideology is to fool the most possible working class and bourgeois voters into supporting the interests of ruling class. Therefore, ignorance of actual leftist ideas is ideal in conservative circles outside of political academia.
Is it ignorance or is it purposeful distortion? It seems to me that this basically comes from the USA which has been systematically subjected for years to anti-communist propaganda. The great majority of people don't know anything about Marx. In the so-called cultural war which mainstream media and politicians are fomenting and cheering on, culturally conservative people call "progressives" cultural Marxists just as anyone to the left was called a pinko commie.
A lot of the proto-postmodernists are actually very influential on the modern right. Namely Heidegger and Nietzsche.
How is that possible?@@waitingformyman9317
Technically, it's probably correct to define Cultural Marxism as that coming from the Frankfurt School, which was not Marxist-Leninist - it was not aligned politically with communism as practiced in the USSR, and did not believe in violent revolution. They were ostensibly concerned with "anti-fascism". But in the mainstream, it is often used as a generic term to describe tactics used by communist ideologues, and regimes, that take place in the realm of culture. These usually consist in attacks to traditions, cultural norms and roles, or any kind of social mechanisms that function independently from a central authority, like the state, the party, or a community of intellectuals. Under this classification we can fit feminism, divorce laws, abortion laws, gun ownership, public schooling, and obviously militant atheism, which were very strong in Soviet Russia and under Mao. Anti-racism, too, serves the utilitarian purpose of winning over typically conservative and religious minorities. It's true that many of these causes are not inherently Marxist, nor are exclusive to Marxists, but if we take this broad generalized definition of Cultural Marxism, it's undeniable that there is a big overlap.
Rockhill is one of the few people who have a good criticism of what is here being called "identity politics". A key element he acknowledges is that identity-based oppression and (super-) exploitation are linked. Charisse Burden-Stelly and Erica Caines have similarly well developed criticisms, though they use the narrower term "identity reduction" to mean (as far as I can tell) precisely the same thing Rockhill is describing here. This change in terminology is an acknowledgement that, since oppression and exploitation are political and are, in many cases, identity-based, there's no problem with an identity politics that situates the struggle against identity-based oppression and exploitation in the proper context of the broader struggle against capitalism and imperialism.
Thank you
Thank you for the great discussion. Around @49:50 Prof Rockhill mentions the existence of several good left critiques of NGOs and NGO-ifiction. Can anyone provide citations?
Very enlightening! thank you both!
Nice
Great presentation! Share and share!
Thanks, Mr Hill is monster,in a good way.
Finished the rest of the interview. Thanks. You are a very knowledgeable interviewer.
Rockhill rocks! Pun intended. Amazing
Please bring Prof C. P. Chandrasekhar
Thanks. We will reach out to him.
Good stuff.
Excellent as always, thanks!
another good interview boss man
THanks Smith. Stay in touch
I loved this! Thank you!
Thanks. Stay tune for upcoming video with Gabriel Rockhill.
The truth is with Mr. Langlois, "I took a break and in May I guess they threw a parade for me or something? I don't know."
What about Godard and the Enfants? Was Francis Truffaut a, "real socialist?" Was Zola? Was Dreyfus?
58:38 Great discussion, I had two points about nations and the USSR.
1) Nations are communities of faith. I would argue that a nation can be defined as a people without a state. A nation is a spiritual or metaphysical society. The nation-state adopted the nation in place of the church as its ally and social base. But nation-states are not nations, they're states. The nation is the fundamental unit on which state power is built. But the modern state is primarily a liberal political economy, not a national organ. The nation gives the state formal power through elections, but that's just the mechanism of state legitimacy. As we're seeing now in Ukraine, even national elections can be suspended in state interests.
2) Regarding the USSR specifically, I don't think we should understand it as a multinational state. The USSR was a socialist party republic. It accorded autonomy or sovereignty to the national republics, on the understanding that this was purely a formal autonomy to be represented in the party republic by their own national people. The USSR was a "mimetic inversion" of the liberal national i.e. commercial republic. The bolshevik grand strategy was to decolonize the nations and socialize them through the industrial proletariat into an international socialist party republic. Leninism is the socialist inversion of Smithian republicanism via Marxist internationalism. Or in other words, the USSR corresponded to the G7 rather than to Washington DC, Moscow was the leader of a global Leninist industrial republic of wage earners and party functionaries, corresponding to the G7's liberal political economy of money makers and global bankers.
Insidious.
Not a fan of cultural movements, post modernism etc but this was a great discussion 👍👍👍
Post-modern philosophy was the product of post-modern world not vice versa
that's, I'd say, the materialist lense.
bullshit is creation of bullshit rather than other way round? my god, you are ingenious!
That's an interesting take however there's so much rubbish in post-modernism, only fringe ones like Deleuze are interesting.
Great channel!
Pls have a similar discussion with Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Chomsky, Zizek....
We have a podcast with zizek and chomsky. You can check it out.
I think I mostly agree with the criticism of postmodern theory here as it has been working socially in an anti-communist way, but there is still a lot of very interesting ideas within this intellectual field. I can recommend Plastic Pills here on TH-cam, very good introductions to many of these thinkers.
are you recommending a youtube channel to two PhD holders in critical theory/philosophy????
You guys barely talked about zizek
"Actually existing socialism"? Seriously.
Very interesting conversation and I very much have to agree with all or most that has been said. However I find lacunas or probably lack of self-criticism re. the Leninist approach, notably sectarianism, dogmatism, lack of update/adaptation to the new reality of the actual late capitalist (Toyotist) proletariat and the need to update Marxism itself even. There's a reason why there haven't been no Bolshevik model revolutions since the 70s (Africa) or even the 50s (rest of the world) and Leninists do not even consider that in any serious way: they are stagnated in past models that do not work properly for lack of openness (call it "libertarianism" but maybe it's a criticism that Rosa Luxemburg was already making before she was killed, and not just her: she's just an example).
Yes parties must be organized, they must be communist in the most traditional sense of the word (revolutionary realist socialist), they must be broad in order to integrate every possible revolutionary socialist but not Laclauian in the sense of integrating reformists. They must not be a constellation of many small sects but should coalesce into a single unified and yet diverse party, etc.
Otherwise the only option is replicating the quasi-Blanquist or left-Platonist style of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, which has never succeeded in a developed country and even in the periphery only achieved revolutionary successes via guerrilla rather than actual revolutions in the sense of collapse of the existing regime in a sudden crisis-cum-social-uprising.
Hi Luiz, thanks for the very constructive criticism. You have raised really important questions. Self-criticism of the Left, or more specifically the Communist Left who came to power, was not in my mind for this particular show. Maybe, I should have, as you indicated. It would have been interesting to see how Prof. Rockhill responds. But definitely more in upcoming shows. Stay in touch.
@@IndiaGlobalLeft - I will, your channel is interesting. Thank you and keep up the good work.
It's Luis, with -s however. AFAIK Luiz does exist in Brazil but even there coexists with the more standard Luis. No offense taken anyhow, a lot of people make that mistake.
@@LuisAldamiz Thanks Luis, Solidarity.
@@LuisAldamiz I agree with Luiz Aldamis!
To the contrary, Foucault was as critical of crony capitalism as anybody. He was sympathetic to anarcho capitalism because of course anarcho capitalism is the post-political society, the stateless society where the only repository of power is the consumer exercising his choice in the market. Now the very fact that Foucault was quite sympathetic to the stateless society serves to refute Rockhills malicious contention that Foucault was some sort of crypto CIA operative as of course the whole point of the CIA is to defend the state.
"crony capitalism" ok Robert
@@lana-jg4ho Ok :)
Chomsky is a CIA tool and he defines himself as an anarchist so did Stanley Aronowicz.
While I commend GR's critique of the theory industry, I have to respond to his erroneous statements abt anarchism asnd organization.
"as though parties in and of themselves reproduce hierarchies and domination so there is a knee-jerk reaction, very uninformed, very uneducated, very unhistorical [sic] anarchist-driven rejection of people getting organized."
You have got to be kidding! The host corrected him with examples of anarchist organization and GR responds by saying that he is referring to a certain kind of anti-state, anti-party of "libertarian" anarchism which is different from the IWW and a lot of other kinds of anarcvhism he could point to.
It is not different. This distinction does not exist in reality, but only in the "very uninformed, very uneducated" head of GR. So we have the bizarre image of GR nodding in agreement with the host as the latter demolishes what GR just said. "Oh you are so right that I am so wrong."
GR is the last one who should be accusing others of being uneducated. The IWW was explicitly anti-party and anti-state. If you believe in the state then you are not an anrchist--full stop. Anarchiusm is a shorthand, easier-to-say version of anti-hierarchism. The state, according to Karl Marx, is the means by which one class controls the others. Anarchists agree with him. States, be they feudal, Leninist, capitalist etc., exist to regulate society, particularly production. Socialism, on the other hand, real socialism, means the full and final emancipation of labor, now and everlasting. That means worker self organization and management, which precludes feudalism, Leninism etc. You can emancipate labor or you can have a state, you can't have both anymore than you can be alive and dead at the same time.
The host states that Marx says the Communards thought of themselves as being anarchists but were really Marxists. That is not in the Civil War in France and I don't know what the Host is referencing. In any case, anarchists outnumbrred Marxists by thousands to one. They called themselves "Les Federes" and took the inspiration for that name from Proudhon's "The Federative Principle." The Federes issued a statement of principles in the form of a open letter to the people of France which reads like an anarchist psalm. It contains explicit support for ideas championed by Bakunin and which Marx repeatedly denounced. The anarchist nature of the Commune was the basis for Lenin's and Trotsky's fierce criticism of the Communards whom they used in part to justify their hyper-authoritarian, socialism-by-ukase-from-above approach.
The host, presumably referring to the Chicago anarchists--who organized the largest workers' movement in American history (attention, GR)--states that they were acting more like Marxists than anarchists. No, they were not. They were explicitly anti-statist. It is easy to look at this movement, any anarchist movement, as containing Marxist ideas. This is only possible if one doesn't really know the history of the workers' movement. Anarchism, worker-controlled, non-statist socialism from below, and Marxism, socialism from above by rule by state and political party, are closely related as they have the same goal--stateless communism. It's only the method for getting there that differs. The Haymarket anarchists explicityly and emphatically rejected the Marxist/statist/authoritarian road in favor of the worker-self-rule, anarchist road.
There isn't a statist wing and a non-statist wing of anarchism; The IWW did nnot support political parties; the Haymarket anarchists did not act like Marxists; there have been several successful anarchist organizations; the Communards believed in federalism--the free association of free producers--both industrially and territorially Anyone believing these absurdities knows little about the history of the workers' movement.
When you say "Marxism" are you referring to the ideas of Marxist Orthodoxy and the path of Marxist-Leninism that came about in the 1920s? Or is this a reference to the in-fighting within the First International that led to the expulsion of the Anarchist Tendency Activists & intellectuals?
Also when you say Civil War in France is that a reference to the events of the Paris Communes as you reference the "Communards"?
@@chazcmeekins83 Sorry but I don't understand your first question. There has long been a debate within Marxist circles if Leninism is a break with Marxism and whether Stalinism is a break with Leninism. I'll let them figure it out.
There is a great book about the 1at Internationale called "The Great Schism." Iwrote a review of it linked below if you are interested.
"the civil War in France" is the title of Marx' book on the commune. It's not very good, Marx at his worst really. The Commune was so anarchistic that Marx rewrote the section on the state in the Communist Manifesto along anarchist lines--without acknowledging it, of course. Marx wrote some great books. The best, imho, is Brumaire. It covers the period just before the Commune. It's his best writing, and chock full of brilliant analysis.
dissidentvoice.org/2017/01/the-madness-of-karl-marx/
anarchism is not a serious ideology
@metrobusman don't know why I wasn't notified of this comment but thanks for the Information 👍👍
@@lana-jg4ho u r half right, it's not an ideology.