The End of Revolutions?

An interesting discussion by Anodyne Lite, on not only the fact that radically revolutionary philosophies are appropriated by late capitalism (a fairly common thesis by now), but why - namely that the totalizing presuppositions of a politics premised upon radical irruptions is utterly ineffectual within our current situation. Thus, these thinkers of the New (as an ontological category) are not only accepted by our situation, but actively incited as new products for the marketplace of ideas.

In response to this debilitating situation, it seems important to highlight that Latour and actor-network theory offer a vitally different path for politics (one that I think can also be de-coupled from any ontological commitments). Levi has written on this before (here and here, among other places), and I've also highlighted before (here and here) what I think are some of the important implications of ANT for politics.

I want to add to what I've written before though (or differently repeat similar ideas), that one of the key parts of Latour is to grapple with the actual conduits for action in our present situation. As Anodyne Lite suggests, activism needs to be brought into closer relation with political thinkers, and ANT in fact not only dictates that, but explains why it must be so. The level of grand abstractions is not inexistent (or inoperative), but it's only produced through local mechanisms. Therefore capitalism as such does not exist (except as an idea that makes a difference), but what does exist are the computer networks linking banks in New York and London, non-banking financial institutions around the world, centralized settlement systems, off-shore banks, individual investors, neoliberal textbooks, risk management equations, etc. This is not a totalizing picture of capitalism, but rather an assemblage of heterogeneous actors that cohere together to produce our current financial system. An attention to these details provides numerous levers for action and eschews the utopian dream of a radical break. Change does not occur in radical shifts (and it does not in Badiou either, contrary to popular opinion), but rather through the proliferation of subtle innovations, the malfunctioning of incompatible actors, and the creation of (destructive and productive) feedback loops, among other means.

For Speculative Realism, it's all about the Benjamins

New Scientist has an article on the recent awarding of the $1.4 million Templeton Prize to French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat for his "studies into the concept of reality".

What thoughts led him to receiving the world's largest annual prize?

"Unlike classical physics, d'Espagnat explained, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make predictions for the outcomes of our observations. If we want to believe, as Einstein did, that there is a reality independent of our observations, then this reality can either be knowable, unknowable or veiled. D'Espagnat subscribes to the third view. Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery.

[...]

So what is it, really, that is veiled? At times d'Espagnat calls it a Being or Independent Reality or even "a great, hypercosmic God". It is a holistic, non-material realm that lies outside of space and time, but upon which we impose the categories of space and time and localisation via the mysterious Kantian categories of our minds.

"Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God – or 'Substance' – of Spinoza," d'Espagnat writes. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, which he equated with nature itself, but he always held this "God" to be entirely knowable. D'Espagnat's veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments."

The religiously minded Templeton Foundation of courses raises different conclusions from the research, highlighting again the need for a rigorous evacuation of any reliance on religious crutches that return humans to the centre of the universe:

"There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a 'veiled reality' that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments."

These types of conclusions point to the necessity of further undermining the privileging of the human, as well as further developing the epistemological analysis which allows us to refute such religious impositions. Ontology need not be beholden to epistemology, but epistemology is crucial in refuting the religious desire to impose itself in any gap in human knowledge.

[EDIT: I just recalled where I recognized d'Espagnat's name - I bought his book On Physics and Philosophy a year ago on the basis of some really great recommendations. I still haven't read it yet, but it looks like it'll be moved up on my reading list. Definitely recommended for others as well! And there's a Google books link for a preview here.]

(h/t Chris Blattman)