Levi on Nick’s Goldsmiths talk

Nick from Speculative Heresy is now in London, and gave a talk at Goldsmith’s.

Here you can read LEVI’S TAKE on it.

Here is THE PDF OF NICK’S LECTURE ITSELF, “Framing Militancy.” Despite the title, he suggests “getting rid of the idea of a pre-established revolutionary actor.”

I like this formulation, because one thing I find frustrating about the “what does S.R. say about politics?” refrain is that it often just seems to mean: “to what extent does S.R. agree with the prejudices I already bring to the table?” In short, I’ve seen a number of invocations of phrases such as “revolution” and “neo-liberalism” in these discussions, but not a heck of a lot of fresh political insight. In several cases in recent weeks, including one especially alarming and disappointing one, I’ve seen “revolution” pulled from a hat without the least trace of a justification. It felt a lot more like a social maneuver than a philosophical question. Levi says similar things in the aforementioned post in more interesting detail than I can muster at the moment.

In fact, I can’t say that I’ve ever heard a genuine political discussion in these circles. People position themselves at a certain leftward position in the spectrum, and you can either join them there or you are labelled as a “neo-liberal.” It’s really quite sloppy, and not what I would expect from a philosophical movement that has innovated in so many other areas. Why be less fresh in politics than in metaphysics? Why dump stale old positions like correlationism in metaphysics, only to dig up old and unquestioned picturesque political costumes like “revolution”? I’m open to hearing calls for revolution. What I’m not open to is “revolution” when used as a self-congratulatory trump card in conversation that is actually a non-conversation.

In any case, I’m glad Nick is in London now. It’s one of the livelier intellectual environments I’ve ever encountered, and it will be good for him and for them that he’s in the mix.