Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

postructuralist ethics « Previous | |Next »
June 06, 2006

There is a strange relationship between poststructuralist ethics in Continental philosophy and the dominant Anglo-American traditions of moral philosophy. For some reason moral philosophy, as a discipline does not score highly in poststructuralist philosophy or in French philosophy as a whole, whilst a lot of Anglo-American moral philosophy is hostile to poststructuralism---the standard charges are relativism and nihilism---and denies its ethical concerns.

Yet ethical concerns abound in poststructuralism: recall Deleuze's ethics of immanence, Irigaray's ethics of sexual difference, Foucault's ethical relationship of care-for-self, and Derrida's and Levinas' emphasis on alterity. These ethical concerns in poststructuralist philosophy indicate that a liberal individualist definition of the subject is seen to hinder the development of new modes of ethical behaviour. Ethics becomes a discourse about forces, desires and values that act as empowering modes of being, whereas morality is the established sets of rules. What we have is a critique of liberal individualism and its replacement by a different, non individual conception of subjectivity.

For instance, the neo-vitalism of Deleuze, with its reference to Bergson Nietzsche and Spinoza, works with a conception of the subject as a radically immanent intensive body, that is an assemblage of forces, or flows, intensities and passions that solidify in space, and consolidate in time, within the singular configuration commonly known as an 'individual' self. This intensive and dynamic entity is rather a portion of forces that is stable enough to sustain and to undergo constant, though, non-destructive, fluxes of transformation. It is the body's degrees and levels of affectivity that determined the modes of differentiation. Joyful or positive passions and the transcendence of reactive affects are the desirable mode. The emphasis on 'existence' implies a commitment to duration and conversely a rejection of self-destruction.

It is the deconstruction of the liberal humanist individual that marks a central fault line between Anglo-American moral philosophy and poststructuralist ethics. As one's identity is produced between self and other then the identity of the self becomes dispersed into the other. Hence the shift towards the openess of others.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:00 AM | | Comments (5)
Comments

Comments

but.... isn't Capitalism and Schizophrenia a work of ethics.. you posted that a while ago. then there are the last few books and most of the lectures of foucault... to me they look like ethics. more of the ethics along the lines of aristotle than say the ethics along the lines of wittgenstein.... the thing is that anglo-american philosophy thinks that ethics and human endeavor will all be resolved if we can just be clear and simple, even if clear and simple does not map onto human activity.... most should as well be economists in the way treat moral issues.

Gary, really appreciate your series of posts thinking through Levinas (and John Halasz's comments as well); have been trying to do something similar myself recently in my rare free moments . . . . Don't know if you've seen it, but you might want to take a look at Levinas and the Political by Howard Caygill; I'm about 120 pages into it and I highly recommend it -- a very sophisticated resume of Levinas's thinking that starts with his earliest work, placing it in the context of his personal intellectual history and the political experience that motivated so much o his ostenstibly "ethical" philosophizing.

Among other things, it's a great antidote to the received view of Levinas as a sentimental, warm-and-fuzzy proponent of making nice to the Other -- presents him instead as a rather steely and clear-eyed observer of the nature of the political who seeks something better than the political without ever giving into the temptation of believing he's actually gotten beyond it . . . . Anyway, based on your posts I suspect you'll find it interesting if you haven't already read it.

Jeremy
I agree.Ethics is not a discredited subject in poststructuralist philosophy.

A lot of the poststructuralists texts can be read as expressing ethical concerns once we displace the Anglo-American conception of moral philosophy.

It is an ethics beyond individualism; an ethics beyond the liberal subject; an ethics with a self that is dissolved, the "I" fractured and the body is one of energy and becomings, flows and intensities.This is a fundamental break with Aristotle's 'organs and functions' conception of the organism.

Adam,
thanks for that reference. Much appreciated.

I suspected that, for Levinas, ethics cannot avoid the predicament of politics, because the ethical is itself a response to the political. That is how I am coming to grips with Totality and Infinity, which is a critique of autonomy and the autonomous self on the basis of alterity and difference.

The Preface of Totality and Infinity opens with war and peace--this text is political through and through. I've been persuaded by those who interpret Levinas as insistening on treating the ethical realm, in which responsibility is unique, unbidden and infinite, as entirely incommensurable with the political realm, in which responsibility is made subject to definite, finite rules, and moreover subordinated to the pragmatic demands of the State and social policy.

Politics is the “art of foreseeing war and winning it by every means.”
The interweaving of politics and ethics is not suprising, considering Levinas was directly touched by the violent events of the 20th century's political history.

As Caygill says Levinas:

... witnessed as an adolescent the October Revolution in Lithuania, studied in Strasbourg in the 1920s when Alsace was one of the foci of interwar Franco-German tension, worked in Paris during the travails of the Popular Front government in the 1930s and was a member of the French army defeated in 1940. He survived the war in a special POW camp but lost close members of his family in the Shoah.

As Caygill points out Levinas was forthright in making a link between his ethical theory and the political struggle in relation to between the State of Israel and Palestinian nationalists, claiming that 'in alterity we can find an enemy' The other is not only the stranger, partner in a dyadic relation, but also 'the unhated enemy' with whom the relation has to be one of war.

Reading this after you pointed me in Caygill's direction suggests that it is the politics that undecuts the rtranscendental strand in Levinas.

Very interesting entry. If you have not read Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self, he makes this poststructuralist approach to ethics a central concern and does so in a rather fascinating way--in terms of how we view the self.