Jump to content
anon764

Spanos

Recommended Posts

This is a mis-characterization:

 

1) Every thing US and imperialism is explained in Vietnam.

2) Problem-solution = bad

3) Re-thinking thinking

 

Its a combination of Heidegger-Foucault-and Derrida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spanos is a criticism of humanism (aka the enlightenment project of rights, democracy, and rationality).

 

Spanos does also critique identity politics. (something about creation of inside/outside politics being bad I think--the margin vs. the center = bad) One of those identity politics is the work of Mr. Said. (ie the West vs. the rest)

 

I imagine people that would run this might run with:

1) Foucault

2) Threat construction (perhaps)

3) Debord (very few do--hes a critical media theorist/marxist)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the easiest way of explaining exceptionalism is: do as we say, not as we do.

 

it is okay for the US to have nuclear weapons, invade other countries and spread its political system. but it is not okay for 'savage' middle eastern or asian countries to do the same.

 

that's an oversimplification that can get you started.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Spurlock, I was just about ready to post that if anyone wasn't from UCO to stop posting. Thanks for the oversimplification - but how would I go about applying that to next year's topic? It seems to me that the "City on a Hill" analogy could work well with how we treat Afghanistan and Iraq and therefore we need to get out.

 

I've also heard Spanos criticizes the problem-solution mindset inherent in foreign policies as well. Maybe that could also work as another link story? Either way, I was wondering what books I should read for next year- not looking into the performance/narrative side so his book on Melville may not be the best - but so far I've seen America's Shadow and American exceptionalism in the age of globalization as well as some of his journal articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The links story for next year is based on what Spanos calls the "Jeremiad" (spelling?). The US's way of absolving it's faults (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vientam, etc.) by doing something "benevolent." In Iraq we went in to set up a democracy, and after we dun-fucked-that-one-up we gave them some food aid and country re-building to make up for it. Yugoslavia, we committed a genocide, but we gave them humanitarian efforts afterwards. Etc. Removing our military presence from a single country only glosses over the larger system of imperialism. I.E. get out of Afghanistan so the world is totally okay with our presence in Iraq. Get out of Iraq so it's okay when we bomb Iran. Get out of Turkey so we can further dominance of the Koreas, etc. (you can choose non-topical examples).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are seven other optional resources:

 

1) Heidegger and Criticism, William V Spanos (classic Spanos. probably a lot of overlap between this and Americas Shadow)

2) Boundary 2 is a periodical which is available on Project Muse which William V. Spanos has written several articles for. If you search him as an author this has an interview on Jeremand

3) End of Education: Toward Posthumanism (I've seen this in file, but I don't remember many cards from it. You can get all you need from Heidegger and Criticism and the other 2 you mentioned)

3) Other criticisms of Humanism

4) Other defenses of Heidegger (particularly that whole accusation of Nazism or that his philosophy is a Nazist ideology. he does answer this himself as I recall)

5) Links from Foucault & similar authors

6) Impacts to eclipse of being.

7) Alts other than "re-think thinking"

 

He criticizes Foucault and Heidegger--but his thesis seems pretty dependent on their thought. I haven't read a Spanos file (with the exception of HS camp files) in a couple years, but most tend to rely on Americas Shadow and Heideggger and Criticism pretty heavily (obviously that was before his 2008 book).

 

This was on another thread (Rhizome/Tom) and I think most files have a block:

 

From: william spanos <wspanos@binghamton.edu>

> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:03:43 -0800

> To: DancingPete000@aol.com

> Subject: Re: Posthumanism's Place

>

> Dear Matt, I have been aware of the way high school (and college) debaters

> have mangled my work for quite some time now. I don't know how my books got

> into that circuit. My intentions in writing them was/is not to appeal to

> debate. The very idea of institutionalized debate--where it doesn't matter

> at all what side one takes--is anathema to my way of thinking. In fact, you

> could say that my books in a fundamental way are intended to demolish the

> phony "pluralistic" thinking that kind of debating foster. Thinking (and the

> language we use to make it manfifest), in other words, should make a

> difference in a world, especially in the United States, which calls itself

> civilized and free but in reality is barbarically corrupt and unfree, which

> always invokes the language of justice to conceal the terrible injustices it

> perpetrates at home and everywhere in the world, that celebrates the

> individual while reducing him her to what Foucault calls useful and docile

> body and Heidegger, "disposable reserve. And this is precisely what the

> kind of "thinking" debating (as practiced in debate tournaments) IS NOT.

>

> But the fact is that, like or not, my work has been appropriated to this

> debate scene. And there's not much I can do about it. Who could are people

> like you, who seem to be aware of the fact that there's something rotten in

> the debating state Denmark, that it actually violates the very essence of

> the kind of thinking I am struggling to articulate. So, I understand your

> renunciation of high shcool debating. But if you really want to make your

> opposition felt, you should return to the debate circuit and make it your

> purpose to challenge the reductive distortions your debater colleagues

> impose on my kind of thinking.

 

Here is the UCO outline for Onto-Politics their Spanos argument (you have to scroll down) I assume you already have this. I just include it for future visitors/readers of this Spanos in Debate thread.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US's way of absolving it's faults (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vientam, etc.) by doing something "benevolent." In Iraq we went in to set up a democracy, and after we dun-fucked-that-one-up we gave them some food aid and country re-building to make up for it. Yugoslavia, we committed a genocide, but we gave them humanitarian efforts afterwards.

 

I keep on hearing this but how did the US commit genocide in Yugoslavia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...