ligotti lecture

[skeptic]

Dear All,

In the unlikely event that anyone who frequents this site either lives in or is passing through Perth, Western Australia, on Nov 14, I thought I would post the following announcement (all are welcome):

The Krishna Somers Foundation announces the third paper of semester 2,
2006. The presentation is by Matthew Jamieson, PhD student in
Philosophy. Please come to the talk and engage in a dialogue with
Matthew over some excellent Western Australian wine (or orange juice).
The title of the paper is: 'The Uses of Terror: Politics and Fantasy in Thomas Ligotti's 'Our Temporary Supervisor'.
When: Tuesday 14 November - 4.30pm
Where: Murdoch University, Education and Humanities 3.041

Abstract:

In the advanced industrial society in which we live, words such as
'dehumanization', 'alienation', and 'disenchantment', have lost their
capacity for shock. We have become desensitised to these words precisely
as a dehumanising force exerts an ever- greater hold over our lives.
Literature however can still serve to revivify for us the meanings of
those crucial words we have forgotten how to think. But can fantasy
fiction also be seen in this way, or is it, in accordance with the
standard Marxist critique, simply another niche in the capitalist drug
trade? Fantasy writing is after all hardly renowned for its engagement
with factual, let alone political, life.
In this paper, I consider the above question in light of two stories of
'corporate horror' by contemporary dark fantasist Thomas Ligotti. These
stories describe life under the shadowy and tyrannical Quine
Organization. Such is the power of this 'entity' that in the first
story, described by Ligotti as an 'extrapolation' of contemporary
working life, the Organization's subjects seem consigned to a state of
total and unending political abjection (and with it the kind of
one-dimensionality diagnosed by Marcuse over forty years ago as endemic
to mass-industrial society). By staging the nullification of fantasy
itself, together with those aspects of life gathered under the general
rubric of 'experience', 'Our Temporary Supervisor' leads the reader to a
dark night of the imagination. Does this move merely reinforce political
malaise, or can such fictions act to transmit more revolutionary
currents? As its title suggests, the second story acts as a necessary
counterbalance to the first. 'My Plan for Retributive Action', through
its inscription of bizarre metamorphoses, offers a positive
characterization of fantasy, and thus the possibility of seditious
resistance to the Organization's deadly one-dimensionality. The two
stories must therefore be regarded as two movements of a single suite.
In considering the uses of fantastic terror, I will argue that many
fantasy texts have a cognitive function analogous to that which Marxist
critics pick out as belonging to science fiction; except that, in the
case of fantasy, this function has more to do with 'enlargement of
imagination' rather than rigorous clarification of historical-material
conditions. Along lines suggested by R. D. Laing and others, I will
conclude that fantasy is ultimately relational: by opening myself up to
fantasy, and not alienating myself from it, I also open myself up to
others. Terror drives us into our own shells, but afterwards we peer out
again to survey the scene for other survivors. In terror there is
companionship, and this, Ligotti says, is 'the ultimate, that is only,
consolation: simply that someone shares some of your own feelings which
you have the insight, sensitivity, and - like it or not - peculiar set
of experiences to appreciate'.

[Mr. D.]

Dear skeptic,
I enjoyed what you said but I think that you would make a stronger case without the references to Marxism. Hegel doesn't make any sense. He is illogical in his basic premise and illogical in the execution of his premise. I know that he has a reputation for being a great philosopher, but I believe that this reputaion is due to the length of his demonstrations and his attempts at creating a total system.
Any philosopher who bases their work on Hegel, such as Marx, is at a tremendous disadvantage. Because Hegel is illogical most of their own work will suffer from that lack of reason. Your statement is strong enough without Marx. Maybe you should apply a little skepticism to Marxism.
I mean this in a gentle way. It is good to get away from thinkers who have either giant chips on their shoulders, or who have hidden (and not so hidden) adgendas - or both. They don't mean us any good.

[skeptic]

Thanks for the comments Mr. D, but I feel that you’ve misunderstood me somewhat if you think that what I’m offering is a straightforward Marxist reading of Ligotti’s text. (This may be my fault, due to the poorly constructed wording of the abstract). By contrast, one of the primary aims of the paper is to critique the standard Marxist line on fantasy, that it is yet another opiate of the masses. Marxists have lauded sci-fi for its revolutionary potential, but in their insistent and dogmatic derogation of fantasy have frequently overlooked the latter genre's political potential.
This potential is exemplified beautifully by Ligotti's "corporate horror" stories. Ultimately, I argue, fantasy is a vital element of political life; imagination is a byword for freedom (the invocation of Sartre here is deliberate). I reference Marcuse rather than Marx throughout the paper because the former, in books such as One Dimensional Man, saw the role of the role of imagination in politics very clearly. I hope all this becomes clearer when you read the essay, which I will post on this site in the near future.

Your attacks on Marx – that he inherited Hegel’s inconsistencies and had a “chip on his shoulder” – are answerable. In regards to the first, I think it a massive simplification to say that Marx’s philosophy is “based” on Hegel’s. The so-called Left Hegelians, including Marx and Feuerbach, had a very complex relationship with Hegel that continues to be the subject of considerable debate. As far as I know, Marx never called himself a Hegelian. Furthermore, I assume that when you say that Hegel is “illogical in his basic premise”, you refer to the notion that history proceeds dialectically towards absolute Spirit, that history has some kind of governing principle, telos, or “end”.
This has always struck me as merely speculative, but not illogical as such. More serious is the claim that Marx had a chip on his shoulder and that we should be wary of his philosophy on this account. I read this move as dismissive of the very issues Marx was most concerned with: the debilitating effects of industrialization; the often horrific conditions of industrialized labour; the gross imbalances in distribution of wealth under capitalism; the naturalizing and mythologizing tendencies of bourgeois consciousness; etc. That all of these have contemporary permutations means that Marx is as relevant today as he ever was. Why shouldn’t we have a chip on our collective shoulder in regards to these injustices? And who exactly is the “us” you refer to in your final sentence? While I call myself a Marxist, I do so in a qualified manner. For one, I’m not a materialist, and, as I’ve indicated, I too am wary of the notion that history has governing principles and ends. However, Marx’s analyses of the various forms of alienation provide some of our most penetrating insights into the human condition in the industrial or post-industrial age.
Apologies for the ranting; I too mean all this respectfully and welcome further debate.

[bendk]

Quote Originally Posted by skeptic";p=&quot

More serious is the claim that Marx had a chip on his shoulder and that we should be wary of his philosophy on this account. I read this move as dismissive of the very issues Marx was most concerned with: the debilitating effects of industrialization; the often horrific conditions of industrialized labour; the gross imbalances in distribution of wealth under capitalism; the naturalizing and mythologizing tendencies of bourgeois consciousness; etc. That all of these have contemporary permutations means that Marx is as relevant today as he ever was. Why shouldn’t we have a chip on our collective shoulder in regards to these injustices? And who exactly is the “us” you refer to in your final sentence? While I call myself a Marxist, I do so in a qualified manner. For one, I’m not a materialist, and, as I’ve indicated, I too am wary of the notion that history has governing principles and ends. However, Marx’s analyses of the various forms of alienation provide some of our most penetrating insights into the human condition in the industrial or post-industrial age.

I would like to second skeptic's comments here. Marxism, whatever its faults, yielded some good things. The Gilded Age mentality of certain Republicans is beneath contempt. Unrestrained Capitalism is just the freedom to choose your own master. I see more of an "agenda" being instituted by the Neocons than I do anyone else. Having said that, some of the worst bureaucratic nightmares I have read have been in the Soviet Union under Stalin. But Stalinism is not Marxism; he just appropriated what he wanted from from Marx.

[Mr. D.]

I don't mind any kind of honest discussion. It's been a long time since I read any phi,osophy so I can't remember exactly where it is, but in Aristotle there is a tiny discussion of the dialectic method. It was discussed mainly as an exception to the general rules. Hegel took this method and tried to apply it to everything. (Yes I know that what I say is an oversimplification, but what I say is also true.) Maybe I'm simple minded, but, if you take something and its complete opposite and mash them together I could never see how you can come up with some other thing that conbines elements of both the thesis and the antithesis. It just doen't make sense. It's merely a fiction as there is nothing in nature that supports the proposition.
I am not dismissive of Marx but I have little respect for him. Yes, he was alive to the problems of industrialization, but his solution ahs cost tens of milloions of lives. As soon as Lenin took over he instituted the secret police and the gulag system. tens of millions of Russians died in the numerous gulags. Tens of millions of Ukrainians died in the famine caused by the Central Committee of the Communist Party to force Ukraine to collectivise. Marxist philosophy leads directly to Marxism, and I distrust any ism. True, Capitalism is spending billions of dollars to get me to buy things I neither want nor need. That is just as immoral, but at least it isn't as brutal and tragic as Marxism.
A philosophy that leads dorectly to a cadre of experts who know how to run my live for me better than I can live it on my own is immediately suspect. I have long ago learned not to listen to what people say but what they do. Whatever good may exist in the analysis of the Capitalist society in marx's writings is overshadowed in my thinking by the almost unbelievable horror, pain, suffering and mental stullification that occurred in the Soviet Union by supposedly educated Marxists. Their actions are almost inconcievably evil. The same goes for every country that went Marxist. Some weren't as bad as others, but they were all bad. If this is the direct result of Marx's philosophy - and it is - to me that invalidates all that Marx wrote. Instead of a solution to the problem he helped make things even worse.
All heros have feet of clay. How could it be otherwise? Still, some feet are clayier than others. I work in Federal Law Enforcement. I'm a Democrat in the land of the Republicans. When someone asks me why I'm not a Republican I tell them, "I don't hate America and I don't hate most Americans." If you go by only the actions of the last few Republican administrations you can see what I mean. I've lost out on promotions due to my attitude, but I watch these self-rightous yahoos destroy this country and I can't think otherwise.
These are just my opinions. I look at things very differently from most people. However, since you respected my opinion enough to send me an actual answer to my post, I extend the same courtesy to you. In my work and in my life I have seen the depths of human misery. There is nothing more pathetic than a drug smuggler who gets caught. I've experienced things at work that I can't believe even ten years later, so I am very sympathetic to the suffering of us poor humans.
Thanks for the respect. Please don't feel obligated to change your opinions on my account. You can think that I'm full of it if you want. I much enjoyed your original post and your excellent reply. (My secret fear is that no one has actually read Hegel, but, since all of his works are something like 800 pages long a lot of people think he must be good. I never finished him. Too repetitious.)

[matt cardin]

What a fascinating conversation. What a fascinating-sounding paper. I can hardly wait until you post it here for our enjoyment and edification, skeptic.

I won't, or rather can't, dive into the vagaries of the debate about Marx and Hegel, since my encounters with both men have receded into the past, thus rendering my opinions suspect. So I'll just say that your description of the paper, skeptic, makes it sounds hugely engaging. The employment of Marcuse's thought, the idea of fantasy enlarging the imagination, the plan to use this as a critique of certain Marxist literary attitudes, the idea of a "dark night of the imagination" (and what an evocative phrase that is) -- all of it just sounds great. Best of luck with the lecture!

[darrick]

Quote

By contrast, one of the primary aims of the paper is to critique the standard Marxist line on fantasy, that it is yet another opiate of the masses. Marxists have lauded sci-fi for its revolutionary potential, but in their insistent and dogmatic derogation of fantasy have frequently overlooked the latter genre's political potential.

i would guess that the easiest side-stepping of your argument is to say that Ligotti's 'corporate horror' stories are science fiction.

although any group that invalidates an artistic movement like fantasy literature because of it's possible political uses... is just motherloving retarded!

fascinating topic though, wish i could attend. let us know how it goes!

Darrick

p.s. would also love to see such philosophical Ligotti debate on the Cult of Cthulhu forum: http://cocthulhu.proboards105.com/

[skeptic]

I really didn’t expect to get such a lot of response to the announcement, so thanks to everyone for the very engaging posts. I’m going to address Mr. D’s second post, try to open up a more general conversation about the politics of fantasy and horror, and reply as best I can to Darrick’s post.

Mr. D, I don’t think you’re full of it at all, nor simple minded, though I continue to disagree with some of your thoughts on Marx and Hegel. I should point out that Hegel’s not really my thing: I’m mostly interested in Husserl and the phenomenological tradition. I agree with your suggestion that Hegel is little read. This is particularly the case in the Anglophone world, thanks to the likes of Russell and Wittgenstein, who in the earlt 20thC. ushered in the turn from speculative metaphysics to “ordinary language” philosophy, “analysis”, and so on. For my own part, I’ve only read “The Philosophy of Right” as part of an undergrad course, as well as attending a course at a summer school a few years back. What I do feel qualified to say is that contradiction, according to Hegel, is only apparent and according to perspective. From the perspective of the “absolute” there is no contradiction (or rather, contradictions are taken up into ever-higher stages of unity). Mankind/thought proceeds through higher and higher levels of unity until this absolute perspective is eventually achieved. So while it may be difficult to see how synthesis arises out of contradiction, the Hegelians can argue that such difficulty is a function of our “evolutionary” stage. And in regards to Aristotle, wasn’t Plato’s writing almost always dialogical, if not dialectical?

I don’t agree the notion that Marx is invalidated by the undoubted horrors of Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. To my mind there are at least two reasons why 1917 and other socialist revolutions didn’t work out. First, as Marx argued, revolution could only take place after the industrialization. In other words, industrialization is a precondition of proletarian revolution. Russia was far from being an industrial nation in 1917, thus Marx could have predicted the “failure” of that revolution. Second, I argue that as a species we are not sufficiently evolved for a true and lasting socialist state to take hold. The Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, author of “The Mass Psychology of Fascism”, had it almost right when he said that political revolution is impossible without sexual revolution. By “sexual” Reich didn’t mean feminism so much as the capacity for uninhibited orgasm. I read this claim more generally: let’s say that that a “psychological” revolution is a precondition of successful political revolution. After all, you can revolutionize governmental institutions all you like, but this won’t necessarily change people. If anyone’s interested, see the website for the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood: www.humancondition.info. (I’ll preemptively head of complaints that Reich was a crank. In some ways he was, i.e. was locked up by the FDA for promoting a quack cancer cure, but that doesn’t invalidate his more basic insights). I also can’t agree that what goes for Russia and China likewise holds for “every country” that had a socialist revolution. Cuba is a case in point here. I admit that it’s hard to get a clear picture in this case because of the amount of propaganda on both sides. There probably have been human rights abuses in Cuba (they won’t let Amnesty or the Red Cross in to check), but there is also free universal health care and education. And I don’t think that the US or Australia can now claim the moral high ground on human rights as easily as we once might have. The governments of both countries are, for instance, currently trying to legitimate the use of torture. Moreover, Cuba has held on and not "failed" despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and concerted attempts by the American government to undermine the Castro regime (as with every other left wing regime in Central and South America).

What you say about having to defend yourself from charges of anti-patriotism because you vote Democrat; well, exactly the same thing is happening here. The current Australian Government, led by Bush’s number one fan Prime Minister John Howard, uses the same divisive tactics: you’re either with us or against us; if you oppose us you’re “un-Australian”, whatever the f&%# that means (it’s an even emptier term than “un-American”, believe me). The elites have always used nationalism to manipulate popular sentiment, happily sending other peoples’ sons to fight their dirty wars. But I think that a lot of the population sees through all this, including you Mr. D. In my view, the fact that you don’t see things the same way as the Republicans doesn’t make your way of seeing unusual – far from it. This is borne out by the Democrat success in the recent US elections (by the way, well done America!). The Republicans and their ilk often appear more numerous than they really are because they are the most vociferous and self-righteous. Their having a controlling interest in the major media networks obviously doesn’t hurt either. What’s unusual about you, from what you say Mr. D, is that you’re obviously prepared to stick to your principles in the face of opposition.

The problem is that many people are scared, whether by the “war on terror” (old people, Christian fundamentalists and Fox News viewers at any rate), or, in this country at least, by the threat of rising interest rates. The Howard government has turned the Australian economy around in the past ten or so years, from being predominantly a saving economy to being a credit economy. Yes, we’ve become measurably more “affluent” (“effluent” is probably a more appropriate term), but once you’ve got the majority of people up to their necks in debt, you’ve also got them by the balls. Otherwise sane people I know talk endlessly about interest rates and property prices, and if you believe the television here, everyone now has a share portfolio, financial adviser (dietician, personal trainer, therapist, etc.). One of the biggest neo-con-jobs in recent years has been for the free market zealots to convince middle and even a significant portion of the working classes that they somehow have a stake in this fiscal “free”-for-all, all the while convincing us that they are ones best placed to run the economy. In some ways they’re right: they, or the interests they most closely represent, are the economy! But that should make us more suspicious still, for these are the crooks that consistently rewrite the rules to suit themselves: tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, privatization, etc.

I do agree that we should be suspicious of “isms”, which too often substitute for real thought. I’m a firm believer in the enlightenment maxim Sapere aude: “Have the courage to use your own Reason”.

No doubt the wrangling over the virtues and vices of Marxism could continue indefinitely. Perhaps we could move the discussion on to Ligotti specifically and horror writing in general. I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the politics of horror. Here’s a start: I think that on the surface, Ligotti’s self-professed nihilism looks either apolitical or reactionary (stances that amount to much the same thing, a kind of “aristocratic pessimism” ala Schopenhauer). However, I think that Ligotti’s nihilism conceals a certain kind of humanism. While this claim may look paradoxical at first glance, let’s not forget the distinction made by Nietzsche between positive and negative nihilism. Perhaps it is that Ligotti’s work can be seen as providing a critique but not a rejection of enlightenment humanism. Anyone else? (Interestingly, Lovecraft turned from aristocratic conservatism to socialism in his later years, seeing the two as “mirror images of the same thing”. See S.T. Joshi’s article at www.necropress.com/stjoshi/ for this quote and other details on Lovecraft’s politics).

Finally, in answer to Darrick, I have indeed considered the point you make in regards to classifying Ligotti’s corporate horror tales as sci-fi. I’m resistant to do so myself for a number of reasons. Although Ligotti does describe “Supervisor” as an “extrapolation” of contemporary working life, which suggests a speculative and therefore sci-fi cast to the story, I think the story is better interpreted as a weird tale.
The corporate horror stories portray a society seemingly stuck in a now quaint Fordist model of industry, as though post-Fordism never happened. Unlike sci-fi, weird fiction tends to be “backward facing” in the sense that it locates the source of its terrors in the antediluvian past. Indeed, the apparently bestial nature of the Temporary Supervisor suggests the primal rather than technological. Consequently, I think there are better ways of conceptualizing Ligotti’s corporate horror stories than as sci-fi. Admittedly, the boundaries between these genres are somewhat blurred, i.e., is Lovecraft’s “The Colour Out of Space” sci-fi or weird? Sci-fi can in any case be considered as a sub-genre of fantasy. But classifying “Supervisor” as weird means, I feel, that its political implications are more disturbing than they migh be otherwise. (One point of clarification: the Marxists don’t invalidate fantasy because of its potential political uses. Rather, they deny that fantasy can be political – it serves to lull rather than rouse - which is why they oppose it).
I'm on my third glass of wine and really just ranting again, so 'till next time....

[Mr. D.]

Dear skeptic,
You've gotten me re-reading Marx. I am sorry that the your government has given in to the temptation of the credit economy just as our own government has done. Capitolism is another ism with millions of deaths to its credit. My grandfather wasn't in this country 6 months when he dug his best friend's body out of a collapsed coal mine near Scranton, PA. The new global economy is frightening. Growth is not necessarily a bad thing, but this New Economics has the growth pathology of a form of cancer. (And we're the patient!)
I once read a biography of Marx by Robert Payne. I remember him quoting Marx from one of his newspaper articles as saying, "When our turn comes, we shall not disguise our terrorism," and that stuck with me. I know that at least two of his children died of starvation because he wouldn't give up his work. It is things like this that make me question his judgement. I may be wrong and I'll soon be much more familiar with his work, but I also wonder if his questionable priorities don't invalidate his writings.
He got his revolution. It wasn't where he wanted it but it occurred in the most likely place. A highly organized state is not likely to secumb to revolution (and he should have realized this) but a vast, inneffecient country run as a privae club for a couple hundred families didn't have much of to counter this kind of thing. The worse thing that you can say about the revolution is that the Russians were better off with the Romanovs.
I'll read some more of Marx and I'll keep an open mind. I've changed opinions before. Education is a life long adventure.
I appreciate you're challenging me. I'm sorry that I won't be in Austalia to attend. I won't get any time off for months, but thanks for the invite. Talk to you soon.
Mr. D.

[unknown]

Quote Originally Posted by matt cardin";p=&quot

What a fascinating conversation. What a fascinating-sounding paper. I can hardly wait until you post it here for our enjoyment and edification, skeptic.

I was reading the thread and thinking to myself, "Wow. I think him and Matt Cardin would get along just fine. They should have a word or two."

and then I got to matt's post