Incandescence
If you've nothing nice to say, come sit with me.
Epic Novelist
Gender: 
Age: 19
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 3021
Reviews: 901
Country: USA
413 Points
|
 Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: Short Circuits (I): Ethics (and Politics) [6000 Points] |
 |
|
Abstract Deadline: 24 May 2006.
Paper Deadline: 24 June 2006
Competition Foreward
A short circuit occurs when there is a faulty connection in the network -- faulty, of course, from the standpoint of the network's smooth functioning. Is not the shock of short-circuiting, therefore, one of the best metaphors for a critical reading? Is not one of the most effective critical procedures to cross wires that do not usually touch: to take a major classic (text, author, notion, historical event), and read it in a short-circuiting way, through the lens of a "minor" author, text, or conceptual apparatus ("minor" should be understood here in Deleuze's sense: not "of lesser quality," but marginalized, disavowed by the hegemonic ideology, or dealing with a "lower," less dignified topic)? If the minor reference is well chosen, such a procedure can lead to insights which completely shatter and undermine our common perceptions. This is what Marx, among others, did with philosophy and religion (short-circuiting philosophical speculation through the lens of political economy, that is to say, economic speculation); this is what Freud and Nietzsche did with morality (short-circuiting the highest ethical notions through the lens of the unconscious libidinal economy). What such a reading achieves is not a simple "desublimation," a reduction of the higher intellectual content to its lower economic or libidinal cause; the aim of such an approach is, rather, the inherent decentering of the interpreted text which brings to light its "unthought," its disavowed presupposition and consequences.
And this is what "Short Circuits" -- an ongoing competition amongst YWSers to reach new intellectual heights, and what we can come to understand as a "series" of developments in thought -- wants to do, again and again. The underlying premise of the series is that individual backgrounds, philosophical inquiry and research into the topic are the privileged instruments in such an approach, whose purpose is to illuminate a standard text or ideological formation, making it readable in a totally new way. French psychologist Jacques Lacan is the centerpiece for all of the sponsor's intellectual engagements, and the long history of Lacanian interventions in philosophy, religion, the arts (from visual arts to the cinema, music and literature), ideology and politics justifies this engagement. This, then, is not a series of competitions which focus on psychoanalysis or privileges any one philosophical mode of questioning, but a series of "connections to the Freudian field" -- of short ______ interventions in art, philosophy, theology and ideology.
"Short Circuits" intends to revive a practice of reading which confronts a classical text, author or notion with its own hidden presuppositions, and thus reveals its disavowed truth. The basic criterion for the texts that will be selected is that they effectuate such a theoretical short circuit. After reading an essay in this series, the reader should not simply have learned something new: the point is, rather, to make him or her aware of another -- disturbing -- side of something he or she knew all along.
Competition I: Ethics (and Politics)
The present competition seeks out papers that re-evaluate our critical perceptions of Ethics and Politics and, in particular, (Non-)Ethical Politics and (Non-)Political Ethics. Your discussion of these topics could possibly include:
*Hollywood Ethics/Politics: there is a long-standing tradition in cinema history for social commentary (this is, incidentally, the reason Theater was banned for nearly 800 years), and, as such, we should turn our attention to these details. A general criticism here is that cinema is not "real," it bears no semblance to "reality" and the characters and depictions in cinema do not have to obey the laws of the world, but this misses the point! The point is, rather, precisely that Hollywood bears no semblance to reality, and thus is a structural narrative for society's unconscious.
*Religious Ethics/Politics: the Bible is a wonderful place to turn for interpreting ethical/political decisions. Consider the story of Abraham who was ordered by God to kill his son. Abraham's temptation was, please note, the ethical. Other papers could focus on the Judas-Jesus relationship -- who is the truly ethical hero of the Bible? Jesus, who knew once he died he would be reunited with his father for all eternity, or Judas, who gave up not only his temporal life but also chose to suffer eternal damnation? And furthermore, at the last supper, is there not a secret injunction given to Judas by Jesus that he would be the one to betray Jesus? Christianity and Buddhism are given preference to other religions because they are structured into the global hegemonic ideology today.
*Philosophical Ethics/Politics: the question of ethics and politics has long tormented philosophers and literary theorists. You are welcome to take up any side you choose: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Voltaire, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Althusser, Hyppolite, Kojeve, Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Butler, Baudrillard, Virilio, Deleuze, Guattari, Zizek, Zupancic, Dolar, Badiou and on and on and on. Don't recognize any of them? Find someone! Shakespeare was a philosopher -- everyone is a philosopher. Point-in-case: find your philosophical grounding (it could be yourself) and work from there.
*Historical Ethics/Politics: this is another broad, generalized topic. Special preference will be given to papers dealing with 20th century politics, and, namely, Leninist-Stalinist ethics/politics, Hitler's Fascism, and the rise of Capitalism. Yes, there are other ideologies available to us, but please limit yourself to Stalinism, Nazism, and Capitalism, and in particular the inter-relations and overlapping thereof.
A brief caveat: this list is neither inclusive nor exhaustive, and, as such, you are ultimately free to do whatever you feel will give you the best shot at winning. The abstracts should be 250-500 words; papers should be at a minimum of 1500 words. Papers may exceed that number to an infinite degree, but none should fall short of it. If you find you are unable to think of anything, or if your paper is not long enough, I am more than willing to offer my assistance. In general, if you need help with anything, I am here to help guide you. This competition - true, is looking for substantial analyses of our society; however - is designed to help you become more aware of the underlying thoughts and actions that guide us daily. If there is a precise goal here (and note that it is manifold), it is largely to institute a new wave of paranoia in readers and thinkers: for you to realize there are unconscious drives and desires at work everywhere and in all things.
Concluding Remarks
You may have noted the "(I)" in the title of this topic. This is because there will be three more, each dealing with a different subject. The general outline is the following:
I. Ethics (and Politics) [6000 Points]
II. Evil [7000 Points]
III. Love [5000 Points]
IV. Ideology [8000 Points]
There will be a first prize -- the amount noted in the topic -- and various subsidiary awards given to those essays deemed particularly scholarly but not up to par with the first place. No one will win first-place twice, while it is encouraged that everyone submit to every topic, there will be unique winners for each category. However, should you submit to two essays and both essays receive top prize, you will be notified that you need to select which essay you wish to formally "win." All essays will be held confidential until the end of the competition; however, if you personally wish to enlist the help and services of fellow YWSers, that is your decision. It is only that the judges for this competition will not be allowed to disclose information about others' topics nor submit to a topic their own essays. If you are interested in being a judge, please Private Message me. Three judges (myself included) is preferable.
With that said, have fun, learn some things, and good luck! |
_________________
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." -Hal Abelson
Last edited by Incandescence on Sun May 07, 2006 4:05 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
