Update and Projects

I haven’t been posting frequently because I had been immersed in a number of projects, moves, and new jobs with new classes to prep. Most of this had abated by the start of the summer spent without internet access getting immersed in a number of new projects.

For those of you keeping score at home. Here are a number of projects that came to fruition over the past year or so:

The SAGE Handbook of Frankfurt School Critical Theory

My article on Adorno and the Critical Theory of the Negative Totality of contemporary society

My introduction to and co-translation of Adorno’s 1962 seminar on Marx

My article on Bonefeld’s Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy

My article on Lefebvre’s notion of fetishistic concrete abstraction

My co-authored article that uses the new spirit of capitalism to critique the artisan economy.

I also have articles on Lefebvre and Critical Theory, Negative Totality, and Real Abstraction that will be forthcoming at some point.

At the moment I am working on an article considering the importance of Postone’s interpretation of Capital for the new reading of the critique of political economy as a critical social theory. I will finish that by the end of the month and then turn to revising an article on reification, crisis and regression that argues the interpretation of reification developed by the aforementioned new reading provides a better basis for the critical theory of contemporary society than the interpretation of reification developed by Habermas and extended by Honneth. Then I will co-write an intervention on the gig economy, before turning to write an article on the Marxian Critical theory of the state and law for the Elgar Handbook of Marxism and Law.

Much of this material will also find its way into the book  — Fetishism, Social Domination and the Critical Theory of Society — I am also working on. It develops and expands on my thesis by drawing on the aforementioned work to critically map the development of how fetishism was utilized in Marx’s, Lukacs’s, Horkheimer’s, Adorno, the development of the NML by Schmidt, Backhaus, and Reichelt, Postone’s and Bonefeld’s theory of social domination. It will ultimately argue that New Reading of the critique of political economy as a critical theory of society provides the best approach to the critique of contemporary society, but that the work of Horkheimer, Adorno and others should be integrated with it to develop a New Reading of the Critical Theory of Society.

I am also working on an introduction to the reprint of Intellectual and Manual Labor with Frank Engster. The reprint will also include prefaces by Chris Arthur and Antonio Negri.

Happy to say that my new schedule etc. is giving me time to get stuck into these things in a way that hasn’t been possible since writing my thesis. Hopefully this will continue and that more posts will come out of it.

Finally, I am on the job market.  If you happen to have a job to spare that is within easy commuting distance of the greater New York City metropolitan area do give it to us.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Postone’s Necessity, Labor and Time

Not to go full hipster but I do prefer Postone’s 1978 article Necessity, Labor and Time to Time, Labor and Social Domination. Currently working on an article that reads the two of them together. Check it out for yourself in the meantime.

 

Postone – Necessity, Labor, and Time(1)

Posted in valueformtheory | Tagged | 1 Comment

Critical Theory in the Time of Trump

Monster new issue of Logos features articles by Werner Bonefeld, Samir Gandesha, John Abromeit, myself and others on Critical Theory Right-Wing Populism, and Trump

Posted in critical theory | Leave a comment

Alfred Schmidt, The Idea of Critical Theory

Thanks to Riccardo Bellofiore for pointing this one out: bookscancenter-4

Posted in critical theory | Tagged | Leave a comment

Critical Theory and Trump

There have been many hot takes in the aftermath of Trump’s election. Although I reckon many people are overdoing it historical parallels when it would be more helpful to admit one of the most terrifying things about all of this is that we have no fucking idea what will happen,  I reckon the following recent work in critical theory is quite useful in getting to grips with what happened and with what might lie ahead.

G.M. Tamas’s notion of Post-Fascism:

What is Post-Fascism?

Once More on Post-Fascism

Critical-Theoretical notions of Authoritarianism:

Peter Gordon, The Authoritarian Personality Revisited: Reading Adorno in the Age of Trump.

John Abromeit, Critical Theory and the Persistence of Right Wing Populism

Critical-Theoretical notions of Personalisation and Abjectification:

Werner Bonefeld, Anti-Capitalism and the Elements of Antisemitism: On Theology and Real Abstractions (Chapter 9 in Critical Theory and the Critique of Political Economy)

That being said I haven’t come across anything that addresses Trump and Trumpisms rampant misogyny from a critical-theoretical perspective.

 

 

Posted in critical theory | 2 Comments

HM LDN 2016

I’ll be presented and chairing several of the panels on Marxy critical theory and value theory type stuff at this year’s HM LDN. Find the the details here and lemmie know if your going to make it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Adorn on Totality

A striking passages that cuts against charges of Adorno’s totalizing theory whilst also suggesting ways an Adornian might enter the many numerous debates on subsumption, logical derivation, dual systems theory etc.:

One may even cherish as few illusions as I do about its gravitation towards total forms and about the decline of the individual, but the differences between a pre‑ and post‑individual society are still decisive. In the democratically governed countries of industrial societies, totality is a category of mediation, not one of immediate domination and subjugation. This implies that in industrial market societies by no means everything pertaining to society can simply be deduced from its principle. Such societies contain within themselves countless non‑capitalist enclaves. At issue here is whether, in order to perpetuate itself under the present relations of production, it necessarily needs such enclaves as that of the family. Their specific irrationality compliments, as it were, that of the structure as a whole. Societal totality does not lead a life of its own over and above that which it unites and of which it, in its turn, is composed. It produces and reproduces itself through its individual moments. Many of these moments preserve a relative independence which primitive‑total societies either do not know or do not tolerate. This totality can no more be detached from life, from the co‑operation and the antagonism of its elements than can an element be understood merely as it functions without insight into the whole which has its source [Wesen] in the motion of the individual himself. System and individual entity are reciprocal and can only be apprehended in their reciprocity. Even those enclaves, survivals from previous societies, the favourites of a sociology which desires to unburden itself of the concept of society—as it might of an all too spectacular philosopheme—become what they are only in relation to the dominant totality from which they deviate. This is presumably under estimated in the present most popular sociological conception, that of middle-range theory. Positivism Dispute –107

Posted in Adorno | Tagged | Leave a comment