I mentioned in my introductory post something about if it was a perfect world, I would have my philosophy MA completed by now.
Well, as things have gone, the ‘problems’ with my treatment of Marx had been slowly whittled down to a handful that I received a couple of days ago. Most of them weren’t too troublesome, a bit here a bit there, but there was one that I was dreading:
27d Depending on how you treat history above, I'd emend 'Marx's ontology' to 'Marx's historical ontology' or 'Marx's historical materialist ontology'. Consider also the quote you give from Marx on real history at 28b. Note also Marx's quote at 29d on 'really existing active men' (that is, historically specific). FINALLY at 30a you give history a role but this is not consistent with the earlier claims. So make this consistent by bringing history into the picture earlier, as suggested above throughout.
So after dealing with the other problems, I was left with this one, and that meant the situation had come to a head, it was me vs. Marx, mano e mano.
You see, from the very beginning when I set out to do this degree, my intention was ‘to get a few ideas down on paper and leave with a degree in the process,’ and, true to my rather grandiose conceptions of my own abilities at the time given that I felt that I had already read ‘extensively’ in philosophy, entered the philosophy MA ring with a self-aggrandizing swagger.
Whilst there, amongst other things, I sat in a course on Marx. Unfortunately, my various ways coupled with what I saw as my father’s incessant attempts to ‘convert’ me to Marxist-Leninism beginning at a very young age (when really the only thing that I knew was that I WANT TO MAKE MY OWN MIND UP THANK YOU!) by bringing me to meetings which I didn’t at all care for, and associating me with people who were nice but whose ideas on Marx and ‘the coming revolution’ I didn’t want to hear, had made me rather cynical towards Marx and his ideas. Moreover, I had taken a course in undergrad on ‘Kant to Nietzsche’ so I already knew about Feuerbach as the ‘missing link’ between Hegel and Marx, and these other bits of trivia that I could use to impress my friends. The other problem was that my long-developed affinity with Schopenhauer, and my willingness to side with him on most issues meant my attitude toward Hegel was basically Schopenhauer’s attitude toward Hegel, e.g: “Hegel?? Pffft. What a charlatan. What a joke. People only say he’s profound because no one can make sense of all the gibberish that makes up his philosophy. Dialecticism? Gimme a break. Who cares?”
And so throughout most of the class, when fundamental concepts and implications were discussed, I didn’t really process anything, e.g. “Negation of the negation? Pfffft. ANYONE with half a brain knows that not-not-P = P. Let’s skip the obvious and get to the good stuff, like the interpretations of these other guys, this guy [Antonio] Negri, let’s just skip to him.” And yes, the individual who taught this course is the same individual who was on my panel for my original submission (though it was the other individual who demanded a re-submission for various other somewhat outlandish reasons, the individual in question simply demanded ‘fairly substantial revisions’), and he was also on my panel for my second submission where he again asked for revisions (though ‘less substantial), whilst the other one (who had been changed from the original one who asked for the resubmission) maintained that ‘no revisions were required’ (of course, that meant me saying 'the other person didn't ask for revisions: WHY OH WHY DOES THIS GUY HAVE TO BE SO PARTICULAR!!'), and to 'make matters worse' he had been given the task of seeing me over the finish line after necessity meant I had to change supervisors, so now he really was the sole 'Guardian of the Gate'.
And so throughout the entire time I admittedly railed against this individual inwardly, as misunderstanding me and not taking my approach seriously and being stuck in his ways and putting Marx on a pedestal, when, I thought, from an objective point of view, Marx is ‘just another philosopher’. And while I railed him, I railed against myself for choosing such a ‘difficult’ topic. If only I hadn’t been so cocky at the outset, to prove that I knew everything by taking on each of the two faculty members who did political philosophy ‘in their own backyard’ by including the two theorists, the one Marx, and the other Arendt, that each was most interested in. Surely if I had just settled for making the same argument with regard to Machiavelli and Rousseau, I would have been done long ago!
Anyway, because of the manner in which this ‘cocky aversion’ meant that I skipped over the fundaments of Marx as ‘elementary’ (though in actual fact, it turned out that I didn’t really have a clue), throughout all my numerous thesis attempts, revisions, and submissions, I had avoided the issue, ‘hmmm… history and dialectic… yeah it’s important… I sort of get how… I know I’ll eventually have to put it in here somewhere for ‘completeness’… guess I can fudge it by putting in what I know, adding a few quotes here and there, and saying ‘the approach I’ve taken means I don’t have to go into detail, so you better be satisfied with that.’
And maybe I could have succeeded if I had kept on this path as before. But finally I thought “alright… I’ve come this far… throughout this whole thesis process, I’ve learned that the Marx I thought I knew wasn’t even a shadow of the real Marx, that the real Marx was a pretty amazing guy who had some pretty amazing ideas, many of which I now think are pretty correct. I’ve taken care of everything else (I hope!) and included in that I just added almost a page and a half on the division of labour in about 30 minutes as part of my revisions, so why not give it a chance. How hard can it be?”
So I started with what I knew (or, at least, what I had come to understand by being forced back to Marx over and over again after I finally gave into the realization that I couldn’t fake it): the history part was easy enough, justifying its importance, discussing social relations, the socio-historical context of the individual, the development of the individual as a reciprocal relationship with society, etc. A lot of it was already there from previous revisions, so it wasn’t overly difficult. So that was done.
But dialectic? “Hmmm. I’ve really said nothing so far, so I really have nothing to add to. Gonna have to start from the beginning, or, at least, from the few tidbits I’ve scattered around to make it look like I know what I’m talking about. Alright, take a deep breath... Here goes nothin...
"Hmmm... Let's start with this quote that I had here before, about Feuerbach’s development of the ‘negation of the negation’. I originally put it in the history part, but I'm pretty sure it should be down here with the dialectic part... So let's go with that... Hmmm… still don’t see what’s so important about it. Marx was no logician that’s for sure, so there must be more to it than that. Hmmm, let’s check the index to my Marx-Engels Reader (which has basically been my bible every time I’ve had to re-visit this chapter) for some other mentions. Hmmm… these page numbers… all from the Economic and Philosophic Fragments… surely I’ve looked at all these already, but anyway, let’s try this one about its relationship to communism itself… Let’s see... Hmmm...
‘If we characterize communism itself because of its character as the negation of the negation, as the appropriation of the human essence which mediates itself with itself through the negation of private property—as being not yet the true, self-originating position but rather a position originating from private property, […]’
Wait. Why does it end so abruptly? What’s this ellipsis here about? Shit. The footnote says that the sentence is ‘impossible to restore’ because in the original manuscript too much of the page was torn off. Heh heh… that reminds me of Dead Souls… poor Gogol… what a crazy mofo he was… haha… But yeah, anyway… now let me guess, this is the ONE place where this is the case. Just my luck since this seems like it’s telling me something pretty important, I just can’t put my finger on it. Hmmm… communism… negation of negation…. ‘true’ position?? Hmmm… let me read this again… hmmm… true position… huh… communism… TRUE position… why? True?? True in what sense…??
Hey, wait a second! Is that it?? Is THAT what the negation of the negation means?? Nooo! Is THAT what dialecticism is?? Wow! That’s pretty cool, actually… Especially the way it all fits together. Hmmm… I can’t be sure, but it seems to fit. Hmmm… let’s try it out… Well it makes sense with Marx’s attitude towards Hegel… the whole idealism vs. reality thing… hmmm… is that REALLY it?? Is it really THAT simple?? So Marx wasn’t just another self-absorbed egomaniac when he talked about his own system bringing about ‘an end to history’?… And I guess I have to admit that maybe Hegel wasn't such an idiot after all (though that self-realization of Spirit stuff is still pretty ludicrous). And yeah it fits nicely with this other quote about history being ‘man’s act of coming-to-be’… Hmmm… it seems to fit with everything… so let’s try that…
[40 minutes and a page and a half later]
Huh… that looks pretty good I would say. Yeah… that really wasn’t so hard… It’s like the Red Sea just parted in front of me and showed me the way… Of course, I could be totally off, but it seems to fit with everything… Guess I’ll email it off tomorrow and see what the ol’ supervisor thinks… And yeah, if that works, I guess it means I’m done… Wow… Done… That’d be great… A ‘great weight’ lifted off of my shoulders; guess I’ll finally be able to ‘get on with my life’ (*snicker*)… And in the end a hundred pages of text exactly… Wow… Not bad… And, yeah, I guess if I had been able to swallow my pride a year ago and had not blamed the fact that I didn’t choose an ‘easier’ topic, and not blamed everyone for ‘misunderstanding’ me and going on and on about how it was ‘my thesis’ and about how ‘people’ (i.e. the individual in question) tried to force me to do it their way even though it was intended as a ‘novel interpretation’ of Marx and maybe I interpreted Marx differently than him, and blah blah blah… yeah, maybe if that all hadn’t happened I would have been done long ago.”
…but then on the other hand, if that was the case, first of all I DEFINITELY wouldn't have been able to develop such an intimate understanding of how deep and profound Marx's ideas really are (whether one agrees with them or not) by being forced to constantly scratch around in his works in order to basically rebuild his complete train of thought (because I was too stubborn to ask anyone else for any help or clarification).
But more importantly, I probably wouldn’t have been in a position to treat this thesis as a sort of ‘side-project’ the whole time while I visited 13 different countries over the 16-odd months between when I first submitted and now. And I probably wouldn’t be in Cape Town now having just spent 3+ months in India, Mozambique, and Swaziland after I arrived in Cape Town in July ready to begin and was told that I couldn’t register because I hadn’t finished my MA and couldn’t be in two programs at once. And since returning having everything go so well, enjoying life in Cape Town with my math MSc off to a ‘flyer’, trying my hand at Afrikaans, Swahili, and improving my Portuguese by joining the Mozambican student club, taking an interest in South African politics here and there, signing myself up to get involved in all sorts of writing projects at the university and in the community because I now honestly believe I’ve learned a lot, not only about political theory or about the world around me, but much more importantly, about myself. (And, admittedly, maybe this whole process has forced me to become a tad more humble... perish the thought...)
And, of course, the main reason why the whole process 'on the other side of it' (read: travel and all its benefits) has been such an absolute treat is because of the wonderfully amazing people I’ve met and gotten to know during the period. They have not only been the main reason why I’ve had such an enjoyable time thus far, but have also got me itching to take advantage of the countless possibilities and opportunities that they’ve opened up to and/or offered me. (You know who you are!)
So yeah, it stands to reason that I wouldn’t have all that. I suppose it’s possible I could have had something better by now (like another degree completed by now in place of all that?? Puh-lease!!), but I kinda doubt it.
So thanks Peter. Sure, the role you played in all of this may have been quite small, and I’m quite sure you knew of almost none of it, but at the end of the day I can say with a fair amount of surety that if you had just shrugged your shoulders and given me a free pass when I wanted it most instead of forcing me to put my head down and actually sweat it out, things might not be quite so rosy. And so despite all the stress and frustrations and endless lamentations I was made to endure over the past 16 months since my bubble was burst upon receiving the results of my first submission (what? they didn’t fall out of their chairs at how brilliant it was?? can this be true??? it wasn’t even ‘accepted with revisions’, I have to RE-SUBMIT ENTIRELY????), despite all of the insults and curses I hurled at you at those times when my sanity was seemingly stretched to its limit, and the completion of this thesis seemed to grow to the proportions of the Tower of Babel… despite all the times when, upon seeing that my latest revisions weren’t sufficient I turned around and said to anyone who would listen “damn this guy is so bloody unfair, just let it go already!! Just say yes!! It’s not like it’s being nominated for a Nobel Prize or being released as a best-seller, IT’S JUST ANOTHER BLOODY MASTERS THESIS!!” Yeah, despite all that, at the end of the day, I have to admit…
I owe you one.
No comments:
Post a Comment