With an Ivy League education, and years of association with some of the brightest people in Washington, D.C., Tim Geithner is still unable to think of any alternative to what happened in 2008. He missed one of the lessons of It’s A Wonderful Life, which is that people’s money/labor is theirs, and that the bank is a place where collective wealth exists, and can be used for collective good. In other words, the achievement of the James Stewart character in the film is to show the viewer how to live without banks and bankers, whose interests have little to do with Bedford Falls. Geithner has convinced himself, in a grand gesture of rationalization, that no alternative existed, and still does not.
It’s like the power grid. You have to make sure the lights stay on, because if the lights go out, then you face the damage like what you saw in the Great Depression or It’s a Wonderful Life. More people lose their jobs, more people lose their businesses, lose their homes, their savings, and they’re devastated. There is not way to avoid those outcomes or protect people against those outcomes, unless you keep the lights on. That requires doing things that are terribly unfair and look deeply offensive. It looks like you are rewarding the arsonist or protecting people from their mistakes, but there is no alternative.
— Geithner in The Wall Street Journal‘s Money Issue (June 2014)
Slavoj Žižek indicates the same problem is at work with Thomas Piketty’s new book on capitalism. The capitalists don’t know how to do without capitalism. They are incapable of Hegelian negation. “[Piketty] accepts, as a good Keynesian, that capitalism is ultimately the only game in town; all alternatives ended up in fiasco, so we have to keep it.”
What’s worse about Geithner is that he knew what he did looked “like the opposite of what makes sense.” It’s a Wonderful Life, on a most superficial reading, shows neighbors rescuing a neighbor, friends helping friends, townspeople pulling together for a person in trouble. Those are alternatives that do not make sense to readers of The Wall Street Journal and to Tim Geithner. They cannot leave important financial decisions up to common people who cannot comprehend why anyone would say it’s utterly plausible to do what is “terribly unfair.”
A friend of mine has been working on a blog worth viewing, for he has been thinking a great deal about what has been happening to public education. He is in the belly of the beast as an administrator. I do not envy his resulting nightmares. David is a sharp chap, as you will see by browsing his blog. He is a philosopher in a good sense. He is not simply complaining about the careerist bureaucrats, short-sighted politicians, trustees who cannot be trusted,and regents on governing boards of universities who are sometimes like this regent played by Hugh Laurie. David presents alternatives and insights while being entertaining. His blog has been added to the list of recommended sites.
Hugh Laurie as Prince Regent
The moderator seethes sometime before the 45:00 mark, and would have untucked her shirt threateningly at that moment had it not already been so — that’s how upset she becomes, to the point that she does not want to turn over the microphone to the lawyer/columnist/philosopher who shocks part of the assembly. Notice her body language in relation to Romano after the 48:00 minute mark. Before the 4:00 mark, we have an excellent shot of the footwear of many of the participants and audience members, likely a subtle homage to the mentioning of the barefoot stroll that Socrates and Phaedrus take in a certain Platonic dialogue.
Perhaps one or two outsiders to the event recorded in the video would have some questions. An outsider might wonder how this session that demonstrates almost everything but “progress in philosophy” came into being. Did the organizers not know about Carlin Romano? Had they failed to read his articles? Maybe the organizers imagined that Romano’s hostility toward Heidegger made him igitur a friend of analytic philosophy. The other question: Why would Jason Stanley have posted the video of the event allegedly designed to deal with the juxtaposition of progress and philosophy? Now, it is possible that someone using Professor Stanley’s name posted the video, but given the way the event is recorded (repeated camera movements designed to capture Stanley’s reactions to Romano’s planned provocations), it looks as if the person recording the session is pro-Stanley, wants to give Stanley more air time, including a wide shot near the end that captures Stanley apparently urging the crowd to confront Romano. Had the video started with Romano’s taunts, Stanley and his supporters might have come across on the video as abused academics expressing some not-so-veiled, but arguably justifiable, anger at Romano. Unfortunately, Stanley’s pacing performance at the beginning of the video, littered with self-interruptions and more “you know’s” than Caroline Kennedy, reinforces Romano’s claim later in the video about a general lack of communicative skill among Anglophone analytic philosophers.
For some reason, the video ends when it appears that passionate engagement is headed toward an apex. At least part of the crowd is just beginning to work itself up into a frenzy, with any thought of Hamlet’s comment to Horatio far from any participant’s mind.
Philosophical Progress and Intellectual Culture from Jason Stanley on Vimeo.
Untitled, 30 November 2010, No. 1, created on an Ipad - ©David Hockney
Errol Morris and David Hockney are revising perception. This month, Morris publishes his book Believing is Seeing, a study of the ways viewers interact with photography and make truth-claims based on what they see in photographs. Hockney is using a series of cameras to demonstrate to viewers that they can see more of the everyday world. He wants people to consider the question: “What can nine cameras do that one can’t?” Someone could take both Morris and Hockney’s projects as nothing more than acts reinforcing relativism. That would seem to be an impoverished view of two people trying to think carefully about how we see, and how little we see when we insist that we are seeing.
Read Roger Ebert’s review of the documentary.
The New Statesman offers up some quotations from a review by Slavoj Zizek of Peter Hallward’s Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment. One seems pertinent juxtaposed to the statements by Pat Robertson in the video.
Haiti was an exception from the very beginning, from its revolutionary fight against slavery, which ended in independence in January 1804. “Only in Haiti,” Hallward notes, “was the declaration of human freedom universally consistent. Only in Haiti was this declaration sustained at all costs, in direct opposition to the social order and economic logic of the day”… Denounced by Talleyrand as “a horrible spectacle for all white nations”, the “mere existence of an independent Haiti” was itself an intolerable threat to the slave-owning status quo. Haiti thus had to be made an exemplary case of economic failure, to dissuade other countries from taking the same path.