Long Sunday

Locke and Natural Law?

How is one to make sense of John Locke's political philosophy today? Although Locke's politics are widely understood to be the very beginnings of political liberalism, I wonder what is generally understood about his thought. To be perfectly honest, I understand little myself. But I thought it would be beneficial to ask tonight: what is Locke's philosophy of the state of nature, and, what does Locke say about slavery or 'the Indians'?  These are questions that I have only begun to ask and answer. (In other words, these are questions that begin with the basic inquiry regarding which particular exclusions make Locke's thought possible at all; - that is, what thought or existences is he arguing against?). I still wonder if it is important to understand Locke at all, and what can be gained by a close reading of his work?

In any case, I found the following remarks to be perfectly put, precisely in regards to both the question of "Indians," as well as that of the state of nature. In the Second Treaties of Government Locke writes:

I doubt not but this will seem a very strange Doctrine to some Men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by what Right any Prince or State can put to death, or punish an Alien, for any Crime he commits in their Country. 'Tis certain their Laws by vertue of  any Sanction they receive from the promulgated Will of the Legislative, reach not a Stranger. They speak not to him, nor if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The Legislative Authority, by which they are in Force over the Subjects of that Common-wealth, hath no Power over him. Those who have the Supream Power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the World, Men without Authority: And therefore if by the Law of Nature, every Man hath not a Power to punish Offences against it, as Magistrates of any Community, can punish an Alien of another Country, since in reference to him, they can have no more Power, then what every Man naturally may have over another (Cambridge U. Press, 1960, 313).

It seems to me that Locke is arguing against the logical possibility of international (or even natural) law in this passage? Does this suggest that sovereignty is always (something like) national and local in Locke's view? Does this characteristic have important implications or consequences?

'Derrida may be a little too opaque for our crowd...'

Have people seen this?

"I'm not there"

Nice poster for the surreal TTRH (via).

hear, (hear).

Byron's Corpse

I'm writing part of my dissertation on Byron's funeral, and the struggle over control of his meaning not only between his early biographers but also in the way Byron was buried.  My hope is that this story will give insight on how Byron is represented in J.M. Coetzee's novel Disgrace which, I argue, deals not only with Byron's ghost but with a liberal arts professor who mourns for Byron and the loss of the liberal arts system he comes to represent after his death.  Byron, literariness, and the humanities all become remnants of an imperial system whose fantasies are threatened by the postcolonial landscape of South Africa and the corporate 'realities' of the University.

Remembering Byron means remembering his cosmopolitanism as part of his aristocratic character, and merging his liberal political inclinations with his priviledge.  Byron's example, I argue, inspires both political liberalism and elitism, and the combination of the two becomes a central part of what emerges in the latter portion of the 19th century as liberal arts education--gentlemanly tourism or the study abroad system being an essential part of what makes the well-rounded intellectual. 

Blair and Bartleby: The Conditional as Enemy

[cross-posted from Infinite Thought. Apologise for the perhaps overly regional  nature of the piece, but I thought it might be interesting to resurrect Bartleby after discussions on LS last year]

1. One Gigantic Empty Vessel

The world is of course full of people saying nothing at all, at great length. In fact, some jobs explicitly require the ability to keep on speaking, no matter what, whilst keeping the import and meaning of language to an absolute minimum. Academic bureaucracy is full of deliberately weightless waffle. The 1700 page 1997 Dearing Report is a case in point. The report could have simply read: proposal 1: 'We want to charge students fees and increase the links between universities and business, as well as giving lecturers so much bureaucracy they won't have enough time to do anything as recherché as teach'. But perhaps that might have upset people with its bluntness. But let us be clear: the kind of waffle on show in the Dearing Report is dangerous, and serves a very real purpose, whether in academia, politics or business.