The Enlightenment and its Romantic aftermath gave birth to two doctrines distinguished only by the letter s.* The first was that people had the right to self-determination; the second was that peoples had such a right. The former belief is the keystone of modern democracy, and indeed of socialism; the second is a piece of romantic mystification, a fact which has not prevented a good many on the political Left from endorsing it. Nor has its philosophical basis been much examined in the standard literature on nationalism.
from: Terry Eagleton, "Nationalism and the Case of Ireland".
Can you psychoanalyse A People and not be complicit with this 'romantic mystification'???
6 comments:
and if the crude point is that they--"they" grossly speaking--already "psychoanalyse" themselves?
Well I think the obvious answer to your question is "no," if that helps.
But then, much like Alain, I'm not convinced there isn't some value in applying psychoanalytic terms on a cultural scale––in this the "age (still) of analysis," despite what Fox, the New Sincerities or New Populisms would have us think––that is, to use them descriptively. There is, after all, no other way for them to be used, by those who are not practicing, or clinical psychologists. For instance, I suppose the obvious example would be Derrida in _Specters_, a book more relevant today than ever.
But in any case, is it "A People" that is being psychoanalyzed here, or is it rather a symptom being described, namely that marked by the very move of assuming the mantle of A People, as exemplary, or capitalized (or with an "s"––they amount to the same). It's possible, certainly, that Rose is not careful enough, and more qualification is needed.
Speaking of lack of care, though, I tend to remain unconvinced, as a matter of some principle, that glibly binning something in "romantic mystification" really ever helps matters all that much. (If only calling something "fact" made it so...call it an ignorant hunch, but I also doubt more context will help TE to define his terms?) Especially when the author in question seems to use such phrases, as a matter of habit, much like politicians use all-purpose tropes to score cheap rhetorical points, in whatever context.
Nevertheless, Teagleton is also, well, correct. As usual.
Only nationalism is a subtle beast. I certainly wouldn't claim to've overcome it, nor romantic mystification, for example, except in the (non)sense which he implies, which nobody but a five-year-old maybe would dare defend.
Damned if I didn't start out meaning only to say something nice about the elder statesman Althusserian, though. Clearly there's something, the way he lends his prose, vulnerable about him difficult to resist commenting upon. We could psychoanalyze that, suppose.
What of indigenous peoples and their claims to colective self-determination? Don't just hand out Israel and leave it at that. Make the argument properly.
The example of Israel related specifically to the point about psychoanalysing a ‘people’, not to the question of self-determination. The post was a genuine, rather than a merely rhetorical, question. Nonetheless, you’re right that I seem to accept Eagleton’s premise that claims of self-determination for a people qua people = ‘romantic mystification’. In the case of Ireland, the case that immediately concerns TE, he certainly supports Irish claims to self-determination in so far as they are oppressed human beings rather than in so far as they are Irish. Here he is at the beginning of his argument (it does get a tad more sophisticated!):
There is nothing in the fact of being Irish or Tibetan which entails that have a right to political self-determination precisely as Irish or Tibetan, other than that to be Irish or Tibetan is to be human, and so to enjoy a right to determination on those grounds. The Irish qua Irish have no more title collective self-determination than have the freckled, red-haired or bow-legged. Golfers and grocers have not so far demanded their own political state, and Cornish qua Cornish would have about as much natural title to it as them.
The rival claims are something like: ‘self determination so that we can be fully human’ vs ‘self-determination on account of being Irish and so that we can express this irishness’
You may think these distinctions are specious, but I’m in broad agreement with TE on this particular point.
Thanks. Now I'm in agreement too.
Post a Comment