Reflections on friendship inevitably involve thinking about the figure of the enemy (Although I wonder, is the enemy really the opposite of the friend? And talk of enemies made me think of polemics.
The polemicist is one who must always have an enemy. He must plug in to the enemy to get his desire going, to keep himself awake and angry.This is why the polemicist is a curiously castrated figure.
When he takes a position, makes an argument, this is usually on the rebound from an encounter with his adversary. Once the rebound loses momentum so do the polemicist's principles and logic. He is not the master of his own agenda.
I've written elsewhere of the polemicist Peter Hitchens. His stance of injured dignity and appalled indignation is fully dependent on what it recoils from and attacks.Were these things to disappear the stance would crumble in ruins, doubtless taking a sizeable chuck of Peter Hitchens with it.
That he owes his enjoyment, his stance, his very self-definition to his enemy, has to be disavowed by the polemicist. And the disavowed debt then serves as a useful ingredient in the bile to be heaped on the enemy's head.
The further point is that the polemicist's enemy is never an abstract noun like Injustice, Exploitation. It is always a this idiot or these morons. It is a person or group, or the chimerical image thereof. An argument or position is thus seldom analysed or articulated in its own right. The polemicist cannot breath in the rarified atmosphere of pure reason. The argument is attacked only as an emanation, reflection or signature of the person or group in question. (The chimerical 'chattering classes' or dinner-party liberals, or the 'bleeding heart liberals' attacked every other day in The Sun, the 'trendy lefties', 'Guardianistas' and other polemical spectres beloved by the Right.. ). You will find no critique of, say, the idea that economic imperatives determine political decisions, only an attack on the mentality represented by this idea.
The polemicist is thus a in thrall to the Imaginary. He is uncomfortable with structures and concepts, but when one of his designated targets swims into view then the world - and with it his ego - assumes strength and definition.
9 comments:
Isn't this more the Contrarian rather than the Polemicist as such?
Maybe. But I don't think of the Contrarian as having specific enemies in his sights. Isn't it that he takes up positions againt all different sorts of people, just for the love of being, well, contrary?
Wonderful post.
Well, I was going to urge you to throw Male Fantasies into the analytical mix, but I gone done it myself.
What I think is worth doing, certainly, is to think about the class structure which supports the Polemicist. Otherwise, I fear we are stuck with a chimerical figure in the Polemicist itself. If we understand the Polemicist's revenge fantasy as being rooted in a collection of petit-bourgeois grievances, resentments and fears, I think that gives your point a more materialist edge.
I think your definition speaks better of Peter, than his brother. He atleast has some loyalties.
Really a fun read.
Thanks. The original post on P.Hitchens is here:
http://charlotte-street.blogspot.com/2004/09/hitchens-physiognomy-of-reaction.html
Nietzsche used this "special effect" to perfection, though I believe he was as far removed from contracting the attitude too as it is futile for your polemicist to fall back on the spectres for something more than mesmerised acquiescence. And yet, to go back to Nietzsche, what is it that distinguishes his style as an accomplishment in its own right, I wonder!
A polemic against the polemicist? I'm sorry, but I disagree. A political argument is usually made for agitational purposes, not for its own sake. This is true for Marxists most of all. Therefore, to be most effective in the moment, one often lights on a well-known and current example of the opposed perspective. It isn't about ego so much as tactics, at least for the Marxist.
I agree as to the necessity of polemic, but writing polemic (for the kind of strategic reasons you mention) doesn't make one a Polemicist in the sense I've described. I was really just attemptign a brief sketch of a certain kind of polemicist, and I can see how open to criticism and misunderstanding this is. So, yes, I don't disagree with you in partic.
Post a Comment