Rage and
Time, written by Peter Sloterdijk (2010), is an interesting contribution to the
discussion concerning the critical importance of rage in human history. The
emotion of rage is analyzed as a psychopolitical force that has had a great
impact on Western civilization since Troy and Achilles (Illiad). Sloterdijk
suggests in this book that our age is doomed because of our inability to
understand and address our rage. This pessimistic view is seen throughout the
book. It almost seems that everything is wrong with our society and nothing can
be done about it.
According to
Sloterdijk, philosophers must, as Nietzsche, dare to think dangerously, and in
so doing he says that we need to re-think our modern conceptions of society,
self and justice in terms of rage. The strength in this book is in my opinion
the rich cultural-historical approach that is given. The book will be a
necessary foundation for further analytic and empirical research into the complex
connection between shame, rage, humiliation, anger and violence. It seems to
that most studies of violence (such as Smelser 2007) do not focus on the crucial
role of such emotions as a causal factor. But several recent empirical studies
suggest that those who actually commit violent acts, have social-emotional histories
of intense humiliation (Strozier, et al 2010, pp. 143-147. See also Stern 2003;
Hemick, 2004; Jones 2008). Dennis Smith
(2006) has outlined how most military, political, and/or economic power leads
to humiliation of the subdued groups, and how humiliation can lead to endless
rounds of revenge. The present policies of the richer and more powerful nations
are manufacturing violence. Individuals and groups are usually able to avoid
conflict through negotiation, unless there is an intense history of humiliation
and the subsequent desire for counter-humiliation and revenge. Humiliation and revenge
were particularly transparent in the origin of World War I, where there was no
attempt to hold meetings for negotiation before the war began, and in the
subsequent rise of Hitler to power (Scheff 1994).
Rage and
Time can be used to address the complex relationships between the political and
the affective dimensions of our social existence. Sloterdijk offers few if any practical
solutions, but his theoretical analysis is still very useful for future
empirical studies. My disappointments in reading the book have to do with his
disrespectful “name-calling” which was unexpected. Being one of contemporary
philosophy\s most productive and influential thinkers, Sloterdijk should be more
respectful towards other great thinkers than to call Jean Paul Sartre “a master
in the sublime art of not being willing to learn”, or to describe Martin
Heidegger as a “thoughtful tourist in Troy saying that fighting is also thanking.”
Such descriptions are nothing more than
whimsy and platitude. I also disagree with his reduction of the Islamic
movement to a univocal economic agency. Such a simplification is not only wrong
in my view, but also very dangerous. God is not only “the king of rage” nor are
religions only an instrument of rage or a “metaphysical rage bank”. I also dislike
his tendentious description of Lenin and Mao as “the most successful
entrepreneurs of rage”. Apart from this, I believe that Sloterdijk has much to
give in this book for further both theoretical analysis and empirical
investigation.
Kaare Torgny
Pettersen
References:
Helmick, R.
G. (2004). Negotiating Outside the Law: Why Camp David Failed. London:
Pluto Press.
Jones, James
W. (2008). Blood that Cries Out from the Earth. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Scheff,
Thomas. (1994). Bloody Revenge: Emotion,
Nationalism and War. Westview Press
Sloterdijk,
Peter (2010). Rage and Time. A
Psychopolitical Investigation. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Smelser,
Neil (2007). The Faces of Terrorism:
Social and Psychological Dimensions
Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
Smith,
Dennis. (2006). Globalization: The Hidden
Agenda. Cambridge: Polity.
Stern,
Jessica. (2003). Terror in the Name of
God. New York: Ecco Press.
Strozier,
Charles, David Terman, and James Jones. (2010). The Fundamentalist Mindset.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment