Dear, Mr.Asada.
Thank you for your short commentary on Godard’s “Film Socialisme.”
Jean-Luc Godard is passing from the story of Christ into the story of Mediterranean with a view to straightforwardly go back to the early stage of World-History of Hegel—a sign of this phenomenon was in “For Ever Mozart” close to turn out to be explicit; that movie conveyed a kind of Bildungsroman of actress to us, whereas its stage evidently passed from battlefield into seaside and the comparison between war and sea seemingly alluded to the World-History, although Godard rarely reads Hegel’s writings themselves in truth. In the perspective of Hegel, it is the Mediterranean which brought forth Christ. “Film Socialisme” is therefore an extension of his retelling the story of Christ, especially in “Nouvelle vague” and in “Hélas pour moi,” although he would have derived that story from some of Pasolini’s films, such as “Teorema”—“Socialisme” must realize something post-Pasolini in a way, however it seems to allow for the World-History of Hegel. Incidentally, not only Carl Schmitt but later works of Godard, such as “Notre musique,” led myself to apprehend the heart of Hegel, that postmodernists have ever misunderstood. It is about time to, with Godard, affirm the eminence of Hegel and his World-History. The grand story, that at times designates the World-History and at other times Marxism, will be everlasting.
By the way, Marxism might merely refer to a phase of the World-History, namely, the era of industry which caused the divergence between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the modern times. The movement of Marxism was indeed based on that divergence as pointed out by Schmitt. It seems, to me, a great deal doubtful that Marx could have effectively deviated Marxism from the World-History of Hegel in politics.
Not only Hegel but the historical lineage from Jules Michelet to Fernand Braudel partly accounts for the background of Godard’s “Socialisme” as you told; if Roland Barthes is alive today, Godard might have not offered Alain Badiou to act in the movie, for no French theorist in the late 20th century would be more conscious of the maritime than Barthes of whom one of favorite writers was in fact Michelet—however I do not yet know how Godard sets us Badiou in “Socialisme.”
Sea was monstrous in the ancient times everywhere, excluding in the Mediterranean countries, where people were inevitably thrust into a spatial revolution, they awakened to the maritime space; the Mediterranean allowed many countries to easily have intercourse with each other for trade, conquest, and piracy, due to its calmness and was the greatest highway of intercourse by water on earth beyond question. And the peoples who resided in the maritime space appeared in history and turned out to battle at the risk of their own being against the another peoples who were destined to confine themselves within the territorial. Leviathan was bound to conflict with Behemoth. It would denote one of original patterns of state of exception. The state of exception at times happens due to the discrepancy among spatial beings. Geographical conditions formed diverse molds of ideology. Therefore, the Mediterranean came to the first battle field of ideology in human history. Godard’s “Socialisme” supposedly conveys it to us that the war is not over yet. In the Mediterranean Leviathan might have never ceased to struggle against Behemoth; for instance, the Palestinians are tragically desperate to defend their own space. Sea at times supplies war.
The spatial revolution entailed the state of exception. That phenomenon followed that men tempted themselves toward sea, in the Mediterranean countries, and were unbound by land. It caused the antagonism between Behemoth and Leviathan productive of the grand story ‘World-History.’ The two legendary beasts explicitly account not only for Schmitt’s theory of history but for the World-History of Hegel—Schmitt thought of the divergence between Behemoth and Leviathan in history when he got inspiration with regard to geography from Hegel as stated in his “Land und Meer.” The World-History of Hegel, in comparison with Marx, doubtless assumes something notional as you said, but French postmodernism, on the other hand, must remain far more metaphysical and speculative than Hegel for it is devoid of geography, in other words, it by no means takes cognizance of the distinction between the territorial and the maritime when dealing with economy and history.
Marx indeed deepened the World-History of Hegel to the level of economics—subsequently, it might have made a degree of influence on John Hicks’ “A Theory of Economic History,” in which Hicks states that he owes Marx the distinctive style of social science of “Das Kapital”; additionally, this outstanding work of economic history evidently highlights the Mediterranean and depicts why the sea entailed the historical divergence between the Europeans and the Asians as Hegel’s “The Philosophy of History.” I am basically to dismiss postmodernism partly because it raises issues of economy without regard to geography. French postmodernists are by no means as geographical and materialistic as Hegel—the philosophy of Hegel allowed for the political economy of Adam Smith and his own geography was arguably derived from “The Wealth of Nations.” Needlessly to say, it is impossible without Hegel that Marx should have appeared on the scene of philosophy. It will not be meaningless to untimely style myself Hegel’s pupil in order to give a new birth to Marx. It, of course, means to repeat Marx himself. But, if necessary, I can be critical of Marx.
It is necessary to extinguish postmodernism, a worthless and illusory game of philosophy. Purge them. Playtime is over.
Best,
Kim, Yi-Chul
posted by kimarx at: 21:12 | path: Philosophy | permanent link to this entry
