Pattison Self in Society

8/13/2019 Pattison Self in Society

1/8

Kierkegaard: The Self in Society,

ed. by George Pattison and Steven Shakespeare,

London: Macmillan 1998 and e! "ork: St. Martin#s Press 1998, $ii %

&&'pp.(

)here are t!o kinds o* +ierkegaard scholars: those !ho side !ith him,

bilding on !hat he says- and those !ho take his !ords and try to think

them throgh, adopting a more critical stance. oth have vale,

especially !hen !hat is at stake, as here, is something a**ecting

everyone: ho! to live in society as individals.

)his book is made p o* papers by scholars o* the highest caliber.

/t is easy to get sidetracked here by the motley collection o* di**erent

interpretations, topics, and names. )his is not by chance: the papers

!ere given back in 199', at a con*erence in the 0+, by people *rom

many di**erent *ields.1)hey are, ho!ever, all abot ho! the sel* relates

to society. )hey try to get beyond the image o* +ierkegaard as a radical

individalist, !hile staying tre more or less2 to the te$ts themselves. &

)his gives them a thematic nity and a coherence o* method despite

( 3orthcoming in Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources, vol 18,

4on Ste!art et al. eds.2 5shgate2

1Kierkegaard: The Self in Society, ed. by George Pattison and Steven Shakespeare,London: Macmillan Press 1998, p. 1.&/bid.


2/8

everything. Moreover, since all ma6or pro7+ierkegaard approaches are

represented here their backgrond history is given in the introdction2,

the book is a per*ect overvie! o* this kind o* scholarship.

/t is the *irst

anthology to deal !ith the post7modern sitation.;)his is its greatest

strength, marking it o** against anthologies that came be*ore.

5s *ar as / can tell, there are t!o basic claims any *ollo!er o*

+ierkegaard has to make abot ho! the sel* is related to society: )hat

the sel* is irredcible to it the irredcibility claim2, and that the sel*

en6oys clear priority the priority claim2.'oth mst be assmed to

have strong te$tal spport in the +ierkegaardian corpus.


3/8

5nother thing one notices is the habit o* contering strctral

argments ho!7argments2 !ith te$tal >otations !hat7

argments2. Piety#s paper is a good case in point ?hapter 12. She is

responding to Mackey#s criticism o* +ierkegaard,@ namely, that since

*reedom or the sel* is e**ectively absoltiAed in +ierkegaard, others

become blank possibilities, losing their ability to bind or even in*lence

the sel* in a meaning*l !ay. oting speci*ic passages that say something

else, or other athorities !ho take a di**erent vie!. 8)his is enogh on

an e$egetical plane perhaps, bt it !ill not !ork against Mackey#s

strctral argment. esides, i* pressed, he cold al!ays >ote those

te$ts in the corpus!here the priority claim is made. )hat !ay too he can

e$plain !hy *reedom isabsoltiAed.

)his is the gripe many +ierkegaardians have !ith post7modern

thinkers. )hey do not like !hat looks like a call *or an endless *ree play

beyond any real responsibility or allegiance here. )his theyBrightlyB

*eel ndermines not 6st social ties bt the search *or trth,

6She ses Lois Mackey, )he Loss o*


4/8

commnication itsel*. ?raig#s ?hapter 2, Edd#s ?hapter '2 and

Shakespeare#s paper ?hapter '2 all deal !ith this. / really liked Edd#s

distinction bet!een stable and absolte irony +ierkegaard vs. the

German Eomantics2, or bet!een irony as *igre o* speech and as a

stance or attitde2.9)hat and ho! he sho!s that Eorty#s post7modern

liking *or the second makes his social thoght relativistic, !hich means

he cannot make an honest plea *or liberal democracy. 1D)o dra! lines

back to the past, making +ierkegaard speak to crrent isses like this is

both important and *itting. / *ond Shakespeare#s Feideggerian take on

negativity, death, and letting7others7be in +ierkegaard highly

interesting.11/ also think ?raig is basically right. Stressing *reedom and

possibility can have a liberating e**ect in society- it need not go against

other7relatedness, and +ierkegaard#s style and play on athority can

have a role in this.1&t there is the rb: they do not sho! yo how to

gard against an absoltiAing o* this *reedom or negativity. Edd and

Shakespeare mostly take !hat +ierkegaard says *or granted. ?raig

senses that a coherent, tamed de*ense means the priority o* the sel* has

to be given p,1and she criticiAes +ierkegaard to!ards this end, 1;bt

she does not have a positive, integrated plan *or carrying it throgh. )his

argmentative lack or *orgetting o* the strctral side o* things oght to

9/bid., pp. 8&78@, p. 9,1D/bid., pp. 8@78=, p. 9D, pp. 9&79.11/bid., p. 9=, p. 1D1, pp. 1D;71D', p. 1D8, p. 111.1&/bid., pp. '@7'=, pp. '[email protected]/bid., p. @;.1;/bid., pp. @@7@=.

4


5/8

!orry anyone interested in the +ierkegaardian te$ts and their meaning

todayBespecially in light o* Mackey#s argment.

)he ne$t batch o* papers deals !ith sociality more head7on in

+ierkegaard. Peter George#s *ine paper ?hapter ;2 begins by

contrasting love in !orks of "ove !ith #ither$%r, arging it is

spiritaliAed or made !orldless in The !orks of "ove in a !ay it !as not

be*ore. /t is the total denial o* pre*erence and t!o7sidedness that makes

?hristian love as pictred by +ierkegaard2 a negative postre !ithot

any real sbstance or !eight *or social living.1' George denies the

simple e>ation o* pre*erence or t!o7sidedness !ith sel*ishness too,

and he has some brie*, phenomenological sketches to sho! this. 1@)his

kind o* criti>e harks back 5dorno: ho! is ?hristian love not coldBanti7

social Strctrally at least it is on par !ith dissocial personality

disorder, !ith *orms o* domination in general. either George, nor 5ndic

?hapter =2, nor Pyper ?hapter 82 has a good +ierkegaardian reply

ready. Cither there is the !ell7kno!n *allback on negativity- or social

relationships get sbordinated !holesale to other7!orldly love. 5gain

irredcibility and priority are mi$ed p, or the priority claim and sociality

are merely assmed to be coherent. Fo!7argments are neither made

nor dealt !ith. 5dorno#s >estion still stands.

1'/bid., pp. =D7=', pp. =87=9.1@/bid., pp. =7=;, p. =@, p. =8.

5


6/8

)he biggest srprise *or me !as Hooley#s paper ?hapter 92. /

!as strck by the similarities he ncovers bet!een +ierkegaard and

Herrida and their lo! vie! o* this7!orldly 6stice: they both see this as

based on nothing bt mere prdence, cold calclation, and they go on to

contrast it !ith a higher calling or 6stice. / think Hooley has made a

good case *or +ierkegaard in*lencing Herrida here.1=


7/8

not have a !ord to say abot this, nor does Perkinson ?hapter 1D2

!ho tries his best to place the s**ering ?hristian in society. )his

challenge has not been met either.

My biggest problem !ith socio7political readings o* +ierkegaard is

not that they give s a +ierkegaard !ho challenges the liberal order

Perkins, ?hapter &2, being too ris>I *or the status quo +irmmse,

?hapter 112, bt one !ho has not really thoght throgh his stance. So

it is nclear ho! he might ans!er the normative >estion abot ho!

individals shold live in society. /* my do!nplaying o* !hat7argments

seems n*air: content ise$istential *or +ierkegaardBnon7evalable. /t is

to be thoght abot and appropriated in!ardly by the Single /ndividal

rather than deliberated in pblic by scholars. 0ntil the ho!7argments

have been tackled there*ore, the !holesale appeal to content does not

have mch *orce on its o!n. Jther than that / en6oyed +irmmse#s sketch

o* +ierkegaard#s spiraling radicalism and its *ate in Henmark a*ter his

death, and agy#s chronicling ?hapter 1&2 o* +ierkegaard#s rn7ins !ith

Lkacs and totalitarianism in Castern Crope even more so.

)he anthology by Pattison and Shakespeare is an e$cellent

overvie! o* +ierkegaard scholarship on sociality and politics at the close

o* the last centry. 5s sch, it is the best staging point *or *rther !ork.

arve Strand

7


8/8

Bibliography

5dams, oel, revie! in S*ren Kierkegaard +ewsletter, no. ;D, &DDD, pp.

=78.

?ain, Havid, revie! in #thics, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 181718@.

3erreira, M. 4amie, 5symmetry and Sel*7Love: )he ?hallenge to

Eeciprocity and C>ality, Kierkegaard Studies earbook, 1998,

pp. ;17'9.

8

Pattison Self in Society

Documents

Transcript of Pattison Self in Society