Wednesday, January 26, 2005
SO APPARENTLY TOO MUCH CRITICAL THEORY MAKES YOU AN APOLOGIST FOR MURDER: ok, so i guess nazi apologist paul de man, who called hitler's war "a revolution that aims at organizing European society in a more equitable manner", had already taught us that. but now terry eagleton wants to do his part too (LvM) in a column romanticizing homicide bombing. bombers are compared to hunger strikers who die because they have no other choice. in fact, their death is part of the injustice. injustice toward whom? one may think, 'well, of course, it is unjust toward the innocent bystanders who die because of this despicable act'. but one, of course, would be wrong:
in eagleton's eyes, killers are in the same camp as the people who had to leap to their death from the world trade center:
this leaves aside the unpleasant fact that homicide bombers are killers, while the people jumping from the building were the killed. the people trapped in the world trade center had no choice but death; the killers did. but let's pass over that; i'll just close my eyes, dream away reality, and believe that people commit such acts not out of the wickedness in their hearts,
eagleton makes the same type of agency equivocation when he compares bombers to martyrs:
this, again, is leaving aside an important point: martyrs are not active agents of their own deaths; they are passive (cf. 'the passion (from latin patior, to suffer, experience) of st. so-and-so'). bombers, on the other hand, are active instigators of their own and others' death, taking the instruments of life-termination into their own hands. in eagleton's formulation, the two seem to be the same, except that bombers tend to pile up a few more casualties. but they're not: martyrs are willing to give up their lives for someone else. homicide bombers are willing to take others' lives, along with their own, to further their own group's politico-relgious agenda.
later, he waxes romantically philosophical ('But it proclaims that what your adversary cannot annihilate is the will to annihilation') before comparing cold-blooded murder to a trendy cosmopolitan art scene:
hmmm. tell that to the people whose arms and legs are getting blown off and to the parents whose small children are ripped to smithereens.
he seems to enjoy it most because it adds depth to our shallow and boring society:
a dadaist happening? how sick is this guy?
earlier in the article, eagleton writes that
well, perhaps it's all just a question of semiotics. and perhaps it is time for someone to perform the complex symbolic act of lobotomy on poor mr. eagleton.
They kill themselves because they can see no other way of attaining justice; and the fact that they have to do so is part of the injustice.
in eagleton's eyes, killers are in the same camp as the people who had to leap to their death from the world trade center:
Those who leapt from the World Trade Centre to avoid being incinerated were not seeking death, even though there was no way they could have avoided it.
this leaves aside the unpleasant fact that homicide bombers are killers, while the people jumping from the building were the killed. the people trapped in the world trade center had no choice but death; the killers did. but let's pass over that; i'll just close my eyes, dream away reality, and believe that people commit such acts not out of the wickedness in their hearts,
but in the name of a more abundant life all round.
eagleton makes the same type of agency equivocation when he compares bombers to martyrs:
Suicide bombers also die in the name of a better life for others; it is just that, unlike martyrs, they take others with them in the process. The martyr bets his life on a future of justice and freedom; the suicide bomber bets your life on it.
this, again, is leaving aside an important point: martyrs are not active agents of their own deaths; they are passive (cf. 'the passion (from latin patior, to suffer, experience) of st. so-and-so'). bombers, on the other hand, are active instigators of their own and others' death, taking the instruments of life-termination into their own hands. in eagleton's formulation, the two seem to be the same, except that bombers tend to pile up a few more casualties. but they're not: martyrs are willing to give up their lives for someone else. homicide bombers are willing to take others' lives, along with their own, to further their own group's politico-relgious agenda.
later, he waxes romantically philosophical ('But it proclaims that what your adversary cannot annihilate is the will to annihilation') before comparing cold-blooded murder to a trendy cosmopolitan art scene:
There is a smack of avant garde theatre about this horrific act.
hmmm. tell that to the people whose arms and legs are getting blown off and to the parents whose small children are ripped to smithereens.
he seems to enjoy it most because it adds depth to our shallow and boring society:
In a social order that seems progressively more depthless, transparent, rationalised and instantly communicable, the brutal slaughter of the innocent, like some Dadaist happening, warps the mind as well as the body.
a dadaist happening? how sick is this guy?
earlier in the article, eagleton writes that
blowing yourself up for political reasons is a complex symbolic act... .
well, perhaps it's all just a question of semiotics. and perhaps it is time for someone to perform the complex symbolic act of lobotomy on poor mr. eagleton.
