White? Black? Other? (Who is "Other"?): Part 3 of 3

"Emmanuel Levinas and S.T. Coleridge: Judaic and Romantic Approaches to Ethics, Politics, and Otherness"

7 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 12,, in Room 114 Belk Library

As sponsored by the Center for Judaic, Holocaust, and Peace Studies.

[Haney is the author of two books on Romanticism that draw on the work of Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. He will consider how Levinas’s post-Holocaust notion of a subjectivity based on a radical otherness can be interpreted alongside Coleridge’s struggle to formulate a new philosophical relationship between self and other in the early 19th century. Both authors, For additional information, call 2311, e-mail to holocaust@appstate.edu, or visit www.holocaust.appstate.edu]

On this thursday night I walked into an auditorium fit to seat 100, albeit only 7 or so chairs were filled. To Dr. Haney we were students, fellow colleagues, and a wife, and he held the look of a man who knew a lot spare a place to begin. When the bells rang in alarm, Dr. Haney began with an introduction to himself and his academics. The night was to progress through a brief powerpoint presentation, which served as a backdrop of definitions, a reading of his essay on "Otherness", and a casual conclusion with just enough time for questions and cookies.

In an attempt to have his words serve as he intends, the definitions Dr. Haney primes us with are very helpful. For example, because he is presenting Levinas through his own words, a critique, he begins his presentation with a quote from Richard Cohen, outlining his purpose and standard for criticizing:

“What criticism does is to interpret a text by explaining it in terms of more or less remote objective contexts. . . . "

Cultural Values are values that render the recognition of similitude when one culture is placed aside another. Applying values to one culture or another is a way of affirming, applying, and achieving alterity. By rationalizing with the force of man from the eye of an other, one is in turn forever locking that man into a category-- a violent measure of a man as hostage in a time, place, and act that he himself once realized and was observed in being. Dr. Haney goes on to explain that upholding justice in a situation between man and his other (a being separated from the actual person himself very much like framing a replica of an original piece of art) would only act as an extreme account of concern for ethics and security. For Levinas, in other words, the way in which modern man accounts for a just state of governing--as a formation by rule--is indeed a contradiction.

It is here that we begin to see the connection of a philosopher within his frame of Nazi Germany, WWII, The Cold War, and thereafter.

In a mild diversion from Levinas, Dr. Haney invests a hot minute within the head of Immanuel Kant. For Kant, persons act not as means to an end, but are indeed the end themselves. There is a paradox embedded within the call for equal rights for all humankind while maintaining human beings to be authentic with uniqueness and individuality.

"What we are beginning to see is a process of moral will--a distinction given to the race of history, not of science; a claim as The Historic Race."

Humankind strives through the multi-tiers of a cast system with hope of finally reaching the summit: Pure Equality. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is criticized for being an ideal, and unrealistically optimistic. Without voicing refute, The United Nations reasoned that the document articulates a concrete goal in a form readily accessible to every person of every race and every age the world over. Moreover, the declaration exudes an image of humans rising above the instincts to be inhumane; of man to be in himself apart from his instinct, his outlet of unique being (i.e. genocide). By expressing that humans possess equal rights, one is in turn using a kind of "dialectal productiveness between cultural differences". There is violence in the freedom to choice, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that freedom while also authorizing freedom in one leveling sweep. In the end, The Declaration enables homogeny for a man whose will is inconsistent with the will of his neighbor and the "other" of his observations.

Bottom line: Humans are free agents governed by the rules and regulations of a sport which guarantees the success of the game.

By preserving the game one in turn preserves the employment of the referee. Levinas disagrees with the creation of the United Nations and their involved work because both apply, affirm, and achieve a system of tiers, and more importantly maintain our involvement with an endless system of ascent.

Some sidelining thoughts that came after his presentation as answers to an inquisitive congregation:

Ethical Reading:

When reading a text, you are speaking with it as it is maintained by its unique position--a position that you create for it by placing said text in conversation (even if only in cranial converse). By picking up another text--related or unrelated--you are having them read each other. The conclusion? Reading is always immoral because we are always applying our philosophy du jour to our conversation with a text. Moreover, reading is always political, comparable, and never ethical.

Fiscally, managerially responsible:

When applying a budget to a man in a position below your nose, you have to work carefully not to imply that "I have you figured out." A larger budget for one department (say of football) over another (say that of cheerleading) would imply a certain equation of worth, need, and capability.