Unit 2 Reflection – Aja Moore

I feel a bit far away from the readings this entry is meant to consider, but I’m going to do my best. Kind of obviously, and also sadly, the “manifesto” has lodged itself in my brain most firmly, although I have no desire to go back to it, let alone expend any energy analyzing it. It scared me, how much truth I found in it, interpreted dangerously. To be clear, most of it is sickening, but there are observations throughout that appeared to have validity to me, for instance, his description of whiteness, and how it operates. But I mentioned this in class, and besides, there are a lot of really talented, insightful people who have been and are theorizing about whiteness, so really, he is not saying anything special or new, his thoughts have merely attracted attention because of the violence he enacted.

While the other readings drew from textual and historical analysis (for example, in the article on what constitutes American nationalism) or statistics, or testimonies and experiential learning (as in the article on the various ways racism is denied,) Rooff relies only on himself, on his own experiences. Even when he is discussing external, historical factors, or providing context, it is always and irrevocably through his own, righteous gaze.

I think that being consistently and absolutely correct is a position that a lot of philosophers and theorists, especially more contemporary ones, disparage. Not only is it often considered impossible, but the assumption that one knows all cannot easily lead to growth or new knowledge. In my opinion this has been widely acknowledged in many  disciplines, but especially in newer ones (such as affect theory, necropolitics.) But I think we can trace this trend, of being open to suggestions, to other opinions, to other modes of being, much further back.

I want to talk about Kierkegaard, though this is by no means as far back as we could go. I have a test this week on Kierkegaard and for the first time in my entire degree I have no idea what the fuck is going on. I have become, for all intents and purposes, obsessed. I’m watching every video I can find on him, I’m rewatching lectures, I’m asking people. When I looked at the practice exam questions I felt like I had no idea what was even being asked.

The test focuses on, but is not limited to his first book, Either/Or, which is mainly comprised of various points of view (two main ones, Author A and Author B) and several other texts which are either also written by the aforementioned authors, or at least the connection is strongly suggested. Meaning, apart from its introduction the book is written entirely in pseudonyms.

At first, I thought this was cowardly. I became really frustrated. I thought why doesn’t Kierkegaard just own it? Why does he have to pretend his views are not his own? When speaking of texts, which can perform and incite hate, it has historically been useful for men to distance themselves from the views their espousing through means such as pseudonym. So I was skeptical.

As I kept reading, though, and listening to interviews and clips about him, the choice to organize the book the way he did began to make sense to me. One of the videos I watched begins with the claim that Either/Or is more like a novel than a treatise, which really struck me. He goes onto clarify: “The views aren’t summarized, they’re expressed.” This person believes that Kierkegaard does not necessarily believe that any of these authors knows the correct way to live. These are merely options. Through using pseudonyms, who sometimes address each other (‘s arguments) explicitly, Kierkegaard can easily bring these modes of living, and their various values, into conversation with each other. Not only that, but these choices are embodied and as readers we can see how they might play out in a person’s real life, rather than strictly theoretically.

Many people have suggested that author B’s defense of a “Life of Duty” (ethical life) is clearly Kierkegaard’s own preference and that Author A’s stories exist to lend Author B’s gravitas.

The person who’s video I was watching pointed out that: if that’s the case, why is Author A’s account of the The Life of Pleasure (aesthetic life) so completely compelling. He suggests that Author A has “the best lines” and that many people prefer to read that author’s sections.

I decided I didn’t think that Kierkegaard would write such an enticing character just to totally disregard him, but rather to show how and why this way of living might and does get chosen. It sounds good, it sounds fun, we’re intrigued by it. That’s exactly its strength.

In this way, Kierkegaard does, in a sense, write each character as though they think they are right, but I think this is more so to implore his reader to start thinking deeply about the way one conducts oneself and what effects that might have.

Much later, Kierkegaard apparently wrote of Either/Or that his point was to “withhold an explicit evaluation.” [of life, I think]

I am really hoping he uses stark, uncompromising positions to expose the dangers of such inflexibility.

This is one of the videos I was watching, if you’re interested: