← Older revision Revision as of 21:04, 11 January 2019
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
'''= Japanese philosopher and literary critic'''
   
=Discussion=
+
==Discussion==
   
 
A profile of the author, by Carl Cassegard:
 
A profile of the author, by Carl Cassegard:
   
"[[Karatani Kojin]]’s (1941- ) recent thought offers a novel way of grappling or dealing with the dilemma which we pointed to in Yoshimoto and Asada, namely how the aspiration to work for societal change could be combined with an affirmation of the masses’ withdrawal from public involvement. The question is particularly timely since the 90’s has been a decade in which much discontent with the system has taken the form of exit – from school, marriage, the labor market or (in the case of the social withdrawal) from social life tout court. Can such discontent be turned into effective forms of resistance? Can it be channeled in ways that could further social change? Today questions such as these have gained renewed importance.
+
"Karatani Kojin’s (1941- ) recent thought offers a novel way of grappling or dealing with the dilemma which we pointed to in Yoshimoto and Asada, namely how the aspiration to work for societal change could be combined with an affirmation of the masses’ withdrawal from public involvement. The question is particularly timely since the 90’s has been a decade in which much discontent with the system has taken the form of exit – from school, marriage, the labor market or (in the case of the social withdrawal) from social life tout court. Can such discontent be turned into effective forms of resistance? Can it be channeled in ways that could further social change? Today questions such as these have gained renewed importance.
   
 
The thought of Karatani follows a trajectory that can be described as almost the reverse of Yoshimoto’s, with Karatani growing increasingly critical of capitalism and affirmative of social movement activism. [10] In early texts, from the 70’s and 80’s, his point of departure is a search for “exteriority” in the “intercrossing” spaces outside or between discursive systems, states or communities. The market provided a model for such a space. The global market, in his view, was a liberating and deconstructive tool that undermined the autonomy and closure of national and local communities. In opposition to communal space where rules were shared, it was a space existing in-between communities where participants confronted each other as strangers without presupposing common norms. It therefore offered liberating possibilities of otherness (Karatani 1995a:182; 1995b:143ff).
 
The thought of Karatani follows a trajectory that can be described as almost the reverse of Yoshimoto’s, with Karatani growing increasingly critical of capitalism and affirmative of social movement activism. [10] In early texts, from the 70’s and 80’s, his point of departure is a search for “exteriority” in the “intercrossing” spaces outside or between discursive systems, states or communities. The market provided a model for such a space. The global market, in his view, was a liberating and deconstructive tool that undermined the autonomy and closure of national and local communities. In opposition to communal space where rules were shared, it was a space existing in-between communities where participants confronted each other as strangers without presupposing common norms. It therefore offered liberating possibilities of otherness (Karatani 1995a:182; 1995b:143ff).
Line 18: Line 19:
 
(http://apjjf.org/-Carl-Cassegard/2684/article.html)
 
(http://apjjf.org/-Carl-Cassegard/2684/article.html)
   
 
+
===Four Modes of Exchange===
==Four Modes of Exchange==
+
   
 
Carl Cassegaard:
 
Carl Cassegaard:
Line 33: Line 33:
 
D: Egalitarian sharing through associations between free individuals (singularities) that transcend the community.
 
D: Egalitarian sharing through associations between free individuals (singularities) that transcend the community.
   
While A-B-C are all integral parts of the closed circuit of nation, state and capital, D is external to it. It lacks any historical emodiment except as a recurring utopian element in millennarian movements and modern social movements, but Karatani sees it as a viable model for a possible communism which would also be a Kantian world republic."
+
While A-B-C are all integral parts of the closed circuit of nation, state and capital, D is external to it. It lacks any historical embodiment except as a recurring utopian element in millenarian movements and modern social movements, but Karatani sees it as a viable model for a possible communism which would also be a Kantian world republic."
 
(http://carlcassegard.blogspot.be/2015/08/karatanis-structure-of-empire.html)
 
(http://carlcassegard.blogspot.be/2015/08/karatanis-structure-of-empire.html)
   
Line 39: Line 39:
 
Copy at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UM5PGWZ-_BA/VO7cQS0SDII/AAAAAAAAA34/Afhs3bbEYrk/s400/b8ef2912abe8228285356e52a108bbfe.jpg
 
Copy at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UM5PGWZ-_BA/VO7cQS0SDII/AAAAAAAAA34/Afhs3bbEYrk/s400/b8ef2912abe8228285356e52a108bbfe.jpg
   
 
+
===From Deconstruction to Construction===
==From Deconstruction to Construction==
+
   
 
CARL CASSEGARD:
 
CARL CASSEGARD:
Line 48: Line 47:
 
The development of the thought of the philosopher and critic Karatani Ko¯jin (1941–) evinces the cultural effects of the changes during this decade.  
 
The development of the thought of the philosopher and critic Karatani Ko¯jin (1941–) evinces the cultural effects of the changes during this decade.  
   
For a long time Karatani was probably best known for his pioneering use of deconstructionist and genealogical methods in literary criticism. However, as he himself states, his thinking underwent a radical change in the early1990s under the influence of the end of the Cold War, the impact of the globalization of neoliberal capitalism and the long Japanese economic recession. '''From now on, he states, the emphasis is less on deconstruction than on construction: ‘Beginning in the 1990s, my stance, if not my thinking itself, changed fundamentally. I came to believe that theory should not remain in the critical scrutiny of the status quo but should contribute something positive to change the reality'''.’
+
For a long time Karatani was probably best known for his pioneering use of deconstructionist and genealogical methods in literary criticism. However, as he himself states, his thinking underwent a radical change in the early1990s under the influence of the end of the Cold War, the impact of the globalization of neoliberal capitalism and the long Japanese economic recession. '''From now on, he states, the emphasis is less on deconstruction than on construction: ‘Beginning in the 1990s, my stance, if not my thinking itself, changed fundamentally. I came to believe that theory should not remain in the critical scrutiny of the status quo but should contribute something positive to change the reality'''.’
   
This new stance was manifested in thefounding of the New Associationist Movement (NAM) in Osaka in June 2000, which represented the culmination of a long process of his growing political engagement."
+
This new stance was manifested in the founding of the New Associationist Movement (NAM) in Osaka in June 2000, which represented the culmination of a long process of his growing political engagement."
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
   
 
+
===His Changing Views on the Market===
==His Changing Views on the Market==
+
   
 
Carl Cassegaard:
 
Carl Cassegaard:
   
"Karatani’s glee at the impact of globalization on Japan is easily comprehensible in light of hisearlier views on the market. In the 1980s, he described the global market in positive terms as a liberating and deconstructive tool that undermined the autonomy and closure of national communities. In opposition to communal space where rules are shared, the market is an ‘intercrossing space’ existing in between communities where participants confront each other as strangers without presupposing any common norms. Like the cogito, it exists in the ‘gap’ between communities, in a position of ‘exteriority’ to them.
+
"Karatani’s glee at the impact of globalization on Japan is easily comprehensible in light of his earlier views on the market. In the 1980s, he described the global market in positive terms as a liberating and deconstructive tool that undermined the autonomy and closure of national communities. In opposition to communal space where rules are shared, the market is an ‘intercrossing space’ existing in between communities where participants confront each other as strangers without presupposing any common norms. Like the cogito, it exists in the ‘gap’ between communities, in a position of ‘exteriority’ to them.
   
 
This celebratory equation of the market with exteriority is certainly crude,
 
This celebratory equation of the market with exteriority is certainly crude,
Line 66: Line 64:
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
   
 
+
===The Capital-State-Nation trinity===
 
+
==The Capital-State-Nation trinity==
+
   
 
"In Transcritique and other recent texts, the source of exteriority is no longer the global market but ‘associations’, and the market is instead increasingly envisioned in such negative terms as‘empire’. Consequently Karatani redirects his criticism from the ‘centreless’system of Japanese power to the system of global capitalism and lays a general ground-work for a theory of global capitalism in Transcritique. The market is now no longer conceived as a force bringing exteriority, but on the contrary as part and parcel of a system in which it has entered into collusion with the state and nationalism, forming what Karatani calls a ‘trinity of state, capital and nation’, in which the three elements support each other, making it futile to attack any single one of them without at the same time attacking the others.
 
"In Transcritique and other recent texts, the source of exteriority is no longer the global market but ‘associations’, and the market is instead increasingly envisioned in such negative terms as‘empire’. Consequently Karatani redirects his criticism from the ‘centreless’system of Japanese power to the system of global capitalism and lays a general ground-work for a theory of global capitalism in Transcritique. The market is now no longer conceived as a force bringing exteriority, but on the contrary as part and parcel of a system in which it has entered into collusion with the state and nationalism, forming what Karatani calls a ‘trinity of state, capital and nation’, in which the three elements support each other, making it futile to attack any single one of them without at the same time attacking the others.
Line 75: Line 71:
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
 
(https://www.academia.edu/372790/Exteriority_and_Transcritique_Karatani_Kojin_and_the_Impact_of_the_90s)
   
=More Information=
+
==More Information==
 
+
* Wikipedia on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kojin_Karatani Kojin Karatani]
 
* [[New Associationist Movement]]
 
* [[New Associationist Movement]]
   

Published Date

Categories