Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities at Bard College
24Jul/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, July 24th 2016 – #100in10 Edition

Arendt/Schmitt

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Arendt vs. Trump (and Schmitt)

Arendt/Schmitt

Feisal G. Mohamed writes at The Stone in The New York Times that the U.S. Presidential election can be understood as a contest between the ideas of Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt.

“Listening to Donald J. Trump’s acceptance speech, I felt as though the election was turning into a battle between two very different, though equally formidable, 20th-century political philosophers, Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt. “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced,” Schmitt wrote in his 1927 work, “The Concept of the Political,” “is that between friend and enemy.” It is a statement meant to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive: The friend-enemy distinction is central to politics in the same way that a good-evil distinction is central to ethics and a beautiful-ugly distinction is central to aesthetics. All other considerations are peripheral to this core concern.”

Schmitt’s “friend and enemy” distinction is the basis of his understanding of politics as a contest between conflicting groups or tribes. Schmitt sees it as realist counsel to understand that politics is about groups fighting other groups. To win and succeed, any political unity must be willing to sacrifice and fight for itself and against other groups. A political order for Schmitt is not a matter of laws that treat all people equally. When we mistake legality for politics, Schmitt argues, we weaken the friend/enemy distinction and the bonds of unity amongst friends in opposition to enemies that is the core of politics. Politics is the expression of the truth of a people in opposition to its enemies; and the Schmittian political dictator is the one gifted with the ability to speak for the people in a way that unifies and brings that people to exist. Trumps “I am your voice” is a true example of a Schmittian political dictator.

Continue on Medium…

 


22Jul/16Off
100/10 Membership Challenge

Our 2016 100/10 Membership Challenge Contests and Drawings Begin!

HAC 100_10 logo 2015

We at the Hannah Arendt Center are very excited about this year’s 100/10 membership challenge, especially all of the contests and drawings we have planned!

The Big Three

First up, we have three drawings that will last the duration of the challenge. Each of these contests has its own rules:

  1. Perks for New and Renewing Members - All new members receive a complimentary copy of the inaugural HA Journal, Vol. I. Additionally, All new & renewing members are all entered into a raffle for a complimentary DVD of the film, Hannah Arendt by Margarethe von Trotta
  2. Referral Challenge – Like last year, we have included a text field in our membership form that reads, “Please enter the contact name of the person who requested you to submit your donation.” If you have a friend enter your name here when they are purchasing or renewing their membership, you will be entered into a drawing to win our Tote Bag package, which includes (1) HA Tote Bag, (1) copy of HA: The Journal, Vol. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and (1) signed copy of Thinking in Dark Times.

    ha library

    Hannah Arendt's Library

  3. $1000 Challenge – Any person who purchases or renews a membership of $1000 and above will be entered to win a copy of Hannah Arendt’s Library, an exclusive artist book by Heinz Peter Knes, Danh Vo, and Amy Zion. More info can be found about the book here: http://hac.bard.edu/membership/

The winners will all be announced sometime on or after Sunday, July 31st after their names have been selected in a random drawing.

Please note that different winners will be selected for the Referral and $1000 challenges.

Social Media Mini-Contests!

We also have three mini-contests scheduled, all of which have the same basic guidelines:

Share, like or comment any Tweet/Status Update/Instagram posted during our #100in10 Challenge and you will be entered into a drawing for three (3) Tote Bag Packages.

We will be giving away three (3) Tote Bag Packages, one on July 26th, another on July 29th, and the last one on August 1st. Each contest will run a total of approximately three days. At midnight on the 25th, the 28th, and August 1st, we will close each of our contests and will draw a winner randomly from those who have participated. We will then contact the winner and announce their names on our social media accounts pending their approval. This means that each person has three chances to win, but please note you can win only once. **Each entrant may enter on Facebook, Twitter and/or Instagram

A few rules to consider:

Facebook

  • Anyone found to be using multiple accounts in this contest will be deemed ineligible to win and will be withdrawn from all future contests during this year’s challenge.
  • Participants can only be entered ONCE for each one of the three mini-contests. We have three mini-contests scheduled, which means each person has three chances to win. However, please note you can only win once, regardless of whether it is on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram
  • You will NOT be considered an entrant if you use your personal Timeline or someone else’s Timeline to share a contest post. Entry into each contest is limited to liking or commenting the contest post, which will be found on our Facebook page.
  • Please note that this contest is in no way sponsored, endorsed or administered by, or associated with, Facebook. As such, all entrants to this promotion agree to release Facebook of all responsibility.

Twitter

  • Anyone found to be using multiple accounts in this contest will be deemed ineligible to win and will be withdrawn from all future contests during this year’s challenge.
  • Participants can only be entered ONCE for each one of the three mini-contests. We have three mini-contests scheduled, which means each person has three chances to win. However, please note you can only win once, regardless of whether it is on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram
  • Please make sure to include our Twitter handle, @Arendt_Center, in your Tweet should you decide to re-Tweet our contest post.
  • Please note that this contest is in no way sponsored, endorsed or administered by, or associated with, Twitter. As such, all entrants to this promotion agree to release Twitter of all responsibility.

Instagram

  • Anyone found to be using multiple accounts in this contest will be deemed ineligible to win and will be withdrawn from all future contests during this year’s challenge.
  • Participants can only be entered ONCE for each one of the three mini-contests. We have three mini-contests scheduled, which means each person has three chances to win. However, please note you can only win once, regardless of whether it is on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram
  • Please make sure to include our Instagram handle, @hannaharendtcenteratbard, in your "regram" should you decide to regram our contest post.
  • Please note that this contest is in no way sponsored, endorsed or administered by, or associated with, Instagram. As such, all entrants to this promotion agree to release Instagram of all responsibility.

New Membership Thank-You

As part of The Big Three mentioned above, all new members will receive a free copy of the Hannah Arendt Center’s inaugural edition of the HA: The Journal. Additionally, all new & renewing members are entered into a raffle for a complimentary DVD of the film, Hannah Arendt by Margarethe von Trotta. More information on the journal can be found here.

blackandredlogoAny questions, comments, or concerns should be directed to Daniel Fiege, Media Coordinator of the Hannah Arendt Center, at dfiege@bard.edu.

Thank you, and good luck to all of the participants!

Sincerely,

The Hannah Arendt Center

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
22Jul/16Off
100/10 Membership Challenge

2016 100/10 Challenge – An Open Letter from Academic Director, Roger Berkowitz

HAC 100_10 logo 2015

Dear Friends,

Hannah Arendt insisted on loving the world in even the darkest times. Dedicated to thinking about our world with the fearless and provocative spirit that Arendt brought to everything she wrote, the Hannah Arendt Center works to find in Arendt's unique and brilliant thinking a path to rethink our basic understandings.

Edward Snowden during a Q&A session at "Why Privacy Matters"

Edward Snowden during a Q&A session at "Why Privacy Matters"

Last year's Annual Fall Conference "Why Privacy Matters" featured Edward Snowden. In October 2016, we host "Real Talk: Difficult Questions About Race, Sex, and Religion on Campus." Featured speakers include Claudia Rankine, Mary Gaitskill, and Hilton Als. In all we do, the Arendt Center works to actualize Arendt's ideal of political thinking, bringing together philosophers, poets, artists, business leaders, and academics from multiple backgrounds to think what we are doing.

The Arendt Center relies on your generous support. We exist at Bard College, in prisons through the Bard Prison Initiative, in Bard's early colleges in Newark, NYC, Cleveland, Baltimore, and New Orleans, in public programs in New York City, in Berlin, on the web, in our Journal, in our Amor Mundi newsletter, and through our Post-Doctoral Fellowships. All of this work is supported by our members.

Today we launch our annual 100/10 Member Challenge: 100 new members in 10 days! If you are already a member, we hope that you'll renew. If you haven't yet joined, we ask you to become part of our world.

Arendt Center Members gain free admission to our Conferences and Lectures and are eligible to participate in our Virtual Reading Group.

HA: The Journal

HA: The Journal of The Hannah Arendt Center

All new members will receive a copy of the 2011 inaugural issue of HA: The Journal of the Hannah Arendt Center, featuring essays by Marianne Constable, Leon Botstein, Jerome Kohn, Patchen Markell, Babette Babich, Peg Birmingham, George Kateb, and many others.

All new and renewing members are entered in a drawing for special prizes including a DVD of “Hannah Arendt,” the movie by Margarethe von Trotta and a signed copy of Thinking in Dark Times: Hannah Arendt on Ethics and Politics.

We have a number of exciting contests during our 100/10 challenge! I’d like to mention two in particular. First, our $1000 Challenge offers new members at the $1000 level entrance into a drawing for the opportunity to win Hannah Arendt's Library, a beautiful artist book by Heinz Peter Knes, Danh Vo, and Amy Zion. Learn more about the book here.

Second, we have a Referral Challenge, which gives you the opportunity to win a Tote Bag Package when you refer family or friends to join the center. The Tote Bag Package includes: (1) HA Tote Bag, HA: The Journal, Vol. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a signed copy of Thinking in Dark Times.

Simultaneously to these two challenges, drawings for 3 additional Tote Bag Packages are being made for 3 lucky fans who help spread the word of our campaign via social media (look for the #ShareArendt posts). For more details on this and all of our contests and member perks, visit our membership page.

2016 Real Talk Tote Bags

2016 Real Talk Tote Bags

Lastly, all members receive free admittance to our 9th Annual Conference, Real Talk: Difficult Questions About Race, Sex, and Religion on Campus, which takes place on Thursday and Friday, Oct. 20-21. Register here. You can learn more about becoming a member and membership here.

Bold thinking about politics in the humanist style of Hannah Arendt is profoundly necessary in our increasingly thoughtless era. The Arendt Center exists to nurture provocative thinking about politics and ethics. We are grateful for your confidence in us and your engagement in our work to build a community around the thinking Hannah Arendt.

We thank you in advance and look forward to seeing you at our future events.

Roger Berkowitz

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
17Jul/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, July 17th 2016

Black Lives Matter

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

You Were Looking in a Different Direction

Black Lives Matter

Christopher Lebron writes in The Stone about an imagined conversation with someone who doesn’t understand the importance of Black Lives Matter. Over and again Lebron – who will be speaking at the Arendt Center Conference “Real Talk” in October – tries to explain why he and others believe that in contemporary America, Black Lives Do Not Matter; in trying to speak to people who don’t understand him, Lebron rightly takes up the challenge of politics, of persuading people who disagree with him.

“Here’s one way of making sense of the misfire between us. You are with me when I am making my general comments about America’s foundational aspects. You are likely still with me on the observations about slavery. You may begin to edge away from our shared space of critical judgment somewhere around Jim Crow, but the horrors of lynching may persuade you to stay. The place, or the time rather, I mostly likely lose you is 1964. In your mind, our celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. made the world right in helping to usher in the era of formal equality when he cornered Lyndon B. Johnson into pushing for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In your mind, that moment introduced a new world order in which blacks could no longer be victims. The law had set them free and listed the bad things that people could no longer do. Moreover, it said that those people would be held responsible for the bad things they did. Thus, even if bad things happened to black people, the law would settle all accounts; therefore, no one could ever claim again that blacks were at the special mercy of racism. You, at this point, are sure that my proposition cannot be true since it fails to correspond.

As I said, I see the mistake I’ve made, but it’s not in my construction of the truth. It is in presuming that you and I were ever speaking about the same thing. And the reason we weren’t speaking about the same thing is that we were not looking in the same direction; thus, our basis for correspondence is mismatched.

The direction I was looking toward was the internal life of a black person in America. The very real anxieties and fears we have in whether our ambitions are as secure as any other American’s. Whether our opportunities are equal. Whether our health care is of sufficient quality. Whether our college degrees are of equal worth. Whether our spouses will make it home from the grocery store. Whether our children will one day counsel a parent that everything will be O.K. while someone is slumped over in the car seat in front of her, bleeding to death after being shot by a police officer.

You were looking in an altogether different direction. You were looking in the direction of your own innocence. Though you bought a house in an entirely segregated neighborhood, it’s not your fault the schools are better where you live. Though you have only one black friend, it’s not your fault because your friends are your co-workers and your company or university is doing poorly on diversity. Though it’s a shame that this black man or woman died (pick one, any one), it’s not your fault that the police officer you pay with your tax dollars and who is sworn to protect you did so at the expense of an unnecessary killing.

And none of these are your fault because that day in 1964 made it all right – the law said what could not happen, and thus, it must not be happening. Your sense of America is predicated on the assumption of a reliable and stable democratic system. We cannot possibly speak about the same thing given these conditions.

That is a problem. A core idea of democratic life is consensus citizens coming to a wide agreement on contentious issues. Americans disagree on all kinds of issues, but this one, whether black lives matter, is genuinely special and momentous. We have the facts: systemic racial inequality and rampant police-perpetrated killings. Then we have the observation of those facts seen from our distinct perspectives. Everything depends on you and I not only agreeing in our judgment but also taking up the proper positions to get genuine buy-in for the sake of justice. If you insist on standing where you do while I stand where I stand, there will never be agreement that black lives don’t matter in America.”


10Jul/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, July 10th 2016

Otto Kerner, chair of the Kerner commission

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Politics and Prejudice

Otto Kerner, chair of the Kerner commission

Julian E. Zelizer in The Atlantic writes that the racial divergence of the present recalls the post-riot period of the 1960s. Zelizer returns to the Kerner Commission report, requested but then ignored by Lyndon Johnson.

“[Kerner] Commission staffers had produced a blistering and radical draft report on November 22, 1967. The 176-page report, “The America of Racism,” recounted the deep-seated racial divisions that shaped urban America, and it was damning about Johnson’s beloved Great Society programs, which the report said offered only token assistance while leaving the “white power structure” in place. What’s more, the draft treated rioting as an understandable political response to racial oppression. “A truly revolutionary spirit has begun to take hold,” they wrote, “an unwillingness to compromise or wait any longer, to risk death rather than have their people continue in a subordinate status.” Kerner then nixed the report, and his staff director fired all 120 social scientists who had worked on it.

Continue on Medium…

Medium-logo-canvas-1200x500


3Jul/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, July 3rd 2016

return-of-american-politics-fireworks-washington

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

The Return of American Politics

The rise of anti-politics is going mainstream. David Brooks penned a column this week bewailing the disregard of politics in the U.S. and around the world. His opening gambit makes sense, arguing that politics is about the engagements among plural people who have different opinions in a common public sphere. He writes:

“Politics is an activity in which you recognize the simultaneous existence of different groups, interests and opinions. You try to find some way to balance or reconcile or compromise those interests, or at least a majority of them. You follow a set of rules, enshrined in a constitution or in custom, to help you reach these compromises in a way everybody considers legitimate.

The downside of politics is that people never really get everything they want. It’s messy, limited and no issue is ever really settled. Politics is a muddled activity in which people have to recognize restraints and settle for less than they want. Disappointment is normal.

But that’s sort of the beauty of politics, too. It involves an endless conversation in which we learn about other people and see things from their vantage point and try to balance their needs against our own. Plus, it’s better than the alternative: rule by some authoritarian tyrant who tries to govern by clobbering everyone in his way.

As Bernard Crick wrote in his book, “In Defence of Politics,” “Politics is a way of ruling divided societies without undue violence.””

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
26Jun/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, June 26th 2016

unionjack and eu flags

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

The Expert Meets Reality

Brexit icon

There are many interpretations of the vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. It is undoubtedly a story of the rise of nationalism and even xenophobia and racism around the world. The campaign also was notable for the brazen dissemination of misinformation and outright lies. The “Leave” voters in England clearly deviated from the usual script of putting their pocket books first as they voted against their economic self interest. But most observers have by now understood that the Brexit vote is above all about the rise of populism and the distrust of elites and experts.

In the Financial Times, Philip Stephens argues that an anti-expert populism was the driving force for Brexit: “One of the more revealing moments of the Brexit campaign came when Michael Gove, a Conservative Outer once close to Prime Minister David Cameron, said: “People in this country have had enough of experts.” There it is: a celebration of ignorance that writes the opening line of the populists’ playbook. How long before Mr. Gove, a former education secretary, is piling books on to bonfires? Modern democracies operate within a framework of rationalism. Dismantle it and the space is filled by prejudice. Fear counts above reason; anger above evidence. Lies claim equal status with facts. Soon enough, migrants — and Muslims especially — replace heretics and witches as the targets of public rage.”

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
19Jun/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, June 19th 2016

knotted-gun

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Judging Speech

Free speech is an unpopular value; we only speak of free speech when the words in question are offensive. All the more reason why we need to understand why free speech matters and when to invoke the freedom of speech—and when not to.

For example, when students at Yale last year called for the dismissal of a professor for her views in an email, their call itself was an exercise of free speech. They were wrongly criticized for violating free speech, when in fact they were exercising their freedoms. That the students were wrong in their call to censor and punish a professor for her opinions doesn’t deprive them of their rights. Had Yale caved to their demands and dismissed the professor, however, that would indeed run afoul of the ethos of free speech. We must always recall that the overriding point of freedom of speech is to encourage and protect political argumentation, even political arguments like those that the students made, arguments that are wrong and offensive.

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
14Jun/16Off
Courage to Change

The Courage to Change: Hannah Arendt

tillich-arendt-gandhi-gyatso

Audio from the series, The Courage to Change, co-hosted by Joe Loizzo and Roger Berkowitz at the Tibet House in NYC on Wednesdays in June 2016.

For this segment from June 1st, Roger and Joe discuss Hannah Arendt's work, Responsibility and Judgment (p.159-189), examining the courage to think.

"Class 1: Hannah Arendt and the Courage to Think (1 of 2)" from The Courage to Change: Timeless Wisdom for the Modern Age by Joe Loizzo and Roger Berkowitz. Released: 2016.

 

"Class 1: Hannah Arendt and the Courage to Think (2 of 2)" from The Courage to Change: Timeless Wisdom for the Modern Age by Joe Loizzo and Roger Berkowitz. Released: 2016.

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
12Jun/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi, June 12th 2016

knotted-gun

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

The Art of Lying in Politics

Corey Robin, while considering the recent jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas, argues that Thomas’ attempt to expand free speech rights for advertisers owes a debt to Hannah Arendt.

“When the First Amendment protects political speech—including, importantly, political speech that is false—it is precisely, Thomas seems to be suggesting, this dimension of speech that lies at the boundaries between fact and fiction that it is protecting.

At the heart of this kind of political action, then, is a straddling of that elusive space between what is, what is not, and what might be. Machiavelli understood that; Hobbes understood that (Leviathan’s massive power is generated in part, as I’ve argued, by healthy and alternating doses of illusion and reality); Nietzsche did, too.

In the modern era, however, no theorist explored that dimension of political action—in both its toxic and tamer variants—more than Hannah Arendt. The toxic variant was to be found in all manner of totalitarianism, as well as in the lies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. The tamer variants, however, were found in that dimension of action that involved elements of novelty and initiation, in an appreciation that politics is not the realm of Platonic Truth, a deep structure of what is, beneath the surface or behind the scenes, but of multiple and dissonant perspectives on stage, which provide an occasion for persuasive speech and artfulness.

Though Arendt was not nearly as hostile to factual truth as some would have her be, she did offer, between the lines of some of her essays, an appreciation of the art of the liar, for she saw that art as related, in some ways, to the political arts more generally.

The liar is an actor, in the literal sense, and politics, as Arendt reminds us, is a theater of appearances.

But the liar is also an actor in the political sense: she seeks to change the world, turning what is into what isn’t and what isn’t into what is (this is the part that made Arendt so nervous, as it reminded her of the totalitarian ruler). By arraying herself against the world as it is given to us, the liar claims for herself the same freedom that the political actor claims when she brings something new into the world: the freedom to say no to the world as it is, the freedom to make the world into something other than it is.

It’s no accident that the most famous liar in literature is also an adviser to a man of power, for the adviser or counselor has often been thought of as the quintessential political actor. When Iago says to Roderigo, “I am not what I am,” he is affirming that the liar, the dramatic actor, and the political actor all subscribe to elements of the same creed.

The advertiser operates in a similar realm between truth and illusion. She, too, seeks to use the arts of illusion to create new realities. Thomas seems to be emphasizing that dimension of the advertiser’s art.”

Robin is correct that Arendt understands the political role of the liar. Politics for Arendt is about opinion and some opinions are absolutely essential to our liberal democratic world. For example, the idea that “All men are equal” is one of those lies, those fictions, that Arendt argues is a great achievement of modern politics. Of course not all men are equal in any factual sense. But the political conviction that we are politically equal underlies the possibility of politics. Such is the kind of political lying that Arendt recognizes as important.

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
9Jun/16Off
Courage To Be

The Courage to Be: Danfung Dennis

Courage to Be Student Fellows Clara Gallagher and Milan Miller with Roger Berkowitz and Danfung Dennis

On Monday, April 25th, the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College welcomed filmmaker Danfung Dennis as keynote speaker for its third “Courage to Be” Dinner/Lecture of the Spring 2016 semester.

Written by 2016 Student Fellows Clara Gallagher and Milan Miller

Danfung Dennis, an Academy Award nominated documentary filmmaker and well-published photojournalist, gave a lecture titled “Infusing Technology With Moral Courage to Fight for Human and Animal Rights.”

Dennis opened his lecture with a brief overview of his Sundance Grand Jury Prize winning and Academy Award nominated film, Hell and Back Again, which takes the trope of the courageous heroics of a soldier on the war front, risking life and limb for his country, and exposes the true courage of that same figure as he returns home and proceeds to live in a place that refuses to acknowledge the lasting effects of these experiences. The courage here lies both within the soldier, in his struggles on the battlefield and the home front, and Dennis himself, as he risked his life in the same war zone as the soldier wielding nothing but a camera as his defense.

5Jun/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi 06/05/16

By PICASSO, la exposición del Reina-Prado. Guernica is in the collection of Museo Reina Sofia, Madrid

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Is Epic Over

T.J. Clarke, writing in The London Review of Books, suggests that the different tones that distinguish Hannah Arendt’s 1950 and 1966 prefaces to her book The Origins of Totalitarianism parallel Picasso’s shift from Guernica (1937) to his “Fall of Icarus” mural for the UNESCO headquarters done in 1958. Clarke sees in both Arendt’s tonal shift and Picasso’s artistic retreat a movement away from seeing the 20th century as an epic age, one characterized by existential battles.

“Already by the mid-1960s, the moment of The Origins of Totalitarianism’s second edition, the tone and even the substance of her 1950 reckoning with fascism and Stalinism had a period flavour. The world – or at least, the world of European and European-in-exile intellectuals – had decided that the 20th century’s long catastrophe was over. Many thought that 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, had marked its ending. And whatever crisis of civilisation had succeeded the earlier terrible catastrophe – Arendt and her friends were far from certain how to characterise the new situation, and certainly not inclined necessarily to see it as a respite from ongoing decay and powerlessness at the level of civil society – it could no longer be written about (or depicted) in epic terms. The fall of Europe had happened, tens of millions had perished, but the fall of Europe had not proved a new fall of Troy. After it had not come the savage god. Maybe ‘the essential structure of civilisation’ had broken; but the breakage, in the years after 1950, had failed to give rise to a new holocaust or a final nuclear funeral pyre. In place of the banality of evil had arrived the banality of Mutually Assured Destruction. ‘Two world wars in one generation, separated by an uninterrupted chain of local wars and revolutions’: perhaps it goes without saying that for Arendt’s generation the revolution that summed up the previous horror – staging, as it had seemed to, the essential combat between fascism and communism with special concentrated violence, and drawing into it left and right partisans from across the world – was the Civil War in Spain. It was, for them, the epic event of the mid-20th century. Picasso’s Guernica had given it appropriate, unforgettable form. The painting still does, of course. Arendt may have been right to feel a twinge of embarrassment at the tragic, exalted, ‘catastrophist’ tone of her 1950 preface, and to have thought by 1966 that the fate of mass societies in the late 20th century needed to be approached in a different key. But her thinking has not carried the day. The late 20th century, she argued, would only truly confront itself in the mirror if it recognised that the battle for heaven on earth (the classless society, the thousand years of the purified race) was over. It had given way (this is Arendt’s implication) to a form of ‘mock-epic’ or dismal comedy – still bloodstained and disoriented, but divested, by the evidence of Auschwitz and the Gulag, of the deadly dream that everything is possible. And it is this post-epic reality we should now learn to live with, she believed – maybe even to oppose. We shall only do this, her 1966 preface says, if we manage to look back on the hell of the totalitarian period with thorough bemused disillusion. We have to learn how not to allow the earlier 20th century to stand for the human condition. We have to detach ourselves from its myth.”

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
29May/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi 05/29/16

real_talk_poster

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Run Toward The Noise

Real Talk, The Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities at Bard College's 9th Annual Fall Conference - October 20-21, 2016

In the wake of last fall's campus protests, the protests that inspired this year's Arendt Center Conference, Real Talk (October 20th and 21st), Nathan Heller checks in with one of the most prominent cases, Oberlin College:

“In mid-December, a group of black students wrote a fourteen-page letter to the school’s board and president outlining fifty nonnegotiable demands for changes in Oberlin’s admissions and personnel policies, academic offerings, and the like. “You include Black and other students of color in the institution and mark them with the words ‘equity, inclusion and diversity,’ ” it said, “when in fact this institution functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy.”The letter was delivered by hand, but it leaked onto the Internet, and some of the more than seven hundred students who had signed it were hit with threats and hate speech online from anonymous accounts. The president, Marvin Krislov, rejected the letter’s stance, urging “collaboration.” All across Oberlin—a school whose norms may run a little to the left of Bernie Sanders—there was instead talk about “allyship”: a more contemporary answer to the challenges of pluralism. If you are a white male student, the thought goes, you cannot know what it means to be, say, a Latina; the social and the institutional worlds respond differently to her, and a hundred aggressions, large and small, are baked into the system. You can make yourself her ally, though—deferring to her experience, learning from her accounts, and supporting her struggles. You can reach for unity in difference.”

Heller spoke with Jasmine Adams, one of the signees of the fourteen-page letter. ““Me trying to appeal to people? Ain’t working. Me trying to be the quiet, sit-back-and-be-chill-and-do-my-work black person? Doesn’t work. Me trying to be friends with non-black folks? Doesn’t work.” She draws out her final syllables. “Whatever you do at Oberlin as a person of color or a low-income person, it just doesn’t work! So you’re just, like, I’ve got to stand up for myself.” “I have to be political,” Slay says. “I have to be political in whatever form or fashion,” Adams says. “Because I have nothing else to do.” There were negative responses to the fifty demands (which included a request for an $8.20-an-hour activism wage, the firing of nine Oberlin employees deemed insufficiently supportive of black students, and the tenuring of black faculty).”

That students are being political is something we should applaud. Hannah Arendt applauded students who engaged in politics. She supported students who requested leaves from classes to engage in political organizing. To make political claims. To seek to realize their interests. To live a political life. For Arendt, these are essential attributes of citizenship. Arendt even wrote that of all the students engaging in violence in the 1960s, she understood the violence of the black students the best because they were fighting for real political interests.

At the same time, Arendt insisted we separate politics from education. She saw education as at once conservative and revolutionary. Education is conservative insofar as it seeks to lead a student into the common world. The educator teaches students to love the world, the love of the world, Amor Mundi. We are, Arendt thinks, to love the world in full cognizance of its terrors and tribulations. And one important characteristic of the world that we love is that it is never static, never unquestionable, never sedentary. There is, she insists, always the possibility of a revolution, of a new direction, of an unexpected transformation. To love the world is to love it with both its horrors and its revolutionary potential. If liberals are too often overly critical and dismissive of the world we are living in, conservatives are frequently dismissive of revolutionary change. Education, for Arendt, is the teaching of the love of the world in both its conservative and revolutionary elements.

It matters, however, what one’s political argument is. Calling for people one disagrees with to be fired and seeking to shut down the exchange of opinions that is at the heart of both politics and academic life are demands that while political go against the very idea of both politics and education. So too are the efforts to stop the teaching of so-called offensive books. One student objected to the teaching of Sophocles’ Antigone, arguing in the campus newspaper the Oberlin Review that Antigone’s case for suicide was a potential trigger. According to Heller, the student “argued that trigger warnings were like ingredient lists on food: “People should have the right to know and consent to what they’re putting into their minds, just as they have the right to know and consent to what they’re putting into their bodies.”” The demand for trigger warnings emerges from the medicalization of campus discussion so that literature is no longer part of the humanities and opinions are extracted from their traditional political context; now all words and images are understood medically as potential triggers that may induce traumas. Traumas, of course, are real and can be debilitating. Once the language of trauma invades the academic and political spheres, however, reason and persuasion give way to preventative medicine.

What we are seeing emerge on college campuses is a hierarchy of oppressions in which each group insists that its sufferings need to be addressed and that it too must be protected from hostile and unwelcome speech. On February 25th, an Oberlin publication published an article that included screenshots from the Facebook feed of Joy Karega, an assistant professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin. The posts suggested, among other things, that Zionists had been involved in the 9/11 plot, that ISIS was a puppet of Mossad and the C.I.A., and that the Rothschild family owned “your news, the media, your oil, and your government.” The posts did not sit well with everyone at Oberlin, where, weeks earlier, a group of alumni and students had written the president with worries about anti-Semitism on campus; the board of trustees denounced Karega’s Facebook activities. As a teacher, however, she’d been beloved by many students and considered an important faculty advocate for the school’s black undergraduates. The need for allyship became acute. And so, with spring approaching, students and faculty at one of America’s most progressive colleges felt pressured to make an awkward judgment: whether to ally themselves with the black community or whether to ally themselves with the offended Jews.”

It is a sad day when a professor at an elite institution fans false, anti-Semitic, and hateful propaganda. Professors have a power to speak and be believed by students and spreading false facts corrupts the fundamental role of the professor as someone who leads students into the truth and beauty of the common world. But it is also sad the board of trustees felt the need to get involved. The answer to such claptrap is to respond clearly and strongly. Professors, students, and administrators should speak out, making clear that such statements are wrong and dangerous. There is no need to attack the professor personally. This is not a personal matter. It is a matter of the responsibility of a college to teach young people how to engage intellectually around controversial and difficult questions on which we may legitimately disagree. Yes the Professor was wrong. But we should attack her facts and her arguments.

If there is a ray of hope visible in the chaos at Oberlin, it is the advice that Michelle Obama gave to the Oberlin students at a speech there last year. AT the 2015 commencement address, the First Lady advised Oberlin students to “run toward the noise.” Oberlin’s President told Heller that many students actually are eager to talk these matters through themselves. “One of the things we’ve heard from students is that they want to talk about difficult issues among themselves—they would prefer not to have people who purport to speak for them.” That is the right approach. What Heller finds at Oberlin, however, is that students want to run away from the noise. “But at Oberlin a number of students seem to want to run away. More than a few have told me that they are leaving Oberlin, or about to leave Oberlin, or thinking about leaving Oberlin—and this at one of the country’s most resource-rich, student-focussed schools…. Many also speak of urges to leave due to a fraying in their mental health, a personal price paid for the systemic stresses of campus life.”

At Bard, the Hannah Arendt Center is working with students to create a “Dorm Room Conversation” series modeled after the national “Living Room Conversations” model, in which six students who disagree will sit down for difficult conversations on difficult issues that divide the campus. We also have inaugurated a “Tough Talk” lecture series designed to bring highly controversial speakers to campus, speakers who can and will challenge students in their basic presumptions. And we are dedicating our 2016 Fall Conference to the topic of “Real Talk: Difficult Questions About Race, Sex, and Religion on Campus.” There are real questions about inequalities of race, sex, and religion on campus, not to mention class and other inequalities that structure campus social and political life. It is worthwhile to talk about and struggle against such inequalities. But we must do so in a way that honors our common commitment to a shared political and intellectual world. The First Lady’s advice is sound: Run toward the noise.

 

amor mundi signup

Stop Play

lady justice

Mark Hertsgaard chronicles what happens after the whistle gets blown on the Pentagon:

"The Bush administration’s mass surveillance efforts were partly exposed in December 2005, when the New York Times published a front page article by reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, which revealed that the NSA was monitoring international phone calls and emails of some people in the US without obtaining warrants. Eight years later, that story would be dwarfed by Snowden’s revelations. But at the time, the Bush White House was furious – and they were determined to find and punish whoever had leaked the details to the New York Times. According to Crane, his superiors inside the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s office were eager to help. Henry Shelley, the general counsel – the office’s top lawyer – urged that the IG office should tell the FBI agents investigating the Times leak about Drake and the other NSA whistleblowers. After all, the NSA whistleblowers’ recent complaint had objected to the same surveillance practices described in the Times article – which made them logical suspects in the leak. Crane objected strenuously. Informing anyone – much less FBI investigators – of a whistleblower’s name was illegal. After debating the matter at a formal meeting in the personal office of the inspector general, Shelley and Crane continued arguing in the hallway outside. “I reached into my breast pocket and pulled out my copy of the Whistleblower Protection Act,” Crane recalled. “I was concerned that Henry was violating the law. Our voices weren’t raised, but the conversation was, I would say, very intense and agitated. Henry [replied] that he was the general counsel, the general counsel was in charge of handling things with the Justice Department and he would do things his way.” There the disagreement between Crane and Shelley stalled. Or so it seemed until 18 months later. On the morning of 26 July, 2007, FBI agents with guns drawn stormed the houses of Binney, Wiebe, Loomis and Roark. Binney was toweling off after a shower when agents accosted him; he and his wife suddenly found themselves with guns aimed directly between their eyes, the retired NSA man recalled.”

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
22May/16Off
Amor Mundi

Amor Mundi 05/22/16

ptsd usmc

Hannah Arendt considered calling her magnum opus Amor Mundi: Love of the World. Instead, she settled upon The Human Condition. What is most difficult, Arendt writes, is to love the world as it is, with all the evil and suffering in it. And yet she came to do just that. Loving the world means neither uncritical acceptance nor contemptuous rejection. Above all it means the unwavering facing up to and comprehension of that which is.

Every Sunday, The Hannah Arendt Center Amor Mundi Weekly Newsletter will offer our favorite essays and blog posts from around the web. These essays will help you comprehend the world. And learn to love it.

Trauma and Society

Sebastian Junger has a far-reaching essay on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Junger explores PTSD in its connection to rape trauma and asks why it is so prevalent today, at a time when wars are less lethal than ever. One part of his answer suggests that at least some of the source of PTSD is found less in war than in the civilian society into which soldiers return.

“Any discussion of PTSD and its associated sense of alienation in society must address the fact that many soldiers find themselves missing the war after it’s over. That troubling fact can be found in written accounts from war after war, country after country, century after century. Awkward as it is to say, part of the trauma of war seems to be giving it up. There are ancient human behaviors in war—loyalty, inter-reliance, cooperation—that typify good soldiering and can’t be easily found in modern society. This can produce a kind of nostalgia for the hard times that even civilians are susceptible to: after World War II, many Londoners claimed to miss the communal underground living that characterized life during the Blitz (despite the fact that more than 40,000 civilians lost their lives). And the war that is missed doesn’t even have to be a shooting war: “I am a survivor of the AIDS epidemic,” a man wrote on the comment board of an online talk I gave about war. “Now that AIDS is no longer a death sentence, I must admit that I miss those days of extreme brotherhood … which led to deep emotions and understandings that are above anything I have felt since the plague years.” What all these people seem to miss isn’t danger or loss, per se, but the closeness and cooperation that danger and loss often engender. Humans evolved to survive in extremely harsh environments, and our capacity for cooperation and sharing clearly helped us do that. Structurally, a band of hunter-gatherers and a platoon in combat are almost exactly the same: in each case, the group numbers between 30 and 50 individuals, they sleep in a common area, they conduct patrols, they are completely reliant on one another for support, comfort, and defense, and they share a group identity that most would risk their lives for. Personal interest is subsumed into group interest because personal survival is not possible without group survival. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s not at all surprising that many soldiers respond to combat in positive ways and miss it when it’s gone.”

Part of the problem that veterans have, Junger suggests, is that our individualist and lonely society is so foreign to the comaraderie of wartime life. He worries that western societies don’t touch children enough and live too separately, or at least that in keeping our distance we are being untrue to our animal needs, needs that wartime better meets.

Hannah Arendt might be suspicious of Junger’s turn to evidence from primates to argue for the need for more intimate ways of living, but she would clearly recognize his claim that western individualist societies are not as happy as they claim to be. For Arendt, we have increasingly lost sight of an essential part of human happiness—what she calls public happiness. Public happiness is the joy and thrill experienced when one acts together with others in public. It is the happiness we experience when, amidst a crisis, we work together to stack sandbags with strangers or save someone from a burning building. It is also the feeling of joy felt by participants in Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party when they act together to occupy and run a public square or organize to take over a local town council.

Arendt would not have psychologized the feelings of alienation from society as Junger does. But she also sees that we are increasingly alienated from our world. World alienation, in her telling, has its origin in the scientific revolution—the insight that the common sense world of our eyes is not to be trusted, that it deceives us. From that fundamental scientific insight, scientists like Galileo and Descartes shifted the locus of truth from the world to the individual mind, alienating man from the common world.

What Junger is touching upon in his essay is the way that the experience of war re-creates the kind of non-alienated common world that Arendt hopes to keep alive through public action and politics. What both Junger and Arendt understand is that amidst the action in concert of war and politics humans are able to bear suffering and sacrifice because they act for a purpose. Man can bear all suffering, Nietzsche writes, if he thinks it has a purpose. As the purpose of life is attenuated in our individualist society, we lose sight of what Arendt calls public happiness. And we also lose our ability to confront and live with the very real traumas of war and also of rape. This does not diminish those traumas, but it may help to think about how we can better learn to live with them. —RB

 

amor mundi signup

Research Corrupts

In an article surveying the field of contemporary social science inquiry into the nature and psychological effects of power, Matthew Sweet (perhaps inadvertently, or perhaps not) reminds us that research is its own kind of power relation:

Who, then, is right? Are powerful people nicer or nastier than powerless ones? How can we explain the disparate answers yielded by these two sets of data? It may be that rich people are better at disguising their true nature than poor people. If being generous in public brings rewards, then rich people might be more inclined to help old ladies across roads. Selfish driving is consistent with this idea: the anonymity of the road means that aggressive petrolheads need not worry about damaging their reputations. And Keltner points out that the data come from people’s accounts of their own charitable giving, and not from watching them in the act. “We know from other studies that the wealthy are more likely to lie and exaggerate about ethical matters,” he says. “Survey self-report data in economics and face-to-face data in psychology capture different processes. What I say I do in society versus how I behave with actual people.” But it is also possible that the problem lies not with the survey data but with the psychological experiments. Over the past year, this possibility has become the subject of bitter debate. In August 2015, the journal Science reported that a group of 270 academics, led by Brian Nosek, a respected professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, had attempted to reproduce the results of 100 psychological studies. Ninety-seven of the original studies had produced statistically significant results. Only 36 of the replications did the same. Those numbers threatened to undermine the entire discipline of experimental psychology, for if a result cannot be replicated then it must be in doubt. In March 2016 a panel of luminaries claimed to have detected serious shortcomings in the methodology of Nosek’s paper. The inquiry was led by Dan Gilbert, a Harvard professor with a history of hostility to the replicators. (“Psychology’s replication police prove to be shameless little bullies,” he tweeted in 2014, defending another researcher whose work was questioned.) When a journalist from Wired magazine asked Gilbert if his defensiveness might have influenced his conclusions, he hung up on them. Psychology’s “Replication Crisis” might not yet be over. In September 2015, five social psychologists and a sociologist published a paper in the Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences that suggested why psychology might show privileged people in a bad light. Left-wing opinion, contended Jonathan Haidt and his co-authors, was over-represented in psychology faculties. This, they suspected, might be distorting experimental findings – as well as making campus life difficult for researchers with socially conservative views. “The field of social psychology is at risk of becoming a cohesive moral community,” they warned. “Might a shared moral-historical narrative in a politically homogeneous field undermine the self-correction processes on which good science depends? We think so.”

The Hannah Arendt Center
The Hannah Arendt Center at Bard is a unique institution, offering a marriage of non-partisan politics and the humanities. It serves as an intellectual incubator for engaged thinking and public discussion of the nation's most pressing political and ethical challenges.
19May/16Off
Quote of the Week

The Ethics of Eichmann’s Defense

By Source, Fair Use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6501243

By Martin Wagner

"If the defendant excuses himself on the ground that he acted not as a man but as a mere functionary whose functions could just as easily have been carried out by anyone else, it is as if a criminal pointed to the statistics on crime — which set forth that so-and-so many crimes per day are committed in such-and-such a place — and declared that he only did what was statistically expected, that it was mere accident that he did it and not somebody else, since after all somebody had to do it."

--Hannah Arendt, (From the postscript to Eichmann in Jerusalem)

In the postscript to her report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt presents us with a strange hypothetical. Think of a criminal — say, a murderer — who presents as his only excuse the statistical likelihood of a murder at the time and location where he committed his crime. Let us be clear that the murderer does not use these statistics to imply that the frequency of murders in his district suggests that homicide is less of a moral transgression there. Murder is not okay, and the criminal doesn’t suggest otherwise. He merely says: look, statistically speaking, it was bound to happen — and I just happened to be the instrument through which the statistically expected incident occurred. Had I not done it, someone else probably would have. So how can you punish me for something that would have happened anyway.

Martin Wagner
Martin Wagner (Ph.D., German literature, Yale University 2014) is Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature at Yonsei University, Underwood International College. His research and teaching focus on the intersections of literature, philosophy, and the sciences in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe.