For some time now, I have been struck by the fact that the readers of this blog – or at least that small group who comment regularly – seem to have virtually no interest in what I actually post on the blog, preferring instead to engage in lengthy discussions among themselves about just about anything else. Lord knows, there is a great deal going on right now in the world that is more interesting and more important than what I say here, but why come to this blog to talk about that rather than to make any sort of comment on what I have posted?
Yesterday, I decided to try a little experiment. I mentioned
that I was preparing for today’s class, the first of a series of classes on the
thought of Karl Marx, and that I had chosen to begin my lecture today by
quoting a passage from the Book of Genesis, chapter 3 verses 16 – 19. This, I suggested would be a natural-lead in
to Marx’s famous 1844 discussion of alienated labor, about which so much has
been written. What sort of response, if
any, I wondered, what I get to that statement?
Well, it is early in the day but the answer seems to be none
at all, save for a tangentially relevant remark by “unknown” on the slightly
earlier verses concerning God’s curse laid upon the snake.
There are several possible explanations for this total
absence. The first of course is that the relevance of that passage to the
discussion of alienated labor is so obvious to everyone as not to need comment.
Somehow, I doubt that explanation, although of course it may be correct. A
second explanation is that the connection between the two is so obscure that
nobody has a clue what it is and everybody is too embarrassed to ask. I would
like to believe this explanation, because it implies that the readers of this
blog have some interest in what I say. But the most plausible explanation is
the third, namely that in this as in almost every other case, the commenters
view the blog post as simply an opportunity to talk about anything else that is
on their minds.
I freely confess that this disappoints me but I persevere in
the hope, if not the belief, that somewhere out there in the great blogosphere are
readers who actually do have some interest in what I say and are hopeful that I
will explain the connection at which I hinted.
Buoyed by that hope, supported though it is by so little
direct evidence, I shall after my class explain what I had in mind. Then the
commentators can go on talking about whatever is on their minds, ignoring my
explanation as they have my provocative post.
In all the blogs where commenters do not stray from the original post, the blogger moderates, guides the conversation as a teacher does in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteYou don't moderate and unlike in a classroom setting, there is no grade, no one needs a letter of recommendation from you here, there is no reason for people to stick to the subject and not obey the normal flow of conversation, which tends to stray.
Think of this space as more like a dinner party than a classroom. In a dinner party the host may mention a topic to break the ice and get the conversation flowing, but the conversation will soon stray from that topic.
If you don't want that to occur, moderate.
It's not that readers aren't interested in what you have to say, we're also interested in thousands of other topics.
Maybe in the days of Adam and Eve all labor was alienated, except for God's. And opposed to alienated labor of "by the sweat of your brow shall you get food to eat" was a paradise of doing nothing and having everything you need. So the thesis is paradise, the antithesis is the fall: what is the synthesis?
ReplyDeleteObviously, since I recently voiced my view that so many who comment on this blog use it to argue endlessly and at too great length with each other about their own hobby horses of the moment, paying little or no heed to what our esteemed blog master has tried to initiate as a topic of conversation, I’m happy to see RPW make his views known.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with s. wallerstein, that a bit more active moderation might help. On the other hand, given the argumentative tendencies and styles that typically appear here, that would likely turn out to be a burdensome task, especially for someone still intellectually and socially active in other ways.
Also on the other hand, wrt s.w.’s suggestion that we think of what goes on here as being more like a dinner conversation than a class, I hope s.w. would concede that in too many dinner conversations there are those who try to dominate, talking over and talking down to others around the dinner table. In other words, even if it is more like a dinner table conversation, I hope it will be acknowledged that such conversations may be polite or may be a sore trial for several at the table who wish that everyone would be more mannerly.
It is interesting, by the way, to look back to earlier moments on this blog. My casual review of some of the earlier ones is that commentators were much fewer in number on any particular topic and that they didn’t feel compelled to pursue long and bitter arguments with each other, making a point and moving on or out. I’d be interested to learn from anyone with more time and energy than I have, when the switch (I am suggesting seems to have happened) from the ‘classroom model’ to the ‘dinner conversation’ model occurred.
I must finally apologise for having allowed myself to be provoked into unseemly argument on occasion too.
Good luck, Professor Wolff.
Dear Professor Wolff,
ReplyDeleteYesterday I wrote to You an email asking, if I could participate online in Your class on “Marx, Freud, Marcuse: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis”. I would be interested in lectures on Marx himself as well. I've atached my article in which I refer Herbert Marcuse's critique of neomarxian aesthetics. I used Your official email address, i.e. rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
If online participation is possible (even if only passive), I would be glad to receive zoom link.
Best regards
Michał Biedziuk
In the spirit of ignoring your actual topic, I once in an article called the penalty imposed on the serpent the original Just So story.
ReplyDeleteIt's also notable that, at least in the JPS translation I looked up, the penalties imposed on Adam & Eve were *not* explicitly imposed on their descendants. So the doctrine of Original Sin is not in the original, but tacked on by Christianity.
I never felt alienated, but perhaps I was just lucky.
Barney
ReplyDeleteYou ought to see the translation by Robert Alter. I guess the only original sin of the Jews is conquering Palestine.
RPW: There are several possible explanations for this total absence. The first of course is that the relevance of that passage to the discussion of alienated labor is so obvious to everyone as not to need comment. Somehow, I doubt that explanation, although of course it may be correct. A second explanation is that the connection between the two is so obscure that nobody has a clue what it is and everybody is too embarrassed to ask.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility is that some of us have heard your explication already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35cr_whPC88&t=2000s
@ ~33:20
I was sure I had heard or seen before Professor Wolff's explication of the link between that Genesis passage and Marx on alienated labor, either on YouTube or on this blog. Admittedly, I could not offhand remember the Genesis passage or what the link was, but I was sure I'd encountered it before.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I was too busy trying to finish Marx's "On the Jewish Question" (see discussion in other thread if interested).
S. Wallerstein (and, well, all of you): shame on you. You broke the spell!
ReplyDeleteFor a bit of comic relief, not relevant to Prof. Wolff’s post, I recommend listening to Garrison Keillor’s recollection of his reciting Oh Captain, My Captain for his high school talent show:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjA1Tc80MbI
Per your post: I live in California and so inevitably come late to the discussions. Observing the behavior that you mention, and seeing multiple posts ahead of me not interacting with the text, I have assumed that adding my on-topic comment would likely be drowned by the existing comment flow.
ReplyDeleteI have been interested in commenting in the past so I will try in the future to simply respond to your posts de novo.
How often have you taken the time to reply to comments addressed to something you had said? People like to engage with those whom they expect will engage with them in kind. More than giving feedback, enjoy receiving feedback on their own thoughts; sending thoughts into the ether, and receiving no reply, is not only not particularly fun, it can be positively dispiriting (what you lament goes both ways). As for why bother showing up here at all, S. Wallerstein's explanation is fair enough.
ReplyDeleteDear Fellow Commentators,
ReplyDeleteOn occasion, when I have been away from this blog for awhile, and I return only to find that there are 50 or 60 or more comments, I say to myself before checking to see, "I'll bet there are at least 10 comments by xx (fill in the blank). And generally, my guess is accurate and the subject in question writes incredibly extended comments.
To be honest, when there are dozens of comments, I don't bother even starting in on them. I'm interested in the blog and relevant responses (the classroom model, I suppose). So apart from RPW picking up the unenviable task of moderating, why don't we agree that we brilliant commentators limit ourselves to one response to the blog and one (only) response to anyone who dares launching into a critique of what we say? The endless jousting is somewhat boring, is it not? and not terribly respectful of RPW. Afterall, he has brought this up before.
I'd say that we've got together a good discussion group in the comments section. In fact, when Professor Wolff was in Paris, some of us exchanged emails so that we could continue with the conversation.
ReplyDeleteSure, some commentators are more insistent and vehement than others, but that's life.
A while ago Professor Wolff said that he was going to close the comments section, but then after a few days changed his mind and said that he would not. It's "his" blog so he's
free to do that of course. I put "his" in quotation marks because all of us who participate here have made this blog what it is and who knows, some people may tune in to see what Marc Susselman has to say rather than what Professor Wolff has to say.
No doubt that Professor Wolff knows a lot more about Marxism than any of the rest of us, but the model of the great man (always a man) who dictates from on high to the proles does not seem consistent with a belief in libertarian socialism.
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteYou do me too great an undeserved honor. I want to make it clear that it has never been my intention to upstage Prof. Wolff.
ReplyDeleteIt would behoove the 'prole' who feels that it is his bounden duty never to miss commenting on a single post in the blog of a remarkably urbane elderly emeritus professor to mind his manners and never to forget that he is, in fact, the guest of the blogger. Rudeness is never attractive.
I've mostly long since given up on comments sections; and any blogs I read, including this one, I read on an RSS feed. So I never see what's going on the comment sections, and very rarely comment myself; it takes extra steps to click over here to do that.
ReplyDeleteWith one notable exception (side-eye at you know who), I think that even when their remarks are not directly responding to Prof Wolff's post of the day, most of the commenters do tend to try to keep the comments related to other topics that have been discussed on the blog by Prof Wolff and other commenters in the recent days or weeks. It also seems that the long discursions in the comments are more likely to occur during periods when Prof Wolff is posting less frequently, especially when his posts don't really say anything provocative. Several of his recent posts have just talked about his preparing for returning to the classroom, which he has been understandably excited about, but he has not really made any spicy observations on politics or history or anything. Perhaps it's fair to say that the blogosphere, like Nature, abhors a vacuum.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major differences between this blog and a classroom is that everything occurs in realtime in the classroom, whereas there is often a long delay between when Prof Wolff's posts appear online and when readers are able to view and reply to them. In addition, in the classroom there can be a lot more interactivity between the professor and the students. (In fact, as I recall, Prof Wolff encourages students to feel free to ask questions or raise observations during class.) Most of the time with the blog, after he publishes a blog post he doesn't respond to what is said in the comments, especially for comments posted many hours (or days) later. Half of the time we who comment regularly don't even know if he has read the comments.
God told Adam he would toll in the earth. Eve's judgement was to suffer in child bearing. This after they broke his commandment not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which is likely a metaphorical story about Homo Sapiens achievement of consciousness. The pain of the worker, according to Christianity if it were to comment on Marx must be to say "God made it so". I don't think Marx was wrong to point out the very clear fact that workers toll to some degree. I do think he beginning premise, that it is a hierarchy of classes upon which a society is built is incorrect. I believe instead it is a hierarchy of competence upon which society is built which while not always fair, seems to be the fairest.
ReplyDeleteYour lectures on Kant are fabulous. Thanks