Four Ways to Teach Old Dogmas New Tricks

1. Just add a generic prefix.

Adding “neo-” or “post-” in front of your ideology of choice is a great way to give it a more qualified, sophisticated flavor.

Perhaps the most entertaining example of this technique occurred during the historical-philosophical transition from Structuralism to post-Structuralism. A subsection of the intelligentsia of the United States, always at least a few years behind the philosophical curve, were intrigued with the so-called Structuralists. They therefore felt compelled to invite some of these French celebrity-philosophers in 1966 to a colloquium at Johns Hopkins University.

Apparently disgusted with the stupidity of American academia, Jacques Lacan and Roland Barthes, after a round of dazzling speeches, marched out with the inimitable Jacques Derrida, only now all triumphantly post-Structuralists.

Interesting side note: the prefix “neo-” is commonly associated with right-wing dogmas: e.g. neoliberalism, neoconservatism, neo-Nazism, etc. The “new” of the “neo” here in no way contradicts the conservatism immanent to these ideologies, at least insofar as they each in their own way function to uphold the blind quantitative development of the economy, which inevitably becomes the development of power. For the authoritarian neo-dogmas, the most novel is also the most archaic.

On the other hand, the prefix “post-” is typically reserved for Leftist dogmas: e.g. post-Structuralism, but also post-Marxism or even post-Leftism. The “after” of the “post” merely indicates the critical-to-the-point-of-self-destructive nature of Leftist thinking.

2. Oxymoronify two dogmas together into one.

Combining two supposed opposites provides that philosophically paradoxical twist which every great thinker strives to have in his repertoire.

Thomas J.J. Altizer’s “Christian atheism” comprises one of the highest of such achievements. For Altizer, it is not that God never existed, as the mere atheist contends, but rather that He is dead — and that we killed Him! When God was killed on the cross, humanity committed the ultimate sin: deicide, the killing of God Himself. But with the ultimate sin comes a final forgiveness: in not punishing humanity, God lets humanity live with its sin in a sort of divine abandon. The resurrection of God, this Hegelian sublation which finally reunites Father and Son, is merely the resurrection of God in us as the Holy Spirit, as the Christian (atheist) community. Forsaken by God, it is only we ourselves who can forgive each other, only we ourselves who can give and take communion.

3. Go back to the basics!

Claim you are an old-fashioned fundamentalist — the paradoxical novelty of the anachronism could even wind up being named after you. This is precisely what played out when Jacques Lacan declared himself a mere Freudian: “Lacanianism” developed as its own ideology. And does Slavoj Zizek’s Hegelianism not immediately precipitate a Zizekism?

A sort of reversal of this process occurred when Karl Marx, on his deathbed, proclaimed that he was not a Marxist.

4. Become dogmatically anti-dogma

By renouncing all dogmas, you’re really just announcing your dogmatic adherence to the anti-dogma par excellence: nihilism.

Nihilism is an extrapolation of existentialism. The latter merely posits that there is no universal human essence, that one’s own essence lies in one’s existence. But nihilism goes further and says that no essence at all is discoverable in the process of existing. In other words, nihilism is the theoretical formulation of total passivity and impotence.

This final way of teaching old dogmas new tricks is itself impotent though, because the genuine nihilist doesn’t even know or care to know that he is a nihilist.

Addendum on Ideology in Everyday Life

Ideology and dogmatic thinking constantly infiltrate the smallest crevices of our everyday lives, often in ways we don’t even recognize. Take for example the simple choice between briefs and boxers. It seems obvious that briefs, which keep everything tight and organized, represent an unconscious desire for authoritarianism. Choosing boxers on the other hand really just indicates a loose preference for liberation. Something similar can be said for high socks and ankle socks. The former indicate an obsession with security (why else would one choose to cover up a portion of their shins?). The latter hint at a sort of openness, perhaps even an open-mindedness.

One more example which has perhaps already become hackneyed: a city’s choice to focus its urban planning on either highways or subways. The massive highways which whip through US cities reveal the pride Americans have in their individuality. Anyone can take their individual car to the exact location of their choice. On the other hand, the efficiency of the underground metro systems of Europe demonstrates the (slightly) greater communality found in their societies.

Final Note on Intellectual Masturbation

In a world in which all activity, from agriculture to the creation of art, has been recuperated into the dominant mode of production and commodified, the only noble act that remains is intellectual masturbation. It is an activity that resists commodification because it cannot produce any value besides a personal glee (maybe at others’ expense). Rather than being looked down upon as an annoying plaything of young college students, intellectual masturbation henceforth must be regarded as the highest good. Can philosophy give up its scientific pretensions and become a form of pure entertainment? Only time (in Martin Heidegger’s sense) will tell.