Kelly Maeshiro

[Draft] An analysis of reductionism in connection with the unity of science. The paper is organized into two parts: the first containing a logical analysis of the concepts of reduction and emergence, in both logical and ontological terms; the second containing an examination of the plausibility of reductionism.

An interpretation and critique of postmodern theory from the point of view of its theoretical content and ideological function. Postmodernism is both the theory and ideology of postmodernity, which designates the historical period of late capitalism, and functions as a dominant framework of discourse. Considered from the point of view of its theoretical content, postmodern theory is systematically false in every single respect, and as a dominant framework of discourse introduces systematic distortions within all of the discourses in which postmodernism has been influential, including much of the humanities. But postmodernism is not simply a theoretical mistake; it is among other things the ideology of a definite historical period. As an ideology of late capitalism, postmodern theory expresses, but does not comprehend, the condition of its own alienation -- which in turn explains its systematic falsity. An expression of this alienation, it is too deeply imbricated in the forms of consciousness proper to its own historical period to form an adequate conception of that period, or of itself. That is in turn because postmodern theory itself is a postmodern artifact, the  commodity-form of theory in the period of late capitalism, and represents the wholesale commodification of theory itself. Postmodernism thus stands to be criticized on at least three grounds. As a framework of discourse, it is systematically distorted. As a theory of postmodernity, it is false. And as an ideology, it is complicit in the social reproduction of capital. This presents in turn a twofold problem, at once theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it must be refuted. Practically, it must be resisted. In both cases, it must opposed, if possible, eliminated.

A theological critique of capitalism as a form of religion, corresponding to a definite historical form of idolatry, which should be destroyed, with discussions of secularism, alienation, Marx's anthropology, commodity fetishism, and idolatry.

As scholars have begun to recognize, capitalism exhibits many of the features of traditional religious systems (beliefs, practices, institutions, symbols, etc.). The Capitalist religion is an expression of the alienation implied in the capitalist mode of production, which in turn represents a definite historical form of idolatry.

A paper written a while back, in December 2014, for a course on A.J. Heschel with Cornel West at Union Theological Seminary. The paper explores some of the themes with which I have been principally occupied: alienation, modernity, capitalism, nihilism, meaning, the holy, and the relations between all of these. It examines the problem of nihilism as in part an effect of the alienation implied in capitalist civilization, and the effects this has had on our relation to the transcendent.

Among the most pressing and fundamental facts of modern existence is nihilism, the death of god, the collapse of our structures of meaning, an eclipse of hope, a spiritual blackout. The reason this threat appears so particularly ominous to us is that it seeks to rob us of our ability to be pious, to connect with a source of meaning larger than our petty selves, to be in communion with a transcendent dimension of meaning and a holy dimension of existence with which come our ability to experience grace, to experience life as miraculous, with awe and wonder and radical amazement. The old metaphysical center, this transcendental signified, provided humanity with a structure of meaning which mediated its relation to the dimension of the holy. It was through this structure of meaning that humanity was able to cultivate and nurture its connection to this external source of meaning and value, far exceeding the bounds of the self, and there is a time, we are told, in which piety was as common as knowledge of the multiplication table is today. But we live in a different world today. With the advent of late modernity, with the bombing of Hiroshima and the genocide of Auschwitz, and so many other events of which these two are characteristic, the center could no longer hold, and the words of Nietzsche’s madman proved prophetic. God died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. It was spiritual blackout in the wasteland of modernity. And in the metaphysical void which the old structure of meaning left in its collapse came a new, vicious god, Capital, whose depredations have only exacerbated the nihilistic threat of late modernity. This is the spiritual situation of the modern individual. The question is whether not there is a way out, a way above.

Tracing through the development of materialist philosophy via Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx, the paper conceives of communism of the sort that Marx imagined as a constructive moment in the dialectic of the Absolute. In one sense, the aim is to formulate the broad outlines of a synthesis between Hegel's idealism and Marx's materialism. Drawing on Marx contra Hegel, I argue that the Absolute cannot realize itself through the free conscious activity of human beings within the framework of the bourgeois state, but only within the framework of communism of the sort that Marx envisioned. But I also argue that Marx's materialism is a good deal more consistent with the framework of Hegel's idealism than he, on account of what I believe is a misreading, probably supposed. If this is true, Marx's materialism represents an expression of the Absolute which does not recognize itself as such.

Drawing on Plato as paradigmatic philosopher and, to a large extent, the intellectual architect of subsequent Western philosophy, the essay examines the definite limits of philosophical discourse and explores the conditions of its legitimacy. Taking Plato's treatment of the poets in the Republic as an example, the essay argues that poetry and philosophy are autonomous discourses, "separate magisteria"; that rational foundations are the conditions of meaningful philosophical discourse; and that poetic discourse is a form of dramatic wisdom which becomes meaningful precisely at the point at which philosophical discourse breaks down.

The alienation implied in the capitalist mode of production represents a form of idolatry in the biblical sense (an objectification, projection, and externalization of one's own essential nature), and explains: (1) spiritual anxiety (meaninglessness) as the specific historical form of anxiety which corresponds with capitalism as a definite historical form of production; and (2) the emergence of what Tillich calls secular "quasi-religions," including the Capitalist religion, with its own beliefs, practices, symbols, myths, institutions, and so on.

The nature and conduct of U.S. foreign policy is not difficult to understand. It is in fact quite simple. A modicum of common sense is all that is necessary. What employment of common sense reveals is exactly what one would expect on any minimally rational assumptions: the foreign policy of the United States reflects the interests of the business community which largely formulate state policy. While various sectors of internationally-oriented private capital have diverse material interests, they converge on the need for access to the markets and resources of the world. The overarching principle of U.S. policy, which reflects these shared class interests, is therefore to sustain an overall framework of order in which American capital is ensured access to the markets and resources of the world, as well as a favorable investment climate. All of these priorities are stated explicitly in the internal documentary record, as are the corollary principles, which include consistent support for authoritarian regimes, opposition to freedom, democracy, and human rights, as well as systematic opposition to independent development. In cases where states pursue a course of independent development (as in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Iran, Brazil, Nicaragua, and so on), the United States predictably intervenes to restore “stability” which means a favorable business climate, usually achieved through harsh repression. The “communist threat” is then invoked as a pretext for intervention and aggression. Since no communist threat actually exists, even in cases where communists are present, policymakers are forced to consciously fabricate a threat to justify intervention. These are the basic outlines of U.S. foreign policy, obvious once considered, demonstrably accurate when weighed against the facts.

As the title suggests, this extended essay is a critique of mainstream economic theory (neoclassical and neo-Keynesian), which serves the function of a theology for the Capitalist religion -- a rationalization and legitimization of capitalist accumulation. The economics faculty constitute a secular priesthood with its own arcane form of self-referential theological discourse. The essay examines the discursive and institutional practices which systematically distort genuine understanding of the economic system in a way that rationalizes capitalist production.

A reflection I wrote on Galbraith's Affluent Society because -- why not? The essay assesses Galbraith's significance as an emblematic liberal political economist, whose work reflected both the characteristic strengths and limits of political liberalism. Galbraith’s criticism identifies the problems of industrial capitalism but does nothing to solve it. Galbraith’s liberalism is indicative of liberalism more generally, and the contradiction lodged at its heart.  Its proposal to reform and regulate capitalism implies that capitalism is in need of regulation, i.e., that there is something inherently problematic about capitalism.  And yet the very nature of the reforms they propose does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of this problem. Liberalism at once implicitly identifies and effectively ignores capitalism’s real problems.

An old essay, written in May 2013, which reflects both a different and approach and writing style from my more recent writing. I almost entirely disagree with the whole approach now, as well as much of what I suggest in the essay -- not least the critique of metaphysics as mere ideology -- but have continued to develop some of its themes, with a continued interest in certain preoccupations expressed here: capitalist culture, commodification, critique of ideology, instrumental reason, the culture industry, and the meaning of Christianity in this context, with an emphasis on the political implications of its basic doctrines. Drawing on Adorno, Horkheimer, Lukacs, and Baudrillard, I attempt to describe the unique nature of contemporary ideology, and to derive some of the political implications of basic Christian beliefs in the context of a culture which has been so highly commodified and digitalized, reflecting the development of postmodern capitalism.