"christian a. gregory" wrote:
> As for the blurb on Zizek's book, it's true I've never been fond of the
> "subversive core" business. I prefer the "pedagogically useful" or
> "strategically resonant" core--or something like that.
"Pedagogically useful" is an acceptable formulation -- and it really does apply to tea ceremonies or half-time rituals at football games as well as the christian religion. But incidentally, anyone who follows the old slogan, "You oranize with your ears more than your mouth," will grab on to that aspect without having ever attended to christianity much . It's more or less spontaneous for all who have some decent feel for agitational and organizational tasks. Formal psychology, whether freudian, behaviorist, or cognitive, tends not only to occlude historical explanation, as Yoshie mentions, but also to block and confuse this kind of "practical everyday psychology," which can't be theorized. We are in the realm of the contingent again. If you are talking to a catholic women's group about aiding a caravan of illegal immigrants from Guatemala demanding refugee status either Aquinas or Freud will merely get in the way.
I won't buy "strategically resonant," however. Perhaps "tactically relevant" could be acceptable. As I have mentioned before, for professional reasons I gained a rather extensive knowledge of Christian theology. (Studying Pound leads to medieval theology, Milton to Reformation theology.) But in my rather extensive political collaboration with various Christians, and in particular with a one particular Presbyterian minister and one particular Roman Catholic priest, I never had any occasion to speak to them on any topic which required calling on that material. So I repeat my very first post on this. It is essential that political agitators be able and willing to work with christians, but this does not require paying any formal attention at all to christian thought. It was on this basis that I thought myself able to judge in advance, on the basis of Doug's brief remarks, that Zizek's book was going to be a waste of ink. It may be a very interesting book, but I can know from experience that *that topic* (however he handles it) just isn't needed for political work.
"Tactically resonant" I would accept -- but then we are back to the tactical sense one develops by making use of the ears and giving the mouth a rest. (And above all in agitational or organizational work, of course, you don't use your mouth to ask questions unless you [a] know the answer in advance and [b] know that your respondent will give the same answer you would. You do not attack people you are trying to recruit to a struggle.)
Carrofl