AAR 2009: Taking stock

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

This AAR was very good for me overall. Friday night, Dan Barber and I got to meet Bruce Rosenstock, after attending the great session he was a part of; we all went out that night and also got to hang out a bit at my session the next morning. My paper was well-received and the session itself generated some great conversation, including a conversation with Catherine Keller, whom I was meeting for the first time.

The Zizek-Altizer session was good, but somewhat disappointing, in that the system of having hand-selected responses from the audience (which sounded great to me going in) didn’t work quite as envisioned, in part due to Zizek’s long-windedness. Receptions were interesting, as I met more new people than I usually do, including James Cone, whose hand I shook but who almost certainly had already forgotten I existed even before the handshake was finished — but my main goal was to be able to tell my students in liberation theology that I had met him, so: mission accomplished on that front.

Beyond that, I had very productive conversations with publishers, ate some good meals, heard some good papers, and bought some interesting books. There was a nice restaurant in the conference center that appeared to be organized around the Unibroue beers, so I enjoyed that, and I also had pho for the first time in Chinatown, where I got to talk to an actual non-academic Montreal resident with whom I shared a table. Sadly, that was about as much exploration of Montreal that I did unguided by AAR-related concerns; my biggest regret on this front is that I didn’t get to take advantage of the possibility of buying French books.

Feel free to share your own experiences, or links to posts thereupon, in comments.

23 Responses to “AAR 2009: Taking stock”


  1. I sat by myself in my flat and developed a theory of writing/fucking-around-on-the-internet duality. Godly times.

    In Christ,
    APS

  2. Hill Says:

    I was going to post a comment to the effect that I had done nothing, but Anthony’s was so sublime that I’ve lost the motivation.


  3. I rewatched the first season of “Arrested Development”. I hadn’t seen it since it originally aired. It holds up well.

  4. Andy Says:

    I defeated swine flu.


  5. I also enjoyed AAR this year, and enjoyed that I wasn’t reading a paper. I was able to meet and talk to Doug Harink and Walter Lowe at an informal dinner amongst people exploring apocalyptic (and talk with other folks, whom I had already met), and Wipf and Stock paid for our food and drinks more than once, including that dinner. I also explored the nightlife every night with good friends including David Belcher (who gave an amazing paper Sunday Night), Halden Doerge, David Horstkoetter, Jon Stanley and Chris Keller (from The Other Journal), and Nate Kerr. Unfortunately I did not arrive until Saturday night and missed many papers, including Adam’s and Bruce Rosenstock’s (who I would have liked to meet).

    I was also disappointed with the Zizek/Altizer session. I just didn’t discern much of an actual conversation between them, though I always find Altizer to be entertaining. I was also disappointed with the session on Cyril O’Regan’s book, because the conversation seemed to be lacking in coherence. Everyone was kind of doing their own things, and O’Regan went on and on about why he did what he did in his whopping 129 page book (lecture, really), and did not really answer people’s critical questions. I think it was simply too small and vague of a text to have a whole panel on it (he claims that the Pope and John Milbank are apocalyptic theologians, in a text where Altizer and Benjamin are considered apocalyptic theologians).

  6. Adam Kotsko Says:

    One effect of this AAR has been to make me want to look into Cyril O’Regan’s work. We’ll see how that fares against all the many other things I’ve been “meaning to look into,” but I found his response to Zizek to be pretty interesting — better than mine, certainly.

  7. Clayton Crockett Says:

    I brought my wife along, so ended up skipping a lot of the conference stuff and going sightseeing, etc.
    Montreal is a great city.

    I thought the Zizek/Altizer session was interesting in that Altizer preached for 15 minutes and was done and then refused to engage either Zizek or the responders. Zizek kept going for twice as long as was intended, naturally. My experience is that panels with such hype as this are always anticlimactic, and this was no exception.

    But it was good insofar as Zizek publicly affirmed his allegiance to Altizer’s understanding of the death of God in front of a large audience and Tom told me he was pleased by this. I think the format would’ve worked better if the respondents were shorter (2 minutes instead of 5) and limited to 4-5, and the session were longer (2 and 1/2 hours instead of 90 minutes) to have more time for a few audience questions and Altizer/Zizek to engage more.


  8. I agree with Clayton’s analysis on why the session was interesting.


  9. Does that mean that Ben Meyers has to formally recant the related criticisms of Adam’s book?

  10. Brad Johnson Says:

    It’s insane that he hasn’t done so already. Did Z. really have to make this any more clear or explicit?

  11. Brad Johnson Says:

    The “he” there is in reference to Ben, btw.

  12. Adam Kotsko Says:

    I did use my statement as a chance to point out how right I was, because I’m just that tacky.


  13. Can you folks enlighten me as to why Zizek (I didn’t catch Altizer, I came in late) isn’t being utterly, shall I say, stupid with his death of God stuff? I mean, didn’t Augustine do a whole brilliant (IMHO) analysis of the nature of death and wouldn’t one want at least to ask what it means to say “God died” in light of a little more than a “common-sense” notion of what death is? Didn’t God begin to die with the Incarnation? Is the death of the dying God really the death of God or isn’t it really the death of dying itself, at least as dying affects a being that can relate to its dying as what Augustine calls a question? Isn’t that sort of what Augustine was saying? Even if that’s not accurate, why does Zizek (who knows better, of course) think he can just riff off a phrase (the death of God) without actually thinking about what it means? I can only think that he was being (deliberately) stupid.

  14. Adam Kotsko Says:

    As far as I can tell, it’s straight out of Hegel — God the Father empties himself entirely into the Son, who then empties himself out into the Spirit as the bond of the community.

  15. Jeremy Says:

    I thought Ben’s criticism went something like this: Hauerwas says Altizer’s not cool, Zizek’s cool, hence Zizek is nothing like Altizer. I just wish people wouldn’t comment on Altizer until they’ve actually read one of his works that not from the 60’s (I’d suggest Genesis of God).

  16. Adam Kotsko Says:

    I’d be content with them going so far as to read The Gospel of Christian Atheism.


  17. Adam, maybe you could also help me to see the consequences of this. If the Father is emptied out, if the Father is no longer working, isn’t Creation as the ongoing self-revelation of God in the world at an end? Isn’t that a bit earth-o-centric? Are we presupposing that what happens here on earth to God is what happens everywhere in the universe? Does the whole universe depend on the Spirit here on earth being kept alive by the memory of the death of God in the Church? I’m good with that, but I’d like to know if that’s what Zizek is committed to.

  18. Adam Kotsko Says:

    That’s an interesting thought, about the whole universe depending on the Christian community. I think, though, that for Zizek God the Father represents the ultimate master-signifier, and the Holy Spirit, which is a social bond that follows from the death of that master-signifier, represents a form of living together not governed by ideology. I mean, it’s clear that for Zizek there never was a real God in the first place.

  19. Adam Kotsko Says:

    So Christianity for him represents the self-evacuation of religious belief, taken as the ultimate example of ideology.


  20. Adam, that was helpful. So when Zizek calls himself an atheist Christian, he really just means atheist whose denial is specifically directed at the God of Israel, so he’s not an atheist whose denial is directed at, say, the deists’ God. So when Zizek goes on about the death of God on the cross, he is making a point about the self-denial of the God of Israel that he, Zizek, had already denied. So now he can affirm the self-denying God, though he still denies the self-affirming God (whether before or after His moment of self-denial). But my problem still remains: self-denying is different than self-denied (dying is different than dead), and with self-denying you still have a self of sorts. So if Zizek had always already denied any selfhood of God, if he was always affirming the self-denied God (the dead God), then there was no dying God (self-denying God) to begin with, so God did not die on the cross, God’s walking corpse (vampire-like) had a stake placed in its heart on the cross. But why is there any Spirit after this? Aren’t we really now living on in the utter absence of spirit, which Augustine would say is hell, the eternal death of the soul? Or as Dostoevski put it, the absolute inability to love? Maybe all this is why we only love vampires today?

  21. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Well, the master-signifier is a type of social bond, and Spirit (in Zizek’s reading) is another type of social bond — at no point is a “literal” God at play. What the “Christian experience” gives him is a model of a self-abdicating master-signifier — that God “dies” means that the entire role or conceptual “slot” occupied by God is closed off. It’s always possible for the community defined by “Spirit” to relapse and become yet another ideological community, and Zizek thinks the Christian community in fact did that in practice, but something analogous to “the Christian experience” is a necessary step to producing a non-ideological community.

    My article on Zizek’s Paul might help clarify what’s going on in Zizek’s thinking here — it also gets at what he’s doing specifically with Judaism.

  22. Kampen Says:

    Buzzword 2009: apocalyptic


Leave a Reply