AUFS’s failure of branding

In the comments to Mikhail’s send-up of SpecReal/OOP/OOO, I came across this very compelling post by Kvond that characterizes SpecReal/OOP/OOO as a kind of philosophical “speculative bubble.” Not being very conversant with Graham Harman’s work or the details of Levi Bryant’s “onticology,” I can’t vouch for the accuracy of Kvond’s analysis — but it does seem like his description of “philosophy as Ponzi scheme” is something that could actually happen:

These packaging movements [of OOO] meet squarely it seems with Harman’s own Great Idea concept of philosophical significance, the thinking that all the Great Philosophers were really exaggerators that some how fooled the public long enough to get their ideas off the ground. Once enough people “buy into” the intial debt of explanation it is passed off onto the whole group, the bad mortgage is cut into tiny Madoff pieces and distributed everywhere. Philosophy as Ponzi scheme.

This brings me to the point of this post: how can AUFS brand itself so as to reap the benefits of such dynamics? So far, we don’t have the workings of a coherent brand: we’re ecologically-minded quasi-internal critics of the Christian tradition who also read novels? Half the time we don’t even approve of our own ideas, much less advocate others join in the fun!

Obviously we need to streamline here, so what’s our Big Idea? (And no, “being rude to commenters” isn’t enough.) We can collaborate on the explanation later — right now, we just need something that can really reach out to MA students and the underemployed, because they’re at the forefront of blogging. Then we can work on how we divide out the labor of “declaiming from on high” and “responding to everyone who writes about [insert brand] ideas in 1000-plus-word blog posts.” I’d like to think I would get the former job, but my relatively hyper-active blogging would likely saddle me with the latter — Brad would probably thrive best in the declaiming department. Seriously, though, we can hash that out later. We just need a Big Idea, fast.

About these ads

35 Responses to “AUFS’s failure of branding”

  1. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Oh my God: I just realized that analytic philosophy might be a philosophical Ponzi scheme!

  2. Mikhail Emelianov Says:

    Move #1: Kotsko announces a widely publicized closure of comments on Heteronomy with a convoluted but ultimately believable explanation (preferably after having some sort of meltdown while trying to respond to all the comments).

  3. Jeremy Says:

    apocalyptic

  4. Anthony Paul Smith Says:

    “And no, “being rude to commenters” isn’t enough.”

    I fucking died.

  5. Andy Says:

    Wouldn’t a big idea be the kind of thing you say can’t go on the blog because you’d expect to be paid for it? Or do you want a slogan? Like “Defending orthodoxy is bad faith”. “Real creativity is also self-critique”.

    Actually, it’s difficult to see how intellectual slogans get such a purchase on our desire…

  6. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Maybe we can claim that the infamous tagline is a really deep philosophical statement that informs everything we do. “You cannot fuck the future, sir — the future fucks you”: I can imagine detailed commentaries springing up on blogs across the land.

  7. Jeremy Says:

    the church and pomo’s slogan is: contemporary philosophy…for the church…in the vernacular

    Perhaps some sort of parody of that.

  8. Bryan Says:

    I for one think the “philosophy as ponzi scheme” hermeneutical tool fits the bill for “big idea,” but sadly lacks the crucial dimension of “allure” that so attracts graduate students who’ve been neglected by their academic advisors.

    The AUFS slogan works too, but isn’t it inherently too correlationist?

  9. Anthony Paul Smith Says:

    I think it’s inherently anti-correlationist.

  10. Bryan Says:

    Allow me to write a 1,000 word rejoinder.

  11. Hill Says:

    I wouldn’t be so quick to abandon this “being rude to commenters” thing. You have to do what you do well, and I think there may be something of substance lurking under this seemingly superficial concept.

  12. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Hill, you may have a point — you stupid fuck.

  13. kvond Says:

    I love this:

    “You cannot fuck the future, sir — the future fucks you”, and then of course the past gets you from behind.

  14. Hill Says:

    You should also deploy the tagline as frequently as possible when being rude to commenters. I think something may be emerging here.

  15. Hill Says:

    “Get fucked by the future, cock-bag”

    ::bromoerotic ass slap::

  16. James Little Says:

    I seem to remember a post (or perhaps a comment) where it was claimed that people were finding the blog by searching for terms like “crazy christian philosophy” or some other strange combination of words. I can’t seem to find it now though.

    There’s your brand. People are already searching for it.

  17. Robert Minto Says:

    What’s awesomest about OOO, of course, is its wonderful acronym, like a cyclops wearing sun-glasses — so why not start where the action is and develop an awesome acronym, then work out an idea to fit it later? After all, Harman likes to say creativity in writing most often comes from pre-existing limitations.

  18. christopher Says:

    I for one think the “philosophy as ponzi scheme” hermeneutical tool fits the bill for “big idea,” but sadly lacks the crucial dimension of “allure” that so attracts graduate students who’ve been neglected by their academic advisors.

    How about ‘Become a famous philosopher/theologian in just 20 blog posts!’

  19. Daniel Lindquist Says:

    ““You cannot fuck the future, sir — the future fucks you”, and then of course the past gets you from behind.”

    I enjoyed this pun.

  20. kvond Says:

    I think that AUFS just missed it by a couple of letters.

  21. erin Says:

    more certainty. people dig that.

  22. david cl driedger Says:

    The site and brand becomes the ‘probing’ interrogation of the tagline;
    Are U Fucked Sir
    I think this fits with your position on commenters as well.

  23. Guido Nius Says:

    I thought “Post-Philosophy” would have been nice but then I googled it and it has almost, but not quite, zero hits.

    Another idea would be ‘Un PoCo PoMo’ for Politically Correct Post-Modernism but I would ask a finder’s fee for that.

    Seriously though, you clearly have something going – a little bit anti-Dawkins but with his customary rudeness – so you’ll just need to find something less high-brow to capture bees. Once they are in, they won’t be able to leave.

    (this being said:neo-religionism is rather open, google-style although unfortunately ‘open source religion’ isn’t, just see http://www.yoism.org/)

  24. skholiast Says:

    “Being Rude to Commenters isn’t enough” is itself not quite enough, but rudeness there must be for y’all to be true to yourselves. The thing is you’ve got to combine the style with the substance in one catchy phrase. How about

    Rude Theology.

    or even, for more continental flavor, Theologie Brut?

    (I thought of Rude Orthodoxy too, to echo your favorite sacrificial scapegoat movement, but methinks it’s too close.)

  25. Adam Kotsko Says:

    It’d have to be Heterodoxy if we went that route — and that would open up the can of worms of what word to use to parody “Radical”: bodacious, tubular, etc.

  26. Paul Ennis Says:

    Just because this topic finally allows me to ask this question: why is the blog called An und fur sich? Hegelians want to know!

  27. Adam Kotsko Says:

    The title is actually based on the URL. I don’t remember what I initially intended for the URL to be, but whatever it was was taken — and in a moment of inspiration, I typed in “itself,” which followed in but also mutated my own personal tradition of naming my internet venues reflexively (initially my personal webpage was called “The Homepage,” which became “The Weblog” when I started blogging).

    Since I intended this to be something we did “just for us,” which would find its own audience (or not), I decided that translating the URL into something like its German equivalent would be suitably off-putting.

  28. Craig Says:

    I encourage the everyday use of “bodacious,” “tubular” and “radical” (in the sense of “Bill & Ted”). Also: “rad.”

  29. kvond Says:

    “I decided that translating the URL into something like its German equivalent would be suitably off-putting.”

    kvond: Then your site is PERFECTLY branded. You are a marketing genius!

  30. Hill Says:

    Rudical Heterodoxy.

  31. Mark T. Says:

    Abuse alert – I think your reference to a mean post about OOO solicited a rant from Levi Bryant with Anthony mentioned by name as an asshole in the comment:

    http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/myopia/#comment-32296

    It’s a beautifully odd post though on how some people are so preoccupied with their thought that they don’t see much outside of it, much like Levi Bryant himself. Bravo!

  32. Adam Kotsko Says:

    Is there some animal that’s afraid of mirrors? That’d be a good name for Levi’s radical lack of self-awareness, to fill out the old bestiary.

  33. kvond Says:

    AK: “Is there some animal that’s afraid of mirrors? That’d be a good name for Levi’s radical lack of self-awareness, to fill out the old bestiary.”

    kvond: unfortunately he already has that animal in his zoo. Vampire. Well, he’s not really “afraid” but certainly doesn’t appear (ironically, just as an infant doesn’t before the Lacanian “mirror” stage)

  34. christopher Says:

    Speaking of bestiary, it looks I’ve made one.

  35. queenemily Says:

    If you can’t find a snappy brand name, you could always take an old product and stick a clock in it?*…

    *Heidegger joke sold separately


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,468 other followers