Philosophy and the Question of Air Conditioning

Now that summer is upon us, there is a question whose neglect by philosophers constitutes nothing less than a scandal: why does air conditioning always feel excessive?

In principle, it seems it should be possible to adjust air conditioning to a reasonable level, approximating that of a moderately warm summer day. In this way, one could reach a state in which the same clothing would be appropriate for both indoors and outdoors, as opposed to the present absurd situation where one often feels compelled to wear a sweater or some other supplement indoors during the summer. In addition, such a state would moderate the shock of moving back and forth between extreme outdoor heat and extreme indoor cold, which can lead to sickness.

Why does such a reasonable state of affairs so seldom exist when air conditioning is employed? I suspect that the problem is that air conditioning is more than a utilitarian cooling device: it is a marker of luxury, of the ability to transcend the elements. That shock of cold air, so incongruous in the hot summer months, is precisely the point. It is not enough that air conditioning actually cool the air — it must draw attention to the fact that it is doing so.

Other methods for keeping buildings cool during the summer months exist, and they are effective except for extremely hot environments. One can leave the windows open at night to draw in cold air, for example, and then close them in the morning in order to capture that cool air, in addition closing the blinds to minimize the effects of the sun. What separates air conditioning from this relatively effective strategy, however, is the ability to control the temperature in complete indifference toward nature.

Where the method I outline responds to natural rhythms in order to create conditions more favorable to human thriving, air conditioning closes off the influence of nature entirely, instituting a completely artificial environment. And that artificiality, that achievement of human self-sufficiency that constitutes the true essence of air conditioning much more than its mere utilitarian value, must announce itself as such — hence the need to introduce uncomfortable, excessive cold in the middle of summer.

Review of Adrian Johnston, Žižek’s Ontology

[This review appeared in Symplokē 18.1-2 (2011): 419-421, and is copyrighted by that journal. It appears here with permission.]

In the two decades since he came to prominence in the English-speaking academy, Žižek has already generated a substantial body of secondary texts, ranging from general introductions to works on specific themes. Yet it seems safe to say that among readers of Žižek, Adrian Johnston’s book Žižek’s Ontology was the most eagerly anticipated. According to the narrative that has been solidifying over the last few years, the initial reception of Žižek did not reflect the full ambition of his work. Focusing on his theory of ideology and his usefulness for cultural analysis, interpreters had missed the true philosophical core motivating it all: the attempt to develop a new theory of subjectivity, grounded in a synthesis of the insights of German Idealism (above all Hegel) and the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan. For those who hold this view of Žižek’s reception, Žižek’s Ontology would finally break through the shell of the “cultural studies” reception of Žižek as well as the image of Žižek as a kind of entertainer, revealing once and for all the rigor and depth of Žižek’s properly philosophical work.

Holiday Diversion: Rocko’s Ideology Critique

The Girlfriend’s favorite episode of the mid-90s Nickelodeon cartoon Rocko’s Modern Life is the enigmatically titled “Zanzibar.” The video is embedded below; I will provide a summary “beneath the fold” as well. This episode is interesting to me for the way in which it comes close to a critique of the individualist moralism behind many recycling campaigns, but then (merely apparently?) pulls back.

Sunday’s sermon: “Good News to Those Whom the Church Has Hurt”

The following is my draft of this Sunday’s sermon, the sixth Sunday of Easter, at Zion “Goshert’s” United Church of Christ, where I am Pastor.  There is no mention of Memorial Day but the subject of grieving is one of the threads at work here.  (We have a Memorial service in our cemetery early Sunday morning, which keeps the civic celebration separate from the Sabbath celebration.)  The scripture I am drawing from primarily is John 14:15-21, Jesus’ last speech before the ascension, and Psalm 66 and 1 Peter 3:13-22 will also be read.  Among the hymns will be “Abide with Me,” which is one of the great hymns.

The main theological shift here is that Jesus’ promise to abide with his disciples, which shifts tribulation and rapture eschatologies, takes on new meaning, at least for me, if one considers John’s audience when this Gospel discourse was written.  The promise is one made to outcasts.

My job search record

I was on the job market for three years, starting in the fall of 2008. This is how things went.

Value banks: Goodchildian reflections

Last winter, I was at a restaurant that periodically has days when all tips are donated to a particular charity. This time around, it was Howard Brown, a Chicago-based LGBT health organization that is probably best known for its Brown Elephant thrift stores. The call for donations was particularly urgent: if Howard Brown did not raise a certain amount of money (something like $50K), it would have to close its doors.

It struck me as ridiculous that such a valuable organization could be permanently lost due to such a small shortfall. (As it happens, they were able to raise the money and continue to be doing fine as far as I can tell.) But when I read that announcement — inspired in part by an article about North Dakota’s mini-Fed — I turned to The Girlfriend and declared that they needed to band together with other charities and create a bank.

Politics of Redemption: Concluding Index

Many thanks to Jeremy, Andy, Brandy, and J. Kameron Carter for their summaries and critiques. Oh, and of course, thanks to Adam for comporting himself with a level of grace under fire that we never knew he had in him. We appreciate everybody who read and participated in the discussion and welcome your comments even after the event has come to a close. That’s the beauty of blogs, after all. Stay tuned for our next event . . .

An index to the posts is provided here:

• The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation (Chapters 1-2) (Jeremy)
• The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation (Chapters 3-5) (Andy)
• The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation (Chapters 6-7) (J. Kameron Carter)
• The Politics of Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation (Chapters 8-9) (Brandy)
• The Politics of Redemption book event: My response (Adam)

Semi-open thread: Giving up?

While I have been extremely fortunate this year, I am very aware that this time of year is often a very distressing one for those on the academic job market — a time of giving up hope for anything “real” and trying to piece together something to get you through the next year. That in turn can lead to even more distressing thoughts: is it time to give up? What would I do if so?

A premature review: States Without Nations by Jacqueline Stevens

Last year, Columbia University Press sent me a review copy of Jacqueline Stevens’ States Without Nations, at my request — and unfortunately I let it sit for a year. This is unfortunate not only for reasons of politeness, but also because I’ve finally started reading it and absolutely love it. She argues that birthright citizenship is one of the primary causes of injustice and suffering in the world and that it should be abolished, along with any state recognition of essentially anything hereditary (inheritance of wealth, ethnic groups, etc.).

While she acknowledges that capitalism is also a major source of injustice and suffering, she believes that the left has historically been blind to the need to combat nationalism and family ideology, believing them to be “holdovers” from previous eras that will essentially go away by themselves. I find her focus on the family and on the fantasies underlying national loyalty (namely, the fantasy of obtaining immortality through identification with the eternal being of the nation) to be an interesting variation on the Marxist turn to psychoanalysis to figure out why the revolution failed to take place or whatever — instead of just plugging psychoanalytic concepts into a framework where it is presupposed that the economy should be primary but is being spuriously covered over, she directly confronts the primary domain of psychoanalysis, namely, the family unit.

As a long-time opponent of nationalism and family values, I’ve found that Stevens’ book provided a nice combination of confirming previous intuitions and giving me more food for thought. Her analysis and proposals are as far-ranging as any “continental” figure, yet her approach is much clearer and more argument-centric than Agamben or Foucault. I will definitely be using this book in my future work, even if the second half inexplicably falls off in quality.

Essay on global Christianity and deconstruction

Last summer, I wrote an essay on global Christianity and deconstruction that resulted in one of the most brutal reader reports I’ve ever received (along with one merely negative one and one that was mostly negative but admitted I may have the kernel of a potentially good idea). I decided to give up on revising it to submit elsewhere, but what is a blog for other than posting ideas that aren’t quite ready for primetime? Enjoy my failure!