The general gist seems to be that we are living in a vast, decentralized empire with no centre of control... more like a Foucauldian disciplinary network that exudes power from everywhere and over everything. Is this really an empire? Or merely the kind of interdependence celebrated by Globalists. And do they severely understate the power of nation-states, particularly the USA. Just about every review I read says that the book is severely flawed, but still recommends that I read it.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
So I bought Hardt and Negri's "Empire" - is it worth reading?
Collapse
X
-
Sounds like the word 'Empire' has been stripped of all meaning.
The ineviatble result of pomo, the loss of ability to communicate."Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
Comment
-
Re: So I bought Hardt and Negri's "Empire" - is it worth reading?
Originally posted by Dracon II
The general gist seems to be that we are living in a vast, decentralized empire with no centre of control... more like a Foucauldian disciplinary network that exudes power from everywhere and over everything. Is this really an empire? Or merely the kind of interdependence celebrated by Globalists. And do they severely understate the power of nation-states, particularly the USA. Just about every review I read says that the book is severely flawed, but still recommends that I read it.
Comment
-
I heard it was quite popular... people calling it the new Capital and such. Having read some substantial reviews I doubt it attains to that level. It's a few notches down on my reading list... behind Weber's Protestant Ethic, Intro to informal logic and The Brothers Karamasov... plus whatever I have to read for honours prep. Could take a while.
Comment
-
i havent read this, but I have read Henry Kammen's "Empire". He suggests that the role of Castillians in creating and running the Spanish emperor is exagerrated by traditional Spanish historians, and that the role of Flemings, Italians, Portugese, Native Americans, etc (not to mention Catalans) was so great, that its questionable if we should even call it a "Spanish" empire (much less a Castillian empire) as opposed to a multinational, multicultural empire. So hes kinda pomo also, but very interesting. More the kind of pomo Im interested in, though"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
Comment