'After Theory' by Terry Eagleton

To my mind, the book draws out the absurdities of cultural theory. `After Theory` compares the 1960s origins and 1970s heyday of cultural theory, when 'there was a general excited sense that the present was the place to be....because it seemed so obviously the herald to a new future, a land of boundless possibility', with the present state of the subject, where 'quietly-spoken middle-class students huddle diligently in libraries, at work on sensationalist subjects like vampirism and eye-gouging, cyborgs and porno movies'

In a prefatory note he declares that his new book "argues against what I take to be a current orthodoxy". Theory has gone astray, but not because it has encouraged academic obscurantism and grim reductiveness. It is because it has not been political enough. He talks about "fashioning a world in which the hungry could be fed", but takes it for granted that this is not something that would ever concern those professionally involved in politics or commerce. In our present political climate it is not enough to write about a sexy topic, get a grade, get a degree, and get a job. We have to get away from simplistic self-interest and political disinterest. In the chapter entitled “Morality,” Eagleton makes it clear what morality is. It is “all about the enjoyment and abundance of life”.

He speaks of the shortcomings of "cultural theory". We inhabit "a social order which urgently needs repair" and we are told that "theory must be harnessed to practical political ends". Yet it is not quite clear what he thinks is to be done. I quite agree with the statement that we are lost generation with no cultural achievements of our own. We re-use what was done before (while it was the 'golden age' of theoretical thinking). There should be a merge of interdisciplinary study of literature and culture, only then wide range of topics will start being discussed.

Cultural theory as we have it promises to grapple with some fundamental problems, but on the whole fails to deliver. It has been shamefaced about morality and metaphysics, embarrassed about love, biology, religion and revolution, largely silent about evil, reticent about death and suffering, dogmatic about essences, universals and foundations, and superficial about truth, objectivity and disinterestedness. This, on any estimate, is rather a large slice of human existence to fall down on. It is also, as we have suggested before, rather an awkward moment in history to find oneself with little or nothing to say about such fundamental questions. Eagleton writes four chapters that serve to remind his readers that there are such things as truth, morality, evil, and virtue in this world and that it is perhaps time to abandon irony as the primary way to respond to the world’s problems.

Eagleton concludes After Theory by arguing that 'cultural theory...cannot afford simply to keep recounting the same narratives of class, race and gender.... It needs to chance its arm, break out of a rather stifling orthodoxy and explore new topics'. But rather than making these demands and then attacking cultural theory when it fails to deliver, perhaps we should simply be getting on with developing new ideas about the world and how we might change it for the better.
In conclusion I feel Terry Eagleton is trying to explain that we are so interested in the everyday events of our lives that we have totally lost our focus of traditional thinking and the study of society. I personally agree with Eagleton that the grave problem with postmodern thought is that it has given up on asking the big question. Instead, we cultivate our small groups and consider primarily the questions that are important to our unique selves. The aftertaste of the book is that the example of the theory that Eagleton presents is a theory that forces the reader to take sides and passionately argue for them. In short, it is a theory that, while by no means perfect, allows for the reader and the practitioner to engage the fundamental questions that lie at the centre of our very existence. But we shouldn`t anyway forget that we are only humans and sometimes we are weak and have all rights to be so. The important thing is still to be able to raise serious questions as in the book and have a comprehensive discussion.

'Goethe`s Faust: the tragedy of the Development' from 'All That Is Solid Melts Into Air' by Marshall Berman

“When reason fails, the devil helps!”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Berman is not the first and is not the last one to be intrigued by the question of development and if and how it influences the human faith. I quite like that he has chosen a literature character and does the analysis of the destiny of one particular hero to then make an analogy to the modern world situation, placing the character in the 'modern person shoes'. Even from school I remember Dostoevskiy`s hero Raskolnikov that was obsessed with the thought: 'Am I a trembling creature, or have I the right?' Both authors develop the same topic of the process of development and the extent of personal involvement in it, the difference is in the fact that Dostoevsky analyses the routes of becoming a 'great man', whereas Goethe takes it from the point where the hero is already a 'chosen one'. But the common thing is that both heroes pursue the same target - find self-assurance.

The tragedy of development of 'Superman' or 'history-making man' (according to Norman O. Brown) is consonant to the theory of the "great man" in Russian literature. To remind briefly, in 'Crime and Punishment' Raskolnikov believed that people were divided into the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary": the ordinary are the common rabble, the extraordinary (notably Napoleon or Muhammad) must not follow the moral codes that apply to ordinary people since they are meant to be great men. An extraordinary man would not need to think twice about his actions. Raskolnikov had been contemplating this theory for months. He believed himself to be one of these extraordinary men and was thus "allowed" to commit murder. However, his plan went wrong; before he was able to make his escape from the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna's flat, her meek-tempered half-sister (Lizaveta Ivanovna) arrived and stumbles across the body. Raskolnikov, in a panic, murders the pawnbroker's sister as well, a crime which, for some reason, does not weigh on him anywhere near as heavily as the initial murder. Although, the fact of the murders themselves did not particularly torment him. What tormented him was the fact that he had "transgressed", and that he was not able to be the "great man" he had theorized about.

His grand failure was that he lacked the conviction he believed to accompany greatness and continued his decline into madness. After having confessed to the prostitute Sonia Marmeladova, she guided him towards admitting to the crime, and he confessed. Raskolnikov was sentenced to exile in Siberia, accompanied by Sonia, where he began his mental and spiritual rehabilitation.

Both texts show us the emerging of self-awareness of a human being. While Dostoevsky shows us self-destruction, Goethe`s Faust ends up destroying everything else, himself inclusive. It is quite obvious that Faust did not have that intellectual fever and from the very beginning thought himself to be the 'great man'. He takes the thought even further and seeks for action that is at the end turns out to be worthless.

What is totally different is that in Goethe`s version the subject and the object of transformation is not only the hero, but the whole world. Faust is led to murders by the desire for creation, Raskolnikov is driven by self-soul searching idea. Both characters commit murder, but the difference is that Faust does not even notice it, as for him the goal justifies the purpose. What is important Raskolnikov is guided by love that saves his soul, whereas for Faust love is something he can`t get a priori and turns into selfish monster. However, sheer desire for development does not lead anywhere and does not bring any fruitful results. Faust`s mistake is that he thinks only of the dynamic process and has a very vague concept of the impact of the outcome. Self-destruction becomes an important part of self-development, the powers of his mind turn against him. He ends up sacrificing himself for the phantom idea. It is absurd and paradox that undergoing self development from despair in his little world -to confronting it in the love stage, he ends up being a destroyer in his final, 'developer' phase. He gets to the underlining principles of forces that drive the world (economical, political, social) and learns how to build and destroy. Even the devil gets lost with Faust`s large-scale ambitions of moving the world. What we see is that depending desires, the scale of devastation enlarges. Moreover, on Faust`s example we see that once any self-conscious evil act is committed, there is no turning back, all the following deeds are becoming even more cruel. What is forgotten is the underlying human principles, moral grounds are lost.

What is frightening is that 'the deepest horrors of Faustian development spring from its most honourable aims and its most authentic achievements'. Hopefully, we are still able to 'develop a critical perspective on historical period' and the subject of moral context of any deed will continue troubling the mankind at least for next couple of centuries and people will reach the enlightenment even if it has to be done through the crisis. I believe there is not and shouldn`t really be any prescribed way of achieving goals and each particular person develops differently, however the goal is to find the way for developing that starts bringing fruitful results, not destruction, and that those results become as important as the process. 'As members of modern society we are responsible for the directions in which we develop, for our goals and achievements, for their human costs'. Unfortunately no one so far has come up with new models of development, but what is important is the revolution in the human nature itself. One should learn to get satisfaction from his actions, only than the results will become advantageous. There should be a point when one ceases the moment in the constant run for future success.

'At Home in the Neon' from 'Air guitar' by Dave Hickey

When I first came to London form Moscow 3 years ago I have had a funny story. On my first night in one of London`s hostels I went out quite late at night and asked the receptionist what time they close so that I would still get inside when I come back. He looked at me in a weird way saying: `its a free country, mate`. And I really felt it being so during the years I`ve spent here. However, I have always had a feeling of incompleteness of so much advertised and promised freedom. I can`t really say that London has become my home as Las Vegas did for Dave Hickey.

What we find in the article is praise and love for the city, which appears to be true, honest and genuine. It is simple pleasures of life that Dave mentions that bring him (and not only him) comfort and peace. I believe that it must be that `The secret of Vegas is that there are no secrets` that is so appealing to human nature. It is a city where no false promises exist, a city where `anything could happen, a city that `treats you fair`.

What most of us are searching nowadays (it doesn`t really even matter in which area of live - take any) is hidden meaning, some underlying truth that we are so sure is concealed somewhere, we tend to forget that there shouldn`t necessarily be some sort of complication. And what we see in Hickey`s portrait of Vegas is truth in every little aspect of life. Everyone has same chances, there is no hidden reality, everything is transparent and obvious, in a way even predictable - and that`s the beauty of live there.

Vegas, furthermore, is a city that doesn't have values but, thanks to that it leaves one to who he really is with the cultural background one has accumulated. One is not running for phantom acknowledgements or awards because 'there are no socially sanctioned forms of status to ennoble one's having made it'. He wants to underline the simplicity and sincerity that you find in Vegas since it has never tried to sell itself for what it is not, a city for culture.

This unique city can definitely serve `as heart`s destination` where everyone can stop and have a break from the endless run towards the next fulfillments. If Vegas is really `a wonderful lens through which to view America` - than it might as well prove that all the rest of America is fake and one should beware of second meanings and get in touch with REAL reality.

'Send, Fear, and money in Dubai' from 'Evil Paradises' by Mike Davis

Where are you? – That is the most relevant question in the article. What is described here is a totally perverse society that got itself into a state of losing basic human principles of honour and decency. We get to read about the culture that is totally unanimous, where everything is artificial. Everything is soaked in the idea of consumerism and penetrated by it like with poison.

What strikes me most is the fact that people seem to be born with the idea that they can BUY everything. Even if they don`t have a culture, they will buy it. But the fact remains that they get ideal shapes and forms, but those are deprived of the history, the background and there is no room for potential development and evolution. One cannot substitute what other were accumulation throughout centuries, which is why it looks so new, so perfect, and so fake. Society itself becomes retarded, and the dreadful thing is that no one notices it, but simply continues to consume.

Architects should be blamed for encouraging and slaving to this chaos which sounds like is of Biblical scale. Nothing is for common small people. For the third article in a row we are encountered with examples of mass production, soulless and something very elite. Elite in a bad sense. Everything this society have or want is bigg-EST, larg-EST, THE MOST, where everything is `world class`. It seems like those people are leaving the advertising dream and have lost any connection to the reality outside their sand castles and oil pumps. And they are quite successfully selling their dream to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately architecture reflects this callousness, as it becomes immoral and loses its face. All the projects seem to look alike and serve one function – kill time and spend money. There is no contemplation in it.

It is not caricature of futurism, bust the most explicit NOW-ism. I am happy that not all countries have so much money, and maybe it is the reason why they managed to keep their authenticity. This article proves that not only it is the money that is the skeleton of society, there are other values as well. I wonder what would become with societies as such if one day they run out of oil, would they be able to lower their appetites and return back to reality? Probably it is time for us all to think of new methods of changing the future and find ways to develop.

'Zaha Hadid: The great female architect' by Jonathan Meades

It is absolutely clear Jonathan simply hates Zaha. It seems she is one of his worst enemies and he depicts her as a total architectural monster. He might have some grounds for that, but I feel it`s a bit over the top when he quotes her `using this pidgin, and studs it with syntactical mishaps`. His point comes across immediately and I don’t really see the sense in mocking every single one of her phrases. However, despite all the prise from the modern media, I share similar opinion and the article has once again proved that there are diverse points of view on her influence on architecture.

I personally used to have a friend forking on a `factory`. After being there for a month, she stopped socializing at all, and after she was sacked left the country, even though a poor girl was working 20 hours a day. That’s a sad story, but probably this is the destiny of all people working there. There is a rumour that Zaha prefers hiring couples so both stay late at work and have a fear of being fired together. That`s cruel and inhuman, likewise her buildings. She might be a genius in sketching her iconic buildings, but there is nothing more to add to that. She is super famous for doing ONE-OF-A-KIND building, while what the city really needs are decent contemporary projects for people to live and use in their day to day life, not once in a blue moon. She is famous because she has publicity and, surprisingly enough, architectural tabloids adore her while she still keeps everyone`s attention.

And the project of Hadidopolis - OH PLEASE!!! The city is at risk of becoming NOT sustainable, NOT contextual, NOT budget-tied, NON-structural. What might look good as a one show-off building would never work on the city scale project. It will again be all about metaphors, but with no sense. How can an architect say that he or she wants to design a project `without looking backwards`!!!! She was herself raised on finest traditions of constructivism and avant-garde, which had quite a history behind.

She claims Patrik Schumacher and herself has invented a new style in architecture – parametricism. But the theory lacks consistency and methodology of her favourite exercise of `shape finding`. The theory itself comes out of thin air and looks too artificial alike many of her buildings. For example, The Guangzhou Opera House was built over the past 5 years, a long stretch of time for Chinese architects and construction teams, who work notoriously fast. I truly believe that architectural language she tries to develop should be widely understood by end users, not only by sophisticated architects, otherwise they start positioning themselves like a secret society, like people who are above all the crowd, and act like only they have the knowledge.

All those theories do not bring us closer to the real world`s problems, but create an even wider gap. The humanity has not yet invented the gigantic CNC machine to make her buildings and structures work and there is no need for that either.

Whether we like it or not, the truth is that she is a symbol of the architectural époque and the saddest part of it all is that she will become an example for all other WANNA-BE-A-STAR architects.

'This Crisis is the Spectacle: Where is the real?' from 'The communist hypothesis' by Alain Badiou

Having read the article by A. Badiou, I immediately had an allusion to the film “Inside Job”, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia.

The huge difference, however, was in the personal opinion the author tries to get across. In the film we see naked facts and the author lets us decide ourselves what conclusions to draw from interviews, whereas in the article we read about the disastrous society and what it got itself into. I find it quite strange to read that `the only desirable outcome of all this is the hope that the real will still be what it was before the crisis`. We all know that the process of evolution through learning from mistakes is essential for future development. We do not need to go back to what it was before, but analyse the mistakes made and change the system so it starts responding to people`s needs and situations.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, A.Badiou is right in noticing that the politics is far removed from the state power, and will probably remain so for a long time. But again, that is just one other issue that needs to be analysed and changed. Yes, the politics in nearly any county nowadays is detached from common people`s lives, and it is them having the most troubles when things go wrong. People at power are pursuing their own interests and quite often avoid regulation for their own sake of profit. My fear is that despite recent financial regulations, the underlying system has not changed; rather the remaining banks are only bigger, while all the incentives remain the same, and not a single top executive has been prosecuted for their role in the global financial meltdown.

I quite like Badiou`s comparison the current world to the cinema, giving the banks, world leaders and common people a key roles. The sad part is that we actually live this scenario without even thinking that nothing is predefined and even small actors should be the ones who make changes. It`ll be interesting to see in some years’ time which theory will work for so much corrupted European world.