Cavell and Critique

Alice Crary
{"title":"Cavell and Critique","authors":"Alice Crary","doi":"10.18192/cjcs.v0i6.4104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stanley Cavell—my mentor and good friend—died on June 19, 2018, a week before I sat down to revise this tribute to him. I first presented these words in Cavell’s presence at a 2017 workshop at Tufts University on “Changing Politics: Conversations with Stanley Cavell.” I was then concerned with a crucial political dimension of Cavell’s thought that even admiring readers of his work sometimes overlook. This topic strikes me as, if anything, even more pertinent now. Within a day of Cavell’s death, obituaries began to appear in the U.S. and abroad, and a common theme was Cavell’s astonishing breadth as a thinker. He was, different papers reported, as eloquent and engaging on topics as various as Emerson and Thoreau, movies from Hollywood’s “golden age,” Shakespeare, Wittgenstein and Austin, what he called “the fact of television,” Heidegger, Kleist, Kierkegaard, Hitchcock and Beckett. It is certainly true that Cavell had a great range. At the same time, as Nancy Bauer, Sandra Laugier and I observed in a post in the New York Times philosophy blog, The Stone, there is an important political thread running through Cavell’s explorations of his many topics and questions, namely, a preoccupation with what it is to be a responsible participant in a democratic polis and, specifically, a democratic polis as brutally and profoundly imperfect as the United States of America. Cavell’s commitment to liberating, democratic politics was reflected in his actions beyond his writings, with some of his political endeavors described in his autobiographical tome Little Did I Know and others recorded in the work of his students and friends.","PeriodicalId":342666,"journal":{"name":"Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18192/cjcs.v0i6.4104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stanley Cavell—my mentor and good friend—died on June 19, 2018, a week before I sat down to revise this tribute to him. I first presented these words in Cavell’s presence at a 2017 workshop at Tufts University on “Changing Politics: Conversations with Stanley Cavell.” I was then concerned with a crucial political dimension of Cavell’s thought that even admiring readers of his work sometimes overlook. This topic strikes me as, if anything, even more pertinent now. Within a day of Cavell’s death, obituaries began to appear in the U.S. and abroad, and a common theme was Cavell’s astonishing breadth as a thinker. He was, different papers reported, as eloquent and engaging on topics as various as Emerson and Thoreau, movies from Hollywood’s “golden age,” Shakespeare, Wittgenstein and Austin, what he called “the fact of television,” Heidegger, Kleist, Kierkegaard, Hitchcock and Beckett. It is certainly true that Cavell had a great range. At the same time, as Nancy Bauer, Sandra Laugier and I observed in a post in the New York Times philosophy blog, The Stone, there is an important political thread running through Cavell’s explorations of his many topics and questions, namely, a preoccupation with what it is to be a responsible participant in a democratic polis and, specifically, a democratic polis as brutally and profoundly imperfect as the United States of America. Cavell’s commitment to liberating, democratic politics was reflected in his actions beyond his writings, with some of his political endeavors described in his autobiographical tome Little Did I Know and others recorded in the work of his students and friends.
卡维尔与批判
斯坦利·卡维尔——我的导师和好朋友——于2018年6月19日去世,就在我坐下来修改这篇致他的悼词的前一周。2017年,我在塔夫茨大学举办的“改变政治:与斯坦利·卡维尔的对话”研讨会上,当着卡维尔的面首次提出了这些话。当时我关注的是卡维尔思想中一个至关重要的政治维度,即使是欣赏他作品的读者有时也会忽略这一点。如果有什么不同的话,这个话题现在对我来说更切题了。在卡维尔去世的一天之内,美国和国外开始出现讣告,一个共同的主题是卡维尔作为一个思想家的惊人广度。据不同的报纸报道,他对各种各样的话题侃侃而谈,如爱默生和梭罗,好莱坞“黄金时代”的电影,莎士比亚、维特根斯坦和奥斯汀,他所谓的“电视的事实”,海德格尔、克莱斯特、克尔凯郭尔、希区柯克和贝克特。卡维尔的范围确实很大。与此同时,正如南希·鲍尔、桑德拉·洛吉尔和我在《纽约时报》哲学博客《石头》(the Stone)上发表的一篇文章中所观察到的那样,在卡维尔对他的许多主题和问题的探索中,贯穿着一条重要的政治线索,即,在一个民主城邦中,特别是在一个像美利坚合众国这样残酷而又深刻不完美的民主城邦中,如何成为一个负责任的参与者是一种关注。卡维尔对自由、民主政治的承诺在他的作品之外也反映在他的行动中,他的一些政治努力在他的自传体大部头《我所知甚少》中有所描述,其他一些则记录在他的学生和朋友的作品中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信