What are you reading

[cantle]

Just finished New Juche - Mountain head. Loved it: a surreal, erotic yet melancholic travel guide to places both internal and external

[Atrophist]

Sorry to go off topic (and also to ask an easily-Googlable question -- I'd prefer to discuss this with an actual person/persons), but ...

What exactly is "hauntology"?

I've heard the term here and there, but I have the vague impression that doesn't just mean "study of hauntings" ... or does it?

I've also given a Hauntologist record a casual spin online, but didn't really delve into the matter in any depth.

[Balor/SS1535]

Sorry to go off topic (and also to ask an easily-Googlable question -- I'd prefer to discuss this with an actual person/persons), but ...

What exactly is "hauntology"?

I've heard the term here and there, but I have the vague impression that doesn't just mean "study of hauntings" ... or does it?

I've also given a Hauntologist record a casual spin online, but didn't really delve into the matter in any depth.

Hauntology is a sort of semi-academic "field" that was created by Jacques Derrida when talking about the remains of Marxism in Europe (sort of taking the "specter haunting Europe" part of The Communist Manifesto semi-literally).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

Since the publication of that book, however, hauntology has sort of become it's own thing.  It builds upon Derrida's general concern for understanding how that which is "not present" is impactful upon that which is present, but adds a specific concern about studying how the traumas, unresolved dreams, and other aborted possibilities from the past continue to "haunt" the world today.  (In this regard, it was developed a lot by Mark Fisher, who also spearheaded its explicit connection to music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fisher)

Long story short, though, it's not the study of hauntings in the sense of ghosts or spirits, but the study of how the past continues to seep into the present and determine it in ways that are often missed or ignored.  At least, that's my general understanding.

[Atrophist]

Hauntology is a sort of semi-academic "field" that was created by Jacques Derrida when talking about the remains of Marxism in Europe (sort of taking the "specter haunting Europe" part of The Communist Manifesto semi-literally).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

Since the publication of that book, however, hauntology has sort of become it's own thing.  It builds upon Derrida's general concern for understanding how that which is "not present" is impactful upon that which is present, but adds a specific concern about studying how the traumas, unresolved dreams, and other aborted possibilities from the past continue to "haunt" the world today.  (In this regard, it was developed a lot by Mark Fisher, who also spearheaded its explicit connection to music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fisher)

Long story short, though, it's not the study of hauntings in the sense of ghosts or spirits, but the study of how the past continues to seep into the present and determine it in ways that are often missed or ignored.  At least, that's my general understanding.

Okay that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful explanation!

For the longest time I've harbored a mild-to-medium antipathy to Derrida and his like -- which is probably unfair, since I actually know and understand very little about their actual work and what they had to say.

I'm old enough to remember the days when at the U of Helsinki everyone who wanted to seem sophisticated, would namedrop Derrida, Baudrillard etc. every three minutes. And of course, imitate their writing, which would always seem to result in incomprehensible, meaningless gobbledygook.

Derrida came to the university once for a guest lecture, and I must have been the only person in the department of humanities who wasn't jockeying for a seat in the Porthania auditorium. Later I asked folks what the lecture had been about, didn't really get any clear answers except that it had been the most brilliant, amazing thing ever.

As a contrarian, all this caused me disgust, and (again, quite possible unfairly) to these days I've neglected to give this stuff an objective, fair reading.

[Balor/SS1535]

Hauntology is a sort of semi-academic "field" that was created by Jacques Derrida when talking about the remains of Marxism in Europe (sort of taking the "specter haunting Europe" part of The Communist Manifesto semi-literally).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx

Since the publication of that book, however, hauntology has sort of become it's own thing.  It builds upon Derrida's general concern for understanding how that which is "not present" is impactful upon that which is present, but adds a specific concern about studying how the traumas, unresolved dreams, and other aborted possibilities from the past continue to "haunt" the world today.  (In this regard, it was developed a lot by Mark Fisher, who also spearheaded its explicit connection to music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fisher)

Long story short, though, it's not the study of hauntings in the sense of ghosts or spirits, but the study of how the past continues to seep into the present and determine it in ways that are often missed or ignored.  At least, that's my general understanding.

Okay that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful explanation!

For the longest time I've harbored a mild-to-medium antipathy to Derrida and his like -- which is probably unfair, since I actually know and understand very little about their actual work and what they had to say.

I'm old enough to remember the days when at the U of Helsinki everyone who wanted to seem sophisticated, would namedrop Derrida, Baudrillard etc. every three minutes. And of course, imitate their writing, which would always seem to result in incomprehensible, meaningless gobbledygook.

Derrida came to the university once for a guest lecture, and I must have been the only person in the department of humanities who wasn't jockeying for a seat in the Porthania auditorium. Later I asked folks what the lecture had been about, didn't really get any clear answers except that it had been the most brilliant, amazing thing ever.

As a contrarian, all this caused me disgust, and (again, quite possible unfairly) to these days I've neglected to give this stuff an objective, fair reading.

ha---glad that didn't come across as obscure, weird, etc.

I've also learned the hard way that there is a huge difference between many of these critical theorists/philosophers and the people who idolize them like some sort of celebrities.  Derrida, I think, has a lot of very interesting ideas about the world and culture that has a lot in common (or at least things that potentially support) some of the more theoretically minded aspects of industrial culture.  But you are totally right about those students and other wannabes who try to imitate them---those types tend to be some of the most arrogant and insufferable people I have ever had the misfortune to spend my time around!