On 'Examined Life'

Cornel West’s comments at the beginning of Examined Life frame much of what the philosophers in this film will discuss: he worries about the divide between domination and democracy, the elite and everyday people. Philosophy tries to confront structures of domination and control--patriarchy, white supremacy, imperial power, state power--and uphold some sort of dialogue in the face of dogmatism. Very noble, I’m sure; but I found it kind of hilarious to listen to him offer these points as he sits ensconced in a car, driven by the director, making comments about the ignorance of the people walking around him. Wisely stroking his beard, he admits that the philosopher may be isolated in a library, but there’s a lot more going on in his mind than in those of the people going by on the street: he’s sure that they’re undertaking “no intellectual interrogation at all.” It’s an ironic treatment of the notion of “taking philosophy to the streets”--perhaps deliberately so--since he’s not even on the street and has nothing but contempt for those who are. The segment with Avital Ronell was similar, and at one point I was actually laughing: the people relaxing on benches, and maybe particularly the guy stretched out for a nap, are presumably examples of those who don’t partake in her “politics of refusing gratification.” Maybe they do want meaning in their lives, or even a burger.

The segments with Martha Nussbaum and Judith Butler made more sense to me. (I didn’t know Judith Butler could make sense, which I suppose is my answer to Garry’s question about the effect of seeing these philosophers in the flesh.) Nussbaum’s “capabilities approach” to the theory of justice forces us to think, in practical terms, about the needs of those around us possessed of unequal mental powers, or unequal bodies. Butler’s discussion with Taylor has a similar effect, and also shows that she, Butler, is capable of holding an intelligible, interesting philosophical discussion outside of academic discourse. The film as a whole, and particularly these two segments, makes me wonder what it means to be a ‘thinker’--or an academic, or a teacher. If we cannot engage with anyone outside our tiny world in academia, is there any point to what we do? Are we not simply part of West’s notion of the elite, failing to connect with “everyday people”? It’s tough to feel relevant in this line of work, especially when you study a very early period. How might we, and particularly those of us whose research interests lie in the past, really take ‘thinking’ to the streets?