I laughed when I read your description of it as CBT + Heidegger. I always thought of it as a legitimized institution of ‘New Age’, but I think I’ve found a better way to describe it. On the second day they talked about selves as “rackets” (like a tennis racket), where we catch ourselves fighting with loved ones, and tossing petty comments to one another, all over stupid things and merely to preserve our sense of self in the moment. Couldn’t get more New Age than that.

There are a variety of familiar dichotomies that seem to be in play here: idealism/materialism, gemeinschaft/gesellschaft, individual/society, linear/non-linear, lumping/splitting.

For the purists all of the stuff we find interesting and real looks like “corruption.”

Sorry about not finishing up that earlier thought. I wrote a nice long post and some random ‘cookies setting’ on my browser messed it up and all was lost.

All I was going to say is that I felt Villa wasn’t critiquing social democracy, but rather anyone with a hint of a Post-Structuralist reading- especially in the moment he brought up the constitution.

If you remember, he made comments that went something along the lines of “You COULD do that with her thought” - “but not around me plz” or “that wasn’t one of her strengths, it wasn’t her focus, so don’t even bother” (the latter being directed at the woman asking about the law).

Indeed, I definitely felt that he was in some way channeling Arendt (especially by discarding the Post-Structuralist readings in favor of an intentionalist reading). Yet I also felt that he was far enough removed from his object (Arendt’s thought) so that he could still historicize it by saying that the critique of the social wasn’t aimed at the social democrats of today (who if we believe Sherri Berman is the ideological form of the end of history), but rather against the pertinently anti-liberal forms of Marxisms of yesteryear.

Or Jacobins for that matter; he did bring up Arendt’s reading of the French Revolution which is in many ways in line with Burke’s thought. In both analyses- the enemy is the social. They also both supported the American Revolution, but held cynical attitudes to the successes of the French (precluding an analysis of them as ‘anti-revolutionary’). Most importantly, Burke insisted that the French championed the abstract idea of liberty rather than its reality- which is produced and maintained by civil government. This sounds a lot like Arendt.

Also, if you remember, the constitution-talk was brought up at the end of his presentation during the Q & A. By this point, the discussion of the ’social’ had somewhat quieted. I think I remember him saying something along the lines of “look guys, there are conferences at Princeton by legal scholars who are assessing the damages done to the constitution by the Bush Administration- this is serious” as a response to what he took to be off-beat ‘theoretical’ questions.

Again, this could be all wholly wrong.

Also- your rhetorically poised question “are there any Arendtians anywhere besides America?” was refreshening. Learning and thinking about the academe and public discourse in other places has always interested me. And indeed, it’s fascinating to see her become a symbol of American Exceptionalism.

Finally, I’m still thinking about the West Wing analogy and I think I’m in agreement. Great point!

P.S - I need to read Badiou.

Hope all is well!

Please respond if you have any points of disagreements. I would love to read them.