Zygmunt Bauman has used his `outsider' position to explore the defining boundaries of our world and help shape a discourse which allows communication across these boundaries. In this spirit he has investigated: sociology and culture; capitalism, socialism and class; and modernity and postmodernity. Bauman has argued for an emancipatory sociology which takes full account of what ought and ought not to be, what human beings hope for and fear, and the need to give people intellectual tools to make use of (...) their freedom. Applying the strategy of the `hermeneutic circle', he has examined capitalist and socialist regimes from a range of vantage points. He has also identified the challenges we all now face as inhabitants of the half-ruined structures created by modernity's failed ambitions. Bauman has confronted these challenges in the last decade by focusing on the evils of modern bureaucracy as epitomized by the Holocaust, the inescapability of each individual's responsibility for his or her own moral choices, and the potential for an open and self-critical dialogue between sociologists and their fellow citizens. (shrink)

In this article, I offer a literary-critical reading of Modernity and the Holocaust, arguing that Bauman’s non-Hobbesian ethics is linked to a form of Orphic authorship. I contextualize this reading with a study of three literary authors: W.G. Sebald, Peter Weiss and Janina Bauman, and their respective versions of this post-Holocaust authorship. At stake is the drama of the forbidden gaze, the moment when Orpheus turns to look at Eurydice, killing her a second time. Using Levinas’ ethics and his scenario (...) of recognition, Bauman re-writes this fateful gaze as a loving gaze, implicitly proposing a counter-model to the Schmittian gaze — always ready to recognize the enemy, always ready to kill. (shrink)

Invoking Zygmunt Bauman’s acute exposition of a left-critical hesitation between intellectuals as saviours and intellectuals as oppressors, this essay argues that while Bauman reveals this hesitation as crucial and symptomatic, nevertheless he leaves it unresolved. The essay shows how the human nature/ culture distinction is, in fact, constitutive of human culture as such; moreover, the essay argues that this constitutive distinction reproduces itself within culture in terms of reciprocal hierarchies of social division — intellectual/non-intellectual, shamanistic/folk, aristocratic/popular. This pattern of vertical (...) reciprocity is precisely what the purely horizontal axis of capitalist-bureaucratic liberalism excludes, collapsing the hierarchical axis of political culture into the horizontal false-binary of ‘left’ versus ‘right’. In this way the essay argues that the crux of an authentic resistance to capitalist-bureaucratic liberalism will involve not a triumph of the ‘left’ over the ‘right’, but the retrieval of the dynamic paradox of the vertical axis of the hierarchical communion of guiding excellence fused with popular spontaneity. The hierarchical yet dynamically educative interplay between innovators and those being constantly innovated is the organic root of human culture and the means of the authentic practice of human justice. (shrink)