Sande Cohen: On the verge of newness

Abstract

In this paper, a general introduction to the work of Sande Cohen based (primarily) on his book-length treatments of historical culture in (especially) Western capitalist social formations, the significance and relevance of Cohen is argued for by way of his indexicality with such social formations in ways suggesting that his analyses cannot be avoided by all those who genuinely aspire to understand history and historical culture today unflinchingly.

Keywords:

• Sande Cohen
• postmodernism
• historical culture
• indexicality
• Lyotard
• Deleuze

Notes

1.The argument in this paragraph does, of course, apply to all historians/theorists, including Cohen, who has by no means escaped such ‘mixed origins’. But at least Cohen recognizes this and is therefore happy to explicitly position himself and then argue for that position as best he can, always falling short of definitiveness. Cohen should not therefore be seen as offering knock-down logical arguments but rather as trying to make his proposals (analyses) as plausible as possible in the hope that they might resonate with others. Who can do more? For this mode of ‘argumentation’ see the Introduction to Rorty (1989). See also, on argumentation, Bennington's brilliant paper (2001).

2.Ermarth (2004) writes in ways which link up with aspects of Cohen's arguments at this point: ‘The purpose of modern historical method … is to permit discovery of the abstract, emergent forms and causalities operating invisibly in sequences of particulars: sequences that otherwise might look random or chaotic if recorded, say, by a giant world-historical camera. Traditional historical writing selects to produce; that is its purpose … Whether the process of empirical rationalization is historical or scientific it treats particulars as evidence or “clues”, in other words, as minor material manifestations of larger, more abstract principles and laws. The particulars are discarded once they have yielded their generalizations’ (77–8). The problems inherent in this (those of inference and historiality) are much underestimated by historians. I attend to this in my forthcoming At the Limits of History.

3.For the kind of politics that are based on the axioms of hegemony and agonistics see, for example, Ernesto Laclau Emancipations (1996) and On Populist Reason (2005). I'm not certain about Cohen, but I find the position of Laclau close to my own.

4.Hallward's text provides, I think, one of the very best introductions to Deleuze's thought.

5.The chapter on Ginzburg in Passive Nihilism is one of Cohen's finest.

6.As will already be clear from my references/notes, I have (primarily) based my reading of Cohen on his books. I have read many – but not all – of his papers. My decision to restrict myself to books was made for two reasons. First, it is Cohen's books that I suspect (new) readers will almost certainly go to initially and I see my introduction as an introduction to aspects of those texts and, second, Cohen's ‘position’ is found in most detail in his books, and it was this that I was most interested in. I urge readers to go to Cohen for themselves with the hope that I haven't misled, not least because, given the density of Cohen's text, they remain, as I said in the general introduction, ‘almost summary proof’. Apropos of which (and relating back to note 1) in an email exchange with Martin Davies to whom I had mentioned the density, the ‘summary proofness’ and the epigrammatic nature of so much of Cohen's writings, Martin responded as follows: ‘Thinking about your comments on Cohen, it occurred to me that one reason why he is so difficult to summarize is because his readings [writings] are a performance rather than an argument. An argument can be summarized and its force still retained, but if the performance is reduced to essentials, these may seem inadequate in relation to the performance. Every so often Cohen produces something pithy and quotable … but it still isn't like reading Cohen himself.’ I think this is spot on.