Onuf, part three... Or, uh, WTF????

I was tempted to post this as my discussion question yesterday after finishing the book:

"???????????????????????????????? .... brain overload... mind melt... total systems failure."

But I decided instead to 'marinate' in the millions of thoughts and questions I have jotted down on little post-its tucked in throughout the book. After talking to PTJ on Friday, I got a clearer sense of how to engage with the book: Onuf uses rules/rule as a [*ahem*] framework through which to view the historical and contemporary world. But his style is such that he takes you down one avenue of thought just to show you that you are going the wrong way! The first part of the book reveals that rules are really about rule; that order is really just privilege; that rule is an active process of seizing and instituting. I would have most likely missed this if PTJ hadn't called attention to it, but then Onuf turns this all upside down in Part 2 by revealing that the power or legitimacy or authority vested in these rules stems from the claim that they are authorless... that there is no claimant. It is one thing to argue that universals are socially and historically situated (one reading of 'rules are really about rule') - which I think most of us by now are like "uh, duh" - but it is entirely another thing to question or unearth where that authority comes from - which is that it comes from making it history-less. Pretty cool.

Of course, there are a hundred other threads of possible discussions in this book, several of which WIllow and Horia have already pointed out. I'm fairly certain I could grow ancient untangling the myriad threads of thought I came across. Onuf makes me feel illiterate. Seriously. Was he a monk in some previous existence to be able to sequester himself to 'closely read' these multitudes of [very dense] texts??

Instead, I will share what struck me the most from World of Our Making, which is his use of epigraphs. They tell a story. In fact, for me at least, they weave together the story of his entire book in a way that is both elegant (not KKV elegance, fyi) and devious.

He starts the book with Goethe:

"It is written, "In the beginning was the Word!"

Already I have to stop! Who'll help me on?

It's impossible to put such trust in the Word!

I must translate some other way

If I am truly enlightened by the spirit.

It is written: "In the beginning was the Thought!"

Think hard of that first line,

Make sure that your pen does not outrun itself!

Is it the Thought that moves and creates everything?

It should be: "In the beginning was the Power!"

Yet even as I write it down,

Already something warns me not to keep it.

The spirit helps me! All at once I see the answer

And write confidently, "In the beginning was the Deed!" 

Part 1: Rules starts with Foucault (The Archeology of Knowledge):

What, in short, we wish to do is dispense with 'things'. To 'depresentify' them. ... To substitute for the enigmatic treasure of 'things' anterior to discourse, the regular formation of objects that emerge only in discourse. To define these objects without reference to the ground, the foundation of things, but by relating them to the body of rules that enable them to form as objects of a discourse and thus constitute the conditions of their historical appearance.

Chapter 1: Constructivism begins with Wittgenstein:

Language - I want to say - 

is a refinement, im Anfang war die Tat

('in the beginning was the deed').

Part 2: Rule starts again with Foucault (Language, Counter-Memory, Practice):

Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose. The successes of history belong to those who are capable of seizing these rules ... 

Chapter 8: Rationality and Resources ends with Wittgenstein:

...the difficulty - I might say - is not that of finding the solution but rather of recognizing as the solution something that looks as if it were only preliminary to it ... the solution of the difficulty is a description, if we give it the right place in our considerations. If we dwell upon it, and do not try to get beyond it.

The difficulty here is: to stop.

And he ends the book with Goethe again:

All theory, dear friend, is gray -

The Golden tree of life is green.

I will not offer any more interpretations, but perhaps we can discuss this 'strategery' (one of the only good things to come of George W. in my humble opinion) and what it might mean tomorrow.