{"id":4172,"date":"2018-11-26T11:56:47","date_gmt":"2018-11-26T16:56:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/?p=4172"},"modified":"2018-11-26T11:57:13","modified_gmt":"2018-11-26T16:57:13","slug":"teddy-corcoran-power-and-logic-a-response-to-praxis-4-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/praxis1313\/teddy-corcoran-power-and-logic-a-response-to-praxis-4-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Teddy Corcoran | Power and Logic: A Response to Praxis 4\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Teddy Corcoran<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the wake of Praxis 4\/13, arguably our most spirited discussion yet, I found myself fixated with two concepts insofar as they are related to the alt-right: 1) the role of logic 2) the role of power. As I hope to sketch out, these notions, which are both fascinating in their own right, are in fact deeply related, with the latter (power), directly informing the former (logic).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Logic<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One of the more noteworthy elements in our discussion was the fact that logic (or the lack thereof) came up again and again. Karl Ekeman, who first raised this point, called out the contradictory way in which George T. Shaw argues that racism is both a false preposition and no proposition at the same time. Professor Harcourt, in turn, examined the internal tensions and logical \u201cping pong\u201d of Shaw\u2019s discussion of the market, and Professor Stanley lastly added, \u201cthere are a lot of contradictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet the consensus was not only that contradictory logic was found throughout the texts, but that such it was somehow a non-issue for the authors in achieving their ultimate goal. Professor Harcourt suggested that some arguments are made to produce an emotional<\/em> response, and that their logical coherence is almost irrelevant. Ekeman similarly put forth the notion that, given the sheer number of arguments contained within the texts, the incongruity of any given argument almost doesn\u2019t matter, and that the goal is instead to draw the reader into a specific interpretation of the world. Professor Taussig may perhaps have put things most potently when he said, \u201cit strikes me that fascism doesn\u2019t rest on logic.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is in light of these agreements, let\u2019s go one layer deeper and ask a natural question: why<\/em>? Just how, or why, is logic seemingly so disposable for the alt-right? And what role, if any, does it play? To better understand this, let\u2019s first look at power.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Power<\/em><\/p>\n

In his introduction to A Fair Hearing: The Alt Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders<\/em>, George T. Shaw offers one of the most useful quotes available in understanding the underpinnings of the alt-right movement. \u201cEvery \u2018conservative\u2019 loss,\u201d he writes, \u201chas been, in reality, a transfer of power from white males to one or another nonwhite and\/or non-male fringe group (Shaw, x).\u201d<\/p>\n

Shaw could not have been more blunt, or for our purposes, helpful. He believes it is power<\/em> is at the heart of the right\u2019s recent \u201closses,\u201d and this power has been transferred <\/em>from white heterosexual males to other \u201cgroups.\u201d The subtext is clear: when \u201cthey\u201d gain, \u201cwe\u201d lose. <\/em><\/p>\n

With the primacy of power now firmly in mind, let\u2019s see if we can\u2019t sketch out the connection between power and logic in the alt-right.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Connective Tissue: The Broad, Sweeping Strokes<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n