A work of hard love

Benjamin was right; this drew my attention as I was in the midst of re-aligning my library.

The Guardian, 11th December 1995

The Guardian (11th December 1995)

It was sent to me by a close friend - since disappeared - shortly after Professor Rose's passing. It was read once, perhaps twice, and filed away until last night. I thought I ought to share it. Click on the image to see an expanded version. (A pdf version is available here)

You may be similarly interested in John Milbank's obituary written for The Independent (13th December 1995), located here. (A pdf version is found here)

Professor Howard Caygill's obituary written for Radical Philosophy is found here. Perhaps one day he will compose her intellectual biography.

This entry was posted in gillian rose and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

5 Comments

  1. Naomi
    Posted 20th October 2008 at 23:03 | Permalink

    I, too, have a copy of this obituary. Likewise, I, too, have only read it once or possibly twice – but certainly only again when I have stumbled accross it as I have been tidying up my papers. I am guessing that your reference to Benjamin is so as to allude to his essay “Unpacking my Library” – one of my favorites – but I might be wrong.

    I’m posting a comment just to acknowledge your post on my profile in Sept 08 on LibraryThing. I particularly enjoyed your parting comment – ‘may the absolute be with you’. Fortunately, it always is, irrespective of whether we chose to acknowledge it or not.

  2. Posted 21st October 2008 at 20:08 | Permalink

    Thank you for the visit, Naomi. It was not so difficult to find the (three) readers of Paradiso on LT, and then to your site. Would I be correct to assume that your visit signals a change in fortunes? I hope so.

    Yes, the reference is to Benjamin’s essay, to which I am drawn at precisely the “wrong” moments; it seems to know when it becomes necessary. I enjoyed how you approached the relationship – it spells a different return.

    Upon reflection, Jay Bernstein’s throwaway remark about Hegel Contra Sociology – “is not itself a major contribution to the scholarly literature on Hegel” – is less of a throwaway remark; that is to say it is both erroneous, yet truthful.

    On the one hand, the import of Hegel Contra Sociology in establishing new vistas within social thought and beyond is given short shrift; perhaps the book and Prof. Rose operated outside the bounds of departmental lines, perhaps such a re-casting of Hegel cannot – must not! – be possible. With that same stroke, all questions of Robert Pippen’s wholesale lifting (“borrowings”) of passages into his Hegel’s Idealism is passed over in silence.

  3. Naomi
    Posted 21st October 2008 at 23:27 | Permalink

    Only 3 readers of Paradiso on on LT? My goodness. Of course, that gives no indication of how many people have actually read it but, nevertheless, only 3 people? Disgraceful!

    My visit? A change in fortunes? I’m guessing that you are referring to my last post on my very ‘work-in-progress’ website. That was a bit of a mistake – I’d created the site for a different purpose altogether but then found that I just needed to speak… I have an urge to quote Gillian Rose now but I will resist.

    Drawn to Benjamin at precisely the ‘wrong’ moments? Interesting. Presumably, they are the ‘right moments’ too.

    I perhaps need to read the article again but definitely agree that HCS is frequently given short shrift, although, unfortunately, not working within academia, I can’t say whether that is, in fact, the case now. Its been so long since I looked at the book never mind studied it that I don’t think I can say anything about it worth listening to any more – I had such strong opinions about Gillian Rose and Hegel et al at one time – and I imagine that I still do if I was in the right company – but I don’t have the opportunity to talk about them in any real depth any more. I’d certainly be interested to know what you think about HCS in relation to the rest of her work – I came across Rose through Love’s Work (although I had also stumbled across Rose a year beforehand when I read – or, I should say, tried to read Dialectic of Nihilism) so I’m very conscious that my understanding of HCS could perhaps be a little different to someone else’s understanding of it before Love’s Work was published.

  4. marq
    Posted 24th June 2009 at 09:32 | Permalink

    Noami’s comments are well minded – I’ve never heard of Hegel Contra Sociology as HCS before, but I have a problem with departmentalism and anacronism as I’m sure Gillian would.
    I’m slighty amazed that you have have read Gillian’s committed thought in text and not given the slightest breath of your life to inform yourselves. BREATHE……and out …..and ….. BREATHE….. and out…….. and breathe!

  5. Posted 25th June 2009 at 10:48 | Permalink

    marq,
    Thanks for dropping by. I’m not sure who or what your comment is addressed to. Would you care to elaborate? No endorsement of “departmentalism” was made here.

    I’d be interested to know if anyone else is struck by the remarkable “parallels” between Pippin’s book and Hegel contra Sociology.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

Please leave these two fields as-is: