Nick Dungey

[Major K.]

Hey all,

Have any of you encountered Nick Dungey (Professor of Political Science at California State) or his podcast called Deeper Dive?

I just discovered his stuff on what he calls transmodern politics, and it's quite challenging to my current perspective on how society functions. I don't think it really jives very well with what I've been reading on here, but I can't quite put my finger on in what ways, besides that he is by and large a postmodernist deeply influenced by Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida, and Nietzsche. Can anyone point me to any critiques of his philosophy from a Marxist perspective, or have one of their own?

I'm curious what you guys think. Here's a link to one of his podcasts if you haven't heard of him but are interested:

http://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/urdsu/id/2531577

Some synopses of his podcasts:

1. In this "blue-sky" podcast, Professor Dungey provides a totally unique and creative interpretation of the source of the existential crises and conflict now engulfing the individual, economic, and political dimensions of late-modern liberal democracy. Professor Dungey locates the source of this crisis in a fracturing of the tri-partite structure of Liberal Political Philosophy. This is Part I of a Three Part show.

2. In Part II of this controversial discussion, Professor Dungey provides an analysis of the economic dimension of the fracturing of the modern liberal philosophical system. In this discussion Professor Dungey identifies the way the transformation of the traditional liberal economic system has moved us beyond market based economic processes and what this means for the individual and citizen.

3. In Parts I and II of "The Crisis," Professor Dungey and Walker have argued that a fundamental transformation in the economic and political arenas have had a profound impact on the lives of American citizens. The consequences of this transformation have marginalized the importance of the American citizen and crippled their economic capacity to pursue economic and material well-being. In Part III of "The Crisis," Professor Dungey and Walker explore the philosophical origins of the American preoccupation with vanity and the perception of political importance.

4. As a follow-up to our discussion about the legality of the NSA spying program, we take a Deeper Dive into the essential and transcendent notion of "executive power" and the critically ambiguous role it plays the creation and maintenance of modern political life. To fully understand the origins and implications of "executive power" we begin with Machiavelli's famous discussion of the Prince who opens and maintains the political space through the terrifying and awe-inspiring "execution." We then trace the way this dark truth of modern political life finds expression in Hobbes, Locke, and the founding fathers. This is a critical discussion for any real understanding of modern power and politics.


Also, from his university page:

"Dr. Dungey specializes in Modern and Contemporary political theory, with an emphasis in postmodern thought. Attempting to move beyond the modern conceptions of subjectivity, language, power, and the politics that express them, his research is mapping the territory of a postmodern politics."

[Scary Jerry]

Hey Major K,
wish I had an answer, but I created a profile on here to say you are not alone. I've been looking like crazy for an in depth discussion on these ideas and bingeing (an acceptable spelling) on those DSU podcasts.

These are some possible objections that come to mind but none are satisfying to me.

(1.) One overall problem I have is that he does not provide possible criticisms of these ideas, which I think is a major responsibility when providing views; otherwise you are about winning people to your view instead of giving them an opportunity to come to their own conclusions. A person that doesn't do that... well they implicitly believe their view is true. Which I hope can make clear why its ironic for Mr. Dungey and therefore defeats his views.

(2.) The major criticism is one of post-modernism, this isn't exactly in philosophy terms but I hope it gets the idea across: post-modernism defeats itself. I started trying to give a brief justification for this claim but it kept getting longer. I would suggest looking at criticism for post-modernism, structuralism, and post-structuralism. But I want say a couple of things.

The position has an objective vibe to it: it seems to be very hard to doubt, gives an unrealized and universal way to look about human theorizing, and better yet is an instance of knowledge or truth, and seems to be the best way to approach the world. Indeed, that is why post-modernism can be so appealing. Ultimately, this is how the view kind of defeats itself; because it cannot escape its own criticism, it argues that objective views are not possible or should not be taken seriously.

This could be taken as a great example of irony. I cannot think of a really good defense for how post-moderns could respond, maybe that they are not so much as arguing this view but making us aware; but I want to name drop a philosopher that plays out post-modern viewpoint, and use him to show a problem with the view.

A contemporary philosopher named Richard Rorty says the conclusion to take from this (that there is no objective truth) is that we should see the aims of philosophy ( the fight for objective truth) as not possible, but rather conversation, simply people talking, maybe coming up with new ideas, but all acknowledging that what they say is not true. Rorty is not a popular figure in philosophy for reason that I will try to make clear. Anyway, this is where Dungy's argument about "Life as Art" comes in.

Basically he is trying to make us aware to a description about life, (and not just any but implicitly the best one) that what people do is a matter of choosing which conversations you like to listen to, what views you want to subscribe too. In a way, its like choosing which news broadcast of political biased you want to listen to, Liberal or Conservative. Don't worry about who is right because neither one is, what's important is you listen to which one you like to listen to, and you made your choice not by reason, but by your feelings, and that society starts to admit that this is how things are really picked, drops the whole "this is the correct view" routine. We could be better off if we all saw the world this way. (So the thinking goes)

But, this is where we come to a major issue, its really bad if people pick things based on what they feel is right. (or even worse if because people won't use the terms right.) Feelings are not a good justification for beliefs because something could be acceptable just because one person likes it. These are the kind of objections to "relativism"; a view that all views are acceptable because "correct" is a matter of what one group decides. We do feel that some behavior is worse than others, and some outright unacceptable because it is detrimental to society or harmful to people. Indeed, this is the issue with complete libertarianism, which is Hobbes's "State of Nature." Life would not be possible in such a world.

(2.5) Also, I forgot a major one, it is incoherent to say that we can choose what we want to believe in life but if we are essentially parts of structures, we are not so free. Freedom is an illusion, which that conflict with intuitions of autonomy.

(3.) Structuralism - I'm getting tired now, so things will be getting shorter, but the idea that structures exist in the way that Dungy says they do is self-defeating as well. He is implicitly arguing for a kind of "essence." He gives a definition for the structures of political/economic structures, that they operate essentially to reinforce and maintain their power and basically exploit citizens. But, he is arguing from a PM position, which eschews traditions that seek and claim to find essences in the world. Platonic philosophy has this structure, and PMs follow the very same structure.

(4.) Interpretation - You could argue that Dungey is simply cherry picking misinterpreting data to serve his points. (Which PM wants to make us aware of) Consider the discussion about pension and the Detroit Bankruptcy. He wants to make the point that these "authoritarians" are being put into power and can do whatever they want. Luckily, the co-host calls him out, and Dungey relents and agrees the courts will figure it out. One of those emergency managers could be legally prosecuted in some way or another, it would be interesting to see the legal justification, but it would be done.

I mean, I think another interesting statistic he doesn't mention is low voter turnout in the US. I mean, he might say its because people inherently recognize there votes don't matter. (Actually, he might have mentioned this statistics.) Some say its just that people are lazy and they believe the government actually is doing the best it can do, and they know its a slow shitty process. But, a political scientist might be able to offer more insight. In addition, in my personal experience, I have a hard time voting simply because I don't know who is right. (Well I mean I know who like, Republicans are fucking crazy) I mean I think both sides have important things to say, who am I to decide?

(5.) Along with that point, is the discussion of executive power. Dungey argues that the president is free to make choices, and makes a case they primarily are going to make ones that are in the best interests of the people, which that interpretation is left up to the president, which Dungey implies, is rampant for an abuse of power and lead to the enslavement of the human race. But, that is just what he wants to believes. He didn't mention that we elect new presidents that can undo what previous ones do. Not to mention that the president really is not that free, the Supreme Court and Congress can get involved.

(6.) He cites statistics and information that is widely available, and he says this is evidence of things going awry, which it is, but he seems to think there is nothing that can be done about it. These are major concerns for everyone in America, at all levels of government and academia, are working on, and there are things that can be done and laws to made. People are going to work very hard to make them happen.

Also, there really are not viable alternatives. I mean this is an anarchist website and all, but I think of Steve Pinker, said he believed in anarchy until the police went on strike and was truly scared and didn't want to live in a world like that. Dungey simply believes that things are going to crash and burn, or we will all be enslaved and won't admit he could be wrong.

(7.) My own kind of personal idea I want to be true is that, Dungey is only playing into capitalist dogma, he wants us to believe the lie that people and governments are inherently selfish. All he has done is transport why capitalistic economies are dangerous into governments, to make them seem dangerous. I don't believe people are inherently selfish and I don't believe government is completely selfish.

Another idea is this is the insidiousness and sick game of language, can we ever say something that is what the post moderns want, they want to say things that are not true, but a weird inversion can happen. Even if someone lies, a person can believe it.

You could say post-modernism existentialism goes to far, they say there is no truth, and the irony is they want a simple reality, the very thing they are trying to defeat. Life is more like a doubling, its not that there is no truth, its that there could and could not be, and we won't know. We are in a weird space of how to view the world, there is a kind of doubling where knowledge is possible and not possible at the same time.

[Major K.]

Hi Jerry,

I think what he's trying to do isn't so much provide a cohesive, coherent doctrine, but doing what he calls "jazz philosophy". In other words, existentialist and dynamic.

This makes it enjoyable to listen to, as he leads us into a world of his own idiosyncratic thinking. This, however, leaves us with some coherency problems. However, in the context of a conversation in a kitchen for a small audience, it's fine. The whole calling it DSU makes it a bit trickier though, but I think they're planning on growing into their name in the future.

Another thing to think about is: who is DSUs intended audience? It seems to be young people who are disillusioned by the mainstream political options in the world they live in. It's more like a preliminary wake-up call then, and for that it may be a good idea to avoid any concrete call to actions.

The most concrete call to action seems to add up to: be more self-aware. Beyond that, you're on your own. And I think that's smart and sufficient for their parts.


Besides the informal nature of the conversation, your main qualm seems to be the relativistic universe that post-modernists often start from.

There's a lot I could say here, but for now I'll just address some smaller points, and will come back to this later.

Don't think of it as a matter of just "following your feelings", but more recognizing that all authority stems from yourself. That, at the end of the day, you choose how to live and die in your social environment (though of course with varying levels of coercion and oppression).

I see this type of relativistic (not in a derogatory sense) understanding of experience as a natural outcrop of our sciences.

To quote Joseph Cambell:

"The most wonderful and challenging fact about science is that it does not and cannot pretend to be “true” in any absolute sense. It does not and cannot pretend to be final. It is a tentative organization of mere “working hypotheses” that for the present appear to take into account all the relevant facts now known."


I don't think he's falling into capitalist dogma -- I think he's more pointing at problems and then saying "Imagine if this is the case. If you want to change something, you start small and local (as in, within your own mind)."


I don't think we need absolute truth to have morality or love or hate or whatever. It's not like without absolute understanding things turn into a miasma of meaninglessness. Traditional Zen Buddhism actually does a great job deconstructing this problem.

Okay, I'll come back another day and address the rest of what you bring up then. There's a lot to unpack and I have to go.

Major K.