Abstract
Abstract In his publications since the three-volume Spheres project, Peter Sloterdijk thematizes religion as a now outmoded immunological system. He says it can no longer perform its historical function because humans have lost the protection of a world periphery. The entirety of what was “outside” is now “inside,” and this has happened because: (1) spheres are systems, and as Luhmann shows, systems naturally complexify and expand themselves by becoming...
Abstract In his publications since the three-volume Spheres project, Peter Sloterdijk thematizes religion as a now outmoded immunological system. He says it can no longer perform its historical function because humans have lost the protection of a world periphery. The entirety of what was “outside” is now “inside,” and this has happened because: (1) spheres are systems, and as Luhmann shows, systems naturally complexify and expand themselves by becoming self-reflective; and (2), as Nietzsche says, humans are driven by a need to surpass themselves. The loss of world periphery is manifest in the climate crisis, which registers as a general sense that we must “change our lives.” This gives Sloterdijk the chance (or so I argue) to create a new sphere (in the symbolic mode) that can be shared by all humans, a function no so-called world religion can fulfill. This new solidarity would come about when the earth becomes the completing “other” to every self, and individuals act in accordance with the imperative to assure the existence of human life on earth. The last section of the paper contrasts Sloterdijk’s spherology with Latour’s actor–network theory, and his later move into political ecology. I argue that, despite their alliance against “globalism,” Latour and Sloterdijk are working with very different models of space (spheres vs. networks) and have different agendas vis-à-vis the climate crisis. Sloterdijk is trying to build ethical solidarity among humans, while Latour is concerned with a politics (in the Schmittian sense) between both human and nonhuman actors, including Gaia, which is both the space of action (a network of networks) and an actor in its own right. And finally, I take up Sloterdijk’s statement that religions were never anything other than human practices, compared with Latour’s call for acting “religiously,” which means “respecting what others cling to.” I do this by way of showing there are conceptual limitations to the concept of spheres and to Sloterdijk’s project overall.
Angelaki: Journal of Theoretical Humanities – Taylor & Francis
Published: Jan 2, 2021
Keywords: actor–network theory; immanence; immunology; religion; spheres
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.