The following are a set of rules for the giving of academic papers in philosophy (especially continental philosophy). The rules recall those of the Danish film movement, Dogme 95, or even Oulipo. A primary aim is to break with the veneration of master thinkers not because it isn't worthwhile studying a philosopher in great depth and over a number of years, but that this, by itself, is not philosophy.
1. Dogma is relevant. Your paper must be written for the occasion in which you are presenting it. It must not be part of an ongoing project or a larger work. It must stand on two feet, or, if it is written in collaboration, which Dogma encourages, it must stand alongside the work of the other paper giver on your panel. If you collaborate, your work must stand or fall together, and your work must be genuinely co-written, being born from friendship.
2. Dogma is clear. Your paper must be written to read out, to be comprehensible to an audience of ordinary intelligence. It must carry them along from point to point.
3. Dogma is spartan. Only one proper name. No quotations. Problems, not names - and above all no names. (And I know how difficult this distinction is to make in continental philosophy: problems/ names. But who hasn't had enough of names?)
4. Dogma is impassioned. You must stand behind every sentence you write. It must be clear to the audience that the issues you are exploring is of the utmost importance to you.
5. Dogma is personal. You must use personal anecdotes, as many as you like. Everything in the paper must bear upon what is of significance to you. Use the word 'I'; anecdotalise; speak of your life and its intersection with your thought. Speak of your friends. Speak of your passions and your misfortunes.
6. Dogma borrows. You can plagiarise any part of your paper from any source. But no names, remember. No names at all.
7. Dogma is reticent. You must never try to publish a Dogma paper. What is spoken is not for reading an vice versa.
8. Dogma is studious. You must work very hard indeed on your paper. Nothing last minute, nothing slapdash.
9. Dogma is full of pathos. Weep, and let your audience weep.
10. Dogma is elective. Do not tell your audience the constraints you have accepted. If you are asked, afterwards, about your presentation, you may speak of it then.
W. and I formulated the rules of Dogma one frustrated night at a conference in April 2005. Flusser's Writings were a major inspiration.
I've given several Dogma papers with W. We've spoken on our favourite literature and our favourite music; this year, we also spoke on friendship as a condition for thinking. Each time, we spent about a month working on our papers, constantly discussing our work. Our friend L. gave a 'Lady Dogma' paper this year, after hearing about Dogma from W. and I. It should be emphasised that collaboration - friendship - really is the heart of Dogma. An of course that no one at all owns Dogma, least of all us.
Of course, Dogma rules can be varied from subject to subject. What is urgent, say, in continental philosophy, that is, the grip of the proper name, the imitation of the master etc. is less so in other fields. Note, too, that not everyone has the luxury of following Dogma: the postgraduate student looking for work is in a very different position to a full-time employee.
W. and I often supplement our rules. Here are some additions to the main rules of Dogma:
11. Dogma is apocalyptic. Dogma accepts that these are the last days. Catastrophe is impending. Bear this in mind as you write. Write only on what matters most.
12. Dogma is forgiving. Dogma is an ideal; it may be your paper is only partially dogmatic. This is at least something. You can also take the ultra-Dogmatic route, and mention no names at all.
13. Dogma is a friend to religion. We underwent a spiritual turn earlier this year; we speak of such matters without embarassment.
14. Dogma is on the side of the suffering. Bela Tarr films are an important reminder of the omnipresence of suffering, of ontological shit and cosmological shit.
15. Dogma is communal. Respond, in your writing, to the work of a friend. Mention, in discussion, the inspiration that your friends are for you.
16. Dogma is peripheral. It avoids famous names; it is shy of fashionable topics.
17. Dogma is affirmative. Do not engage those with whom you disagree. Dogma is advocative: speak of those of whom others should hear.
W. wrote to me to suggest that I add the following: 'Dogma is experimental. More rules can be added, but only through the experience of Dogma.' And doesn't this add something wonderful: the experience of Dogma: as if it began, first of all, in complete dissatisfaction, but gave way to an excited liberation?
