BOOK REVIEW
Red Sea – Red
Squa e – Red Th ead:
A Philosophical
De ec i e S o y by
Lydia Goeh
Richa d Eld idge
Uni e si y o Tennessee, Knox ille, US
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Richa d Eld idge
Uni e si y o Tennessee,
Knox ille, US
eld id1@swa hmo e.edu
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Eld idge, Richa d. ‘Red Sea
– Red Squa e – Red Th ead:
A Philosophical De ec i e
S o y by Lydia Goeh .’
Es e ika: The Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics
LIX/XV, no. 2 (2022):
pp. 172–177. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.33134/eeja.348
A book e iew o Lydia Goeh , Red Sea – Red Squa e – Red Th ead: A Philosophical
De ec i e S o y. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2022, xlii + 677 pp. ISBN
9780197572443.
Red Sea – Red Squa e – Red Th ead is a la ge, o iginal, and ex ao dina ily ambi ious
book. I unde akes no hing less han o al e adically wha we hink philosophy
is, how i is o be done, and how we hink abou cul u e in gene al and he place
o philosophy in i . To men ion only wo ou o many summa y o mula ions: ‘a
book is a de ice o igni e he imagina ion’ (p. 4, ci ing Alan Benne ), and wha we
a e o e ed is ‘a mic ology o elling de ails’ ha ocuses on ‘all he inge - and
oo p in s in images and ex s’ (p. xli) a he han o e ing gene al a gumen s o
gene al conclusions.
One way in o he book’s adical ambi ion is o no e i s unusual s uc u e. I s 674
pages o ex and images a e di ided in o a p e ace and ou pa s, wi h each
pa con aining h ee o i e chap e s. The chap e s in u n, each be ween 19 and
45 pages, a e di ided in o i led subsec ions, usually one o h ee pages long.
The sec ion i les a e equen ly imagis ic, abs ac , and somewha oblique o
he na a i e: ‘Hi ch Hike’, ‘S ubbo n Pigeon’, ‘Philosophical Fu ni u e’, ‘Bu oons
by Pape and Toas ’, and ‘I egula Dance’, o choose jus a ew a andom. The
sec ions mos ly discuss pa icula a is ic and cul u al phenomena and hei
su ounding con ex s. An as onishing ange o a is s, w i e s, philosophe s, and
o he cul u al agen s come in o iew, om Locke, Bu on, Hoga h, and Fielding
o Lich enbe g, Goe he, Hegel, and Puccini, o Dan o, Mo he well, Wi gens ein,
and Becke , and many, many mo e. The e is o en quo a ion, indica ed by
i alics a he han quo a ion ma ks, and equen ly gi en in F ench, Ge man, o
La in, wi h occasional G eek and Heb ew, as well as English ansla ions. Though
173Eld idge
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.348
he e is a 39-page ‘Bibliog aphy (Non-Fic ion since 1900)’, he e a e no oo no es o
speci ic ex e e ences. The e is equen use o i alics o emphasis on concep s, o o
ma k au ho ial oice, o o indica e puns o e ymological a ini ies; no single gene al
concep ion o concei go e ning his conside ed p ac ice is e iden . He e a e wo
sen ences ha illus a e he s yle:
When Shakespea e le Hamle ask: Has his ellow no eeling a his business,
ha he sings a g a e-making, he wa ned o he g a edigge whose spade
digs his own g a e when bea ing a ound bushes o blind e enge. The
g a e wi ha came o all unde he ub ic o g a i y allowed many a song
o p aise o be laid o es wi h a ce ain g a i as in he Red Sea. (p. 254)
The o e all eel o his s yle and s uc u e is a combina ion o closeness o
a en ion o pa icula s wi h a pa a ac ic-o acula s ance ha aims a highligh ing
connec ions. The closes ex ual model o he s uc u e and s yle o he indi idual
sec ions is Theodo Ado no’s Minima Mo alia, and bo h Ado no and Wal e Benjamin,
especially Benjamin’s no ion o Denkbilde o hough -images, ho e con inuously in
he backg ound. The ex as a whole is an ex ended exe cise in wha Goeh in an
ea lie book cha ac e ized as Doppelbewegung – acco ding o which ‘philosophy and
music [and he e isual a , li e a u e, poli ics, and c i icism] [a e, in Ado no’s ph ase]
Ve hal ensweisen, […] dynamic modes o conduc ’ ha a e essen ially in e ela ed,
a he han being isola ed p ac ices, le alone p ac ices o de ached heo izing.1
Unlike Ado no’s Minima Mo alia, howe e , he e is a mo e o less con inuous na a i e
ha ies he sec ions, chap e s, and pa s oge he : he philosophical de ec i e s o y
o he book’s sub i le. This is he hun o he i s appea ance o he Red Sea Anecdo e,
old by A hu Dan o in Chap e 1 o The T ans igu a ion o he Commonplace, acco ding
o which a pain ed ed squa e ep esen s, acco ding o i s make , he Egyp ians
c ossing he Red Sea: he Is aeli es ha e al eady c ossed o e , and all he Egyp ians
ha e d owned. Dan o picked up his anecdo e om Sø en Kie kegaa d’s Ei he /O , bu
i was al eady well known in Kie kegaa d’s 1840s Copenhagen. When, hen, did i i s
appea ? And why is i picked up, a ied, and epu posed in so many cases om (i
u ns ou ) Ch is ophe Sma in London in 1751 onwa ds? (p. 587) – hough Goeh also
aces a ini ies wi h s o ies abou all-o e whi e (o g een) pain ings in se en een h-
cen u y Till Eulenspiegel s o ies in Ge many and in olde Yiddish legends. Answe ing
hese ques ions, o acing mul iple answe s o hem and conjec u es abou hem,
is he ed h ead ha binds oge he he whole. (The e is a subs an ial pa allel
in es iga ion o he his o y o he image o he ed h ead, used by he B i ish Royal
Na y h oughou he leng h o a piece o ope in o de o indica e i s oyal owne ship,
and made p ominen by Johann Wol gang on Goe he in Elec i e A ini ies as an
image o an unde lying h ead o a gumen , na a i e, o his o y.)
The o e all de elopmen o he ex in i s acing o he ed h ead o he Red Sea
anecdo e abou a ed squa e pain ing o he Is aeli es c ossing he Red Sea is d i en
by a combina ion o ange and hope. The ange is di ec ed la gely a ins i u ionalized
philosophy, especially analy ic philosophy and i s a gumen a i e p o ocols, and, mo e
b oadly, a Pla onism, unde s ood as he e o by expe s o claim knowledge o some
ounda ional, abs ac en i y ( o ms, he o m o he Good) ha would en i le hem
o judge and p esc ibe he de elopmen o a is ic and cul u al (mo al and poli ical)
p ac ices. Dan o ook a i s s ep in o e coming cul u al p esc ip i ism in ejec ing all
1 Lydia Goeh , Elec i e A ini ies: Musical Essays on he His o y o Aes he ic Theo y
(New Yo k: Columbia Uni e si y P ess, 2008), 3.
174Eld idge
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.348
no ma i e de ini ions o a in a ou o his a owedly alue-neu al concep ion o a
as embodied meaning. Bu Dan o, placing oo much hope in libe al-plu al Ame ica,
ailed o e lec on he his o ical en anglemen s o a is ic and poli ical p ac ices and
on how his own de ini ion gi en in e ms o necessa y and su icien condi ions i sel
could be used o p op up he au ho i y o philosophy as a (pseudo-)de ached discipline
wi h cen al oles o expe s and o logical a gumen s modelled on ma hema ics, as
opposed o shi ing mic ological a en ion o modula ing and a ying a is ic-cul u al-
poli ical pa icula s. ‘Thinking,’ Goeh a gues, ‘canno be educed o i s abs ac
sca olding wi hou conc e e o expe ien ial loss’ (p. 4). In place o abs ac a gumen ,
we should emb ace ‘keeping […] in play […] he agonis ic ug and pull be ween his o y,
ideology, and essence’ (p. 520). Mic ological a en ion ha is sensi i e o poli ics is
he only way, Goeh sugges s, eally o con on ( hough no plausibly o conclude)
‘ he e ible his o y o p ejudice and pe secu ion ha has wo ked i s way h ough
li es li ed o he sake o a , u h, eason, and di ini y’ (p. 611). Abs ac ion and he
pu sui o gene ali y a e pe se bad. Indulging in hem amoun s me apho ically o
d owning he Egyp ians, o pain ing hem ou ia abs ac ion, oge he wi h all he
o he gypsies, bohemians, Jews, and o he non-Pla onis s, non-Ch is ians wi h whom
he Egyp ians ha e been his o ically a ilia ed in he cul u al imagina y as objec s o
pe secu ion. ‘I emain haun ed,’ Goeh ells us,
by a sa e house e ec ed o a eason placed on a pu e island and by a
eason ideologically and heologically bols e ed by o igina ion heo ies
o bi h igh and inhe i ance. I emain ex emely wa y o a [misguided]
wi ha is ou o expose o he s assuming o he s o be exposed by hose
claiming an uppe mo al hand o e conscience and sel -knowing. (p. 612)
The hope ha Goeh poses agains aes he ic-cul u al-poli ical au ho i a ianism
eposes no only in he aes he ic-cul u al-poli ical mic ology ha she p ac ises bu
mo e b oadly in wi , modelled on he concep ion o wi as e e nal agili y and openness
o he incu sions o p ima y p ocess ha was a icula ed and de ended by F ied ich
Schlegel. ‘The anspo ac oss wa e and language o an in e ed wi is a unning
heme in […] my book’ (p. 434). ‘Geniuses’ – hose in Ge man Roman icism who a e
mas e s o wi and hose who come be o e o ollow a e hem – ‘lea e some hing
wan ing – no om a ailu e o inish bu om espec o o he minds o engage he
a wo k wi h a libe y o mind and imagina ion’ (p. 503).
By he end o he book, he ocus o Goeh ’s hopes eme ges as, abo e all, William
Hoga h, and mo e b oadly, he wi y, cosmopoli an, a is ic li e o eigh een h-cen u y
London. The e is also ex ended a en ion ea ly on o Giacomo Puccini’s La Bohème
and i s images o Bohemian li e, including a Red Sea pain ing ha is u ned in o a
shop signboa d, bu he wi and p ac ice o ee- hinking a e ul ima ely aced back
o a mo e in ense momen in 1750s London. Hoga h in his eng a ings and pain ings
p ac ised ‘a wi o incong ui y, ambigui y, and in e sion’ (p. 485) – e ms o high p aise
o Goeh . Hoga h’s ‘wi suppo s a sa i e ha , d awn loosely om i ue heo y,
add esses libe y and jus ice in a socie y o p o essions ea ed o hei o eign as e
and impos u e’ (p. 485). Up, hen, wi h English libe y and wi h wi y cosmopoli anism,
also p ac ised by o he s in London salon li e, including Fielding, S e ne, and Bu on;
down wi h o eign imposi ions, p e ensions, and p o essional p o ocols. Down wi h
cul u al-poli ical au ho i y and up wi h he ugi i e expe iences and pe cep ions o
he ma ginalized and opp essed. As hinke s, we would do be e by ‘ inding and
b ea hing li e in o hings o elease hei inne h eads, ab ic, o ibe s’ (p. 13) and
by ‘a oiding he pa h owa d a comple e explana ion’ (p. 421) han by indulging in
heo y-building and de ini ion-monge ing.
175Eld idge
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.348
Does his book success ully b ea he li e in o hings? I am in conside able sympa hy
wi h many o i s s ances. I, oo, am a child o exis en ialism, decons uc ion
(especially i s Ado noesque a ian ), Ludwig Wi gens ein, and le Hegelianism (and
he social condi ions o which hey espond), and as such I am qui e eady o emb ace
he en anglemen s o philosophy wi h li e a u e, isual a , music, his o y, poli ics,
and heology, hence o p ac ise (quasi-)philosophy as a ela i ely undisciplined
and c ea i e o m o cul u al c i ique (albei wi h i s own ocabula ies). Looking in o
unexpec ed and neglec ed c annies o his o y is a good idea, and I ound mysel
mo ed and ins uc ed by Goeh ’s ea men o Hoga h and eigh een h-cen u y
London wi . He exegeses o passages om he Bible (mos ly om Genesis) and o
associa ed heological ideas a e likewise illumina ing. The book o e all is a di icul
ead, howe e , and I migh ha e p e e ed a sus ained, oo no ed, close analysis o
he ull ange o Hoga h’s wo k in i s London con ex s o he excep ionally b oad
ange o opics ha Goeh o e s.
No ma i ely, I am somewha oubled by he s ain o aes he ic-cul u al-poli ical
libe a ianism ha uns h oughou he book. To be su e, his is o be a libe a ianism
ha gi es no p i ilege wha soe e o he powe ul, c eden ialed, o moneyed. The
opp essed and ma ginalized a e o be libe a ed and hea d; no one is o be d owned
in he Red Sea. Goeh ’s posi i e image o cul u al li e s uck me as in he egion o
Ka l Ma x’s image o communis li e, whe e, ha ing o e h own he exploi e s, we
will no longe ha e any need o go e nmen o o he o ms o no ma i e au ho i y;
whe e he s a e will wi he away, lea ing each o us o ‘hun in he mo ning, ish in
he a e noon, ea ca le in he e ening, c i icize a e dinne , jus as I ha e a mind,
wi hou e e becoming hun e , ishe man, shephe d o c i ic’.2 Despi e i s a ac ions
agains egnan no maliza ions, ma ginaliza ions, and exploi a ions, his image, I
ea , is all oo eadily app op iable by he igh , lea ing an economic ee- o -all o
all agains all. I also h ea ens o lea e us collec i ely no as ellow ci izens o ellow
cosmopoli ans in ela ions o mu ual espec bu a he as a me e heap o heap o
heaps o compe i i e indi iduals. Can he e be o ms o no ma i e au ho i y (a is ic,
cul u al, and poli ical) ha easonably win he us o all, especially including hose
cu en ly neglec ed o opp essed? This is a di icul ques ion, and Goeh is igh o
sugges ha his o y does no encou age a a ou able answe . Bu is he dicho omy
ha Goeh sugges s – no no ma i e au ho i y a all e sus sec a ian, opp essi e,
unjus i ied no ma i e au ho i y – i sel necessa y and absolu e? He e i s ikes me ha
we need he cul i a ion o disciplined o ms o a en ion and au ho i y, no simply
habi s o un hinking consump ion, and ha a leas some imes hose p ac ised in
such cul i a ion ha e succeeded and migh s ill succeed in winning wide audiences
and speaking ‘wi h a uni e sal oice’. (Kan is an ob ious esou ce he e, and I also
ha e in mind he o ms o democ a ic, pe ec ionis libe alism and cul u al c i icism
u ged and p ac ised by Joseph Raz and S anley Ca ell.) The bounda ies be ween high
and low a and be ween se ious and i ial a (di e en bounda ies) a e and o igh
ough o be ague and pe meable. A wo ks only o pa icula audiences ough no o
be denig a ed. Bu we s ill also need some high a , some cul u al au ho i y, and some
(democ a ic) composi ions o a ‘we’. As Ted Cohen once poignan ly w o e,
[h]owe e we choose o explain and unde s and wide and na ow
connec ions [among us, and be ween us and wo ks o a ], I hink we
should assume, a leas a he s a , ha wid h is nei he be e o wo se
2 Ka l Ma x, ‘The Ge man Ideology’, in The Po able Ka l Ma x, ed. and ans. Eugene
Kamenka (New Yo k: Viking Penguin, 1983), 177.
176Eld idge
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.348
han na owness. I need bo h. U gen ly. Hamle and The Ma iage o Figa o
connec me wi h mos o you, I would guess, pe haps all o you. Elaine
May’s mo ie Ish a , which I am e y ond o , lea es me i ually alone.
Tha ’s all ine: I need o be wi h you, and I need o be alone. I need o
be like you, and I need o be unlike you. A wo ld in which you and I ne e
connec ed would be a ho o . And so would a wo ld in which we we e
exac ly he same, and he e o e connec ed un ailingly, wi h e e y objec
on e e y occasion. The Ma iage o Figa o helps us be us. Ish a helps me be
me. Thank God o hem bo h.3
Goeh , I ea , lea es us only wi h a mo ley o indi iduals and g oups, each wi h
hei own incommensu able Ish a s as a esul o hei his o ical expe iences. Bu
hen pe haps by Goeh ’s ligh s I cas mysel , in saying his, in o he anks o he
philosophical opp esso s.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The au ho has no compe ing in e es s o decla e.
3 Ted Cohen, ‘High and Low Thinking abou High and Low A ’, Jou nal o Aes he ics and
A C i icism 51 (1993): 156.

177Eld idge
Es e ika
DOI: 10.33134/eeja.348
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Eld idge, Richa d. ‘Red Sea
– Red Squa e – Red Th ead:
A Philosophical De ec i e
S o y by Lydia Goeh .’
Es e ika: The Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics
LIX/XV, no. 2 (2022):
pp. 172–177. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.33134/eeja.348
Published: 15 Sep embe
2022
COPYRIGHT:
© 2022 The Au ho (s).
This is an open-access
a icle dis ibu ed unde
he e ms o he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion
4.0 In e na ional License
(CC-BY 4.0), which
pe mi s un es ic ed
use, dis ibu ion, and
ep oduc ion in any
medium, p o ided he
o iginal au ho and sou ce
a e c edi ed. See h p://
c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Es e ika: The Eu opean
Jou nal o Aes he ics is
a pee - e iewed open
access jou nal published by
Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in
coope a ion wi h he Facul y
o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in
P ague.