Comments and Critiques: The A.O. Editorial Staff Meeting

We make these comments and critiques in the interests of self/auto critique:

Three (interrelated) problems arise out of the minutes from 9/16/93. First, the minutes state that there was a “decision” made on prioritizing the “Response Issue” in favor of the “Feminism Issue.” Yet it is not clear as to how this decision was made, since, clearly, as the minutes themselves reveal, there was some contestation over this fact. That is, there was no attempt to explain in the space of the minutes HOW this decision was made—e.g., “democratically,” unanimously, etc. This is complicated by the fact that the “minutes-taker” in this case (J. Cotter) calls for a “counter-response [to L. Gray’s “response”] to be endorsed by the entire staff” (emphasis ours). Clearly, in this case, unaninimity is valorized which is in direct contradistinction to the way in which the fate of the “Response Issue” was decided. So the question arises, what are the politics of making decisions in the space of the A.O. Editorial Staff Meetings? How are these modes of decision-making affected by certain interests on the editorial staff? And how do we stay consistent (accountable) to a set of principled political beliefs while enacting this practice (of decision-making)? These questions arise out of a lack of theorization as to the purposes of decision making in the A.O. staff. In other words, a lack of analysis of the politics of decision making (in practice) allows for inconsistency, and, more importantly, can underwrite a rejection or dismissal of dissention. It is under these circumstances that J. Maroon’s comments in the 9/16/93 meeting that the A.O. staff needed to theorize politically (and not pragmatically) why one issue should come before another could not be represented in the space of the minutes. And in fact, the distortion of this argument (it was articulated in these minutes that J. Maroon had advocated for “compromise”) is an indication that the decision-making process is in fact not outside the political (the political motives behind this “distortion” is a question that we will continually foreground… but it is not coincidental that a voice characterized within this space as feminist was distorted at the same time that the “Feminist Issue” was postponed (again) without a publically theorized explanation as to why except in pragmatic terms which are themselves mandated and determined by political interests).

Secondly, the misrepresentation of J. Maroon’s critique is especially problematic given the fact that again J. Maroon was misrepresented in the subsequent A.O. Editorial Staff meeting of 9/23/93 on the question of “auto-critique.” This misrepresentation was mystified and dismissed on the part of A.O. staff members in two ways. On the one hand, it was argued by S. Tumino that the direction of J. Maroon’s line of thinking could be determined by her very initial comments. This is in and of itself not a problem. However, it became clear that this was not the case by the fact that J. Cotter immediately demanded that J. Maroon account for her position after S. Tumino had just argued that J. Maroon’s position was accounted for and therefore obvious. If the line of her argument was already visible—clearly and promptly renarrativized by S. Tumino for all to hear—then why would J. Cotter need to ask for a rendition of this very line of argument? Therefore, on the other hand, S. Tumino needed to produce evidence that he had in fact captured J. Maroon’s logic and it was in this way that he produced the minutes—arguing that this was evidence for his accurate and complete rendition (renarration) of her argument and the reality of the exchange over the argument, apparently not accounting for the fact that he himself had written them. In other words, this misrepresentation was justified by many staff members on the grounds that written notes—in this case minutes—are always already objective. The point is that there is a tendency—evident in this contradiction and its justification—which underwrites a kind of misrepresentation of certain political positions on the A.O. Editorial Staff, so that the question becomes what interests do these misrepresentations serve and where can one locate their force? What are the politics of representing political positions in the space of the A.O. Editorial Staff Meetings, and in relationship to “taking minutes”? How does “minute-taking” function as a mode to legitimate or delegitimate available political positions on the staff?

Thirdly, although both Professors Zavarzadeh and Gray left notes to A.O. staff members to discuss some interaction with the A.O., these two texts were handled in qualitatively, and therefore politically, different ways. It is not sufficiently argued by the A.O. Editorial Staff members that the note left by Gray be called a “response.” And, in addition, this note, which was argued to be understood as such, curiously enough does not merit the same status and privileges as a Zavarzadeh “response.” In other words, what is at stake (politically and theoretically) in the A.O. staff’s argument for this text to be understood as a “response” when the unspoken terms and conditions of this category (in some cases, that one is taken seriously, that one has a chance to voice one’s needs, requirements, order, and presentation of the text, that one gets to meet with individual staff members who offer to voice your opinions and concerns accurately, etc.,) are deployed unequally and inconsistently. That is, at the very same time that Gray’s text is held to the textual requirements of a “response” (even against her input), it is disallowed the privileges of the status of “response.” This brings up the question, once again, as to what political motivations lie behind the inconsistent deployment of A.O. Editorial Staff policies and practices? Specifically in this case, what are the politics of submission? How does a particular political viewpoint get represented within the paper itself? And what are the political and practical rules surrounding or underwriting its representation?

Jen Maroon and Corri Zoli

September 30, 1993