To the Members of the A.O. Staff:

Mark Wood’s interpretation of Stephen Tumino’s proposal (submitted two weeks ago) for the introduction of a preliminary critique at the beginning of each staff meeting raises a number of questions that I think it is imperative for us to discuss. Two of these questions are of particular urgency, namely: 1) the question of “contradictions” within and without the space of the A.O., and 2) questions of strategy and tactics.

1) On page three of his reinterpretation, after outlining the specific history of certain “contradictory elements” within the A.O. staff and its production, Wood argues that “it was increasingly evident… that the pluralist politics which had determined the project of the paper had to be superceded in order for the paper to produce an oppositional political discourse and make… effective political intervention.” What Wood critiques here are contradictions, that while they did not necessarily hamper the production of the paper technically (that is, issues continued to be produced, distributed, etc.), but hampered the “oppositionality” of the content of the A.O. The historical solution, according to Wood, was the “supercession” of these contradictory elements. In describing the history of the A.O. staff, with its combination of progressive and regressive elements both within the staff as a whole and within particular members of the staff, Wood tells a history common to most Marxist, radical, socialist, resistant projects. What is most interesting (and telling) in Wood’s description is his use of the word “supercession.” These contradictions are to be “superceded,” eliminated, got beyond, resolved, dissolved and/or transcended. The use of this term suggests that the A.O. could become a theoretically pure space. Underlying such a claim is a profound idealism.

Let’s examine some of the contradictions that the A.O. necessarily and inextricably occupies: It is funded by a powerful and wealthy university; it is run primarily by students of a said powerful and wealthy university, many of whom have signed financial contracts with the institution to allow them to carry on their academic work; it utilizes and disseminates discourses originating, primarily, within this university or others; meetings for the production of the paper are held within institutional space; the A.O. maintains an office within institutional space; and many of the members of the A.O. staff have been intellectually influenced by tenured faculty of this institution. The existence of the A.O. as an “oppositional space” is enabled and facilitated by its location within these, and other, contradictions. We attempt to negotiate, to exploit, and even sometimes to resist these contradictions in order to produce an alternative paper. We recognize, at some level, the radical potential within these contradictions, so why this longing for theoretically pure space, for “superceding” contradictions? How can we imagine, idealistically, that such a “supercession” would be possible under these conditions? Or, further, how do we imagine that producing a theoretically pure subject who would then produce theoretically pure texts could even occur under these conditions? What are the contradictions we must necessarily engage and dispute, but (at least until a revolution in material conditions) cannot “supercede”?

2) On page 4 of his renarration, Wood quotes a “casual conversation” (which was undoubtedly relayed to him via another “casual conversation”) in which, he argues, a member of the staff belies her occupation of a contradictory space by advocating A.O. articles that are “less harsh” while simultaneously supporting “ruthless criticism.” As this report is, if not literally, at least representative of my own position, I would like to contextualize this type of “contradictory” position. The A.O. staff has recently taken a more “decisive” stand toward its administrative and publicist work. How do we understand this “decisiveness”? It is my contention that this has remained, as yet, untheorized.

For example, in our “Disorientation” issue some of our captions for graphics included critiques of professors and graduate students in which these students and professors are named. In the same issue, we ran a piece which critiqued a professor’s practice, but did not name her. One of the submissions for our next issue critiques a professor and her course, but again does not name her. Thus far, the decision to “name names” has been left to individual writers on an ad-hoc basis and has not been theorized as a tactical/strategic question. How do we understand the political effects of naming or not naming, particular with respect to the issue of “personalizing.” “Ruthless criticism” can be strategically taken up in a number of ways. How are we taking it up? Criticism of professors? Specific, named professors? Specific, unnamed professors? Certain trends in English Department hirings or course offerings? General tendencies within the university? What are the strategies/tactics we are taking up? How do they follow from our principles? Are we willing to live with the consequences of specific tactics? For example, when members of the staff bewail their inability to get recommendations or assemble a dossier committee, how are we to help them understand this as a necessary cost of their tactical maneuvers?

“Ruthless criticism” as a principle does not organically lead to the type of tactics represented in the A.O. of late. How do we theorize these tactics?

Sincerely,

Michelle Jensen.

October 7, 1993