| Home Prev | http://www.etext.info/Politics/AlternativeOrange/ Up | Home Next |
| Dear Majority of the A.O. Staff: |  2003-10-29 | Dear Mr. Thompson: |
| The Alternative Orange (Vol. 3): An Alternative Student Newspaper | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Auto-Critique | Next |
I would like to begin by thanking you, on behalf of the staff in general, for your memo of October 8, detailing your apprehension as regards the theory/practices of the Alternative Orange “Majority”—as you put it. I think it is crucial for members on the staff to voice their “opinions” and/or theorizations in a written format so as to mitigate the endless “arguments” that do not allow one to more significantly engage with the presuppositions and/or contradictions in the positions put forth. Written texts, moreover, allow for a minimum of “distortion” in a critique of the position being offered and, furthermore, stand as historical documents marking the objective social contradictions informing all sites of culture. Written texts also allow for their situation within the larger narratives of cultural discourses which cannot be evaded with recourse to arguments along the lines of “I did not mean that” and other trivializations of historical manifestations of antagonistic practices. These antagonistic practices are products of history, i.e., are produced within the formation of social relations at any given time and are inscribed by the operative economic, political and ideological discourses/practices which function within the fundamental binary of production relations, in late capitalism, the global division of labor, in order to advance the interests of a relatively privileged few against the vast majority comprising the international proletariat. For this reason I understand it to be more productive to read your text against its own (il)logic as it were than to comply to its implicit plea for a regressive mode of anti-intellectualist (contextual) explication bereft of the historicity of concepts.
Although your text conforms to the dominant centrist turn toward collapsing the politics of the far Left into the politics of the far Right in order to occupy the institutionally legitimate “democratic” space of the median, it nevertheless identifies itself, in all its cultivated “innocence” as, in fact, amongst other things, merely another formal variant to the traditional modes of sexist, racist and heterosexist discourses: in this instance, explicitly aimed at those who argue for class-based explanatory knowledges. It is most significant that you begin by framing your “argument” as an attempt to “assault you [the “A.O. Majority”] with my experience” (p.1). Evidently the invocation of the “A.O. Majority” is sufficient, in your terms, to restructure the internal dynamics of your text such that it is traversed by the logic of an injured marginality which presumably lends its experientialism credence-through-sympathy. I however wish to contest this status of marginality as it appears in your text, not so much because your text is “significant” enough to evoke such a response but rather that in its very insignificance it marks the utter elision in the petty-bourgeois imaginary of the seriousness of discourses examining and explaining the hegemony of the dominant. Rather, having absorbed certain presently valorized discourses dealing with this problematic (of the dominant/margin) and their theoretical modalities (experientialism/ anti- theoreticity/ discursive pluralism, for instance) it now feels quite comfortable in invoking their premises to (re)secure its own privilege.
Thus, for example, your conjunction of the theoretical practices of the “A.O. Majority” with, in one instance, the practices of the Klu Klux Klan (p.1), conveniently “forgets” that the KKK is predominantly comprised of racist, homophobic and sexist white men organized within a space within which many of us in the “A.O. Majority” could not have the “privileged” experience of carrying on “covert investigations” for fear of our lives, something I for one consider to be a significant difference. Your desire for an expressive experience, far from capable of being placed along a plateau of contiguity in relation to the experiences of many of us (‘lets all fulfill our experiential selves’ being its undertone), in fact asserts itself as being at the expense of the “experiences” of women, gays and lesbians and women and men of color, the conditions of whose oppression, after having gazed (even indirectly) upon at at least one site, you now wish to invoke, under very different circumstances, as your own. Although I have further political and theoretical differences with your version of experientialist (anti)theory/politics, and your concern for “the future of Marxism” deserves some mention, it is not to you that I wish to address this next question but to those on this campus who are directly engaged with the political. I would like to ask them how it is that they account for the fact that their theoretical and political pedagogical practices leave themselves wide open to appropriation and use by precisely the subject which they aim to critique. That is, how do they account for the fact that a white, petty-bourgeois, (presumably) heterosexual male is attempting to “assault” (with full institutional legitimacy) with his “experience” some relatively underprivileged students on this campus through invocation of the terms of their discourse? Through a discourse which not only has thoroughly interpellated such a subject but whose claim to the effects such a discourse attempts to invoke—subversive liberation by/of the margin—on his own behalf have remained unproblematized through several years of “theoretical” study? I wish to stress that I am seriously concerned to witness such an occurrence and once again invite S.U. faculty and students to respond to this insidious appropriation with its manifold implications for us all.
To return to your text, Mr. Thompson: it is extremely problematic in light of your expressed political aims (letter to staff, September 26, 1993, not published) stating that you wish to “propose practice(theory) while I critique the theory(practice) of sheltering the battered (women)” along the lines of the private (to which you seem in this text, vehemently opposed) that you are willing, barely two weeks later, to state that although “theorize”… “oppositional knowledge,” etc., [are] words which I had grown quite accustomed to reading and thinking about in the silence of my room, yet [I] never thought [they] would be useful or “manageable” in spoken [public?]… discussions.” What are we to assume then as to the status of the “practice(theory)” that you wish to “propose” to a battered women’s shelter? Although you attempt to critique the “private” it seems that that is the only space open to accommodate the “theory” (“in the silence of my room”) that you are working with. What is the un-said of a discourse which recognizes that “women are battered because the home is legitimated as the most private space “ and then wants to argue for a public space (the A.O. ) to become one accessible to “private emotions”, that is, for a space of public theorization to be supplanted by the naturalized logic of the private (bedroom)?
Further, your goal of “world liberation” is limited to an “end goal of (discursive) liberation” (p.2), which I would like to point out is exactly the mode whereby petty-bourgeois subjects enact their (personal) “liberation” at the expense of the oppressed and exploited and, furthermore, invoke, for this purpose, a pro-descriptive/anti-explanatory “theory” to elide their own historical role in objectively reproducing the continued conditions for this oppression and exploitation. It is thus thoroughly symptomatic that you wish to maintain the legitimacy of a term such as “misogyny” (which lexeme you are presumably emotively attached to and thus wish to defend without offering any explanation for your position) which, as we have explained elsewhere, is a term that within feminist theory in the (post)modern stands to signal a regression precisely because it invokes “common-sensical” understandings of patriarchy, of gender struggle…; a term that does not testify to very much more, eventually, than its entry in the dictionary.
Your logic of the lexicon, which attains such immense significance in your text as a strategy of managing the conceptual modality of the terms which you are rushing to “critique”, perhaps does retain some residual significance in explaining your own position in relation to knowledge. In your text knowledges are equivalent to their lexicons—incidentally the fact that “your” lexicon, and the position from which it is enunciated is a position of discursive privilege relative to other “lexicons” does not seem to hinder you in the least in equating lexical elements (rather ignorantly, I might add) from fundamentally opposed knowledges, to further your own ends (promotion of a “lexicon which is not the lexicon of the [A.O.] majority” (p.2, proposal); but rather of the “popular” majority of dominant discourses?)—thus eliding the historicity of discourse as it functions politically beyond the self-evidency of its own apparency.
How this relates to the discourses of the “A.O. Majority” is that they have precisely produced responses which the writers of these discourses certainly did not “intend” to produce; socio- critique-al discourses call forth a logic which extends beyond both the immediate articulation of their own position and the responses forthcoming (low salaries, difficulty in attaining tenure and/or promotion, near impossibility of being published, refusal of recommendations, impulsive resignations from dissertation committees…) to locate both within a history of class, race and gender struggles and their discursive and material manifestations (as opposed to causes). How it relates to your discourse is to elide the socio- historical conditions which allow your discourse to “make sense” outside of the conditions of its own immanent sensibility that it is attempting to preserve. Thus your text makes alliances across the board not only with the liberal-center discourses of multiculturalism and populism (you might wish to actually read the last issue of the A.O.) but demonstrates exactly how they border on the rhetoric of the extreme right, which, from a position of power and authority “asks” for “an open compromise on principled differences” (p.2). Of course what is “self-evident” here is just who is expected to make the compromise—elucidated by the fact that you wish to claim as the status of “our commonality” “our” “experience” of “working for world liberation” to legitimate your inclusion into the space of the A.O. I contest this “compromise” and rather claim that the politics of the “A.O. Majority” are not based on an experiential commonality (identity politics in another “lexicon”) but on the commonality of laboring subjects: the fact that before we are sexed, raced, gendered, etc., subjects we are subjects in/of capitalism, subjects within an inequitable division of labor which is necessary to the space of the real (and this is significantly reproduced at the site of a local contradiction in the bourgeois academy) wherein the labor of the majority is appropriated by the minority: by a minority who are all too willing to engage in interminable “conversation,” to undermine the (mental and manual) labour of others, to indulge in lexicographical (or is it lexicostatistical?) observations, in short to maintain their morally legitimated hegemony while others do the work. Thus in reply to your ‘question,’ Mr. Thompson, although it is true that if you “do the [theoretical] work” (p.1) necessary for anyone (not only Marxists) to have a rigorous knowledge (even) of their own position, you may still never “understand” what we, the “A.O. Majority” mean by “theory,” “rigor,” “oppositional knowledge,” etc. However, if you do not do this work (which classes are you taking?) it is certain that you will never understand. In the meantime, however, you have of course every right to remain within this organization because, as you yourself are quick to point out (p.1), it is after all student funded.
Sincerely,
A.J. Sahay.
October 9, 1993
[Proposal appended to text:]
To A.O. Staff:
In light of Mr. Thompson’s call for a teach-in: I propose that we extend the terms of his proposed “teach-in” such that the internal space of the A.O.: the positions and counter-positions articulated therein can be made publicly available, as per our proposed agenda to maintain a public discourse, to the entire campus. It is imperative that such a move be made to promulgate a democracy of articulation in regards to positions represented within the staff. That is, recognizing that the articles printed within the A.O. are to be extensive theorizations around particular problematics recognized to be significant interchanges in regards to the production of oppositional knowledges, as has been outlined in accordance with our revised Statement of Policy, it is necessary to reserve a space whereby those who do not have either the time or the inclination to contribute to this space have an opportunity to further their own agenda’s, opinions, views…. Further, as I noted in response to Mr. Thompson, the debates taking place within the space of the A.O. staff meetings have a historical importance which should duly be registered. I thereby suggest that we allot a permanent section of the paper, entitled “Auto-Critique” within which all exchanges will definitively be available for publication, upon suggestion and vote. I further suggest that if we seriously wish to uphold the relevance of the positions that we have been articulating, that we implement this practice immediately in this upcoming issue and publish all internal memos and responses which have been circulated since the beginning of this semester. My reason for stressing the “all” is along the lines not only that all of these debates—because symptomatic—are consequential enough to publish in their entirety, but also that as this is an inaugural practice and certain members have alluded to the fact that certain other members are not capable of articulating their “own” positions (I am of course pointing to the rampant charge of mimicry) that they be given the full and immediate opportunity to do so. Further on, position papers by a representative of one or another position should be adequate.
That if this proposal is accepted we consider postponing issue #2 so to allow for copy editing, layout, etc., and also to include any incoming submissions by a to-be-determined date. One possibility is Prof. Morton’s article and perhaps, in light of the fact that issues arising within the space of the meetings have probably already been circulated outside this space, further contributions addressing them. This would then mean that we only put out two issues this semester but I think this could be productive as it would allow for a more comprehensive second issue which we could perhaps disseminate more widely.
This proposal is, in part, a move to address the issue of voting as it has been articulated recently: The necessity of maintaining what is fundamentally a bourgeois practice in the space of the A.O. is explained by the very fact that, as has been constantly pointed to, we are objectively situated within a bourgeois institution and, as a student funded organization, must come to terms with the fact that the fundamentally opposed political/theoretical positions of staff members do not allow for any unproblematic resolution of this contradiction. Although some members may be willing to push for a consensual politics I argue that such an understanding is eventually directed towards attaining a “false” consensus= compromise of principled differences= eclecticism or, in other words, capitulation to the dominant powers that be— pluralism=all positions can/will/must be accommodated within petty bourgeois coalitions. I am therefore theorizing that in these conditions of unresolvable contradictions it does in fact become necessary to utilize another contradiction to maintain the minimal conditions within which we can all work together. I propose, in order to facilitate the theoretical and practical functionality of the meeting times without compromising the necessity for carrying debate through in a rigorous fashion and, by way of accounting for the contradiction signified by voting, that what we cannot allow for are arbitrary positions to be taken in regard to theoretical decisions made within the space of the A.O., and that we implement in regard to any issue of collective importance:
that after fifteen minutes of discussion on any particular issue, discussion be definitively closed (no voting to extend discussion time), and debating parties required, if they wish to seriously pressure their position, to write a public account of their argument.
that when a vote is taken there is to be a roll-call for all dissenting members.
that all dissenting members should collectively theorize their positions in a position- paper (open to response and publication) unless they are articulating fundamentally opposed positions (this will become clearer as we progress through the year), in which case they may respond separately.
that rather than have issues of pedagogical relevance be deliberated over within the meeting time allotted to production of the paper that those who wish to enter into such a space make the necessary arrangements to annex to the A.O. a time and place wherein speakers (members of the staff) may be elicited to enter into extensive debate/contestation. Further, I would like to remind everyone that Mr. Ganter is currently working on a Public Access program which may be, subject to his discretion, one available opportunity to expand upon/enter into theoretical and political polemics.
My conclusive reason for proposing the immediate approval of all of the above is to remind the staff that the A.O. is an alternative publication. That is, it is a space primarily designed for writers of oppositional (and not mainstream) theory. The agenda of such a publication must be to actually produce knowledges that will be effective outside the immanent arena of the staff meetings. Further, that the pedagogical aspect of the A.O. is primarily, and should continue to be, its public pages which require sustained reading/writing/thinking rather than extended “conversation,” which tends to be fairly redundant in any case. A case in point is proposal (1) in Mr. Thompson’s memo which asks the “A.O. Majority” to teach the “minority just why it uses the lexicon that it does….” Obviously Mr. Thompson is not familiar with the A.O. as several articles have been written and published around just the issues he now wishes to concentrate upon (perhaps he did not wish to enter into yet one more space of the “pedagogy of indoctrination”?). (I refer him to both my own article in the ‘Disorientation’ issue, Mr. Katz’s article “Accuracy and Ideology”, Mr. Tumino’s article in the summer issue, not to mention the many others written by the “A.O. Majority”.) I must stress: that although it is clearly very important to return to what is necessary in regard to resistant knowledge production in the (post)modern academy, a problematic that several of us have been working with for years, and it is the responsibility of these staff members to enable their fellow members; that this does not absolve these latter from having to do the extensive work required in order to become familiar with these problematics; that it is, furthermore, in their (pragmatic, if not political) interests to become proficient in these knowledges whatever position they eventually decide to take in relation to them; that it is a gross mismanagement of collective time and energy to expect the discussions/ debates/ contestations within the A.O. to constantly revolve around, in addition to its printed pages, problematics which have been by now fairly extensively documented elsewhere (why theory/why rigor/why decisiveness/why explanation/the status of necessity/historicity…. See Marx, Lenin, Althusser, Gramsci, Ebert, Zavarzadeh, Morton, Hennessey, just to mention a few) and that are available, if not in “theory” classes (and this is a problem we should be concerned with) than in the library, bookstore, and soon in the A.O. archives. The A.O. should not be allowed to degenerate into yet another experiential opportunity for the petty-bourgeois “subject-in-process” (Kristeva), with the time, money and inclination to be “undecidable”: I suggest that we seriously reconsider our practices and struggle to maintain some degree of sustained engagement with our proposed agenda.
| ★ |