Auto-Critique
Alternative Orange Staff
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • Winter 1993-1994 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 3, No. 2 (pp. 20-33) | ||
| • September 24, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
A “Self”-Critique-al Proposal For “Auto”- Critique
In effect, this proposal argues for the necessity of establishing an initial “self” critique at the beginning of A.O. meetings to be coupled with a “closing” critique at the culmination of each meeting; what I am calling “auto”-critique (not to be considered auto-matic and/or internal to the individual, although it is a response to the present conditions of theoretical re-privatization; more on this later). The effect of this proposal, possibly, will consist of concern over the “affect” it shall have, if instituted, of “stifling” the internal pluri-vocal democracy which an oppositional paper should depend upon as it is necessarily limited in resources and must rely on the creative impetus which it can possibly generate within its members. At the immediate level I can acknowledge this concern and reply, yes, exactly, this “walling-in” by critique will suppress the method of pluralist practices that would attempt to gauge the wider socio-historical effectivity of oppositional resistance according to a static and sterile ideal of “creative-consciousness” or “open-debate” as the pre-requisite for political action without, however, ever asking the epistemological question which should proceed any political action: “Action for what ?” For what purpose or goal is this uninterrogated “action,” “creativity” and democratic pluralism valorized, therefore, but to posit its own immanent justification—”democracy for democracy’s sake.” This is ultimately an apologists’ dream for capitalist Utopia.
Contrarily, the actual effectivity of intervention consists of opening a space of possibility for practical action where before there seemed there was none. For instance, here the splitting of critique into two categories allows there to be a further distinction about the status of critique, within the A.O., where before there was but one uni-vocal representation to account for both the internal and external dynamics which rift A.O. meetings. Where before “self critique” attempted to bear both aspects of this dynamic now “self”-critique would be the initial critique to continue the previous (“auto”) critique of the meeting the week before. This “auto”-critique will further suture the internal dynamics of the present meeting and set the agenda for the subsequent one. However, this (possibility) is only the initial relevance of providing theoretical differentiation which should not remain the extent to which proposals (as necessarily “interested” political moves) are deployed and understood. This is, therefore, not an argument for critique as such but a move to correct gaps in A.O. practice which limit its ultimate (social and historic) effectivity. The practical effects of this “walling” dynamic of doubling critique are:
1. To counter and/or enable any individuals who might not possibly remain for the whole meeting time. I say “counter” or “enable” as this “non-presence” for public critique on the part of a given individual may or may not be a strategic “avoidance” on their part of a critique of their practices but may be an “unavoidable fact” (according to their practical agenda). At a more rigorous level, however, rather than speculating on these possibilities, we may set a more egalitarian agenda of internal democracy which would apply the same standard across the board to account for critique-al “absence.” And that is to structurally prevent the avoidance of critique on the part of those who wish to participate in the production of the paper with an initial and closing critique.
2. “External-Critique” (“Self”-critique) applies to the initial critique which will open all meetings. This will serve to supply a continuity of practice by foregrounding internal theorization and any further effects these may generate between meetings. Further, it will be conducive to the attitude necessary to counter the hegemony of populist “re-privatization” with which the academy is attempting to manage the crisis of U.S. imperialism (i.e., by the evacuation of socio-historical logic, and all those who bear this logic of historical materialism, from the realm of theory, which then remains the context- dependent contingency of totally complicit petty-bourgeois opinion conducive to maintaining the status quo). It should be remembered that newcomers to the A.O. are recruited from these ranks and should immediately realize the politico-theoretical difference in these opposed modes of knowing—the (ideo)logical and the (socio)logical—and provide the necessary “weight” given to this difference in regard to what is at stake immediately at the formal level. In other words, now is not the time for vacillation about the need for theoretical rigor and efficient oppositional practice.
3. “Internal-Critique” (“Auto”-critique) represents the “internal” move of the critique which is to close all meetings. The “auto”-ness of this critique stems from the “impetus to critique” that should be generated by the first, which would have foregrounded every statement made within the meeting proper with a political significance which it would be difficult to overlook. It is also internal in that it will address the internal dynamics of the meetings as they occur and provide the concrete frame that shall ensure they continue.
The above will, of course, be working in conjunction with the taking of the minutes and also with the post of taking minutes which will become a more effective device to negotiate positions, in so far as what is “chosen” to be represented will be a result of the position taken by the note taker in regard to the heavily foregrounded contestations. The institution of this practice of double-critique will also facilitate the transcription process of the A.O. Manual, in light of the fact that, as I anticipate, this practice will prove to be productive of a tighter space of contestatory engagement, and theoretical production, so to recover this project from the marginal abyss in which it languishes now as the result of our merely local concerns. The A.O. Manual, along with external propaganda and distribution away from the provincial limits of this particular university, is the most effective project the A.O. can embark upon in the long term. These are the terms to consider if one is serious about combating opportunism, pragmatism and a whole slew of other deficiencies that block revolutionary politics in the age of the multinationals, the most dangerous being the necessity of assuming merely a defensive posture as a result of populist backed re- privatization.
Stephen Tumino
September 24, 1993
| ★ |
