Militant Research
More heavy lifting in the "intellectual production" category, this time a book Che Bob recommended called Constituent Imagination. Published by , you guessed it , AK Press, it is edited by Stevphen Shulkaitost and David Graeber with Erica Biddle. Some essays are dense as plutonium, such as the essay by the Colectiva Situations and Antonio Negri's piece, others are quite accessible but all in all it is worth the read .
Negri captures a sentiment of mine when he says "The term 'democracy' is not a happy one for sure, but we have no others". His general thesis in Empire, written with Hardt, is that "In modernity, the development of capitalism developed via the state; but today, in post-modernity, capitalism has re-appropriated the whole of the social fabric at the multi-national level, and only resorts to nation-state intervention when necessary." Personally ,I agree with Arrighi's critique that Negri is jumping the gun a bit and is identifying one possible trend, but state intervention continues to be "necessary" pretty much constantly, especially now in our condition of permanent war.
Something else I have run into in my reading of late is the different methods of dealing with power.Negri speaks of "making power" rather than the taking of power, as in Mandels Marxism. Solnit and a lot of these anarchist variations speak of "dissolving power". This is embodied in the term "potencia" but like other horizontalist terms it is somewhat sublime.
On the other end of the "density" spectrum is the lingo of the IWW, which is very old school and jingoistic, in my opinion sacrificing nuance and depth for accesibility. Reminds me of ISO polemics and their funky little paper.
This concept of "militant/active/radical research"..which.."becomes a political tool to intervene in the processes that are moving us towards a neoliberal world" needs to be explored and I still like the idea of theatre, pranking, clowning to create our own "situation".
posted by troutsky @ 8:09 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Good post! Some comments:
“…Some essays are dense as plutonium…”
Plutonium is dense, but not the densest; I suggest you go with “dense as Iridium” in the future in order to maximize the effect of your simile. Just my opinion. Actually, denseness in writing is often a cover for superficiality or plain old imbecility; I offer as evidence for this assertion everything that has ever been published in the academic journal “Social Text.”
"...especially now in our condition of permanent war.”
Uhmmm…err…the history of humanity is the history of permanent war. State or no state.
“This is embodied in the term "potencia" but like other horizontalist terms it is somewhat sublime.”
Sublime? Which definition did you intend? 1) “to elevate or exalt especially in dignity or honor” or 2) “to pass directly from the solid to the vapor state”?
If it’s the latter, I suppose you meant to raise the specter of moose belches contributing to global warming (although that is the product of chemical reactions, not sublimation).
“…I still like the idea of theatre, pranking, clowning to create our own "situation".”
I agree, those are excellent substitutes for substance and reason.
For me, central to the book in question is the idea of "constituent" imagination. While I completely appreciate the importance of "nuance and depth," I see them as privileges of our education, our race, our economic situation, etc.; and, I’m not sure how applicable and salient “nuance and depth” are when abstracted. Besides, who can guess a priori what new nuances and depth might emerge from the actual praxis of resistance with constituents; of whom we know so little due to our isolation from each other? It may be important to theorize about resistance and attempt to be prepared; you know, construct a strategy. However, who decides the theory, strategy, etc.? I’m skeptical, as I think we all should be, of pre-scribed abstract theory.
We can be reminded by Paulo Freire of the tendency of organizers to objectify their constituents rather than learning from them. (An effect of intellectualism of which I am guilty: internalized supremacy). Rather than centering our work on our ideas, we should be centering it on the experiences of the communities we are organizing and allow those experiences to frame the work that we do and how we do it.
While I can see how one might perceive the IWW as “jingoistic,” I certainly don’t get the sense that the IWW, horizontalist projects, or anarchists encourage/promote anti-intellectualism, or narrow polemics. The IWW is what we make of it. That is why I suggest we allow for and promote affinity groups to meet often in order to discuss, critique and analyze our work, political framework, etc. I agree that the IWW’s tone and basic literature is simplistic, but as you noted yourself, it’s accessible. I believe this to be a good thing in order for groups to get started and then to create their own unique situations within a basic framework. Besides, “complexification,” nuance and depth will emerge as a natural consequence of the work we do. In my experience, we learn best through lived experiences. Telling people they are “reified commodities” means very little to the vast majority of us. I’m not even sure I understand what Marx means by “reification.”
Also, I definitely do not think the editors of Constituent Imagination nor anarchists today reject all a priori knowledge. Perhaps they fail to pay adequate homage to the classics which inform their work, but one can hardly blame those involved in these movements for their skepticism. After all, for all its high-flouting rhetoric, intellectual vanguardism has yielded very little in the form of actual social and economic justice. I wonder how many—if any—of the major theorists struggled with their constituents, or conducted the kind of militant research called for in the book. (With some notable exceptions, such as anarchists like Bakunin, Goldman, Rocker, Berkman, etc.) If I were an Argentine (broke, disenfranchised, oppressed), I would likely prefer to join with these autonomous/”anti-intellectual” groups that are seeking to create new “situations”/potencia/power through praxis and then discuss resulting theory later. I would also likely have a natural aversion to political socialism!
Finally, I don’t think the horizontal/autonomous groups in Argentina and other parts of the world are without a clear message of what they are asking people to join. And I believe this is due to the fact that they’ve heeded the advice of Paulo Freire and centered their work on their own experiences and interests. I think they’ve thought through their situations quite well and decided to re-center themselves/create situations/make power; all the while they are remaining cognizant of their relationships to capital, which would be impossible without on-going internal education (read: practical/militant intellectualism) derived from classical Marxism/anarchism.
sometimes you and che bob get so carried away with your social studies jargon you are less accessible than string theory. I'll raise your three ists and four isms with an apriori praxis based on the obscure philosophy of S. K. Whogivesafuck since "“complexification,” nuance and depth will emerge as a natural consequence of the work we do." "After all, for all its high-flouting rhetoric, intellectual vanguardism has yielded very little in the form of actual social and economic justice.""
Give me a break? This is gonna save the world?
Biting sarcasm,OW amonymous.
Greg, it is possible to go through life having never heard of Hegel but I believe your life will be richer if you at least try to explore the work of "great" (sometimes obscure) thinkers.Do you think Karl Marx had any effect on history? Have you tried to read him? Intellectual production is work, it is labor, at least as necessary as any other form.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, CheBob. Something from this great book, in the section pertaining to autonomy, really hit me and might apply to this question of complexity, depth ,nuance etc.."Consider here the preference among many NGOs for depictions of migrants as mute victims who ,in the very spectacle of this inability to speak or act, invite the observer to assume the task of representation."
I am afraid we lower the bar (intellectually) every time we assume workers need simple rhetoric and can't wrap their minds around theory (that they are victims of "education, race, economic situation).In terms of "isolation" from constituents, I wouls encourage all involved in intellectual production to spend time in the fields and factories and construction sites, not to romanticize the "proletariat" but to experience them in their amazing capacity as well as foibles.Im sure we agree people (starting with students) need to turn off TVs and pick up a "difficult" book now and then.I would work to make IWW rhetoric more reflective of current class relations and invite critique of jargon.
"I would work to make IWW rhetoric more reflective of current class relations and invite critique of jargon."
In this case you and I agree completely; and I believe our work together reflects this hope. We have tried to get the groups we work with to analyze and critique its own work, jargon and socio-political realities. Onward ho!
May I suggest that you lead a discussion/affinity group discussion on the topic of "reflections of current class relations." I'd partake!
"I am afraid we lower the bar (intellectually) every time we assume workers need simple rhetoric and can't wrap their minds around theory (that they are victims of "education, race, economic situation")."
Here again, I believe we agree...to some extent. I think we both believe what you say about one's ability to wrap their mind around theory (that is "most" theories, I just can't follow Debord's jargon...seriously!). But you and I love theory, ideas, etc. How do we convince someone else of the importance of spending their valuable time on theory? Hell, even some of those we struggle with who seem to fit the stereotypical profile perfectly of one who should be reading and discussing theory (Mrs. Che Bob, Ms. CAJA, etc.) don't like to read or discuss theory or jargon at all. We can't even make the case with them. Furthermore, many of us have come to disdain theory and intellectuals in this climate of anti-intellectualism on one end, and due to a poor historical record on the part of intellectuals/politicos/theorists on the other. "Expertise" can become tyrannical and coercive.
Mrs. Che Bob, Ms. CAJA, and many of our fellow activists are anxious for action (physical/movement). They seem convinced that "talk" is inaction. Can one hardly be blamed for feeling this way? So while I share your opinion that we need to work through theory often and always, I'm trying to find access (read: "center our work") to the constituent imagination.
However, I do not believe all hope is lost. I still hold that we need a theoretical point of entry that may be simple/accessible and that it be--most importantly--accompanied by effective action. This may have to happen before you are going to convince many people of the need to discuss theory. The horizontalists are finding it more fruitful to work through reflections, critiques and analyses immediately after (and sometimes during) a direct action.
And, on the other end of the spectrum, how do we convince the theorists to put down the books and "spend time in the fields, factories, kitchens, sweatshops, etc."?
Greg,
Trout and I are attempting to work through some of the theory we apply as we struggle to change the world. Our discussions alongside some our comrades with whom we are struggling do not sound like this. As I've noted here, we haven't made a strong enough case that reflection, devising an organizational political framework, etc. is an essential component of our struggle. That is something we hope to correct as we start a branch of the IWW. After our first discussion with fellow IWWs it seems most agreed...fingers crossed.
As a teacher I read all kinds of pedagogical theory and debate it with fellow teachers, but I don't teach it to my Spanish students. The jargon of many fields is inaccessible to me, but I appreciate the need for it to be debated, stretched, extended, etc. among the specialists who later apply it. If I wanted to understand medicine, I'd have to learn of the jargon, concepts, etc. of that field.
I think the best representatives of the concept of dissolution of power is in Chiapas. The EZLN ridiculously refrains from any concept of political power as we know it.
Once again Che Bob has articulated what I tried to but failed, that is the balance needed between "social studies jargon" and the overly simplistic. Countering the right wing project of creating Spectacular Stupidity (dumbing down) we should challenge ourselves and Mrs Che-Caja-Troutsky to undertake some of this heavy intellectual lifting while critiqueing that which is absurdly dense and academically abstract. At the same time we resist the condescendingly over-simplified which compromises complexity for the sake of expediency. A deep movement requires a thorough understanding.
That said, I still confess that I don't get the Zapatistas or much of this horizontalism.It may be my personality but this whole "walking, we ask questions " thing smacks of metaphysics to me and I don't see tangible results. Perhaps I need to do a trip to Chiapas!
hey comrades, I just stumbled onto this blog. It's funny, I rarely talk about this theory stuff in my IWW work and yet it's other IWW members that I've had the most and best conversations about this stuff with. Cool. Anyhow, real quick - I feel a bit funny putting up a link to something I wrote but I thought you might be interested in this thing on militant research:
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2006/08/16/is-militant-research-3/
take care,
Nate
Post a Comment
<< Home