Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:57:00 +1000
Subject: Re: AUT: Identity, Zapatismo, Reeve



In his defence of the Zapatistas against Reeve John Holloway made reference
to Adorno's critique of the law of identity which played a very important
part in that philosopher's efforts to overcome the kind of thinking that
made Auschwitz possible.

Adorno's position, as I understand it, was that the law of identity acted
as a kind of mental prison. For if every attempt to understand something
new involved relating it to an already existing concept, then precisely
that which was new in it would never be comprehended. What Bill describes
as the 'human urge to look for order in the world' becomes a force
contributing to the freezing of social relations within the framework of
the present order, since no other order can be conceived.

The relevance of this to the Zapatista question is obvious to my mind. If
we approach this development with a pre-exiting concept (or label) such as
'Maoist guerilla army', a concept whose meaning is defined by previous
guerilla movements such as the Chinese Red Army or the VietCong, then we
run the risk of failing to grasp what is new in the case of the Zapatistas
- their not aiming to achieve state power for example.

Perhaps a better way to take the discussion forward would be to compare the
Zapatistas with Sendero in Peru, which appears to me at least to represent
something quite different (and far less appealing). I would be interested
in such a comparison from anyone more familiar with both movements.

Davie



>X-From_: owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Mon Sep 21 15:02:33 1998
>X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.virginia.edu: domo set sender to
>owner-aut-op-sy-AT-localhost using -f
>Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:45:27 +1000 (EST)
>X-Sender: billbartlett-AT-saturn.vision.net.au
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>From: billbartlett-AT-vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett)
>Subject: Re: AUT: Identity, Zapatismo, Reeve
>Sender: owner-aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>
>John Holloway wrote:
>
>>        This is a very belated comment on the Reeve debate, stimulated by a
>>challenge in the editorial of Wildcat 45. It is a note written for Wildcat,
>>but I thought it should be posted here as well.
>>
>>        John
>
>Loved it! Very provocative, let's see, what shall I file that under... ;-)
>
>Seriously though, the tendency you criticise is merely an extension of the
>human urge to look for order in the world about us. It is how we try to
>understand things. And once having discerned what order we can, it can be
>very disconcerting to have some phenomenon arise which claims to be "new",
>something which deliberately frustrates your need to classify things.
>
>Having read some of these "communiques" from Marcos myself I feel not a
>little sympathy for such annoyance. I can discern no meaning from them at
>all, it is an understandable strategy to avoid being classified, but I am
>tempted to put such people into the "trying to be all things to all people"
>category, rather than the "not trying to be anything to anyone" category.
>
>My reasoning is that if you don't want to be anything to anyone, you would
>not feel the need to issue a communique in the first place. Nothing wrong
>with that, so long as you don't try to be all things to all men under false
>pretenses, that is by implying you are something you are not. Or even by
>not telling us what you are.
>
>If you issue a communique composed entirely of vague and incomprehensible
>gibberish that tell precisely nothing, at least nothing unambiguous, I
>classify you as a fraud. You might be a loveable fraud, or even a fraud
>with honourable intent, but you are still a fraud.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---