File spoon-archives/deleuze-guattari.archive/deleuze-guattari_1998/deleuze-guattari.9806, message 286


Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 23:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alexander Glage <glage-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:  RE: academia, fear, custard








I really like (Un)leesh's distinction between coercion and
inspiration--though I really don't think of myself as advocating
"institutional coercion".  If that's what got communicated, then I
apologize--I probably rambled on too much for my own good.  

Let me try again, this time with a metaphor:

If I want to build something, say, a sculpture, then I go out and
start amassing the materials I need to start putting stuff together:
clay, stone, wood, random objects, fetishes, nails, glue, photographs,
paint, blood, etc.  These are the things I feel I can work with, the
things that strike my fancy, the things my friends recommend to me,
that I've seen used before, or that I think can be used even though
they've *never* been used before.  I work on my sculpture, show it to
friends and peers and, if I know any, professionals, I get feedback
from them (which I am largely free to disregard if I so choose), I
work on it some more, maybe even enter it into a contest (if that sort
of thing appeals to me).  Part of the joy of this sort of creation is
precisely its freedom, the unregulated play of it, not to mention the
excitement of what we might call its "personal expression" (despite
the fact that such phrases are largely out of fashion).  In a sense,
this is the kind of creation that we carry out every day, in all
different aspects of our lives, our behavior, our thought.  Such
creation typically falls under what we might call our "private" lives,
though to be sure we would be unable to draw any definite line which
might separate it from our more "public" activities.  Anyway, this
form of creation is a kind of activity, a kind of thinking about
ourselves, which all but the most impoverished souls engage in
constantly, and which we must champion and pursue with all the vigor
at our command.

Yet there would be another sort of creation, one which is more about
what I have been calling "compulsion" or "necessity", and which I have
found equally valuable.  This time, instead of searching for whatever
materials strike my fancy, I am *given*, say, 50 objects; my
"assignment" is to build something using some of those 50 objects.  Of
course, I can use whatever materials I like beyond those pieces, but I
must nevertheless use at least some of the 50 I was given (there might
even be a quota assigned to me, say, I must use at least 25 of the
pieces given to me).  Now we're dealing with a *different kind of
creation*, a different kind of thought.  Now there is an added
dimension of necessity, of thoughts being "forced" in unexpected ways,
of a  limit which fractures possibilities into so many broken pieces
which must then be considered afresh, placed into new and to us
unnatural contexts.  I can no longer just look away; I am obliged to
think about *this*, to use all of my faculties in getting *these*
things to fit together.  In a sense, such a situation harnesses my
thought to just what it finds most unbecoming or undesirable--namely,
constriction itself--and precisely so as to shock it into new forms,
new possibilities, new life.  The fortuitous thought is what we hope
shall emerge out of this paradoxical "harnessing"--it is what shall
strike us, if only after some suffering or labor, without our having
"recognized" it.  We will only "sense" it, and then we will have begun
to think.
 
I feel that taking a class should produce, at least in the most ideal
instance, a balanced synthesis of these two forms of creation.  I
personally have found that most of my classes have consisted in just
such syntheses.  Of course, as I said in my previous post, I must
concede that I can think of no reason to *require* the latter kind of
creation for anyone who really sees it to be pointless or insulting or
not worth their time.  Still, lest anyone think my own experience at
the university has been only or even primarily about the latter kind
of creation, and so as to dispel any misunderstandings about how I am
thinking of "compulsion," I would like to take a moment to list some
of the work I did in graduate school, so as to get clear on what kind
of "discipline" I have in mind.

Here's a few indicative examples of my grad-school experience (in an
English department): I took a class on modernism and the
representation of homosexuality--no exam, and for a final paper I
wrote a long essay on 20th century French philosophy, basically saying
nothing of the novels we read in class and pretty much ignoring the
queer theory we read, but which did take Foucault as a central figure.
 I also took a class (I mentioned this before) on 18th century
literary history--no exam, I wrote a paper on 20th century American
literary criticism and the role literary history might play in the
future.  Another class I took was a seminar, the reading list of which
was compiled entirely by the students--no exam, and for a final paper
I briefly discussed two of the books we read (I suggested them, after
all), and focused the rest of my study on Artaud (whom we did not
read).  For another class, which happened to be *required* for the
particular program I was in, I wrote a paper on Emmanuel Levinas, an
author neither read nor discussed in class.  No exam.  For my M.A.
oral exam I was allowed basically to pick any 15 books I wanted (so
long as I could explain their thematic unity, as well as their
importance), and of the texts I chose there were only two or three
that had a whole lot to do with literature.  Needless to say, I did
fine in this department; I found that my professors were typically
good people who cared about their students, who wanted them to do
well, and who would usually not be willing to discourage anyone's
creativity.  I found that all the classes I took aided me enormously
in my intellectual development.  I left there with good
recommendations, as well as with the naively optimistic attitude about
the university that you see before you now.  
 
Now, I've gone to the trouble of listing these experiences only so
that no one gets the wrong idea about what kind of regulations I have
in mind when I speak of the value of "compulsion" in learning.  I am
most definitely NOT into "institutionalized coercion"--if, that is, by
that term you mean anything more specific than the most broad and
flexible requirements (basically: no paper, no credit).  But I also
want to make clear that I must not be understood as saying that
everything is fine everywhere, or that all analytic philosophy
departments really *are* open to continental thought, or that all
political science departments really *are* into exposing the lies of
the U.S. government, etc.  I am well aware of the urgent need to
broaden the horizons of many departments, fields, schools, etc.  I
just think such broadening is best done from *within* those
departments, by the sort of professors (and students) that I have had
the good fortune to study with.  The question, as with almost
everything political, seems almost to become one of "revolution" vs.
"reform".  I guess I am still sort of on the "reform" side.  But maybe
I'm still blinded by my own privilege?  Tell me.  What say you, Unleesh?



 





_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005