From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org
Subject: RE: a very short question on the lyotard list...
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:52:26 US/Eastern


Eric wrote:
> Shawn wrote:
> 
> Alas, from my perspective, it's also a bunch who don't
> talk well one with another. It's not always 
> clear what function the list serves, even when
> it is comparatively busy. 
> 
> Shawn, 
> 
> I acknowledge the truth of what you say. It has been 
> a frustration of mine as well. Based on your experience,
> have you found other groups who do manage to talk well 
> one with another? What is it they do that makes
> them more successful? 

I think it's pretty obvious that some fairly concrete
shared stakes or projects are necessary to sustain 
groups like this. Perhaps strangely, the same seems to
be true when it comes to ending them. There really 
isn't a shared set of stakes or concerns here. The
"proper name" nature of the list has never prevented us
from "going off-topic." (A certain type of "postmodern"
discourse really only feels "authorized" when it is off
topic, anyway.) The vague values that we do share here
are not enough to provide much structure, either the
structure of specific analytic ends or that of basic
collegiality. 

Certainly, there are lists that sustain themselves,
either by having more clearly defined group projects,
and thus implicit standards for interaction, or by
working largely on the basis of mutual respect and
affection. I'm in the midst of an odd "reunion" on a
very old list, where some of us who were active up to
a dozen years ago, but haven't stayed on the list the
entire time, have all converged there again. Talk 
there is generally good, even when it involves strong
disagreements, because it's talk with folks who have
interacted for years. That list was vaguely defined
"back in the day" and now really only exists as the
continuation of bonds formed then. Some of the most
serious - and the most silly - discussions i'm in
online take place there. The anarchy-list hosted 
now by Spoon has a similar character, although it is
still nominally a place to discuss anarchism. We've
come to think of that list, also more than ten years
old (and without moderation beyond spam filtering),
as a kind of "anarchist pub," and we alternate 
between fairly heavy discussion and brawls, with 
steady chatter in between. 

Most of the other lists where folks "talk well"
that i've been involved with seem to involve some
shared project, and a commitment to pursuing it.
Those groups are also easy to end when they no
longer serve a shared goal.

> Do you have any suggestions on what could be 
> done to facilitate the flow
> of communications here at this site? 

I'm not certain that this list serves a clear 
enough purpose that it makes sense to talk
about facilitation - which already seems to
refer to goals to be met. 

> It does seem ironic, but perhaps not merely 
> coincidental, that at a time when we need to 
> become more forceful in our opposition to the 
> powers  that be, groups like this seem to be 
> floundering.  

>From the perspective of the jaded old list admin
that i am, there's some question whether this 
sort of group hasn't *always* floundered, where
some more pressing purpose didn't make itself
felt. What seems most unfortunate about our
current crises - in the world - is that they do
not seem to have focused the sorts of radical
philosophical communities we are presumably part 
of to any more meaningful projects. 

> don't mean to imply that everything is negative. 
> Certainly, other groups like moveon.org
> have certainly been successful at utilizing the 
> internet to mobilize people in interesting ways 
> politically. 

I'm interested in moveon.org, particularly in its
claims to involve "the people" in politics. I'm 
also skeptical about the multimediated form of 
the project. At some point, politics *has* to
come down to *talking with your neighbors,*
figuring out where it hurts, and organizing 
accordingly. So much activism seems like a form
of cheerleading for that sort of work, but its 
not all that clear how, for example, a new kind
of commercial presses along citizen participation.

> As an anarchist whose opinions I have come to 
> respect very much, what do you think can be done 
> strategically at the present moment to foster a
> stronger movement either here on the internet or 
> out there on the streets?

I'm left with little but rather conventional 
wisdom these days: don't take shortcuts when dealing
with important questions; clarify your own projects;
find out what the neighbors think; use media for 
what it really appears to be good for, and not as
a substitute that lets us "do politics" while still
in our pajamas; resist the anti-intellectual and
anti-historical trends within "radical" circles;
at the same time, resist the easy return to left
orthodoxies. 

It seems to me that if we took any of dozens of
more or less "radical" traditions seriously, we
could work our way through to some useful sort
of clarity. On the other hand, if we let the pomo
"toolbox" approach - or the urgency of action, or
any number of other urgencies - give us an alibi
for getting by with half measures, or reducing 
irreducibly complex problems, we're probably
going to keep spinning our wheels. 

-shawn

> 
> eric
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/