Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian M Ganter <bmganter-AT-acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: M-TH: PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME THIRTEEN






Red Theory Collective (Albany)
**************************



PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME THIRTEEN




It is strange that Christi-Ann regards our theorization of critique and
debate as an attempt to impose a theory on others while in the same post
she goes on and offers her own views.  If having a strong view is
equivalent to discursive totalitarianism, she is as much of a totalitarian
as we are: she has equally strong views on what a debate and critique
should be.  The reason for the warm reception of her views and the strong
rejection of our views, that is, does not really rest on the issue of
whether or not one has put forth strong views.  The actual reason for
acceptance (of Christi-Ann's views)  and rejection (of RTC/RMC views) is
the issue of WHAT is put forth: the person who posts texts which support
the existing practices on the net-left is warmly received; those who
critique those practices are rejected.  How does "change" happen on this
list?  Only by fiat from moderators?  Or can it also occur through
critique? 

What language the doctor uses depends on the sort of knowledge the patient
wants: if all a patient wants is broad description, the doctor will use
one kind of (common sense) discourse.  But if the patient wants to have
knowledge regarding WHY her condition is X, and what she might expect/do
based on the explanation, the discussion sooner or later will enter the
zone of the scientific. . .  ..  No common-sensical language can offer a
sustained analysis: it may give us a broad DESCRIPTION. . . but
EXPLANATION always requires a language which is alien to common sense
because KNOWING rigorously is to negate the common sense, to seek the
abstract STRUCTURES that allow the representation of the common sense to
take the shape it takes. 

This is also the frame of our critique of EXPERIENCE: experience is a
marker of the "common sense."  One experiences oppression as a woman, a
lesbian, a gay man, an African American. . . but one cannot EXPLAIN that
oppression in terms of EXPERIENCE.  One has to know the conditions of
possibility of that EXPERIENCE--which are always historical and material. 
It is therefore not a question of negating BUT attempting to know
EXPERIENCE.  An affect is not knowledge and all analyses require
knowledge. . . and knowledge is historical. . . not personal




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---