Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:56:28 -0800 (PST)
From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [postanarchism] stilll practicing



Jason et al,

Well, I’ll try one more time to get my question
across; I think you misunderstood it a bit. I try to
be even more clear—my telepathy is malnourished
especially at this distance.   First off, I see
postanarchism as a discourse (if you think of
discourses as “things,” as you say, fine).  I also
think that discourses can have (always have?)
implications for practice, thus I was surprised you
suggested there were no implications.  As I asked,
what I am interested in hearing is what are _the
implications of this discourse for practice?_  You say
they’re so many and they contradict you can’t really
say much about it.  Again, this seems like a bit of a
cop out.  Do you see postanarchist discourse as giving
us an critical tools to help us develop our anarchist
practice or not?  If so, what are they and how do you
see their implications?  

The way I learned to read (especially from
poststructuralism) suggests to me that no quote simply
‘speaks for itself,’ so I will ask a few questions
about the quotes Jason has provide for us.  May
suggests, and you follow, that how to resist should be
left up to the oppressed.  This seems to suggest that
May is not including himself in the oppressed.  But if
you do include yourselves, then May says that
poststructuralism gives you tools for constructing a
practice, no?  Do you not see postanarchist discourse
as giving such tools?  If so, what are the
implications for those tools in your practice?  

This also seems to suggest that there are general
tools constructed outside of the practice (i.e. May’s
formulation that poststructuralism has constructed
tools that can _then_ be used by different oppressed
groups).  Does anyone see it as problematic to
understand tools as not coming from these practices
themselves but constructed in advance by a separate,
academic practice?  There seems to me to be a problem
of inside/outside of practice here; can this dichotomy
really hold?  What are its implications?  It also sets
up an intellectual practice of constructing tools that
the oppressed can then use in _their_ practice.  To me
this separation is a problem.  Of course, it is the
result of the social roles constructed in capitalism,
and we can’t simply step outside of them; however, we
should at least investigate and attack these roles
when we find ourselves being placed in them.  This
seems to be missing in the academic works of
postanarchist discourse; it seems to find its place in
academia too easily—it seems to take up the social
role without much struggle.

The May quote about “ideas” and living or holding on
to them is interesting; so I would ask, what is
“living” ideas versus “holding them”.  Does this not
imply that “ideas” have implications for practice, or
better yet that the whole dichotomy of constructing
tools and then doing practice is problematic?  It is
in May’s contradiction between the academic
construction of tools that the oppressed can use and
the suggestion that ideas must be lived that is
perhaps a fruitful place to think and to hopefully
explode the contradictions of the capitalist social
roles that sets up this dichotomy in the first place. 
To me this is very similar to the anti-politics I was
talking about earlier, which is an attempt to break
out of the social roles of activism
(organizer/organized) that are similar to the social
roles of academic/oppressed although the latter is
usually even more separated.

Whatever you want to call this discourse, you (Jason)
have certainly been a big participant in and promoter
of it (I assume that won’t change); so I don’t think
it is strange to ask you how you see the implications
for your practice.  Obviously I’m not asking you for
your activist resume (I wasn’t looking for proof of
your commitment)!  I’m asking, how the discourse of
postanarchism has affected your anarchist practice? 
Seems like a legitimate question to ask, no?  

Does postanarchist discourse suggest—like May—that
there are no general principles for practice at all? 
Would postanarchism as a critique suggest that there
are no anarchist principles at all?  Is it really only
a negative critique as you say?  Does it suggest no
general principles itself?  (Such as a principle of
critiquing all essentialism, for example.)

Thanks to the Doc for his suggestions.  I would like
to hear from others as well if they are interested;
the original question was not aimed at Jason.

I’m curious, do people see the practice of the Italian
Ya Basta! in relation to postanarchist discourse?

best,
  sasha







-----------------

====-------------

Anarchist Discussion Board -- Also for response to KKA, WD and Aporia: http://pub47.ezboard.com/banarchykka


The Killing King Abacus Page: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree