File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0402, message 74


From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Katsiaficas: "Coexistence With Islamic Fundamentalism?"
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:35:01 US/Eastern


A few comments and clarifications:

Says Jason:
> 6) I agree with the person who rejected the rhetoric
> of what it is or is not our "duty" to oppose or not
> oppose, because I do not think that we really
> understand the internal diversity of Islam nearly as
> well as we like to think we do, as Hakim Bey and
> others have demonstrated, there have been many strands
> of Islam that have been quite liberatory and
> open-ended, and sometimes these are branded as
> 'fundamentalist' by ignorant Westerners who are
> themselves quite 'fundamentalist' in their uncritical
> worship of the ideology of secularism as supposedly
> universally more valid than religious or other forms
> of social organization, go read Virilio or somebody
> about the power of a unashamedly spiritual critique of
> the absolutist materialism of our culture.

I don't recall a single poster here objecting to the
religious or spiritual as such. You're introducing a
secularist objection that simply hasn't been voiced. 
My own objection took these lines: 

>> Jesse's principle of opposition to fundamentalism 
>> may sound a bit dogmatic at first, but we're talking 
>> about movements precisely *defined* by their resistance 
>> both to personal differences (since scriptural or 
>> doctrinal fundamentals are the key) and to the play of 
>> "differance" (since inerrancy is generally assumed of the 
>> fundamental texts.)

I'm basically a christian antinomian. Katsiaficas' argument
is about "coexistence with Islamic fundamentalism." Let's
try to stay on the same page here. You and i both believe
that libertarian religious positions are possible. At issue
is whether there is room for any sort of fundamentalism
within anarchism. It seems unlikely. I've already noted
that *coexistence* is perhaps possible, but, as an anarchist,
it's hard not to be opposed to fundamentalisms' recourse to
stable, inerrant doctrine. 

> 7) The 'antiglobalization' discourse of Amory Starr
> and George Katsiaficas is consistently anticapitalist,
> it not 'procapitalist' by any stretch, both of these
> thinkers are far more Marxist than I will ever be, for
> instance, but I respect their work and anyone who has
> read a little of it will recognize that it is not the
> typical 'antimperialist' rhetoric, it is coming from a
> much different perspective than that, one of respect
> for local autonomy and self-determination of all
> peoples, ON THEIR OWN TERMS, as a sort of panarchist
> type discourse of the Max Nettlau kind, or a radical
> multiculturalism, which of course means that
> non-secular cultural norms might be part of that
> resistance, 

Again, the issue is not the "non-secular" nature of the
norms, but their basic authoritarianism. 

> since to demand that all resistance
> conform to Western standards is to claim that there is
> in fact only one way to live, 

And it's not even a question of "Western standards," 
since there is plenty of a "non-secular" nature in "the
West." 

> and frankly if you think
> this is the case, then like Emma Goldman, I do not
> want to live in your world or be a part of your
> 'revolution' (this is what I meant when I said the
> Insurrectionists seem to have little respect for
> difference, in other words if your universality is one
> that embraces 'true' universality, then my difference
> is one that embraces 'true' difference - is there a
> meeting place between?? Can not a supposed respect for
> difference, a supposed universality that vehemently
> effaces any nonsecular discussion as oppressive become
> its opposite??)

Sure it can, though it's still unclear what your specific
beef with "insurrectionists" is. 

> 8) It matters not at all whether the differences that
> are being respected by a radical multiculturalism are
> "real" or "essential", 

Whoa! Wait a second... Who has said *anything* about
"essential differences"? I asked: 

>> Can there be any "respect for difference" apart 
>> from the respect of specific differences? And are 
>> not these specific differences significantly - 
>> critically - *real* differences?

and pursued that line of thought in the direction
of a realization that "differences differ." For 
example, we don't value "fascist difference" or 
the nonconformity of the serial killer. Difference
alone is not a value. This is one of the cautionary
lessons of poststructuralism: the different can also
be "the worst." The economy of *differance* leaves 
us exposed - to everything, at least potentially. 
(This is the other way of reading a phrase like 
"there is nothing outside the text.") Remember that
the "gift" is also always potentially the poison. 

> what matters is that every
> individual and voluntarily associated group of
> individuals are able to determine their own lives and
> futures as they see fit and in whatever style they
> choose, regardless of what we may think about it, so
> long as they are not forcing anyone into anything we
> should be open to it, in my opinion. 

Isn't your "universal value" here more a matter of
*respect* than *difference*? 

> Finally while Shawn
> argues that "capitalist markets 'respect difference' -
> at least as long as 'difference' never attempts to
> assert itself beyond the sphere of
> interchangeability", 

What i said: 

>> The "postpositivist realist" piece posted earlier 
>> seemed hard on "postmodernism," but, looking at 
>> this debate developing, i was once again reminded 
>> how "respect for difference" which is *not* willing 
>> to deal critically with specifics can become 
>> *indifference*. After all, capitalist markets "respect 
>> difference" - at least as long as "difference" never 
>> attempts to assert itself beyond the sphere of 
>> interchangeability. Postmodernism as "cultural logic 
>> of late capitalism (as in Jameson) thrives on a kind 
>> of universal respect for difference. So does the 
>> "empire of fashion" of Lipovetsky. But once we 
>> acknowledge that it is respect for *specific* and 
>> *real* difference we wish to universalize, then all 
>> sorts of other problems rush back in. If nothing 
>> else, we end up acknowledging that differences differ, 
>> and not all are equally worthy of respect. 

> it seems obvious that the whole
> point of a radical multiculturalism of the kind argued
> for by Max Nettlau, Starr, Katsiaficas and myself
> would be to reject this extremely limited notion of
> difference and to put forth the obvious point that a
> radical respect for difference would necessrily
> require for people to *not* be dependent on state or
> capital for their survival.

As i said, "differences differ," as do forms of "respect
for difference." Your claim that postmodern capitalism's
"respect" is "limited" is questionable, since, arguably, 
it is a "purer" form of respect than yours or mine. But 
that's because anarchy is more than just respect for 
difference or even openness to differance. We wish to see
cooperation and justice in relations - beyond the mediation
of "the market." 

"Respect for difference" has to be tempered, for anarchists,
with our commitments to other projects - freedom, justice,
etc. And the working-through of those projects requires
dealing with specifics. I'm not arguing that differences
need to be "real" is some specific philosophical sense - 
and certainly not in terms of "essence" (the critique of
essentialism being one i have repeatedly criticized as at
least vague). My concern is that "respect for difference"
alone is all too close to the status quo of postmodern
capitalism.

-shawn


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



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005