Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 19:57:01 -0800 (PST) From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [postanarchism] - (on anti-academicism) Well, I think this is a little different from what I was vaguely and rudely alluding to. First of all, I think it is important to recognize the institutionalized split between the academic world and the rest of the world. This is a separation that we need to try to overcome, no? I am certainly against the anti-intellectual mode of much of the social world as well as of the anarchist scene. The question, then, would be how to overcome this separation: on one side a wide-spread anti-intellectualism and on the other an institutionalized academic sphere. Certainly a simple anti-academic stance that so easily merges with the socially generalized anti-intellectualism is problematic. When I was critical of what I called academicization, what I meant was the bringing of anarchism into the academy without attempting at the very same time to overcome this separation (I realize that shouldn't have aimed this criticism at Mueller's article). So the question is: what direction are we aiming in here? Bringing anarchist theory into the academy to be appreciated and discussed as an academic topic, or at bringing a greater theorization and reflection into anarchist practice and critique? Work like Newman's seems mostly moving in the first direction: into the academy. To me, the point is to move in the other direction while trying to end the separations that make up our social world. I don't care if people are "tainted" with academic discourses, but I hope that in doing so those discourses are de-academicized. This is more, therefore, than a "series of accusations, more similar to the adolescent harangues hurled at a parent, which, whether baseless or not, are merely a sort of societal twitch by which many of us mark our independance", which does not recognize the separations that help to maintain our society. This is not about individual academics gaining independence (that would be rather boring), but of how to challenge and transform these institutional separations in the first place. Thus, I don't see this as a battle between tradition and the new, but between our present society and its destruction. I'm certianly not, however, trashing theory or its use--I'm against that kind of anti-intellectualism. Hopefully, I was a lot more clear this time. best, sasha ps: I'll get back to the Badiou very soon. On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 BabblePreacher-AT-aol.com wrote: > I am rather confused by this "anti-academicism" that is in the midst > of a proliferation these days (see, for example, that extreme of what > is known as "Cultural Studies" in the US, which, by action or > reaction, abandons textual Marxism, for example, in a transposition to > "television studies" - isn't there even a book on "The Philosophy of > the Simpsons"). And I side with Jason on the point that, for the most > part, it is folks whose thoughts are especially "tainted" by academic > discours, whether historically or conceptually or both, who are so > quick to denounce this "academicism". But this is not a question of > whether or not one may retain the styles and forms of her forebears > while, at the same time, critiquing them - nearly all of the > "academic" bigwigs of the past fifty or sixty years, from the germans > of the Frankfurt school to the french of the so-called > Post-structuralist vein, have incorporated the thoughts of those who > they were in the process of breaking away from - Fr > eud and Marx, in particular. It is a question of whether or not the > brutal "denunciation" of academics actually serves any purpose. > Deleuze constantly made statements which tended to imply the > uselessness of philosophy, etc., all the while spending his entire > life buried in just that task (his declaration, for example, that > there is always something more important to be done than > philosophizing). I don't remember hearing of Deleuze in the > third-world assisting the hungry, the poor or the tired. Also, his > remark that his work with Guattari "Anti-Oedipus" was written rather > for the "anti-academic", that is, "not-too-educated", than the > post-grad, abstraction-junkies of academia - meanwhile, that work is > utterly bound up in the thought of some of the most "academic" of > thinkers. I do not mean to lambaste only Deleuze, here, however. He > should be noted as merely an example among the many. Perhaps it may > even be worthwhile to investigate this behavior as a sort of > self-denunciati > on? Why not? > > This debate on "anti-academicism", which, as I see it, and as I hope > to have briefly illustrated, is nothing of a debate, and rather of a > series of accusations, more similar to the adolescent harangues hurled > at a parent, which, whether baseless or not, are merely a sort of > societal twitch by which many of us mark our independance. The real > debate should be on that of received knowledge, in any of its many > forms (whether academic or anti-academic), because that is what we are > really sounding out our anger against. It matters not whether we are > accusing Foucault or the KKK, we are in a battle against tradition, > the form of thought as something pre-established, not only "the > intellectuals". > > Thus, I am always taken aback by this style of denunciation. Just > because philosophy can't actively change a government does not mean > that it isn't allowed to involve itself in this action in other forms. > In other words, theory's failure to "bring about the desired changes" > is not a reason to thrash it, nor to tout its uselessness. > > philip. > > "L'amour, c'est quand nous pouvons dire que nous avaons le ciel, et > que le ciel n'a rien." -Badiou > > ====------------- 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!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005