Un-reason and pseudo-intellectuals...

[Jonathan Broad (NC)]

I seem to have caused some readers consternation with what was intended to
be an introductory post.  I made a quick argument here and there, but on
the whole I just wanted to protest the tone (and lack of content) of Ralph
and Jim's postings last week, particularly Ralph's abusive dismissal of
what was an admittedly groping but sincere attempt to connect rap with a
critical social response.  Already it has been assumed that I am a
"childish" purveyor of "nonsense" and "bullshit" which Ralph attempted to
"nip in the bud" while simultaneously decrying my apparently quite
justified request that he and Jim not shout down those who are trying to
express themselves in this forum (?).  I'll admit to not reading all of
your posts, Ralph (more on why in a moment), and as such I deserved some
of the content (?) of your response, but it is far worse not to see your
own hypocrisy when it glares so brightly (?).

I do owe you an apology, Ralph, because I was not really concerned to
engage you in a pissing contest.  I did indeed conflate your and Jim's
postings of the past week, for the simple reason that I have been without
email for a month prior, so whatever incisive critiques of intellectuals
and the division of labor (which really must be discussed in the context
of economic determinism and thus the problem of "false consciousness) you
have been developing of late are not available to me.  I made do with what
you gave us all in the post of the 23rd, which is a lot of nada.  Your
answers to my questions were appropriate and for what it is worth I am
glad you're not a party man, although I still have my suspicions of Jim,
given his sycophantic nattering about the academics who have wounded him
so badly with their disdain and the virtues of real working class men like
himself. Thank heaven, Ken responded to that with truly admirable aplomb,
considering.  At the end of this post I'd like to address some of Ken's
thoughts, since we seem to have made the same mistake.  Apology
concluded. Further posts of that kind (meaning posts in which you attack,
give vague denials of your true attitudes, and strenuously assert
commonplaces which impress no one) will be soundly ignored.  In other
words, my bullshit will continue unnipped.  It is a shame that you even
tried, because I am not dicking around here.  Increasing your volume will
not produce my silence.  But thanks for proving my point with your
terrible example (sound familiar?).  Sometimes it is a tragically thin
line to walk between pissing contests and my own ethic in these matters,
(tough but fair--a winning combination in Prisoner's Dilemma at least :).

I'll take the time to reply to H. Curtiss Leung, because although a bit
confused about my post, it is at least a civil attempt to inquire into my
intentions and background.  I'll try to deal creatively with this
opportunity.

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, H. Curtiss Leung wrote:

> Jonathan writes;
> 
> >....For my own part, the only reason I
> >tune in to this list is in the hope that I might find some illuminating
> >perspectives and honest witnesses to the odd and painful spectacle of our
> >so-called civilization.  Why?  BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO THINK ABOUT
> >WHILE I WORK THE PUNCH-PRESS FOR FIFTY HOURS A WEEK.
> >
> 
>         Proud of your alienation, eh?  Think that manual labor somehow
> makes you more "authentic?"  Tell me, I wanna know.

Why didn't you allow me to continue?  What I do informs the context of
what I say...and no more.  As I said in my post, I actually prefer manual
labor to data entry or marketing or other forms of mental prostitution.
Labor is refreshingly honest about the exchange going on, and as I said,
it gives me time to think about what I read (email today, mores the pity)
the night before.  And I find the less I think about "authenticity", the
less I have to fret over what I chat about with the guy who works the line
with me.  Jobs are jobs.  Tautologies are tautologies.  I do what I must.
Is that an answer?  Because the following was apparently unclear:

 > 
> >Hmm, does this qualify me as "working-class"?  God, no.  I have a four
> >year degree (philosophy/religion, if you care to know), come from a
> >nouveau-upper-middle-class background, and I got my present job via a
> >"temporary employment agency".  My current assignment (sounds exciting,
> >no?) is one of those "indefinitely temporary" or "temp-to-perm" rackets so
> >absolutely coveted by temps.  I wrote my thesis on Hegel and Nietzsche.
> >
> 
>         That's nice.  But how exactly does your thesis change/mitigate
> the fact that you have to sell your labor-power to survive?

That was ironic.  But seriously, one of the things that needs to be
discussed on this list is the growth of the temporary labor market as it
relates to class-identification/interests.  Capital disciplines work by
drawing as many distinctions as possible between those who serve to
increase capital.  The temporary worker can serve as scab (and believe me,
this shop ain't union, and the guy I work with literally begs management
for sixty and seventy hour weeks--what can I say to that?) in addition to
reducing overhead for insurance, raises, and "down-time".  I found a way,
idiosyncratic to my own interests (which have nothing in particular to do
with a fondness for machine oil), to use the flexibility of temp work to
serve me.  I have experienced the inside of the temp industry for almost a
year, and have dug ditches, laid irrigation, weedwacked, and installed
sliding=glass doors. I have to work to eat and pay my rent, but that
doesn't mean I can't have the whole whirlwind tour while I'm at it!
Doesn't make me prole, although I get to work with those who certainly fit
this description (and voted for Reagan).  It just means I have some
experience that can serve my efforts to effectively articulate the
problems with present day social organizations, and be informed as to the
practicability of any solutions I might dream up (solutions to particular
problems, mind you--for instance, a nonprofit or worker-managed temp
agency would really be interesting, and a cinch to
organize/finance--anybody got ten-thousand bucks they could give to me?).
I wrote my thesis because I have a hopeless passion for intellectual
puzzles.  Don't tell _me_ that a philosophy/religion degree doesn't help
one's financial outlook--:)__but then, I had other reasons for going to
school.

Ken's honest puzzlement about what constitutes a "working class" person as
distinct from a "black" or "lesbian" person is in the right direction,
especially as this affects the possibilities of organization.  Liberal
capitalism exploits these differences in what Leclau and Mouffe (Hegemony
and Socialist Strategy) call "subject positions".  My use of
"articulation", which it seems I might never be able to..articulate..stems
from considerations I have given to that book.  Since socialism seems to
contain some nasty totalizing temptations, I think it is necessary to
emphasize its "radical democratic" aspects.  Liberal democracy shackles
our ability to "develop" in terms of our own interests, simply because the
means to do so is legally, economically, and culturally withheld or broken
up into pieces and given to hostile "subject positions".  Roughly put, the
socialist (or anarcho-syndicalist in my case, which is a minor distinction
when radical democracy is upheld as common ground) strategy must emphasize
"articulation" of these subject positions.  Are you black?  What else are
you?  Once you have more than one identity, these positions can be
negotiated and antagonisms can be worked out, both internally between
members of the gay community, for example (as to the question, who is gay
and who isn't?) and between different groups.  These groups are never
"classes", in my opinion, but aggregates, which can contain mutually
exclusive identities, and _must_find ways of containing these peripheral
elements, if the proccess is not to decay into exploitable "oppositions".
True opposition, for me, is a last resort, albeit a neccessary one in the
final analysis.  Sorry for the language here.  Let me return to the post.

> 
> >Ralph and Jim advocate affiliation with "working-class" organizations.  By
> >which they seem to mean a Marxist organization, or perhaps a union.
> >Although I have no particular interest in commenting on the "hip-hop"
> >schizm entwined with this thread, I must note that as far as I can tell
> >hip-hop (or goth, or reggae, or industrial) "clubs" are as populated by
> >the honest-to-god "working-class" as anybody else.  If the music did not
> >articulate some aspect of that experience, only the booze would remain.
> >To which I expect a standard Marxist pat answer, something along the lines
> >of the "false consciousness" of the "working class".  It doesn't wash.
> >
> 
>         What doesn't wash is your argument's simultaneous claim to 
> sophistication and working-class authenticity.  Of course the music
> articulates _some_ aspect of everyday life -- but what DOESN'T it
> do?  Why does it appear in the form it does?  Why has this particular
> musical form appeared as a commodity and not another?  And don't assume
> that I want to ban or forbid this or any sort of music, either.

As I said, I don't worry about being me.  It's an ingrained habit, but not
one that can't be broken, or at least cracked up a bit.  The questions you
ask are exactly the right ones.  A quite Marxist friend of mine ONLY
listens to rap, because for him its the only music that contains a shred
of honest experience, that hasn't been so "whitewashed" as to contain
nothing but deadtime earcandy.  I don't agree with him, but I see his
point.  Rap is an aggregate that ranges from stupid dickwielding Gatt your
ass nonsense (quite popular, as Time-Warner guarantees) to parodies of
this form (as was been mentioned by someone else on a parallel thread).
Inbetween there are some really incredible _articulations_ of really
diverse aspects of black life in america.  And these articulations range
from gender issues to poverty to colonization to organization , critique,
and resistance to all the varieties of (white) capitalist power.  Why am I
interested in this music (to the extent that I am)?  Because it helps me
talk to the people I work with, and maybe help us help each other out.
Its the tiniest thread, sometimes, that sustains the possibility of
communication on which all organization and resistance depends.  It breaks
easily.  But I'd rather be with than without.  As I have stated, I come
from a totally different background as that which informs rap.  But that
doesn't mean that I can't learn something from it.  In fact, its an
obligation in my book to pursue whatever avenues there are for peace
between different people, and I construe Marxism as agreeing with that
premise.  Turning antagonism into cooperation is a transformation of power
and its potentials.

>
> >Nothing worth mentioning is going to change
about this hellacious
> >"society" we've gotten ourselves mixed up in until humans in all sorts of
> >places hit the right note and the glass shatters.  That's what I'm looking
> >for--the bits and pieces of the sonata which must arise if Benjamin's
> >Angel of History is to find peace and close its wings.  It's our
> >%$#^%##%$@ responsibility.  So--testify!  Articulate!  Confess! Lament!
> >Chastize!  Rejoice!  The alternative, as we must know by now, is silence
> >and ashes.
> >
> 
>        Well, well, well -- the jargon of authenticity finally rears
> its ugly head.  The individual and individual acts are extolled as
> absolutes the better to render them absolutely impotent.  

I have trouble with this one.  Umm--as far as authenticity gowes, I think
its negotiable, and more Heidegger's thing than mine (give me Levinas any
day of the week).  You have misconstrued me, so I apologize for not being
clear.  Individuals and individual acts are the foundation of social
action and organization, but you are correct that deprived of a real
social context (even an email list _can_ serve as one), articulation
becomes nostalgic monologue and impotent rage.  I suffered of this all day
at work due to the postings of Ralph et al., because I couldn't defend
myself (I chose to go to bed, because 5:30 comes too early), and I felt
compelled to do so.  So I deferred and reassured myself that the
opportunity to represent itself.  I can only "temporarily"
 be deprived of my voice, but life is full of such "not yets", thankfully
including the "I'm not yet dead" which has brought me back to this thread
against my better judgement.  In a nutshell, H. Curtiss, I agree with you.

> You write
> that it's "our %$#^%##%$@ responsibility" -- but neglect, even denigrate,
> the _social_ character of that task.  Some people on this list think
> that existing social forms are adequate (Jim's position), others don't 
> but are trying to build or imagine new ones (Ralph's).  This argument
> is preliminary to and part of that task -- or do you just expect change
> to fall from the sky, like manna from heaven?
> 
>         To use (or detourn, if you're familiar with the SI) your musical
> metaphor:  Beethoven would work and rework the themes in his sonatas and
> symphonic works for months -- why do you expect the agent of revolution
> to take any less time?  Or less care?

If Ralph is trying to build or imagine new social forms, then we are in
the same club.  He should be more patient with people if he desires the
sort of change we seem to be striving for.  The obligations that I feel in
this matter are: listen, alleviate suffering and remember it, take care
with those you love, do justice to those you are compelled to oppose,
outproduce the enemy, and find a way to love the world in spite of itself.
I can't help it if I find Benjamin (who as I mentioned informed that
little spiel, including the lament, chastize, rejoice thing) to be the
most compelling, if not quite the most clear, affiliate of the Frankfurt
school.  Revolution, if that is what we are speaking of, will perhaps take
more time than we have.  I can wait.  I have this feeling that in the
final hour, all will seem as it was before, until a shout "shatters the
glass" as I said and a wonderfully new set of problems will face our
children.  It is all the reward I ask, and I have already recieved it. 
The voice will be polyphonic, to continue the musical metaphors here. (It
is not determined, of course.  Silence and ashes, as I said, are also an
alternative.  Capital will wait for us all to decide, but not forever.) 
All that remains for us is to cultivate irreversibility (a social
activity, consisting of agreement, voluntary organization, and willful
desire) and make what peace we can with those around us.
	
As a final note, would anyone care to discuss the problem of Benjamin's
Marxism vis a vis his social position or Judaizing?  Benjamin is the
reason I subscribed in the first place, although not the reason I've stuck
around.

	Jonathan Broad