I am not now nor have I ever been a supporter or a defender of NOI (I mean in its present form) or of Farakhan. I think Farakhan is awful, and I think the story of how the NOI goes from being (almost) led by Malcolm X to being led by Farakhan is an ugly and tragic one. While he is of course not beyond critique, the fact that Malcolm X did lead it, shows that the NOI is not an inherently reactionary organization. Perhaps, someday, it will again be a not-reactionary or a more progressive one. Perhaps not. I suspect it will never live up to an ideal politics and practice. Boo hoo. I am not claiming that the future of anti-racist politics hinges on this, I do not think that either the revolutionization of NOI, or its complete destruction is *that* important. I would rather see the Panthers come round again, etc etc etc.
I was trying to suggest that West's decision to "dialogue" or "struggle" (or whatever) with the NOI is *understandable* and so to that extent "defensible" and "justifiable." (I myself do not think that it means he has therefore sold-out or is therefore sexist, but hey, maybe he is a pig anyway, and yet, I dont give a shit about this, his biography.) *That* is my judgment for you; and this is my only position here, and I do not see how this can reasonably be construed as a "defense" of the NOI, let alone of Farakhan, or as smacking of "relativism" for that matter. It is a qualified "defense" of the man's decision, in the first place.
I do not know enough about the damn organization, or about what West has actually done with them, to say much else. And your rants/claims about them have not actually told me anything about what they believe/do -- at least not anything new -- or why. What I do know about the group under Farakhan is that it is devoutly patriarchal, goofily nationalist, and I think so benighted as to be into supply-side economics. Let us agree that NOI is, for these reasons at least, "reactionary." I still say that it is "positive" that NOI affirms the existence of a systematic racism, and affirms the need to do something about it, beyond the republican system; if every single one of its policies were entirely stupid, I would still say this. And I think to call it a "self defense group" (as you put it for me) is not at all inaccurate, and hardly an insult. For these reasons, I say it is a potentially progressive institution/group.
We therefore have two choices I think: one is to condemn the group as it is right now under Farakhan's helmsmanship, and write it off. As I've said before, that may well be the best move, and it is at least justifiable. The other option would seem to be to try and at least tweak it, or move it in a more progressive direction; West, as one of the few people who could do such a thing (and not least b/c he is male), presumably wants to do this. (Perhaps he can try and get Farakhan, or some more reasonable ppl within NOI, to see better explanations of black poverty?) My only point is that I think this too is justifiable. Perhaps that is a hopeless cause, but I do not think it warrrants his being slammed. Perhaps it is a mistake and an ideological "error," and he needs spanked, but I do think we should at least try and understand why West should want to try and do such a thing.
I think we should also explore just why it is that not only West, but lots of people find something of value in NOI, even if they are not members, or not Muslims, etc. What needs are being met, what desires incited or affirmed, how are these articulated to reactionary ideas about women and about the market, how might they be re-articulated to more progressive ones? How is it that the NOI's self-professed goals (i.e., those of their "Program Statement"), of economic and social justice and of some vague "freedom" get attached to certain ideas and policies, and not to others? What kind of belonging or "communal" needs are being met, and why? I have no answers, but I think these are interesting, albeit generic, political and cultural questions.
You misunderstand me: when I said that the NOI -- and the questions above, for that matter -- are "black things," I mean that it is a sheer, brute fact that NOI/Farak. means specific things to supporters/insiders -- things which are quite obviously not immediately accessible to us "outsiders." So does rap or hip-hop, so does history, so does lots of things. If cultural specificity is equivaent to relativism, I plead guilty. If we want to understand the NOI phenomenon, with or withoutthe further aim of changing it, then we need to begin here, too, and not simply within the NOI's archive. What is so complicated or relativist about this? And what could be more simplistic than to say, All of these fools are just deluded dopes, knuckle-dragging victims of false consciousness whom need enlightened by, well, by Rakesh and Pollitt.
Regardless, I do think the old "false consciousness" model of critique would be, and always is, of limited value. Fortunately, there are other modes, from Lukacs and Gramsci, thru the Frankfurt school, and on into all those French theorists I suspect you hate. To argue for a sophisticated mode of cultural or ideological analysis is to affirm the intellectual and ethical values of self-reflexivity, of radical contextualization, and of trying to understand a given phenomenon beyond the lamenting, or the slamming, or the "flaming" of people whom do not think or act the way we think they ought to. It is not, however, to become a wishy-washy relativist liberal, and I will in manly fashion smash the ideational framework and assumptions of anyone who says so. So please regale me with your analysis (as opposed to your "flames") about just how and why anything Ive said marks me as a cultural "relativist." Or is it the notion that *both* West's decision to "dialogue" *and* the critique of NOI/Farakhan as sexist-and-more, are both right? Or are "both/and" logics bourgeois?
There are two types of intellectuals in the world: those who have a complicated notion of truth, and those simple-minded, simple-hearted fools who need voluntarily sent to rehabilitation camps (or campuses), not least b/c they keep saying the same shit, over and over again. Which side are you on? I'll assume the former, and suggest we agree to disagree about this.
-- Dan V
---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Vukovich English; Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 vukovich at uiuc.edu ph. 217-344-7843 ----------------------------------------------------