Nathan Newman wrote:
>Yes, a left perspective has to critique the narrowing of political choices
>created by hegemonic racist capitalism, but a lot of activists just look at
>the theorists and say, tell me something I didn't know (and use fewer
>three-dollar words).
-And a lot of theorists look at activists and say - what are they -doing? Why? What are their goals? How does this little struggle fit -into a larger whole? And in my experience, many activists don't even -think about the questions, much less have an answer. -For more, see Liza Featherstone, Doug Henwood, and Christian Parenti, -"Action Will Be Taken: Left Anti-Intellectualism and Its -Discontents," in the premiere issue of Radical Society, now hitting -the stores.
I'll be interested in seeing the piece, but where are the intellectuals embedded in the movement? Why aren't they there asking those questions in an organic way and promoting a discussion on such matters in a manner that addresses the needs of those activists?
Many activists don't ask the questions because they aren't good at doing it well, so they concentrate on what they do well. Intellectuals potentially bring real value to the table, but they have often blown the opportunity through their abscence or arrogant presence. One legacy of the sectarian left -- the folks most prominent in shoving such questions down activists faces in an often useless manner -- is that the anti-intellectualism of the contemporary Left is well earned. There is a real paucity of organic intellectuals who participate as equals within the movements. Instead, you have enclaves of activists talking to each other and enclaves of left intellectuals mostly talking to each other (see Halle's original comments).
Political meetings on prosaic activism suck with all the details to be discussed, so intellectuals who get near social movements usually skip them in favor of the manifesto-writing discussions. But the latter is far less critical to the ultimate form of movement struggle, since the theory embodied in structure usually drives action far more than goals articulated on paper. I've spent much of my life working on such movement organizational transformation and have been contnually frustrated by the relative absence of other activist intellectuals in such endeavors. I can write manifestos and position papers with the best of them, but paper never organized anyone-- that was the first lesson of organizing I learned. People organize people, and while people may be motivated to act based on something they read, they only move forward into sustained activism if there is a structure to continually nurture them and move them forward in a way that fulfills those original desires.
It happens I spent two days this weekend locked in those kinds of prosaic organizatonal discussions at the National Lawyers Guild quarterly national leadership meeting. And before this discussion came up on LBO, I was working on an assignment from that meeting, which deals with addressing some representation problems on the Board. Partly based on my initiative, that prosaic question was expanded into a broader year-long survey of the organization's whole leadership structure. I'm chairing the committee which will engage in a year-long membership discussion and decision-making process to really see how our structure has limited our effectiveness. Here is part of the opening motivation for the discussion that is aimed to both restrain the idealism of the intellectuals and to restrain the narrowing vision of actionistas. It's general so it applies to many left organizations.
"For an organization of moderate resources, [the Guild] combines a complex array of chapters and committees, a multi-issue focus, and a highly activist membership. Its national leadership needs to combine articulating political vision, overseeing the financial and staff resources it directly controls, coordinating with other bodies of the organization, all while mobilizing and expanding the key asset of the organization, namely its individual member activists. And as a radical organization, that leadership has to struggle with its role as part of the broader movement of organizations fighting for fundamental economic and social justice.
For this reason, it is impossible to seriously discuss election procedures, board representation, and the structure of the national leadership body without automatically engaging with fundamental discussions of the goals of the organization, what we are doing right and wrong, and what structures would facilitate greater success. There is no perfect procedure, since different structures will serve different purposes better and others less well. So any constitutional debate, and this is essentially what we will engage in during this discussion, inherently will move from the minutia of voting rules to debates on the political identity of the organization. That is to be welcomed as long as the discussion stays grounded in concrete proposals and respect for accommodating the diverse needs of the organization, while also addressing the prosaic governance requirements of an organization with a national budget and staff management oversight responsibilities."
My experience is that activists welcome the broader strategic discussion as long as it is grounded in the organic life of the organization. Which means that intellectuals asking the questions must be embedded in that organic life. Which is all too rare, so many opportunities are missed to move strategic thinking forward.
-- Nathan Newman