On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:26 PM, wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
> I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding about Lennard's
> argument here. I don't think she was making a global claim, rather
> she was making a claim that the state and its repressive apparatuses
> aren't the only danger to the movement, instead sets of normative
> practices that are exemplified in structures such as non-profits and
> the trade union bureaucracy, what we might call a variety of
> ideological state apparatuses, could just as easily kill the movement
> by their attempts to make the movement legible in their terms.
If she'd said something like that, who could object? She was incoherent and ridiculous.
But it seems that some of the OWS are so worried about this that they're afraid of making any demand, lest it be reductive or corrupting. As you say:
> There is no way of escaping this risk, and creating a movement always tarries with this risk.
but you gotta try, no?
Doug