[lbo-talk] FW: [URPE] Come off the cross,

[Carrol Cox]

I would defend a certain generosity in estimating involvement vs Detachment
(whether it is experts or simply other observers at the margins of a
movement. Let me tell a story (which I may have told before in other
contexts). One day in the summer of 1964 my wife came home from Unitarian
Church and commented on an announcement of a weekly meeting Monday nights in
the basement of the Union Baptist Church (Black). I had just finished my
dissertation, was at loose ends, and I went down there. (Understand I had
been on LBJ's 'side' vs Mississippi DP that summer, and I voted for him
enthusiastically in November.) My 'mood' or whatever was pretty detached (a
perspective held not only by experts), and I felt no strong sense of
involvement whatever. I guess you might say I was mostly seeking amusement.
The conversation at the meeting was indeed lively and pleasant, and I
continued to attend. Nearly a year later I think I still had the sense that
this was merely a parenthesis; that my real interest was in grasping the
forces at play in Pope's Dunciad II. However, this detachment never took the
form of sneering at or 'criticizing the concerns of the core members: I
accepted those concerns as valid but merely did not see them as central to
_my_ life. Hence I entered into the conversations _as a member_, not an
outsider. I accepted as a given, and a correct given, the collective 'goal'
of (somehow or other) disrupting the complacency of the Bloomington City
Council (or for that matter the whole community) in respect to what we would
have then called racial relations." It took me almost two years to respond
to a question (at a workshop in Ann Arbor) "Who is the Enemy?" with the
reply, "The United States government and the monopoly capital for which it
stands." (I would of course express that differently today.)

Only from some point in an unknown future will the actual 'meaning' of that
URPE post become visible. In the meantime I think generosity is the proper
political perspective.

Carroo

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of shag carpet bomb
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:45 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] FW: [URPE] Come off the cross,

I agree with you that there's a difference in tone or tenor between
someone who, like Angela Davis, positions herself as part of the
struggle vs others who spoke at OWS as experts and who positioned
themselves as outsiders, not part of it, observing.

but I didn't read the URPE member as generously as you. He does
recognize the need to get involved, yes. But I don't see how he sees
this as mutual engagement from which he will learn anything much.
It'll be rewarding for him, I suspect, in the way teachers find it
rewarding to see "the lights go on". There's nothing wrong with
finding pleasure in that process. But is it an admirable attitude to
have toward colleagues and comrades? Who says, "I love me some
academic conferences since everytime I go it's so great to see fellow
members of Academic Bullshit Society annual conference attendees'
lights go on over their collective heads when they hear me speak!"

they may feel that way; they don't dare express it that way terribly
often. Those few that do will be seen as eccentric or assholes who get
away with it due to tenure.

<>
<> On expertise. What is at issue in this post is NOT the correctness or
<> incorrectness of a given expert; assume whatever expert is in question
<> is
<> correct; THEN the question becomesd the relationship assumed/enacted
<> by the
<> 'expert' to the Occupation. That relationship, I argue, has to include
<> _real_ acknowledgement by the "expert" that he/she must learn from the
<> Occupiers as well as _offer_ them his/her expertise. The expert who
<> does not
<> _really_ and not juse nominally recognize this mutuality of learning,
<> who
<> does not _really_ and not just nominally recognize that his/her
<> expertise by
<> itself is empty, _that_ expert is not needed. The writer whose post I
<> fwd
<> does recognize and act on this process of _mutual_ learning, as
<> revealed in
<> the content and tone of those last two paragraphs. Put another way, at
<> any
<> given point a given abstract 'truth' may or may not be a _relevant_
<> truth.
<> That relevance cannot be determined by the expert who offers that
<> truth; it
<> may well be irrelevant, it may well be that the _relevant_ 'view' is a
<> technically inaccurzgd ond (as Engels incidentally recognizes in his
<> Preface
<> to the German edition of Poverty of Philosophy). So the expert is not
<> and
<> should not be,  on her own, a judge of the usefulness, of the
<> practical
<> accuracy, of her own knowledge.
<>
<> Carrol
<>
<> P.S. A query that I considerd sending as a separate post: What is a
<> good
<> non-sexist and non-ageist synonym for "old women" (as used in Rosa
<> Luxembutg's 1898 Stuttgart speeches? She had an extremely important,
<> even
<> absolutely vital, point to make, dnd the phrase which drives home the
<> point
<> is "would have been old women and not heroes."
<>
<> ___________________________________
<> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
<>

-- 
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk