From owner-marxism-international  Sat Apr 19 16:25:08 1997
Message-Id: <199704192008.QAA319252@mime4.prodigy.com>
From: LKED54B@prodigy.com (MS DEB P KELSH)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:08:56, -0500
Subject: M-I: PANIC LEFTIST:  FRAME THIRTEEN



Red Theory Collective (Albany)

**************************

PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME THIRTEEN

It is strange that Christi-Ann regards our theorization of critique
and debate as an attempt to impose a theory on others while in the
same post she goes on and offers her own views.  If having a strong
view is equivalent to discursive totalitarianism, she is as much of 
a
totalitarian as we are: she has equally strong views on what a
debate and critique should be.  The reason for the warm reception
of her views and the strong rejection of our views, that is, does 
not
really rest on the issue of whether or not one has  put forth strong
views.  The actual reason for acceptance (of Christi-Ann's views)
and rejection (of RTC/RMC views) is the issue of WHAT is put
forth: the person who posts texts which support the existing
practices on the net-left is warmly received; those who critique
those practices are rejected.  How does "change" happen on this
list?  Only by fiat from moderators?  Or can it also occur through
critique?

What language the doctor uses depends on the sort of knowledge
the patient wants: if all a patient wants is broad description, the
doctor will use one kind of (common sense) discourse.  But if the
patient wants to have knowledge regarding WHY her condition is
X, and what she might expect/do based on the explanation, the
discussion sooner or later will enter the zone of the scientific. . . 
..
No common-sensical language can offer a sustained analysis: it may
give us a broad DESCRIPTION. . . but EXPLANATION always
requires a language which is alien to common sense because
KNOWING rigorously is to negate the common sense, to seek the
abstract STRUCTURES that allow the representation of the
common sense to take the shape it takes.

This is also the frame of our critique of EXPERIENCE: experience
is a marker of the "common sense."  One experiences oppression as
a woman, a lesbian, a gayman, an African American. . . but one
cannot EXPLAIN that oppression in terms of EXPERIENCE.  One
has to know the conditions of possibility of that EXPERIENCE--which 
are always historical and material. 
It is therefore not a question of negating BUT attempting to know 
EXPERIENCE.  An
affect is not knowledge and all analyses require knowledge. . . and
knowledge is historical. . . not personal




     --- from list marxism-international@lists.village.virginia.edu ---