Kelsh —•— M-I: PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME THIRTEEN

  20 of 24

  TEXT VERSION: M-I

  TEXT VERSION: M-TH

See also: M-TH: PANIC LEFTIST: FRAME THIRTEEN   (post by rakesh bhandari)

See also: M-TH: Experience vs knowledge   (post by Hugh Rodwell)

See also: M-I: Knowledge vs experience   (post by Hugh Rodwell)

From owner-marxism-international
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 gay man, 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