theory (from books)

off topic
User avatar
yljt
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:57 pm
Reputation: 136

theory (from books)

Post by yljt »

not to be confused with the fitpic theory thread. where were you when the theory thread from ct 1.0 was kill?

i'm reading capital volume 1 right now with some people and am doing chapter 9 this week. heinrich's book is really helpful and apparently he's publishing a new guide in fall of this year (450 pages!!! :o )

have you been reading any theory lately?? if so what? and how are you finding it?
judith_pancake
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2021 5:20 am
Reputation: 122

Re: theory (from books)

Post by judith_pancake »

I been rereading, flipping between dandy bullshit (Derrida's The Animal That Therefore I Am) and stuff for a socialist/marxist reading group. It reminded me how much I enjoyed Gramsci in a Power and Hegemony seminar in grad school so I'm revisiting The Modern Prince which I'm liking for the second time. Read some Rosa Luxembourg (Reform or Revolution) before this which was cool because I hadn't really thought about co-ops and trade unions in the way that she does--- basically just woke capitalism/ethical consumerism and not particularly radical in any way ("Trying to Buy the Right Thing").
User avatar
yljt
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:57 pm
Reputation: 136

Re: theory (from books)

Post by yljt »

^ hey thank you to you and seesaw for the recommendation. harvey's readings have been helpful so far (btw seesaw were you innit back on ct 1.0?).

can i kindly ask what inspired/inspires your enjoyment for gramsci? how did that enjoyment come about?

and nice re: derrida. and lol @ "dandy bullshit." a friend would say that his work is playful and can be usefully read as poetry, and i've grown to see his work in that way. i was part of a group early on in the pandemic that read specters of marx and monolingualism of the other. i enjoyed both a lot

derrida's thinking about the impure inheritance of marx is really interesting to me. a quick paraphrase: he'd say that no actor can claim to be the true inheritor of a intellectual/political legacy because the act of inheritance itself is less a "passive reception"* and more an active, selective act of appropriation. it's a useful and empowering idea to me, to think about my own inheritances as a function of my self and my historical conjuncture, without the worry of whether or not i am being a "true" leftist/marxist/whatever-ist

additionally it's useful to think through the problematic ways that certain communists will try to inherit marx ... (pretty sure that china, the state that they rabidly defend, is not communist in the way they desperately want it to be)

*nicole pepperell
User avatar
brücke
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:43 pm
Reputation: 289

Re: theory (from books)

Post by brücke »

yljt wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 2:20 pm
derrida's thinking about the impure inheritance of marx is really interesting to me. a quick paraphrase: he'd say that no actor can claim to be the true inheritor of a intellectual/political legacy because the act of inheritance itself is less a "passive reception"* and more an active, selective act of appropriation. it's a useful and empowering idea to me, to think about my own inheritances as a function of my self and my historical conjuncture, without the worry of whether or not i am being a "true" leftist/marxist/whatever-ist

additionally it's useful to think through the problematic ways that certain communists will try to inherit marx ... (pretty sure that china, the state that they rabidly defend, is not communist in the way they desperately want it to be)

*nicole pepperell
have you read anything from Chuang? chinese journal, they're like endnotes affiliated, really good stuff on the failures of the communist project in china.
Though taking the futureless present as our starting point, our first issue is also in a way performing burial rites for the dead generations who have populated the collapse of the communist horizon in East Asia.
I had this kinda trotskyist reader (From Marx to Gramsci) that was pretty useful as far as introductions go, getting into some more italian marxists lately (reading tronti's The Weapon of Organization rn) and actually reading Capital (harvey's companion is gr8). Not in any reading groups or anything so I'm probably doing myself a disservice, but I've been having fun with it
Image
User avatar
walks
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:53 pm
Reputation: 100

Re: theory (from books)

Post by walks »

Reading Capital is great, but Harvey's original work is at least as worthwhile, I think. Unlike a lot of marxists, he seems to really care about clarity. I remember reading Brief History of Neoliberalism around the same time as Hardt and Negri's Empire and found it to be much more potent at about a third of the length. I like the dandy bullshit as much as anyone else, but as I get older I'm coming to see how Agamben citations can have a dilutive effect.

I haven't read much theory theory since graduating college 5 years ago. With limited time to read and no obligation to write anything myself, I've found history and anthropology to be much more engaging lately. Especially, like, materially-oriented studies of markets, finance, and supply chains. But I've been thinking alot about individual ethics lately and have been going back to my favorite late Foucault lectures, will probably reread some of my favorite Agamben too after I move next month. Also want to return to Roberto Esposito's Bios; I remember finding it inscrutable in 2015, but I've never stopped thinking about it and his analysis of contemporary biopolitics seems more relevant now than ever. Also extremely excited to get through Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years this summer. If anyone is interested in reading along for Bios or Debt, drop a line

One question I can't work out; is the ideological project of Western academic theory deliberately ineffective or just misguided? When compared to conservative academic movements spearheaded by John Olin and others since the 1970s, the impact of poststructualism on the material conditions of Western culture is miniscule. If I was an alien observer, I might think the Federalist Society are the true Foucauldians. By concentrating their academic efforts on law schools, they produce ideas that can influence judicial decisions and therefore change the state of American (and worldwide) jurisprudence to advance the class interests of the wealthy. This seems to recognize the coextensivity of knowledge and power in a way that makes leftist academics*, who often seem more concerned with being right than being effective, look hopelessly mired in enlightenment rationality.

*present company excepted
seesaw
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:56 pm
Reputation: 129

Re: theory (from books)

Post by seesaw »

walks wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 5:28 pm
One question I can't work out; is the ideological project of Western academic theory deliberately ineffective or just misguided? When compared to conservative academic movements spearheaded by John Olin and others since the 1970s, the impact of poststructualism on the material conditions of Western culture is miniscule. If I was an alien observer, I might think the Federalist Society are the true Foucauldians. By concentrating their academic efforts on law schools, they produce ideas that can influence judicial decisions and therefore change the state of American (and worldwide) jurisprudence to advance the class interests of the wealthy. This seems to recognize the coextensivity of knowledge and power in a way that makes leftist academics*, who often seem more concerned with being right than being effective, look hopelessly mired in enlightenment rationality.

*present company excepted
I have a few responses to this:

1) What is the 'ideological project' of western academic theory and what does it mean for a theory to be 'effective'? (Note how unconsciously we measure the 'effectiveness' of a thing by quantifying its 'ends' or outcomes. Was May '68 a failure because it didn't radically alter the politics of France?)

2) 'Leftist academics' in the west are, by and large, salaried professionals who earn firmly middle-class or upper-middle class wages. They also bear enormous institutional power. The institutions in which they work are capitalist institutions and these institutions protect them. This isn't to say that there is no true Scotsman in the cultural studies department, but I find it hard not to roll my eyes at the Marxist that is reaping in 300k yearly (plus benefits!) and that hasn't been involved in any direct actions in over a decade.

3) To put it flat-footedly, theory demands a certain level of expertise before it becomes 'useful' in a strictly pragmatic sense. This is not elitism, but a simple acknowledgement that theory is a complex discourse and, like any other complex discourses, produces complex knowledges that won't be immediately accessible to a non-specialized audience. Similar to how I would be baffled upon reading a scientific paper about quantum mechanics, a general reader will likely get nothing from reading a book by any of the aforementioned dandies without doing the requisite homework. However, for reasons I do not fully understand, knowledges produced in the humanities are presupposed to be 'simple' such that anything that might appear complex is accused of being 'intentionally obscure'. I think that the virulent right-wing narrative that the humanities are 'infantile' or 'pointless' (read: not useful to the ruling class) has indoctrinated the masses into the mindset that the knowledges produced in the humanities are, in essence, elementary, and therefore when readers encounter a difficult piece of theory they immediately accuse it of obscurantism as a kind of ego-defense mechanism ("I am not lacking in expertise/skills, but rather the author is trying to confuse me!"). Society and culture are complicated and analyzing society and culture will necessarily yield difficult works. Is there any reason for these works to have quantifiable effects on the world? Why do we demand simplicity and clarity from the theorist and not the physicist? Is it even possible to "simplify" theory? The value of theory is, for me, its ability to spark debates and dissensus rather than orthodoxies. Its effects are difficult to track using the simple input-output logic of capital.
User avatar
bels
First Prestige
First Prestige
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:20 pm
Reputation: 332

Re: theory (from books)

Post by bels »

One question I can't work out; is the ideological project of Western academic theory deliberately ineffective or just misguided? When compared to conservative academic movements spearheaded by John Olin and others since the 1970s, the impact of poststructualism on the material conditions of Western culture is miniscule
Feels a bit convoluted, are the conservative academic movements spearheaded by Olin different from the Western academic theorists? What separates them?

That said, it feels telling that seesaw has to defend the fact that theory is obtuse when you never mentioned it. Why should the complexity of a piece of information have anything to do with material conditions on the ground? There's lots of complex wacky theory things that trickle down into reality, though admittedly I'm mostly thinking of science.
seesaw
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:56 pm
Reputation: 129

Re: theory (from books)

Post by seesaw »

bels wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 7:27 pm
That said, it feels telling that seesaw has to defend the fact that theory is obtuse when you never mentioned it.
"Why is theory so ineffective" (at effecting material change)?" is a question that gets asked a lot and answers to this question generally follow the logic of:

theory is abstruse, evasive and difficult to read -> theory is therefore apolitical (because being 'political' in this context means being distributable and digestible)

this is a very common line of reasoning that has lead to certain "clear writing" initiatives in various humanities departments as well as other ways of conducting research ("research creation"). i find that these types of discussions about the 'effectiveness' of theory inevitably link back to theory being hard to read although i grant that "walks" never accused theory of being obtuse and so i could just be projecting.

what interests me is the expectations we place on theory (vs other discourses) and why
User avatar
Trench Witch
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:06 pm
Reputation: 394
Contact:

Re: theory (from books)

Post by Trench Witch »

https://www.metamute.org/editorial/arti ... ence-force

Who says theory can't be influential? 8-)
I will never put my sword down
User avatar
bels
First Prestige
First Prestige
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 3:20 pm
Reputation: 332

Re: theory (from books)

Post by bels »

When will we create a practice (from books) thread.
User avatar
rjbman
Site Admin
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:48 am
Reputation: 82
Location: Boulder

Re: theory (from books)

Post by rjbman »

bels wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:49 pm When will we create a practice (from books) thread.
i mean jrisk did make a birds thread after reading how to do nothing
Image
~*~ cut my life into pieces, this is my last resort ~*~
User avatar
walks
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:53 pm
Reputation: 100

Re: theory (from books)

Post by walks »

seesaw wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 6:23 pm 1) What is the 'ideological project' of western academic theory and what does it mean for a theory to be 'effective'? (Note how unconsciously we measure the 'effectiveness' of a thing by quantifying its 'ends' or outcomes. Was May '68 a failure because it didn't radically alter the politics of France?)
Point taken that there's no central organizing body analogous to the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society that's publishing mission statements, but I feel that, broadly speaking, the majority of people who are invested in the academic humanities and marxist/leftist theory are generally interested understanding/opposing capitalism and the myriad power differentials that emerge thereunder. And, even though everyone's perspective, focus, discipline, conclusions, etc are different, there's a more-or-less commonly held belief that, by studying this stuff, we can eventually make something better in some way, shape, or form. To me, that seems coherent enough to be called an ideological project.

And while I agree that ends shouldn't have to be something you can quantify on a quarterly earnings report, I also don't think its controversial to say that everything the students were opposing has gotten worse in the half century between 68 and now. Is there a basis for calling 68 a success, even in qualified terms?
2) 'Leftist academics' in the west are, by and large, salaried professionals who earn firmly middle-class or upper-middle class wages. They also bear enormous institutional power. The institutions in which they work are capitalist institutions and these institutions protect them. This isn't to say that there is no true Scotsman in the cultural studies department, but I find it hard not to roll my eyes at the Marxist that is reaping in 300k yearly (plus benefits!) and that hasn't been involved in any direct actions in over a decade.
I agree completely with your class analysis. But if we cut out academic departments wholesale (and, for that matter, anyone financially dependent on the global art market or marketing industry) then what's left?
3) To put it flat-footedly, theory demands a certain level of expertise before it becomes 'useful' in a strictly pragmatic sense. This is not elitism, but a simple acknowledgement that theory is a complex discourse and, like any other complex discourses, produces complex knowledges that won't be immediately accessible to a non-specialized audience. Similar to how I would be baffled upon reading a scientific paper about quantum mechanics, a general reader will likely get nothing from reading a book by any of the aforementioned dandies without doing the requisite homework. However, for reasons I do not fully understand, knowledges produced in the humanities are presupposed to be 'simple' such that anything that might appear complex is accused of being 'intentionally obscure'. I think that the virulent right-wing narrative that the humanities are 'infantile' or 'pointless' (read: not useful to the ruling class) has indoctrinated the masses into the mindset that the knowledges produced in the humanities are, in essence, elementary, and therefore when readers encounter a difficult piece of theory they immediately accuse it of obscurantism as a kind of ego-defense mechanism ("I am not lacking in expertise/skills, but rather the author is trying to confuse me!"). Society and culture are complicated and analyzing society and culture will necessarily yield difficult works. Is there any reason for these works to have quantifiable effects on the world? Why do we demand simplicity and clarity from the theorist and not the physicist? Is it even possible to "simplify" theory? The value of theory is, for me, its ability to spark debates and dissensus rather than orthodoxies. Its effects are difficult to track using the simple input-output logic of capital.
Except for very few fringe cases (Nicolas Bourriaud comes to mind) I do not believe that academics are intentionally obscure, nor would I demand simplicity or clarity from them. But I don't think that complexity is incompatible with effectiveness. The Antitrust Paradox is as complicated as anything D&G ever wrote, but it fundamentally altered American regulation of monopoly power and economic concentration in empirically demonstrable ways. I totally agree that debates and dissensus are valid goals in and of themselves and that strict input-output judgment is inappropriate, but it also feels unsatisfying to say that any real world benefit of theory and discourse is too indefinite/qualitative/speculative to ever identify or evaluate with precision.

I don't want to seem like I'm asserting that left theory somehow "needs" to be effective in order to justify its existence or value. Most of the things I value in my life are not politically-effective mechanisms of change. But, as conservative legal and academic movements demonstrate, novel academic theory combined with the right forms of political organization can effect material change, so I still think its worth discussing why left theory doesn't have comparable influence and what, if anything, can be done about it. Maybe the answer is just that conservative groups explicitly serve the class interest of the wealthy and that they therefore have better access to capital, but if that single factor is dispositive in all cases, then the future of the left seems pretty bleak to me.
bels wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 7:27 pm Feels a bit convoluted, are the conservative academic movements spearheaded by Olin different from the Western academic theorists? What separates them?
Sorry for the imprecision, I was using "theory" as a catchall for critical-theory-influenced humanities and social sciences, which seem to have a near-universal leftward bend, as opposed to a donor-funded conservative academic movement that has mostly targeted American economics departments and professional schools (law, business, and public policy). Granted they all have the class interests that go hand-in-hand with tenure, but I think the two groups would generally profess to diverge on the question of whether finance capitalism is amenable to continued human progress.
seesaw
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:56 pm
Reputation: 129

Re: theory (from books)

Post by seesaw »

walks wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 10:36 pmsnip
Really good questions. My general (copout) answer would be that capitalist institutions are effective at breeding capitalist subjects, go figure. Does it matter that I've read Capital if I still need to complete 30 hours of "professional development training" to get my doctorate? Am I desperately trying to publish my shitty essays because I want to 'advance human knowledge' or because I'm trying to pad my CV for my future job search? I spend all day reading continental philosophy, perhaps the most esoteric shit to have ever been written, and yet my education is still somehow vocational. The philosophy department at my institution has a fucking co-op program. Universities are businesses that train workers. They serve a disciplinary function that isn't going to be challenged by English literature/cultural studies professors that include a few communists on their reading lists.

There is a basis for calling '68 a success (this is one of the main arguments of Anti-Oedipus, if you're interested).
User avatar
brücke
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:43 pm
Reputation: 289

Re: theory (from books)

Post by brücke »

Trench Witch wrote: Wed May 19, 2021 8:07 pm https://www.metamute.org/editorial/arti ... ence-force

Who says theory can't be influential? 8-)
just saw that zizek had written about this in his intro to On Practice and Contradiction (from 2007 lmao). point seems to be his standard like "what's important is the morning after the revolution" thing, can't beat capitalism just by revolutionizing lifestyles and dropping out, new slogans, etc.
This capitalist reappropriation of revolutionary dynamism is not without its comic side effects. It was recently made public that, in order to conceptualize the Israeli Defense Force’s urban warfare against the Palestinians, the IDF military academies systematically refer to Deleuze and Guattari, especially to A Thousand Plateaux, using it as ‘operational theory’ – the catchwords used are ‘Formless Rival Entities’, ‘Fractal Manoeuvre’, ‘Velocity vs Rhythms’, ‘The Wahhabi War Machine’, ‘Postmodern Anarchists’, ‘Nomadic Terrorists’. One of the key distinctions they rely on is the one between ‘smooth’ and ‘striated’ space, which reflect the organizational concepts of the ‘war machine’ and the ‘state apparatus’. The IDF now often uses the term ‘to smooth out space’ when they want to refer to operation in a space as if it had no borders. Palestinian areas are thought of as ‘striated’ in the sense that they are enclosed by fences, walls, ditches, road blocks, and so on:...

So what follows from all this? Not, of course, the nonsensical accusation that Deleuze and Guattari were theorists of militaristic colonization – but the conclusion that the conceptual machine articulated by Deleuze and Guattari, far from being simply ‘subversive’, also fits the (military, economic and ideologico-political) operational mode of contemporary capitalism. How, then, are we to revolutionize an order whose very principle is constant self-revolutionizing? This, perhaps, is the question today, and this is the way one should repeat Mao, reinventing his message to the hundreds of millions of the anonymous downtrodden, a simple and touching message of courage: ‘Bigness is nothing to be afraid of. The big will be overthrown by the small. The small will become big.’ The same message of courage sustains also Mao’s (in)famous stance towards a new atomic world war:
We stand firmly for peace and against war. But if the imperialists insist on unleashing another war, we should not be afraid of it. Our attitude on this question is the same as our attitude towards any disturbance: first, we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it. The First World War was followed by the birth of the Soviet Union with a population of 200 million. The Second World War was followed by the emergence of the socialist camp with a combined population of 900 million. If the imperialists insist on launching a third world war, it is certain that several hundred million more will turn to socialism, and then there will not be much room left on earth for the imperialists.43
It is all too easy to dismiss these lines as the empty posturing of a leader ready to sacrifice millions for his political goals (the extension ad absurdum of Mao’s ruthless decision to starve tens of millions to death in the late 1950s) – the other side of this dismissive attitude is the basic message: ‘we should not be afraid.’ Is this not the only correct attitude apropos of war: ‘first, we are against it; second, we are not afraid of it’? There is definitely something terrifying about this attitude – however, this terror is nothing less than the condition of freedom.
Image
User avatar
Trench Witch
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:06 pm
Reputation: 394
Contact:

Re: theory (from books)

Post by Trench Witch »

I'm not reading that (or anything in this thread)

Sorry!!!
I will never put my sword down
Post Reply