It seems that my title “activism is the new theory” was somewhat misunderstood–or better, open to misunderstanding. I’ve had interesting comments via FB, email and word of mouth that made it seem worth following up the post today (by the way, if you feel nervous about posting a comment to the blog, you can email a comment to me and I can post it anonymously). If you’re not nervous do leave comments where everyone can see them:)
Objection one: isn’t “activist theory” just praxis by another name? Perhaps; but with a couple of caveats. Praxis is often described as something like the interaction of theory and practice, often with an able-ist quote of the “theory without practice is blind” variety attached. Or you can cite Marx: “the philosophers have only interpreted the world–the point, however, is to change it.”
For all that, the philosophy of praxis has tended to be more philosophy than praxis, especially in university contexts. On the other hand, I think it is perhaps the moment to leave philosophy to the philosophers. By suggesting that activism is the new theory, I didn’t mean it should replace theory. In rather compressed fashion, I meant that the highly privileged space afforded to “theory” in the academy might be replaced by activism, providing we take that to mean the “interface where we ‘do’ theory.”
Objection two: isn’t this is all wildly optimistic? Again, perhaps so. But if you look at the posts on debt, especially student debt, I am doubtful that you’ll find me so starry-eyed. I have spent my entire working life under the rhetorical shadow of crisis, from Thatcherism to the War on Terror and now the global financial crisis. I’ve been in left and social democratic political parties, pressure groups and even did some work for the Obama campaign.
I think this moment is different. The crisis is such that even as neoliberal austerity is clearly failing, a growth policy would only exacerbate climate change that is setting drought and temperature records daily. I’m still not pessimistic, because the global movement of which Occupy is a part has had more torque than anything I’ve seen. The very violence unleashed by the cops from coast to coast suggests that this movement gets under their skin in a different way. Once we give in to the pleasures of pessimism, though, it’s easy to read this as a “moment,” perhaps a transition. Since things started to move during the Arab Spring, it’s seemed to me that this is it–either there is change now or there isn’t for some long time to come.
I don’t pretend that this is all my idea. The 16 Beaver Group today circulated a very interesting text from 2005, a response from the Argentine Colectivo Situaciones to a set of questions from the Madrid-based Precarias a la Deriva, Precarious Women in the Dérive (Drift). Note that they were writing after the great wave of militancy in 2001 had passed. The Colectivo outlined their strategy of “research militancy” situated in tension with the “‘sad militant'” and the “detached, unchangeable ‘university researcher.'” Their goal:
a practice capable of articulating involvement and thought.
In a time when the phantasmagoria of common ground has dispersed, idealization of all kinds is problematic:
We think that the labor of research militancy is linked to the construction of a new perception.
This is precisely the project of my own work in all arenas. At the same time–because this project is after all not (yet) a collective one–I also agree with the Precarias
We consider as a primary problem to ‘start from oneself,’ as one among many, in order to ‘get out of oneself’ (both of the individual ego and the radical group to which one belongs) and encounter with any other resisting people [in order to] politicize life from within.
Research radicalism, a feminist politics of immediate experience, the necessity of a certain commitment, the awareness of the an-archive of refusal, all in a moment where uncertainty creates opportunity for new ways of thinking and doing–that’s what I mean by “activism is the new theory.” Call it what you like.