RE: AUT: RE: fwd Ricercatori Precari

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stevphen,

Doesn't being able to work together has to assume
those differences are already apparent and talked
about openly? Because they will manifest in some
fashion at some points.  Highlighting 'what we
have in common' is, in my experience, often a
means to obscure the ways in which 'we' takes on
its given attributes at any time.  Not everyone's
take will be included in 'we,' there'll be
decisions about it. And those decisions will
either be resolved (by one argument being
sufficiently persuasive or dominating) or by
temporarily defering the conflicts that already
exist.

But what I don't think I quite understand is why
emphasising what 'we' have in common is assumed to
be a condition of effectiveness; because surely
the question that arises is by what criteria any
given action is judged as effective.  Two
people -- one of whom wants to restore tenure and
the other who wants to abolish the university --
can stand side by side at a picket-line.  I can't
see that emphasising their 'commonality' might
make for a better picket; but I have seen time and
again how the obverse is a recipe for disaster.  I
also can't see why one would want to pretend they
share either aims or politics for being there,
except in order to be able to represent that
picket externally, and for the purposes of
mediating it.  It should be possible to say
explicitly 'some of want a return to tenure, some
of us want to abolish the university.'  What would
be the precise benefits of not saying that?

In any case, my specific point before was that
there might be a shared idiom; but there are also
debates here about the relationship between
representation (or forms of organisation, or
subjectivities) and capital.  Commercialisation
and commodification isn't to my mind principally
about private funding of research.  When the
Precarious Researchers thing talks about "the free
exchange of knowledge," they're already there (in
their own metaphysical, idealised way).  I'd
rather they just printed t-shirts saying 'I'm a
commodity' or somesuch.  At least that way, they'd
undercut the priestly, transcendental
demarcatation of the university that is a
continuing obstacle to becoming more combative in
the universities, and a barrier to working with
those not in those institutions.

Angela

: as to the 2nd idea - about similar
: positions in critique but drawing
: otherise different conclusions, that
: makes a lot of sense. there are many
: people who have been drawn together by
: shared critiques of neoliberalism
: in general but are aligned much
: differently in alternatives. the question
: i would be concerned about is not how
: we can draw this sort of
: distinctions one can find with stronger
: more distinct lines, but how one
: can find common grounds between
: different positions and work together even
: if one has different positions.
:
: (please excuse spelling, a little drunk
: at the moment)
: cheers
: stevphen
:
:
:
: > : The last issue of Mute had a somewhat
: > : similar piece, opposing
: > : neoliberalization of education, which
: > : looked a little funny alongside
: > : a more astute piece by Tiziana Terranova.
: >
: > I'm starting to think there's a wierd moment
: > happening in politics. Critiques,
: whatever that
: > may mean, adopting a more or less
: shared idiom,
: > obscuring what are actually quite different
: > politics, and the debates between them.  Maybe
: > that's just my sense of it; but seems
: to me that
: > the bifurcation is along the lines of
: those who
: > 'get' a critique of civil society,
: the Free Eden
: > of Labour and so on and those who
: just don't see
: > the relations between exchange/meritocracy,
: > exploitation and capital.  Maybe it's that the
: > university (and culture industries)
: still runs on
: > the whiff of an oily feudalism.
: >
: >
: > Angela
: > _______________




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---