RE: AUT: excerpt from interview with Negri

["Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hmm...

well, let's check the good ole "Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary" (In case you didn't know, Reader's Digest is a bastion of radical thought):

co-opt (ko.opt')

1.  to elect as a fellow member of a committee

2.  to appoint; also, to preempt

3.  To make ineffectuaal as an instrument for radical change by incorporating within the established order: radicals coopted into running for elective office.

[Latin: cooptare <co = together> + <optare = to choose>]

-- "cooptation" or "cooption" n. ---"cooptative" adj.


What I was trying to get at when I was speaking of "cooptation" or "cooption" is a changing relationship  between different groups seeking some form of social change.  Perhaps hegemony would be a better term.  I think what I am getting at is a move towards unity in a liberal social democratic consensus, a move to the lowest common denominator, and further, the move towards institutionalized channels in seeking to adopt this consensus, while at the same time excluding those groups that refuse to adopt this consensus and these avenues.

Again, I must emphasize that this is based on my own specific experience in this part of the world.  I'm sure in other places are quite different.  Here, the "institutional left" was pushed to address a rising tide of militancy beginning in the mid-90s.  There were both direct and indirect ramifications.  Directly: activists were increasingly running for positions within insititutional channels, while refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of these institutions.  Indirectly, actions were increasingly organized above and beyond any institutional leadership. So distinguishing between an "institutional left" and a "more diverse and fluid" social movement as two distinct identities seems limited because these two are constantly bleeding into one another which might point to the limits of "cooption" as a description insofar as the integration of a non-institutional left into institutional channels is seen to be a one-way process.

Further, institutions were increasingly pushed to acknowledge that they did hold a monopoly over organizing action.  And so, what has become the focus of my studies lately, has been the push to acknowledge a "diversity of tactics", even within institutions.  Dialogue between the "institutional left" and activists was opened up in a manner that acknowledged and to some extent respected the autonomy of different groups (of course, it is important not to idealize this: of course, institutions attempted to assert control).

But it seems this push has peetered out to some extent.  For instance, it is increasingly becoming a struggle within institutions to acknowledge and respect the activity of groups that espouse direct action.  These groups are becoming isolated, losing funding and support, and explicitly targeted as "troublemakers".  Activists over here have become disengaged.  The extra-institutional left has faded, becoming much less visible.  Increasingly people are integrated into institutions, but they cannot draw on an extra-institutional movement and consequently move towards institutional solutions, drafting motions, demands, getting behind broader Popular Frontism in order to at least be able to assert demands, however watered down.

Protests these days have a different feel.  They seem more linear: the same march route, the same speakers, the same positions, the same canned music.  If I hear John Lennon being played one more time at an anti-war demo, I'll go crazy.  And as I asserted before, the move towards Anyone-But-ism.  George Bush has taken centre stage in Canada and the US.  The other day, I dropped by a bookstore and checked out the "Political" section, nearly every book was on George Bush.  I find it strange how fervently people are pushing George Bush as the focal point of political campaigns.  Further, Nader seems to be reviled even by anarchists for splitting the vote.  The Anybody-But campaign pushes a politics of the lowest common denominator which asserts a liberal-social-democratic leadership and pushes out anything that might oppose that leadership.

but I ramble...

--chris






>From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>Subject: RE: AUT: excerpt from interview with Negri

>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:23:30 +1100

>

>You'll have to ask Chris H what he meant by

>'co-option.'  I already said I'm not sure how

>useful a word it is, when used as a way to

>describe the relationships and conflicts between

>movements and the institutional Left.   As for any

>supposed traffic the other way: I don't think that

>movements always articulate demands or programmes,

>or rather: I don't think movements are defined by

>such. In those instances when the institutional

>Left echo particular demands, I can't think of

>examples where some refraction or translation has

>not occured which would make those demands

>amenable to the continuing preoccupations and

>self-perceptions of the institutional Left.  The

>distance which separates the two contains a

>critique in some fashion -- otherwise there would

>be no distinction, right?

>

>

>Angela

>

>

>: What do you mean by 'co-option'? Do you

>: mean the institutional left

>: 'co-opting' the more fluid movements?

>: Or the former coopting the

>: programs and demands of the latter?

>

>

>

>

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





--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---


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