In light of the recent news that the Earth system has now reached a concentration of carbon dioxide of 400 ppm, added to the never-ending societal drip of mass extinction evidence and the seeming inability for anti-systemic movements to gain true traction against the vulgar capitalist counter-revolutionary forces in postmodern society, I am forced to begin to contemplate how to incorporate the inevitability of the increasing intensity of ecological crises and the connected climatic cycles of chaos that come with it, into my own research. However, the admonition of unavoidable climatic chaos and the connected ecosystemic destruction that is its evidence in motion, is anything but welcomed in the world of academic research.
Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels. These were the targets for 'stabilization' suggested not too long ago. The world is quickening the rate of accumulation of CO2, and has shown no signs of slowing this down. It should be a psychological tripwire for everyone.
– Dr. Michael Gunson
As a theorist who works within the social scientific paradigms of political science/ecology, world-systems analysis, and geophilosophy, and as a man who happens to think that the university setting is the most exciting, and potentially revolutionary space known to all humanity, I have to come to grips with the duality of activist/academic binary. A recent blog post entitled Theory and the Left: A Nighttime Reflection, by Matthijs Krul, a PhD student at Brunel University in the UK, focuses upon the "‘academic turn’ within Marxism – and radical thought more widely – as a corollary of the decline of a radical workers’ movement."(1) The undeniable negativity toward Marxists in the academic setting that is palpable at any street-level protest gathering is perhaps the best example of what we might call the alienation of the intellectual in American society.
I am an older student, at 42, finishing a Master's degree and headed to PhD studies next year, but I have arrived at this point after more than a decade of political and otherwise activism. Like all diehards I have spent some time in jail, been depressed by the lackluster turnouts at important events, and had long, painful debates with twenty-somethings about the supposedly "elitist" academic community. During the initial actions of the Occupy movement, I was told more than one time that my thoughts and suggestions (whether I was offering them or not) about more efficient ways of voting and/or deciding upon actions and goals within the movement, and not repeating the mistakes of earlier attempts in history, were unwelcome. "Just go back to the comfort of the institution, professor," I was once told by a kid of no more than 18, who seemed to already know all of the possible applications of Marxist theory to the Occupy Movement. Krul states: "it is often questioned whether academia itself is a worthwhile thing for Marxists to pursue and to engage with, and more strongly, whether Marxism today does not suffer from an excess of theory compared to a paucity of practice. The academic left is easily blamed for this perceived state of affairs; not just individually as Marxists, but especially as those responsible for perpetuating Marxism’s academic turn in the first place. Everyone is probably familiar with the exasperated activist’s complaint that all these supposed Marxists are just writing abstract stuff in the ivory tower and that they should come down to join the streets for a picket or a placard instead." The key phrase there is "perceived state of affairs," in that this perception is about as wrong as wrong gets.
So there it is, this massive frustration; this epistemic rift, if you will, between the "academy" and "society," or as I have suggested the activist/academic divide. This is where the problem of binary thinking is displayed in its full glory. Something is either 'A' or 'not-A', and therefore 'White' or 'not-White', 'Man or 'not-Man', etc., making for a dangerously simplistic logic that leads to what Foucault called 'dominant regimes of truth'. In other words, the activist/academic divide is never going to be transcended, as I argue it should be, if there must be a winner in this binary competition. It is a systemic problem, not an individualized human problem.
The ongoing systemic cycle of accumulation, as Giovanni Arrighi calls it, that has been underway since the dawn of modernity is at fault here. Simply put, theories don't turn a profit unless they are theories about how to turn a profit. Money does in fact grow on trees. Capital has been systematically extracted from the Earth and from human beings for as long as humanity has been active outside of roving bands of hunter-gatherers. The university, be it public or private, has been slowly engulfed by the lords of capital since the 1970s, and the last death-breathing challenge left is found in the hauls of geography, sociology, history, and critical theory programs all over the world. It should also be pointed out that this activist/academic divide is not a uniquely American phenomenon, though it might be argued that America exported the problem to the rest of the world, at least in regard to the commodification of the academic experience.
Returning to my issue at hand. I will be, if all goes to plan, beginning my PhD work in the Fall, during a time when it is widely acknowledged among climate scientists that we are now in a period of not only impending decline, but in the midst of a "mass extinction event," that will include tens of millions of humans. I believe there is light in this otherwise dark narrative. If the problem that the proverbial anti-academic activist, particularly the ecologically motivated, is that the university setting is one too divorced from actually existing political and otherwise reality, might the problem not lie with the academics at all, and instead lie in the question of society's valuation of the university? Might it also lie in the realization that in fact the university is the last wall of defense against the onslaught of vulgar capitalist accumulation? I argue yes on both accounts. The university should be seen as the direct location for the collective rebellion of humanity against the monster that is the capitalist world-system in decline. We know it is in decline partly because it is going after the university, a place previously relatively untouched by core capitalism.
I leave you with this, a different view of the university in society, the view of the university as the people's workshop. Take Detroit as an example. It is the first major American city to completely give out under the pressure of the neoliberal capitalistic development program. Meanwhile, not far away, in the wonderful little enclave of elitist education, lies Ann Arbor, where also lies the University of Michigan. Everything seems just great there. The grants keep coming in. That university, regardless of one's animosity towards it, is, under the surface, a budding workshop in the service of remaking society in the aftermath a hurricane of capital accumulation. My suggestion here is obvious: the 'university as workshop' is, in my opinion, the ONLY way to challenge and ultimately transcend the phenomenon of the activist/academic divide. Only then will the academic and the activist see their collective worth.
(1) http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11589
No comments:
Post a Comment