Tim Bousquet writes:
>I think the difference is that I don't get paid to
>only sit around and think about it, and dream up
>theories and so forth. I very much enjoy being a
>lookie-loo on this list, but many of the arguments and
>the things people find important simply escape me.
>Maybe that reflects my lack of eduaction, but I think
>that in no small part it reflects you academics'
>disconnect with the real world. No offense intended;
>I'm learning a lot just reading through my hundreds of
>PEN-l messages, but I often find the list, well,
>arcane and obscure. I hold a broad marxist view of the
>world and am willing to keep it at that while trying
>to relate to the broad populace through my newspaper.
>I find discussion about 17th century Latin America
>interesting, but it's a long, long way from an
>interesting read on the Incas to encouraging Butte
>County workers to organize against their employers, to
>give just one example.
>
><snip>
>
>Isn't the point to have some of real effect on the
>world, as opposed to being caught up in discussion
>group with no apparent relevance?
To my mind, both academic-theoretic stuff and journalistic stuff are
needed. Since my father was in the newspaper business (on the industry
self-regulation end) and I've long admired I.F. Stone, I have a lot of
respect for the journalistic job (though you've got to admit that a lot of
journalism is dreck, though it's often not the journalist's fault).[*]
Also, my abstract theory tells me that it's absolutely necessary to be
concrete, specific, and real-world oriented. But my natural personal
tendency is to be abstract (I have a poor memory for details unless they
make sense theoretically). Thus, a certain amount of division of labor is
needed -- which in turn requires a constant dialogue between the abstract
theorists and the concrete journalists. Both can criticize each other, but
within the spirit of dialogue (among those with leftist goals and principles).
I think it's a mistake that some -- not Tim -- use concrete and empirical
references to go beyond criticism to actually try to shut down serious
theoretical thinking. That's the mirror-image of those academics who want
to wallow in abstract theory and never dirty their hands with the "real
world." Either tack prevents dialogue and the development of a greater
understanding of what's going on, preventing a clarification of political
principles, goals, strategy, and tactics.
[*] For example, at a Black Panther Party rally that I attended in the
1970s, an Associated Press reporter explained to me that his employers
weren't interested in anything but what Elaine Brown -- the Party leader at
the time -- said. The number of other people, what other speakers said,
etc., etc., were ruled out ahead of time from being newsworthy. Of course,
it there had been violence, it would have been reported.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
