On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
Well. Depending on how expansive one's notion of "singularity" is, it
_was_ a singularity. And why shouldn't our notion of "singularity" be
expansive? (As Baudelaire wrote, "For doesn't anyone known to you, me,
and our friends justly deserve to be known as _famous_?" Or something
like that.)
I use "singularity" in the mathematical sense, to imply a point of
discontinuity. But the literary definition is equally applicable: "the
quality of being one of a kind", etc. Of course everyone deserves to
be famous, to celebrate, and so on. But not so at the cost
(intentional or otherwise) of others involved in the same or similar
struggles.
I believe we understand the distinction when this sort of claim is
employed on the other end: "9/11 changed the world", "9/11 changed
everything", "your view is so pre-9/11", "the world will never be the
same again after 9/11". In truth, 9/11 was an even in a continuum of
worldwide violence, the world was much the same before and after. One
could retort: why don't you ask the Iraqis? But I think that would be
naive -- if the West had not attacked Iraq due to a lack of 9/11,
their force would have been employed elsewhere.
Not long after Seattle there was a conference in Bangkok of NGOs
working on trade, mainly Thai groups. Some of the students there came
up to me and said, "I heard you were in Seattle." Like, you were at
Woodstock. So that seems to me like some good evidence for
"singularity." As I listened to their conversations - not speaking any
Thai - it seemed to me they were saying - "Blah blah blah - Seattle.
Blah blah blah - Seattle."
Well, that's good. But by that same token: when I last visited India
(post "Seattle"), when the farmer suicide issue was all the rage, I
asked a Marxist and farmer/labour activist in Bangalore what the
impact and impression of "Seattle" was, and the response was anything
but the above.
My point here is not to belittle what occurred in Seattle, downplay
its importance, or deny its place in the history of struggle. And if
it provides you means of informing and organising the public, I am
happy to hear that. What I do find troubling is when people like
Chuck, or Nathan Newman in a different context, argue that somehow
this or some other particular action stands apart and above other
similar struggles in *value* (it might in outcome, but outcomes have a
large contingent factor to them). And I think hagiography (if I may
misuse the term a bit) tends to overplay this sort of attitude and
underemphasise the global and continuous nature of such "revolution"s.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
