[iDC] (no subject)

[Kevin Hamilton]

Well, the posts from Brian and Luis don't exactly set up a ground for 
discussion, but they do seem to demand a response. I'll give it a try.

First, I'll say that I hope there continue to be places like IDC where 
discussions and debates can take place between participants within and 
without the institutions on the table. To be specific, if discussions 
about education only take place between educators (or between educators 
and those looking for new workers), then education is doomed. For every 
thread on this list, the presence of listeners and posters from outside 
the immediate subject at hand is an indication of the attractiveness of 
Digital Media and collaborative practices in the present economy. This 
co-mingling is also a unique example, however, of discourses that have 
not yet been specialized into non-reflexive irrelevance.

But what is produced by reducing such discussions to strict dichotomies 
between those within, hoping to reform a particular world, and those 
without, having abandoned it? At even an immediate practical level, 
there are so many other possibilities on the continuum. Consider those 
who decide to work for only a few years in academia, or those who visit 
for a few days as part of a guest stint, or those who take support-staff 
jobs with no say on policy but with plenty of effect on daily 
conditions, or those who teach as adjuncts. Each of these points might 
be graphed not in terms of relative slavery (any of these positions, and 
perhaps most, could be described in terms of potentially exploitative 
labor), but in terms of what potentials they gain for influence, and 
which they lose. These potentials, like all of our disproportionately 
and often unfairly distributed powers, effect different conditions in 
different places at different times.

I wouldn't try to coax anyone over the line you describe Brian, nor 
would I argue that university workers are in positions to reform a whole 
system from within. I'm doubtful that there can ever exist, at least in 
the economies I know, a university or college whose practices are 
consistently just, productive, reflexive and vital. But aren't the 
experiences of those within these institutions, as students or workers, 
worth improving? Aren't the impact of universities on surrounding 
communities and global economies significant enough to merit 
constructive critique and reform? The way Brian and Luis have framed 
this, and perhaps the way I've responded, feels like a very tired 
argument about "working from within" vs "working from without." If 
that's all we have, then we're screwed. More importantly, the people who 
have less choice than I do about where to work or which educational or 
vocational path to take are screwed.

If I draw the line you've drawn for my students, Brian, then I lose any 
chance of offering alternatives. Then again, if you come as a visitor 
and draw such a line in a public talk, I have good material for 
sustaining productive debate and discourse among students. My point is 
that debate about the potential for reform of educational or research 
institutions is better located around relative locations of power and 
affect than around a clear identification of who's in and who's out.

I'll expand that example, to demonstrate what I think would be a more 
productive understanding of this debate. If we were to invite you to 
campus, Brian (and I know there would be many who would welcome such a 
visit, including myself), we could situate such a visit within a wide 
range of applications. Your work might be superficially employed toward 
communicating an insincere attitude of institutional self-critique to 
students, staff, or town residents. Your work might be educationally 
employed through introducing students to some particular ways of 
thinking and being in the world. Your aid might be requested, in 
exchange for monetary compensation, towards the service of curricular 
reform. That reform might be long-lasting, or a flash-in-the-pan, and I 
might have even invited you knowing that it would only accomplish a 
short-term impact. All of these possibilities and more exist way this 
side of an actual formal appointment. And the potential of your impact 
as a visitor has everything to do with the work we do to situate it for 
our colleagues and students. It's not a question of solitary political 
affect. Just as my potential for creating change as a professor is not a 
matter of solitary political affect.

This range of possibilities demonstrates the continuum that I think most 
of us live within, a range of admittedly highly prescribed and 
disciplined practices, within and without the institutions we come and 
go from. My sense from your work Brian is that you are used to looking 
at such a diverse world of action, and so my surprise at your post. 
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but I think the breadth of 
audiences on this list deserve a more nuanced, if equally critical, 
approach. I humbly suggest that the valuable critiques you offer, and 
which I value, will continue to find new ears only if the discourse is 
framed more inclusively.

-Kevin Hamilton


Brian Holmes wrote:
> i find this thread pretty interesting, also the "no subject" subject line
>
> camnitzer points out the total uselessness of trying to reform the 
> university system. indeed, one's very belief in its reformability 
> means one's availability for the infinite labor of reforming it. oh 
> the wonderful committee work! the results seem pretty clear: not only 
> does it continually get worse (hard to deny, no?) but also, no real 
> culture is produced in america anymore. people just submit and 
> recline, compromise forever, explain that it can't be any other way.
>
> on this list about a year ago, somebody explained that their students 
> had to get a job, so therefore, they had to teach them whatever is 
> required to survive in the system. nice justification for the status 
> quo, eichmann couldn't do any better either. oh boy i don't envy you 
> people very much with your university jobs. you are subject to almost 
> infinite mind control in the name of high ideals.
>
> the interesting thing in camnitzer's post is of course the idea of a 
> state within a state, a secret agenda, a fifth column, the informal 
> solution: secretly send the students to the subversive teachers and 
> hope that a few of them will come out human. problem is, the live ones 
> (teachers i mean) leave the system. the rest are slowly drained, 
> vampiric bloodletting, debilitation, they become robots. get a raise, 
> enjoy prestige, advance in the system. oh you'll reform it someday! 
> who believes that? all those who stay. what do they do? not much as 
> far as i can see.
>
> it's a paradox. if everybody with any ethics or desire jumps ship, the 
> whole thing is bound to remain in the hands of the most unprincipled. 
> if nobody jumps ship, everyone is caught inside and zombified to the 
> point where they can't produce any culture or human spirit. so you 
> think you know what side you should stand on? great, stand there, i 
> respect your choice. you think you know which side is the best side, 
> which side everyone should stand on? well, i suspect you're wrong. all 
> those of you in the university, i personally think you made a big 
> mistake, for exactly the reasons that camnitzer gives, and then a few 
> more. but the truth is for you to tell.
>
> best, brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity 
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>