Cognitive Dissidents discussion

A very interesting thread posted by tENT-- passionate & ferocious & marvellously autobiographical-- too inspiring to pass w/out comment-- even if my own comment button denies this obvious imperative.

First-- to the ubiquitous & fallacious conflation of class priviledge & intellect/capability/etc. I recently engaged an individual of considerably more economic priviledge than myself in a discussion of social & political philosophy. Somehow it had come to her attention that I consider myself an anarchist. Her initial response was simply "You can't be an anarchist!" Somehow that eventually softened into a milder approach, with her asking "How can you be an anarchist?" Which was great for me, because I always love impossible task challenges-- in this instance the task being: convice someone that their fundamental understandings of who they are & how their actions constitute meaning are based upon principles contrary to their own potential for development at a very basic human level, contrary to many of the concepts they falsely believe that they serve, & essentially harmfull to practically everything that truly consitutes life.

So I put my best argument forward-- drawing on humanist psychology for an argument concerning the validity of rejecting both authoritarian and conformist forms of social connectedness-- drawing on social theory to demonstrate that ONLY direct forms of democracy within social organizations small enough for individual voices of difference & dissent to be heard & validated can constitute REAL communities-- drawing on history & philosophy in support of the idea that it is not the exception that individuals who find solace in the ideologically manufactured pleasures, ideals, stasis, & logic of the culture industry act against the truth of their own interests & well being but the rule. Basically, my response -- through all of the above--was "How can YOU not be an anarchist?"

Something interesting-- or odd-- happened in the discussion. In the course of my insistence of my own identification with the the oppressed, disenfranchised, & unrepresented, she insisted that I was in fact really a middle class subject & should recognize myself as such. Now, I would certainly be willing to engage that argument-- I've been to college-- though it didn't really work for me-- but I do have several degrees & a "decently paying job" (I'm not hungry)-- my job isn't largely constituted by manual labor (though I do some of that too). However, what was odd & interesting to me were the terms under which my belonging to this class were framed: I was clearly intelligent & intellectual & so whatever my "obstacles" had been I had "transcended" them in "joining" the middle class & upper crust intelligencia. In other words, the fact that I was perceived as "smart" was enough to dismiss my sense of belonging to a class which could not contain such individuals. To her that conflation was so powerfull that she saw my own sense of identification as a paradox.

Onwards to a bit of biography on my part. This class struggle for me has also-- perhaps unlike tENT's-- also been an internal one. I felt myself drawn to socialist principles when I first learned of them-- I was in the sixth grade. By the time I graduated from high school I had already used the word "anarchism" to describe both my social convictions & my sense of my own poetic practice. But I made a lot of bad decisions, very much found myself drawn by the siren call of capital-- in my case expressed as the desire to suceed in the university system-- reap the "rewards" & receive the "benefits" that could be conveyed by becoming part of the academic industry. & I pursued that course for some time, always with a sense that my radical political beliefs could find expression in that world-- that I could teach & impart those beliefs within the institution.

Perhaps for a time that made some sense-- while I was an undergraduate teaching first generation college students at SUNY Stony Brook. It became harder to maintain such a charade as an adjunct at Barnard college-- where it was fairly obvious that my "job" was really to ensure those with class priviledge could maintain & justify this within professions like my own.

But I don't think I could deal with this sense of inauthenticity-- this lie I had been telling myself-- very well. I left the situation after a series of severe psychotic episodes. Organic? Genetic? Chemical? Perhaps.. but also a welling up.. an internal revolt at where I was going, what I was leaving behind, who I really was.. who I really am. & whenever I tried to return to that former role that same unconscious spirit rose up & said "No, you don't belong here... try something else."

Today, I work with individuals who have had similar experiences-- all with diagnoses of "severe mental illness." I find it much more intellectually stimulating than my work within the university system ever was. & whether I am really a middle class subject or not by someone else's defintion concerns me very little. What I do today is my OWN form of class warfare-- & the unconscious spirit which rises up says "Go on, now you are at home."

Also a very interesting post. I hope for more replies from others too. Don? Erin? Unfortunately, my health is poor right now & writing is perhaps a strain I shdn't be putting on it. When I started writing "Class Warfare in Culture" yesterday it, of course, turned into a monstrosity BUT it's only the barest bones of a baby of a beginning. There are so many things I want to write more about, if only to clarify in my own mind what my strategies for overthrowing class society have been over the yrs, that it bothers me how MINIMAL yesterday's post is. I'm very glad that you've added yr own flesh & blood to the skeleton b/c yr own personal history is highly relevant.

I hate to reference a popular movie, BUT, I still find that "The Matrix" expressed it better than most by depicting humans as batteries for a machine they don't even know is there - w/ their 'reward' being a fantasy 'normal' 'reality'. To me, that's where we are now. I differ from "The Matrix" in the sense that I don't think the underground culture of techno culture, blah, blah, blah, is really such a powerful thing that it can undermine The Machine - it's too easily co-opted by it.

I think that the particular breed of Class Warfare in Culture that I've tried to practice has been less co-optible b/c its identity is too intrinsically threatening & too hard to pin down & turn into a commodity. But then I'm a fool. Neoism still tries to keep what it is & who the neoists are open to question enuf for a simulation of it to be too difficult. But, then, Stewart Home has had quite a success w/ defining neoism as he sees fits & increasing stupidity in the world as a result. I looked at a bit of something purported to be a BBC Luther Blissett documentary online recently & heard Stewart 'quoted'. No matter that the actual quote was from Monty Cantsin & that the actual Monty Cantsin in question WASN'T Stewart, eh? Hence, the deterioration of neoism continues.

As for what you're doing today being yr own form of class warfare, I'm w/ you 100% there, mate! & I'm proud to be friends w/ ya too!