I am very reluctant nowadays to give out my views on the subject of
poetics, the self and society: even more, and more so, in the field of
poetry applied to politics.
I wish to see what the list can do without my theories....
Erminia
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:50:47 +0000, cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> I think the Amalgamated Union of Shamans, Possessed Persons and
Soothsayers
>> might disagree on this.
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>would I know it if i heard it:)
>
>on your other slightly more prepossessing than possessed points, but
perhaps
>only slightly more
>
>singing the individual voice in terms of identity politics is used in an
>oppressive way too. Isn't it something that Thatcher promoted - no such
>thing as society only the individual? Yes I'm conflating two iniquities.
I'm
>not about trying to take anybody's inalienable right to individual voice
>away from then.
>
>Jackson MacLow and John Cage have proved that non-egoic work is impossible
>in any case. All of these desperate attempts to rubbish their work on the
>basis of attacks on subjectivity are plain silly. They made choices and
>choices and choices throughout their work. So the individual voice is with
>us full stop. Now what other voices can be? What other shifters even feel
>possible. Much as there is the little i, there is a specific 'we'.
>
>I'd suggest that radical politics can also lie (and lie:)) in attempts to
>forge the sharable. Trust is nothing to do with names, let alone brands.
>Trust is in the work or it is nowhere.
>
>What is driving this apparent anxiety about authorial authenticity? You've
>taken a passing conversation about collaborative authorships and co-
writing
>and twisted it into an attack on individual identity fueled by class
hatred.
>
>Well that leaves modes of folk production and ideas on copyleft and open
>source in a heap at the side of a terrifyingly demarcated road in which
>nothing changes, nothing can be shared, there can never be any trust
>whatsoever and ownership is aligned with the irreducible interiority of
>individuality. That's a bad place Dave.
>
>My interest is first aroused by the work. I see the opposite as being
every
>bit as problematic. That way lies canons and canon formations and
hegemonies
>and cliques and suchlike. Sure, some mud can be slung in the reverse
>direction (at cliques and canons and . .). But the critical mass of
anxiety
>lies with individuals standing around in their vested interests.
>
>somewhat overegging the pudding here too
>
>
>love and love
>cris
|