Politics in the future tense
I think I came to a question that has been haunting a few decisions that I have to make soon.
I find a tendency in academic literature, or legal review literature to speak in terms of the future along a linear path. What will become when…XXX occurs. For instance, I read a paper today about the supplement of ecofeminism to traditional scientific research. Discussion of what WILL happen when this supplement comes about took up much of the space. Also, in legal practice, or debate, people speak or write in terms of the impact of legislation, or the ballot on the world. The discussion is politics, but only politics about more genuine political action. It gives a sense of deferral to actual reality, rather than embracing what gets enacted in speaking. I think this has three main impacts
First, concerning scale and space. This way of talking removes space for the individual to act in politics. By assuming a ‘more real’ time and space for politics, the academic gets sidelined in the rush to get to real change. Academia can’t avoid politics, but by transforming it into a tool, model or description of where real change happens, academia at least ignores its politics.
Also, style. The assumption of a neutral or universal space of action removed from the writer’s immediate vicinity changes their style of writing. They speak to the universal audience or potential legislators, and in doing this, mold their writing style to the dominant form, to facilitate acceptance by those people.
I thought there was a third, but I was wrong. I also understand I contradicted myself from posts before. If this makes any sense, read Normative and Nowhere to Go, by Schlag because it’s funny if nothing else.
I find a tendency in academic literature, or legal review literature to speak in terms of the future along a linear path. What will become when…XXX occurs. For instance, I read a paper today about the supplement of ecofeminism to traditional scientific research. Discussion of what WILL happen when this supplement comes about took up much of the space. Also, in legal practice, or debate, people speak or write in terms of the impact of legislation, or the ballot on the world. The discussion is politics, but only politics about more genuine political action. It gives a sense of deferral to actual reality, rather than embracing what gets enacted in speaking. I think this has three main impacts
First, concerning scale and space. This way of talking removes space for the individual to act in politics. By assuming a ‘more real’ time and space for politics, the academic gets sidelined in the rush to get to real change. Academia can’t avoid politics, but by transforming it into a tool, model or description of where real change happens, academia at least ignores its politics.
Also, style. The assumption of a neutral or universal space of action removed from the writer’s immediate vicinity changes their style of writing. They speak to the universal audience or potential legislators, and in doing this, mold their writing style to the dominant form, to facilitate acceptance by those people.
I thought there was a third, but I was wrong. I also understand I contradicted myself from posts before. If this makes any sense, read Normative and Nowhere to Go, by Schlag because it’s funny if nothing else.
posted by Duncan at 9:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home