(no subject)

Nov 18, 2007 13:39

"The result of this closed cycle of production and reproduction of academic knowledge is further isolation, which in turn increases even more the separation of theory from practice, impedes the vaildation of each for the other, and prevents their fusion into a unified revolutionary project.
[...]
When the relation between theory and practice becomes an issue of concern in 'critical' and 'radical' academic schools the responses offered tend to reproduce the same individualistic logic governing the university structure and the isolated prooduction of theory; a logic product of the process of commodity fetishism that permeates even radical thought and overrides collective action within academia. Debates and articles thus exalt the importance of embracing activism and immersing ourselves in social groups projecting the image of the individual 'good academic' who makes theory with the people out there. [...] the problem with this approach is that it fails to engage in a unified critique of the separation between theory and practice, between the university and activism - thus [...] ending up idealising and commodifying the so-called marginal groups, and presenting this kind of activism as a nostrum."
(Mentinis, Mihalis (2006): Zapatistas: The Chiapas Revolt and What It Means for Radical Politics, p. 111)
Previous post Next post
Up