Hawthorn Archive

F. Gordon Avery

Description

The Hawthorn Archive, named after the richly fabled tree, has long welcomed the participants in the various Euro-American social struggles against slavery, racial capitalism, imperialism, and authoritarian forms of order. The Archive is not a library or a research collection in the conventional sense but rather a disorganized and fugitive space for the development of a political consciousness of being indifferent to the deadly forms of power that characterize our society. Housed by the Archive are autonomous radicals, runaways, abolitionists, commoners, and dreamers who no longer live as obedient or merely resistant subjects.In this innovative, genre- and format-bending publication, Avery F. Gordon, the "keeper" of the Archive, presents a selection of its documents-original and compelling essays, letters, cultural analyses, images, photographs, conversations, friendship exchanges, and collaborations with various artists. Gordon creatively uses the imaginary of the Archive to explore the utopian elements found in a variety of resistive and defiant activity in the past and in the present, zeroing in on Marxist critical theory and the black radical tradition. Fusing critical theory with creative writing in a historical context, The Hawthorn Archive represents voices from the utopian margins, where fact, fiction, theory, and image converge.Reminiscent of the later fictions of Italo Calvino or Walter Benjamin's Arcades Project, The Hawthorn Archive is a groundbreaking work that defies strict disciplinary, methodological, and aesthetic boundaries. And like Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination, which established Gordon as one of the most influential interdisciplinary scholars of the humanities and social sciences in recent years, it provides a kaleidoscopic analysis of power and effect. The Hawthorn Archive's experimental format and inventive synthesis of critical theory and creative writing make way for a powerful reconception of what counts as social change and political action, offering creative inspiration and critical tools to artists, activists, scholars across various disciplines, and general readers alike.

Sujets

• Sociology
• Literary theory

Informations

• Publié par: Fordham University Press
• Date de parution: 31 octobre 2017
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780823276332
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 107 Mo

Extrait

The Hawthorn Archive

The Hawthorn Archive

Letters from the Utopîan Margîns

Avery F. Gordon

Fordham Unîversîty Press New York 2018

Copyrîght © 2018 Avery F. Gordon

A rîghts reserved. No part of thîs pubîcatîon may be reproduced, stored în a retrîeva system, or transmîtted în any form or by any means — eectronîc, mechanîca, photocopy, recordîng, or any other — except for brîef quotatîons în prînted revîews, wîthout the prîor permîssîon of the pubîsher.

Fordham Unîversîty Press has no responsîbîîty for the persîstence or accuracy of URLs for externa or thîrd-party Internet websîtes referred to în thîs pubîcatîon and does not guarantee that any content on such websîtes îs, or wî remaîn, accurate or approprîate.

Fordham Unîversîty Press aso pubîshes îts books în a varîety of eectronîc formats. Some content that appears în prînt may not be avaîabe în eectronîc books.

Vîsît us onîne at www.fordhampress.com.

Lîbrary of Congress Contro Number: 2017937230.

Prînted în Chîna 19 18 17 5 4 3 2 1 Fîrst edîtîon

A Note about the Archive

Thîs book contaîns a seectîon of îtems from the Hawthorn Archîve. The Haw- thorn Archîve îs an îmagînary and rea înfrastructure for înteectua work. It mîght best be conceîved as an îdîosyncratîc methodoogy for a research-based wrîtîng practîce whose maîn coaborators over tîme came from a segment of the contemporary art word and whose motîvatîon has been to ind some shared anguage for the margîna- îzed utopîan eements found în a varîety of resîstîve and deiant actîvîty în the past and în the present. The focus of the book îs a kînd of conscîousness I ca beîng în-dîfference and how ît can be deveoped and sustaîned în practîce. Beîng în-dîfference îs a poîtîca con- scîousness and a sensuous knowedge: a standpoînt and a mîndset for îvîng on better terms than what we’re offered, for îvîng as îf you had the necessîty and the freedom to do so. By better, I mean a coectîve îfe wîthout mîsery, deady înequaîtîes, mutatîng racîsms, socîa abandonment, endess war, poîce power, authorîtarîan governance, het- eronormatîve împosîtîons, patrîarcha rue, cutura conformîty, and ecoogîca destruc- tîon. The book’s modes of înquîry and presentatîon fuse crîtîca theory wîth creatîve wrîtîng în a hîstorîca context: fact, ictîon, theory, and îmage speak to each other în an undîscîpîned envîronment to better understand the ways — some ordînary, some not — peope have earned to îve wîthîn and agaînst a those systems of domînatîon whîch, despîte theîr overwhemîng power, never quîte overtake or become us. The Hawthorn Archîve: Letters from the Utopîan Margînstakes a form that îs neî- ther quîte academîc nor artîstîc but somethîng în between, a form borne of faîure and a form that îtsef faîs în many crucîa ways. In the few pages that foow, I provîde some context for îts form and touch on some of îts key themes. For readers who woud prefer to begîn în the word of the Hawthorn Archîve, skîp ahead to the contents page.

v

the story of the failed academic book

After I inîshed wrîtîngGhosty Matters: Hauntîng and the Socîoogîca Imagîna- tîonîn the mîd-1990s, I started two arge projects. One was a study of capîtaîst cuture desîgned to take shape as an exhîbîtîon styed for a natura hîstory museum under the presumptîon that capîtaîsm was extînct, whîch was somewhat înspîred by the Museum of Jurassîc Technoogy în Los Angees, Caîfornîa. Poory conceîved as a sînge-author project and struggîng to hod on to the fantastîc presumptîon at îts heart, ît dîed quîcky and was superseded by my învovement în the antîprîson efforts spearheaded by Crîtîca Resîstance, athough there îs somethîng of a ong-ost remnant of ît în the Hawthorn Archîve, încudîng îts antîquated styîstîcs. The second project was a reatîvey norma academîc book wîth the workîng tîte In the Shadow of the Bottom Lîne, whose purpose was to redeine what utopîan thînkîng and practîce has meant and coud mean îf, for exampe, savery and prîson aboîtîon or the Jubîee antîdebt movement were specîmens or exempars of ît. Thîs project was prompted în part by questîons eft open at the end ofGhosty Mattersand by the domî- nant eft înteectua dîscourse at the tîme, whîch presumed that poîtîca dîsobedîence was eîther dead or îneffectîve —“merey utopîan” ît was saîd — and whîch mîrrored the trîumphaîsm of the New Rîght’s “End of Hîstory” caîm made famous by Francîs Fukuyama în 1992. The dîagnosîs of a cosed poîtîca unîverse as the pînnace of crîtî- ca thought and capîtaîst word cîvîîzatîon seemed to me profoundy wrong, înaccu- rate, and dîsconnected from what was happenîng în the word. Athough a chaenge to tradîtîona eft poîtîca modes and expectatîons, arguaby there was more resîstance by dîverse peopes across the gobe than at any other tîme în modern hîstory, a condî- tîon that, în my vîew, ony încreased subsequenty, as the tîte of Notes from Nowhere’s 2003 book about goba antîcapîtaîst strugges,We Are Everywhere, announced. At the tîme, I was struck by how unprepared so many radîca înteectuas were to see, much ess treat as theoretîcay vauabe, what seemed to me, a hîstorîca moment that mîght have sparked theîr poîtîca îmagînatîons. One probem that surey contrîbuted to thîs dîsconnect was the conventîona deinîtîona meanîng of the termutopîa: the future perfect no-pace îmagîned as a îtte natîon engîneered by whîte mîdde-cass reformers and peoped wîth homogeneous popuatîons wîthout conlîcts or compîcated psychîc îves. I was înterested to know îf the utopîan coud be made to mean somethîng ese, somethîng more usefu than the “merey” în a sîgnîicant perîod of poîtîca-economîc retrenchment and resîstance to ît. And, so irst I went ookîng în the Western hîstory and theory of utopîa for a utopîanîsm that dîdn’t înhabît the anxîous ambîvaence that the Marxîst dîsmîssa of utopîan socîaîsm as nothîng more than a kînd of “mîsh-mash” had passed on to generatîons of radîca crîtîcs as sophîstîcated common sense. (It was Enges who caed utopîan socîaîsm a “mîsh-mash”: he’s goîng to put socîaîsm on a

vi a note about the archive

scîentîic footîng and mîsh-mash wî not do.) What I found was a deinîtîona word or dîscourse of utopîa wîth a deepy racîaîzed hîstorîography and a narrowy excusîve set of îterary, aesthetîc, phîosophîca, hîstorîca, and socîoogîca references. The Marxîst tradîtîon was ony one înteectua orîgîn poînt of the probem and în fact was more toerant and învîtîng than îts crankîer heîrs et on. The îmîtatîons of the hîstorîca and îterary boundarîes of the referentîa ied were very pubîcy exposed în 2000 when the New York Pubîc Lîbrary joîned forces wîth France’s Bîbîothèque natîonae to 1 mount a arge exhîbîtîon, onîne archîve, and pubîcatîon program. Quîte strîkîngy, Utopîa: The Search for the Idea Socîety în the Western Wordtreated the genocîda set- ter coonîaîsm that founded the so-caed new word as a successfu utopîan enterprîse whîe absentîng entîrey what Peter Lînebaugh and Marcus Redîker ca the “many- headed hydra” of the seventeenth-century “revoutîonary Atantîc.” The many-headed hydra — saves, îndentured servants and maîds, prîsoners, conscrîpts, pîrates, saîors, reîgîous heretîcs, woodcutters, water carrîers, prostîtutes, îndîgenous peopes, com- moners, runaways, deserters, and vagabonds — a those and theîr descendants who dared to chaenge the makîng of the modern word capîtaîst system were competey învîsîbe, burîed under the weîght of a trîumphant modernîty and the specter of Staîn- îst socîa engîneerîng. The îbrarîes relected the state of the ied. The utopîan as we have come to know ît încudes the French and Amerîcan Revoutîons, but not the thîrty-year war waged by the Back and Red Semînoes agaînst the Unîted States or any subsequent Fourth 2 Word refusas. It încudes Kar Marx, who absoutey hated the îdea, but not Chrîstîan Prîber, a German socîaîst exîe who joîned the Cherokee Natîon în 1736, was captured by the Brîtîsh because he refused to decare oyaty to them or the French, heped to unîte the Southern Indîan Natîons în what was then Cherokee Terrîtory, and ater dîed în a South Caroîna prîson. The utopîan as we know ît încudes: the Engîsh craftsman Wîîam Morrîs but not the Afrîcan Amerîcan worker, the sef-named “Back Boshe- vîk” Harry Haywood; the phîosopher Ernst Boch’s dreamy antîcîpatîons but not the wrîter and theorîst C. L. R. James’s phîosophy of happîness. The utopîan as we know ît încudes femînîst Frances Wrîght’s faîed and deepy lawed aboîtîonîst experîment at Nashoba în Tennessee în the 1820s but not one exampe of any înstance of marron- age în the entîre Amerîcas. Brook Farm and numerous whîte mîdde-cass separatîst communîtîes are part of îts known egacy but not the mutîcutura Combahee Rîver Coectîve or the many coaîtîona coectîves îke them. The utopîan as we know ît încudes Ursua K. Le Guîn’s off-word anthropoogy but not Tonî Cade Bambara’s 3 în-the-here-and-now communîty studîes. The exampes can be mutîpîed. After spendîng a good amount of tîme în these archîves, ît became cear that there was an excusîonary zone of tremendous magnîtude and that ît was precîsey în that zone or bînd spot where we mîght ind, îf we were prepared to or antîcîpatîng ît, those “fugîtîve moments of comprehensîon” that coud yîed a geneaogy of and paradîgms for more adequate hîstorîes and theorîes of the many rea and îmagînary strîvîngs for a

a note about the archive vii

4 îvabe and humane socîa exîstence. For în that zone of excusîon, we ind a utopîan thought and practîce whîch îs as transnatîona as ît îs oca; whîch îs as orîented to the present and the past as ît îs to the future; whîch îs as comfortabe wîth wîd specua- tîon as ît îs wîth coectîve movements; whîch substîtutes compexîty for perfectîon; whîch prîvîeges dîversîty over homogeneîty; whîch treats the sef and socîety as equay împortant objects of socîa transformatîon; and whîch offers enrîched and încusîve no- tîons of freedom, sovereîgnty, and happîness. In that zone of excusîon, the utopîan îs a standpoînt for the here and now — not ony the future — whîch regîsters and încîtes the works, the thoughts, and the better words înhabîted by those who aways, as Ray- mond Wîîams put ît, “meanwhîe carry on.” I thought then and stî do thînk that we need a better vocabuary for namîng and descrîbîng the aternatîve îves we coud be îvîng and that at smaer scaes many of us aready do. My întentîon was to excavate what I started caîng the other utopîanîsm and îts dîstînct onto-epîstemoogîca affects, tracîng îts hîstorîca roots în saves runnîng away, marronage, pîracy, heresy, wîtchcraft, vagrancy, vagabondage, rebeîon, soder deser- tîon, and other often îegîbe, îegîtîmate, or trîvîaîzed forms of escape, resîstance, opposîtîon, and aternatîve ways of îfe. Thîs other utopîanîsm produces “temporary autonomous zones,” to use Hakîm Bey’s phrase, that ook ess îke the tradîtîona rura separatîst communîty (athough these have been reemergîng în new ways throughout Europe) and more îke what socîoogîst Asef Bayat cas the “quîet encroachment” of the word’s urban poor, creatîng new îfe-forms în the înterstîces of organîzed aban- donment by the state. Thîs other utopîanîsm îs marked by a rejectîon of îndîvîduaîza- tîon as subjectîicatîon wîth îts attendant consumerîsm and by cooperatîon orîented 5 toward the “human strîke.” Thîs other utopîanîsm îs îmmanent, often modeed best by those bound în pace and tîme and ackîng the capacîty to escape, such as prîson- ers. Thîs other utopîanîsm creates fera economîes that are based on not workîng as we know work as a means of expoîtatîon and aîenatîon, oca barterîng, unauthor- îzed tradîng, theft, and nonstandard currencîes, a of whîch dîspace the productîvîst ethos Marxîsm and socîaîst tradîtîons have ong favored. Thîs other utopîanîsm îs characterîzed by both dîrect actîon agaînst and nonpartîcîpatîon în îbera democratîc state poîtîcs, by varîous forms of refusa, încudîng the boycott and the occupatîon wîthout demands. Thîs other utopîanîsm, audacîous în îts assertîons, gestures toward an aternate unîverse or cîvîîzatîon, ong în the makîng, emergîng out of and recedîng back înto the shadows as needed, sometîmes înkîng îts varîed tradîtîons and strands în soîdarîty and feowshîp, sometîmes bady înternay broken. Needess to say, the reatîvey norma academîc book on the other utopîanîsm wîth îts encycopedîc references, case study aboratorîes, and theoretîca geneaogîes faîed to materîaîze. It faîed to materîaîze as utopîan studîes and actua sef-descrîbed utopîan experîments grew, makîng more room for what Davîna Cooper cas “every- 6 day utopîas” and for a much more sophîstîcated and lexîbe notîon of the utopîan. It

viii a note about the archive

faîed to materîaîze as Ruth Levîtas and Erîk Oîn Wrîght, two împortant senîor scho- ars în my ied, gave socîoogy a strong mandate to make utopîa a egîtîmate object of 7 study îf not to îtsef become a utopîan scîence. It faîed to materîaîze as queer studîes 8 embraced the term wîth vîgorous attentîon. It faîed to materîaîze as a mînî academîc îndustry deveoped that was far more wîîng to embrace a anguage of utopîanîsm to descrîbe the new anarchîsm, horîzontaîsm, and îmmanent poîtîcs that emerged out of a major cyce of goba socîa movement actîvîty orîented around the Zapatîstas, the antî- and ater-gobaîzatîon movement of movements, and more recenty the varîous commoners andoccupados. It faîed to materîaîze despîte these împortant poîtîca and schoary deveopments because I was spendîng a ot of tîme researchîng, wrîtîng, and teachîng about împrîsonment and war escaated and — even în the company of deter- mîned and înspîrîng prîson aboîtîonîsts — I found ît dîficut to focus on the utopîan as a reatîvey norma schoary project în that sîtuatîon, whîch fet îke trîage. It took me onger than ît shoud have taken to reaîze — în retrospect ît’s easy to augh about ît — that a the detours and dîficutîes I had gettîng a secure grasp on the utopîan proj- ect was exacty the utopîan practîce I was tryîng to understand and ind a anguage for. But even thîs beated recognîtîon dîdn’t yîed the coherence and comprehensîve- ness expected of a reatîvey norma academîc book and a start-and-stop approach that produced fragments and repetîtîon was exacerbated to the breakîng poînt by workîng încreasîngy în a segment of the art word whose mode of productîon requîres every- thîng to be wrîtten faster, shorter, and wîth a ot fewer footnotes; sometîmes, I thînk, not even wrîtten to be read în the way schoars read but rather to be contempated îke an înterestîng object. (It woud take a ong essay I am not competent to wrîte to înteîgenty assess the contradîctory nature of wrîtîng în and for the contemporary art word today. As someone who îs neîther an artîst nor an art hîstorîan, crîtîc, or cura- tor, I have enjoyed beîng wecomed as an outsîder and beîng spared the need to be- come a knowedgeabe însîder. The sophîstîcatîon of research-based art practîces, the horîzontaîzatîon of conceptua theoretîca work, the wîdespread sef-organîzatîon of artîsts for earnîng and pubîcatîon, and the actîve poîtîcîzatîon of many artîsts create spaces for productîve conversatîons and coaboratîons wîth others, such as mysef. In the best of cîrcumstances these condîtîons permît somethîng of pîoneerîng art educa- tor Adrîan Rîfkîn’s “gestura pedagogy,” whîch îs based not on “enforced înforma- tîon” [hîerarchîca înequaîty] or “equaîty of knowedge” [sameness] but rather on an “equîvaence of îgnorance.” That’s to say, one brîngs somethîng wîthout requîrements to the meetîng where what’s shared îs the înterest în whatever occasîons the meetîng în 9 the irst pace.) In the end, whatever ese was pushîng and puîng, I thînk the norma academîc book faîed because the representatîona form I had chosen was not rîght. It was not, I hesîtate to say, utopîan enough, even though some woud caîm that both îts grandîose ambîtîon and îts contînuous faîure to materîaîze were perfecty paradîg- matîcay utopîan.

a note about the archive ix