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.
Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,1950€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.
A rîghts reserved. No part of thîs pubîcatîon may be reproduced, stored în a retrîeva system, or transmîtted în any form or by any means — eectronîc, mechanîca, photocopy, recordîng, or any other — except for brîef quotatîons în prînted revîews, wîthout the prîor permîssîon of the pubîsher.
Fordham Unîversîty Press has no responsîbîîty for the persîstence or accuracy of URLs for externa or thîrd-party Internet websîtes referred to în thîs pubîcatîon and does not guarantee that any content on such websîtes îs, or wî remaîn, accurate or approprîate.
Fordham Unîversîty Press aso pubîshes îts books în a varîety of eectronîc formats. Some content that appears în prînt may not be avaîabe în eectronîc books.
Vîsît us onîne 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 seectîon of îtems from the Hawthorn Archîve. The Haw-thorn Archîve îs an îmagînary and rea înfrastructure for înteectua work. It mîght best be conceîved as an îdîosyncratîc methodoogy for a research-based wrîtîng practîce whose maîn coaborators over tîme came from a segment of the contemporary art word and whose motîvatîon has been to ind some shared anguage for the margîna-îzed utopîan eements 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 deveoped and sustaîned în practîce. Beîng în-dîfference îs a poîtîca con-scîousness and a sensuous knowedge: 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 coectîve îfe wîthout mîsery, deady înequaîtîes, mutatîng racîsms, socîa abandonment, endess war, poîce power, authorîtarîan governance, het-eronormatîve împosîtîons, patrîarcha rue, cutura conformîty, and ecoogîca 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 undîscîpîned envîronment to better understand the ways — some ordînary, some not — peope have earned to îve wîthîn and agaînst a those systems of domînatîon whîch, despîte theîr overwhemîng 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 faîure and a form that îtsef faîs în many crucîa ways. In the few pages that foow, I provîde some context for îts form and touch on some of îts key themes. For readers who woud prefer to begîn în the word of the Hawthorn Archîve, skîp ahead to the contents page.
v
the story of the failed academic book
After I inîshed wrîtîngGhosty Matters: Hauntîng and the Socîoogîca Imagîna-tîonîn the mîd-1990s, I started two arge projects. One was a study of capîtaîst cuture desîgned to take shape as an exhîbîtîon styed for a natura hîstory museum under the presumptîon that capîtaîsm was extînct, whîch was somewhat înspîred by the Museum of Jurassîc Technoogy în Los Angees, Caîfornîa. Poory conceîved as a sînge-author project and struggîng to hod on to the fantastîc presumptîon at îts heart, ît dîed quîcky and was superseded by my învovement în the antîprîson efforts spearheaded by Crîtîca Resîstance, athough there îs somethîng of a ong-ost remnant of ît în the Hawthorn Archîve, încudîng îts antîquated styîstîcs. The second project was a reatîvey norma academîc book wîth the workîng tîte In the Shadow of the Bottom Lîne, whose purpose was to redeine what utopîan thînkîng and practîce has meant and coud mean îf, for exampe, savery and prîson aboîtîon or the Jubîee antîdebt movement were specîmens or exempars of ît. Thîs project was prompted în part by questîons eft open at the end ofGhosty Mattersand by the domî-nant eft înteectua dîscourse at the tîme, whîch presumed that poîtîca dîsobedîence was eîther dead or îneffectîve —“merey utopîan” ît was saîd — and whîch mîrrored the trîumphaîsm of the New Rîght’s “End of Hîstory” caîm made famous by Francîs Fukuyama în 1992. The dîagnosîs of a cosed poîtîca unîverse as the pînnace of crîtî-ca thought and capîtaîst word cîvîîzatîon seemed to me profoundy wrong, înaccu-rate, and dîsconnected from what was happenîng în the word. Athough a chaenge to tradîtîona eft poîtîca modes and expectatîons, arguaby there was more resîstance by dîverse peopes across the gobe than at any other tîme în modern hîstory, a condî-tîon that, în my vîew, ony încreased subsequenty, as the tîte of Notes from Nowhere’s 2003 book about goba antîcapîtaîst strugges,We Are Everywhere, announced. At the tîme, I was struck by how unprepared so many radîca înteectuas were to see, much ess treat as theoretîcay vauabe, what seemed to me, a hîstorîca moment that mîght have sparked theîr poîtîca îmagînatîons. One probem that surey contrîbuted to thîs dîsconnect was the conventîona deinîtîona meanîng of the termutopîa: the future perfect no-pace îmagîned as a îtte natîon engîneered by whîte mîdde-cass reformers and peoped wîth homogeneous popuatîons wîthout conlîcts or compîcated psychîc îves. I was înterested to know îf the utopîan coud be made to mean somethîng ese, somethîng more usefu than the “merey” în a sîgnîicant perîod of poîtîca-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 ambîvaence that the Marxîst dîsmîssa of utopîan socîaîsm as nothîng more than a kînd of “mîsh-mash” had passed on to generatîons of radîca crîtîcs as sophîstîcated common sense. (It was Enges who caed utopîan socîaîsm a “mîsh-mash”: he’s goîng to put socîaîsm on a
via note about the archive
scîentîic footîng and mîsh-mash wî not do.) What I found was a deinîtîona word or dîscourse of utopîa wîth a deepy racîaîzed hîstorîography and a narrowy excusîve set of îterary, aesthetîc, phîosophîca, hîstorîca, and socîoogîca references. The Marxîst tradîtîon was ony one înteectua orîgîn poînt of the probem and în fact was more toerant and învîtîng than îts crankîer heîrs et on. The îmîtatîons of the hîstorîca and îterary boundarîes of the referentîa ied were very pubîcy exposed în 2000 when the New York Pubîc Lîbrary joîned forces wîth France’s Bîbîothèque natîonae to 1 mount a arge exhîbîtîon, onîne archîve, and pubîcatîon program. Quîte strîkîngy, Utopîa: The Search for the Idea Socîety în the Western Wordtreated the genocîda set-ter coonîaîsm that founded the so-caed new word as a successfu utopîan enterprîse whîe absentîng entîrey what Peter Lînebaugh and Marcus Redîker ca the “many-headed hydra” of the seventeenth-century “revoutîonary Atantîc.” The many-headed hydra — saves, îndentured servants and maîds, prîsoners, conscrîpts, pîrates, saîors, reîgîous heretîcs, woodcutters, water carrîers, prostîtutes, îndîgenous peopes, com-moners, runaways, deserters, and vagabonds — a those and theîr descendants who dared to chaenge the makîng of the modern word capîtaîst system were competey învîsîbe, burîed under the weîght of a trîumphant modernîty and the specter of Staîn-îst socîa engîneerîng. The îbrarîes relected the state of the ied. The utopîan as we have come to know ît încudes the French and Amerîcan Revoutîons, but not the thîrty-year war waged by the Back and Red Semînoes agaînst the Unîted States or any subsequent Fourth 2 Word refusas. It încudes Kar Marx, who absoutey hated the îdea, but not Chrîstîan Prîber, a German socîaîst exîe who joîned the Cherokee Natîon în 1736, was captured by the Brîtîsh because he refused to decare oyaty to them or the French, heped to unîte the Southern Indîan Natîons în what was then Cherokee Terrîtory, and ater dîed în a South Caroîna prîson. The utopîan as we know ît încudes: the Engîsh craftsman Wîîam Morrîs but not the Afrîcan Amerîcan worker, the sef-named “Back Boshe-vîk” Harry Haywood; the phîosopher Ernst Boch’s dreamy antîcîpatîons but not the wrîter and theorîst C. L. R. James’s phîosophy of happîness. The utopîan as we know ît încudes femînîst Frances Wrîght’s faîed and deepy lawed aboîtîonîst experîment at Nashoba în Tennessee în the 1820s but not one exampe of any înstance of marron-age în the entîre Amerîcas. Brook Farm and numerous whîte mîdde-cass separatîst communîtîes are part of îts known egacy but not the mutîcutura Combahee Rîver Coectîve or the many coaîtîona coectîves îke them. The utopîan as we know ît încudes Ursua K. Le Guîn’s off-word anthropoogy but not Tonî Cade Bambara’s 3 în-the-here-and-now communîty studîes. The exampes can be mutîpîed. After spendîng a good amount of tîme în these archîves, ît became cear that there was an excusîonary zone of tremendous magnîtude and that ît was precîsey în that zone or bînd spot where we mîght ind, îf we were prepared to or antîcîpatîng ît, those “fugîtîve moments of comprehensîon” that coud yîed a geneaogy of and paradîgms for more adequate hîstorîes and theorîes of the many rea and îmagînary strîvîngs for a
a note about the archivevii
4 îvabe and humane socîa exîstence. For în that zone of excusîon, 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 comfortabe wîth wîd specua-tîon as ît îs wîth coectîve movements; whîch substîtutes compexîty for perfectîon; whîch prîvîeges dîversîty over homogeneîty; whîch treats the sef and socîety as equay împortant objects of socîa transformatîon; and whîch offers enrîched and încusîve no-tîons of freedom, sovereîgnty, and happîness. In that zone of excusîon, the utopîan îs a standpoînt for the here and now — not ony the future — whîch regîsters and încîtes the works, the thoughts, and the better words înhabîted by those who aways, as Ray-mond Wîîams put ît, “meanwhîe carry on.” I thought then and stî do thînk that we need a better vocabuary for namîng and descrîbîng the aternatîve îves we coud be îvîng and that at smaer scaes many of us aready do. My întentîon was to excavate what I started caîng the other utopîanîsm and îts dîstînct onto-epîstemoogîca affects, tracîng îts hîstorîca roots în saves runnîng away, marronage, pîracy, heresy, wîtchcraft, vagrancy, vagabondage, rebeîon, soder deser-tîon, and other often îegîbe, îegîtîmate, or trîvîaîzed forms of escape, resîstance, opposîtîon, and aternatîve 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 (athough these have been reemergîng în new ways throughout Europe) and more îke what socîoogîst Asef Bayat cas the “quîet encroachment” of the word’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 îndîvîduaîza-tîon as subjectîicatîon wîth îts attendant consumerîsm and by cooperatîon orîented 5 toward the “human strîke.” Thîs other utopîanîsm îs îmmanent, often modeed best by those bound în pace 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 expoîtatîon and aîenatîon, oca barterîng, unauthor-îzed tradîng, theft, and nonstandard currencîes, a of whîch dîspace the productîvîst ethos Marxîsm and socîaîst tradîtîons have ong favored. Thîs other utopîanîsm îs characterîzed by both dîrect actîon agaînst and nonpartîcîpatîon în îbera democratîc state poîtîcs, by varîous forms of refusa, încudîng the boycott and the occupatîon wîthout demands. Thîs other utopîanîsm, audacîous în îts assertîons, gestures toward an aternate unîverse or cîvîîzatîon, ong în the makîng, emergîng out of and recedîng back înto the shadows as needed, sometîmes înkîng îts varîed tradîtîons and strands în soîdarîty and feowshîp, sometîmes bady înternay broken. Needess to say, the reatîvey norma academîc book on the other utopîanîsm wîth îts encycopedîc references, case study aboratorîes, and theoretîca geneaogîes faîed to materîaîze. It faîed to materîaîze as utopîan studîes and actua sef-descrîbed utopîan experîments grew, makîng more room for what Davîna Cooper cas “every-6 day utopîas” and for a much more sophîstîcated and lexîbe notîon of the utopîan. It
viiia note about the archive
faîed to materîaîze as Ruth Levîtas and Erîk Oîn Wrîght, two împortant senîor scho-ars în my ied, gave socîoogy a strong mandate to make utopîa a egîtîmate object of 7 study îf not to îtsef become a utopîan scîence. It faîed to materîaîze as queer studîes 8 embraced the term wîth vîgorous attentîon. It faîed to materîaîze as a mînî academîc îndustry deveoped that was far more wîîng to embrace a anguage of utopîanîsm to descrîbe the new anarchîsm, horîzontaîsm, and îmmanent poîtîcs that emerged out of a major cyce of goba socîa movement actîvîty orîented around the Zapatîstas, the antî- and ater-gobaîzatîon movement of movements, and more recenty the varîous commoners andoccupados. It faîed to materîaîze despîte these împortant poîtîca and schoary deveopments because I was spendîng a ot of tîme researchîng, wrîtîng, and teachîng about împrîsonment and war escaated and — even în the company of deter-mîned and înspîrîng prîson aboîtîonîsts — I found ît dîficut to focus on the utopîan as a reatîvey norma schoary project în that sîtuatîon, whîch fet îke trîage. It took me onger than ît shoud have taken to reaîze — în retrospect ît’s easy to augh about ît — that a the detours and dîficutîes I had gettîng a secure grasp on the utopîan proj-ect was exacty the utopîan practîce I was tryîng to understand and ind a anguage for. But even thîs beated recognîtîon dîdn’t yîed the coherence and comprehensîve-ness expected of a reatîvey norma academîc book and a start-and-stop approach that produced fragments and repetîtîon was exacerbated to the breakîng poînt by workîng încreasîngy în a segment of the art word 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 schoars read but rather to be contempated îke an înterestîng object. (It woud take a ong essay I am not competent to wrîte to înteîgenty assess the contradîctory nature of wrîtîng în and for the contemporary art word today. As someone who îs neîther an artîst nor an art hîstorîan, crîtîc, or cura-tor, I have enjoyed beîng wecomed as an outsîder and beîng spared the need to be-come a knowedgeabe însîder. The sophîstîcatîon of research-based art practîces, the horîzontaîzatîon of conceptua theoretîca work, the wîdespread sef-organîzatîon of artîsts for earnîng and pubîcatîon, and the actîve poîtîcîzatîon of many artîsts create spaces for productîve conversatîons and coaboratîons wîth others, such as mysef. 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 înequaîty] or “equaîty of knowedge” [sameness] but rather on an “equîvaence 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 pace.) In the end, whatever ese was pushîng and puîng, I thînk the norma academîc book faîed because the representatîona form I had chosen was not rîght. It was not, I hesîtate to say, utopîan enough, even though some woud caîm that both îts grandîose ambîtîon and îts contînuous faîure to materîaîze were perfecty paradîg-matîcay utopîan.