On March 11, 1968, Ghassan Kanfani delivered a speech later translated under the titled Thoughts on Change and the ‘Blind Language’. Although his focus was not academia, many of his arguments against what he called “blind language” could easily be applied to examine how academic knowledge production, including institutionalize radical theory, can be wielded to give an appearance of transformation while in reality the concepts employed by so-called radical academics are emptied of their political aims in the present. That is to say, theories and concepts are uprooted from the material contexts and struggles that created the conditions of possibility for said theories and concepts to emerge in the first place. Once institutionalized, theories are refined like any other extracted resource, repackaged, and commodified. The illusion of change is sold and consumed, replacing concrete struggles for language that dilutes and defangs radical discourse, reducing it to liberal notions of social justice, equality, and representation.
I felt like reading this out loud to all my liberal colleagues who have remained silent on Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran…but can’t shut up about their most recently published article or book or newsletter on “their take” on the revolutionary history of Indonesia, Algeria, or Vietnam. All Western non-native “scholars” mind you, who’s made careers out of “revolutionary reseach and writing” while having never fought injustice in any material way, ever (and on purpose too, because they’re “opposed to violence” so they say) who dare think of me, as the “angry native”. Thank you for this.
Violence should not predate the requisite buildup of critical mass. Premature violence isn’t beneficial when it’s used as an excuse for futher repression. Ask Palestine
Righteous indignation is good, but for all of our sakes, we need to focus our energies. Stay strong!!!
I stand and breathe in freedom today because my father’s side fought off the British and my mother’s side fought off the Dutch after 400 years. Lecturing those who resist as a matter of material survival and true dignity is tone deaf and exposes liberal performative blind spots at best.
Please allow me to clarify by quoting SEK3. My original response disappeared. (Im new to the platform)
“To combat coercion, one must understand it. More important, one must understand what one is fighting for as much as what one is fighting against. Blind reaction goes in all directions negative to the source of oppression and disperses opportunity; pursuit of a common goal focuses the opponents and allows formation of coherent strategy and tactics.
“Organized coercion requires organized opposition. (An excellent case has been made many times by many thinkers that such organization should remain skeletal at best, fleshing out only for actual confrontation, in order to prevent perversion of the defenders into an agency of aggression.) Institutional coercion, developed over the millennia with roots of mysticism and delusion planted deep in the victims’ thinking, requires a grand strategy and a cataclysmic point of historical singularity: Revolution.”
I really appreciate the essay, but I have a question as an academic as I feel I am missing something.
What can one do in (or outside) the classroom beyond pursuing a teaching/research agenda that is rooted in material struggle and is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchy? What does "sacrifice" look like? A minority, junior, and foreign scholar, one can get fired or deported to a third country for ruffling feathers of the powers that be. Joining a professor's union requires time, which junior scholars under pressure to publish often don't have because they are struggling to get even mildly radical research published in the Westernized academia?
What can we do beyond railing against the corruption of language in our research and in our teaching?
I’m also concerned by those who do speak out but who do so in says that recapture opposition to genocide for liberalism by posing it in fhe terms of law and rights for example. Their sacrifice within colonial racist institutions becomes the epicentre of the struggle and the fight against genocidal colonialism becomes one for personal “academic freedom”. These figures, in their victimisation, are building their brands and, while still facing sanction, are banking their carefully calibrated line, choosing the just right language, for present and future returns.
Posting my question below your comment as well because I would really like to know what you think.
I really appreciate the essay, but I have a practical question as an academic.
What can one do in (or outside) the classroom beyond pursuing a teaching/research agenda that inclines towards material struggle and is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchy? What does "sacrifice" look like when teaching in a liberal/colonial field like public policy (which I do)? A minority, junior, and foreign scholar, one can get fired or deported to a third country for ruffling feathers of the powers that be. Joining a professor's union requires time, which junior scholars under pressure to publish often don't have because they are struggling to get even mildly radical research published in the Westernized academic-industrial complex?
What can we do beyond railing against the corruption of language in our research and in our teaching? I feel I am missing something.
I felt like reading this out loud to all my liberal colleagues who have remained silent on Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran…but can’t shut up about their most recently published article or book or newsletter on “their take” on the revolutionary history of Indonesia, Algeria, or Vietnam. All Western non-native “scholars” mind you, who’s made careers out of “revolutionary reseach and writing” while having never fought injustice in any material way, ever (and on purpose too, because they’re “opposed to violence” so they say) who dare think of me, as the “angry native”. Thank you for this.
Violence should not predate the requisite buildup of critical mass. Premature violence isn’t beneficial when it’s used as an excuse for futher repression. Ask Palestine
Righteous indignation is good, but for all of our sakes, we need to focus our energies. Stay strong!!!
I stand and breathe in freedom today because my father’s side fought off the British and my mother’s side fought off the Dutch after 400 years. Lecturing those who resist as a matter of material survival and true dignity is tone deaf and exposes liberal performative blind spots at best.
The comments this man gave illustrate the point im trying to convey
Im by no means condemning defense; im merely pointing out that defense should be tactical and strategically organized.
Please allow me to clarify by quoting SEK3. My original response disappeared. (Im new to the platform)
“To combat coercion, one must understand it. More important, one must understand what one is fighting for as much as what one is fighting against. Blind reaction goes in all directions negative to the source of oppression and disperses opportunity; pursuit of a common goal focuses the opponents and allows formation of coherent strategy and tactics.
“Diffuse coercion is optimally handled by local, immediate self-defense. Though the market may develop larger-scale businesses for protection and restoration, random threats of violence can only be dealt with on the spot ad hoc.https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/samuel-edward-konkin-iii-new-libertarian-manifesto#fn1
“Organized coercion requires organized opposition. (An excellent case has been made many times by many thinkers that such organization should remain skeletal at best, fleshing out only for actual confrontation, in order to prevent perversion of the defenders into an agency of aggression.) Institutional coercion, developed over the millennia with roots of mysticism and delusion planted deep in the victims’ thinking, requires a grand strategy and a cataclysmic point of historical singularity: Revolution.”
A very powerful essay thank you for your words it was an honor to read!
I really appreciate the essay, but I have a question as an academic as I feel I am missing something.
What can one do in (or outside) the classroom beyond pursuing a teaching/research agenda that is rooted in material struggle and is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchy? What does "sacrifice" look like? A minority, junior, and foreign scholar, one can get fired or deported to a third country for ruffling feathers of the powers that be. Joining a professor's union requires time, which junior scholars under pressure to publish often don't have because they are struggling to get even mildly radical research published in the Westernized academia?
What can we do beyond railing against the corruption of language in our research and in our teaching?
I’m also concerned by those who do speak out but who do so in says that recapture opposition to genocide for liberalism by posing it in fhe terms of law and rights for example. Their sacrifice within colonial racist institutions becomes the epicentre of the struggle and the fight against genocidal colonialism becomes one for personal “academic freedom”. These figures, in their victimisation, are building their brands and, while still facing sanction, are banking their carefully calibrated line, choosing the just right language, for present and future returns.
Posting my question below your comment as well because I would really like to know what you think.
I really appreciate the essay, but I have a practical question as an academic.
What can one do in (or outside) the classroom beyond pursuing a teaching/research agenda that inclines towards material struggle and is anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchy? What does "sacrifice" look like when teaching in a liberal/colonial field like public policy (which I do)? A minority, junior, and foreign scholar, one can get fired or deported to a third country for ruffling feathers of the powers that be. Joining a professor's union requires time, which junior scholars under pressure to publish often don't have because they are struggling to get even mildly radical research published in the Westernized academic-industrial complex?
What can we do beyond railing against the corruption of language in our research and in our teaching? I feel I am missing something.