Sun Tzu said, "In difficult ground, press on; On hemmed-in ground, use subterfuge; In death ground, fight."
Right, so: some of us have been living on death ground while our allies have insisted it is merely difficult or encircled ground and thus underestimated the threat. (1/n)
This difference between the kinds of ground we think we're standing on is crucial as, if you don't realize you're on death ground, if you merely think you're on encircled ground, the tactics you'll use to fight will be insufficient to ensure your victory. (2/n)
Which gets me to another Sun Tzu quote: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." Part of knowing your enemy is knowing the kind of fight you're in. Some of us have long since known the kind of fight that we're in. (3/n)
We have an entire history of folks reminding us: Davis, Lorde, Wells-Barnett, Douglass, Johnson, X, King, Hampton, Du Bois, Baldwin, Moraga. An entire lineage and intellectual tradition dedicated to, among other things, reminding us who our enemy is. (4/n)
This intellectual tradition has also reminded us that we've not had the luxury to fight on "encircled ground," that death ground is the only ground that we've known. The fugitive slave act reminded us of this. Jim Crow reminded us of this. This country reminds us of this. (5/n)
But there's more to that quote: "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
This, I think, characterizes our "allies." (6/n)
This is not to say that allies haven't been helpful: they have. However. many are not what Frerie would call true converts: they cling to their privileged position like a life raft and fail to place their trust in the people. They deign to tell us how we should fight. (7/n)
They retreat from us when the struggle becomes too distasteful or demands disrupting the very system that has given them comfort. In this they do not know themselves as oppressors, nor do they know the nature of the enemy they face, and thus our victories are incremental. (8/n)
Which gets me back to the above: because many of our allies cling to their privilege, or; they fail to trust those they claim to be in solidarity with, they mistake the death ground for encircled or difficult ground. Thus, they adopt tactics appropriate to that ground. (9/n)
Thus, for every victory we gain, we also suffer a defeat. Or, as the past four years have demonstrated, we are defeated in every battle. All because our allies, those with privilege and the power to make change, fail to recognize that they too stand on death ground. (10/n)
Because it is not their bodies in the street, their homes filled with bullets, they doubt the severity of the situation. Only now, when it has been made plain that our enemies care nothing for the republic or the rule of law or the bodies they step over, they fight. (11/n)
But they choose to do so with the same tactics that served them on encircled ground and difficult ground. They are slow to adjust to a reality that the rest of us have been living in because they fail to trust the us when we tell them what is necessary to survive. (12/n)
And because they fail to trust us, there will be more bodies in the street, more lives lost. But not their lives, at least not yet, and when the need to fight without reservation finally dawns for them, it will be far too late. (fin)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I agree with Helen here and want to go a step further: much contemporary philosophy lacks the tools to do this. Further, many philosophers whose cultural presence could be leveraged to make change lack the political will or the conceptual rigor to do something.
The piece gives a great example with Singer: Singer is famous for saying that the field whose professionalism he is almost directly responsible for, the field of bioethics, should not advocate for people, for partisan interests. Taken as a field-wide position, this is telling.
On this view, bioethics (and the field of philosophy if we’re being metonymic) does not have any moral responsibility to comment on Palestinian genocide, on Sudan, on Trans genocide, on fascism because of the purported neutrality of the discipline re: contemporary events.
At some point I hope my colleagues whining about the preservation of academic freedom from students realize that the students who're protesting have long since seen the failures of the academy to foster the kinds of good faith engagements these colleagues assume will be lost.
That is, people have tried refutation in print, they've tried addressing the "merits" of arguments, they've tried pointing out the harms and the bad faith of it all and still nothing changes. So the only recourse left is literally deplatforming bigots.
I mean, how do you even have a "good faith" debate when the context of the debate is your very humanity? How do you have a good faith debate when you7r interlocutor has decided that every piece of scholarship that doesn't support their position is a "mistake?"
Truth. Goodness. Beauty. We've given up all chance at objective truth. We've made the life of mind a practical space. We share our dreams with ghosts. We wake up every day to a maxim Pierce wrote 150 years ago from which there's only one conclusion, We're damned for what we do.
Our anger, Our ego, Our unwillingness to do abstract inquiry, they set us on a path from which there is no escape. We yearned to return experience to philosophy without contemplating the cost and by the time we looked down there was no longer any ground beneath our feet.
What do pragmatists sacrifice? We're condemned to use the tools of philosophy to defeat it. We burn epistemology for someone else's future inquiry. We burn objectivity to discover a truth in experience that we know we'll never see.
The assumption that some of us have a choice between activism and scholarship is hilarious to me.
For some of us, just being in the room, let alone the discipline, is an activist act or the product of a history of activism. Some of our sub-fields are built on activism.
Not to bring the "privilege" discourse into it, but to assuming multiply marginalized scholars have a fucking choice in whether we become activists in the academy means that they have no idea what our experience is like. At some point every marginalized scholar is an "activist."
I'm using quotes here because the form our "activism" might take is as diverse as we are. Shit, merely publishing something that says "this is my experience and I'm going to theorize about it" is an activist act in some* disciplines.
I am reminded of how Peter Singer has drawn the line between activist and scholar where the activist is unwilling to be moved by argumentation and the scholar is willing to consider every possibility, even those deemed abhorrent, so long as the argument is sound.
There's absolutely no daylight between Singer's scholar/activist divide and HLS's tweet, so I'm going to talk about this as a general principle of philosophy which is used as cover to treat people's humanity as open questions because that's, apparently, what philosphy does.
On Singer's view, the unwillingness of the activist to compromise on certain positions means the work they do, nor matter how well researched, is neither scholarly nor eligible for consideration in scholastic debate. All because the activist's position precludes some questions.
I really think a lot of senior folks in philosophy underestimate just how much they're showing their asses with this whole Byrne publication thing. Just putting that shit on full display for all the world to see.
Many of these same people gave no thought about the rejection rates of marginalized or non-anglo centric philosophy within the discipline. Worse, a quick trawl through the Daily Nous reveals that these folks are usually the first to push back against expanding the canon.
Further, the way in which they doubt that Byrne's book was rejected on its merits demonstrates their steadfast determination to preserve a status quo, a kind of patronage, where publication can be eased through clout and alignment with the "traditional" form of the discipline.