I kind of wanted to follow up on this.

I don't want to discount revenge as a valuable affect. Taking a page from Lorde as I usually do, revenge can be useful if rightly directed, if the fear of retribution is used for creative transformation.
Further, revenge as motivation can lose some of its pernicious nature if we recognize, through Ahmed, that our desire for revenge in an instance of injustice does not subsequently make us just. Revenge might become just if used to transform the situation that occasioned it.
That said, there is something important to note about how revenge and justice are entangled in American society. Since we culturally privilege retributive justice over restorative justice, when this cultural inheritance is applied to social justice movements, weird shit happens.
By "weird shit," I mean the perception that calls to remedy historical injustice are grounded in a desire for revenge. On this view any call to address longstanding harms is animated by revenge, and this treatment of social justice as revenge results in an oppositional attitude.
By identifying social justice with revenge, the fear of retribution or revenge becomes primary. Those with power view things like "wealth redistribution" as, say, the "undeserving" taking what was rightfully earned out of revenge and its associated affect of spite and hate.
So, it's not just that the social justice warriors are out to come take what they haven't earned, they're doing so to "get even" with the people who have earned it and who they hate for earning it.
Thus, "social justice" becomes "social revenge," which is used as an implied motivation for social justice actions. Defund the police? Motivated by revenge. CRT? Motivated by revenge. Universal basic income? Greed AND revenge. And so on. Social justice becomes "getting back."
Now, some have said that the fear of social justice as revenge comes from recognizing that the revenge is deserved. I don't think so. I think the fear is grounded in the belief that they don't deserve retribution, that they've done nothing wrong, and that the "revenge" is unjust.
Because the revenge is unjust, it becomes mere violence. It becomes the question "why are you holding me responsible for something I didn't do?" Because the revenge that animates social justice actions is viewed as unjust, then the actions themselves are unjust. Oppressive even.
I say this because if they thought that the revenge was just, that would be an opening for transformation. Since they don't believe they've committed or been complicit in injustice, the retributive force of justice is misapplied and thus social justice folks are in the wrong.
To conclude, I don't know what the fuck would happen if someone, in a debate over the aims of social justice, just straight up said that they were out for revenge and kept it moving. I imagine it would look something like this:
I do think the "culture war" battle lines would become starkly visible, so there would be instrumental value in that. I also think that admitting of a desire for revenge would turn off many pearl clutching leftists in the same way that X's claim to the right of self-defense did.
But I also think there is psychic value in recognizing that the desire for revenge on an unjust system is a healthy response to that system of injustice. Again, drawing on Lorde: there is creative, transformative energy in revenge. What matters is the direction of that energy.
So, revenge can be a useful tool to transform a situation of oppression so that no one has to suffer again. It is also useful as a threat of escalation as oppressors also need to transform.

And transforming the oppressor is where revenge as threat is valuable as Avasarala says:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dr. Johnathan Flowers wants to see academia burn.

Dr. Johnathan Flowers wants to see academia burn. Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shengokai

12 Jun
Apropos of conversations about the connections between King and CRT, I point to this passage from King's "The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement," which can be found here:

apa.org/monitor/featur… Image
In the above, King tasks the APA and the nation's behavioral scientists, to take up systemic inquiry into the nature of how the soul of "White America" has been poisoned by racism. Now, King's generous corpus defines the nature of this poison, so I won't cover it here.
However, what is important to note is the following from King wherein he presents the awakening of the Black people to consciousness of the nature of their oppression which he describes as "systemic." Image
Read 9 tweets
11 Jun
I don't even know what the democrats (or really any "progressive," even your faves) hope to accomplish by doing anything remotely conciliatory towards their opponents.

Why negotiate with motherfuckers who have demonstrated they'll burn everything down just to fuck you over?
I'm being completely serious here. And, to be philosophical, in Ch.11 of The Art of War, Sun Tzu says the following:

"In difficult ground, press on; On encircled ground, use subterfuge; In death ground, fight."
Something not clear here is that a good commander has to be able to read the ground. This is similar to a broader cultural concept of "reading the air," where one takes stock of the affective (and tactical) energy of a space and responds accordingly with the resources at hand.
Read 17 tweets
10 Jun
If you use sexual violence as a metaphor to describe a theory, that's a blockin', full stop.

I'm happy to build my moral high ground on the corpses of the trolls I've slain, but some shit is beyond the pale and not worth the engagement.
Sexual violence is not trivial, and theoretical positions that you disagree with are not acts of intellectual violation on par with sexual violence. Using sexual violence metaphorically or analogically to describe theory trivializes the real trauma of sexual violence.
Using sexual violence analogically or metaphorically in this way also contributes to the ongoing permissibility of sexual violence in our culture. It treats the violence as "normal," rather than as a sign of an expansive social problem. It's also really fucking callous.
Read 5 tweets
10 Jun
Nobody tell the anti-CRT crowd but “woke” scholars have been critical of CRT, and much of it’s deployment in education, for well over a decade.

The crucial difference is in the outcomes and objectives.
Anti-woke grifters see the permanence of race, counterstory telling, and critique of liberalism as indoctrination and anti-American or as reverse racism.

They also see it as existential threats to liberty and a vision of America as a post-racial fantasy land.
Fun fact, anti-CRT assholes: Bell and many founders of CRT reject what they call a “world upside down” and they do so vigorously in text. Also “post-racial” ideology is nothing but a neo-liberal fantasy to avoid doing the hard work of anti-racism.
Read 9 tweets
9 Jun
You know that meme with the swords and the smug looking dude that's all "what leftist take would get this response from leftists?"

This one is mine.
To this, I would add the following: too fucking many leftists are comfortable with the inaccessibility of their "radical" spaces and fuck is it disgusting. Especially when they brand themselves as "inclusive."

Inclusive of what? Neurotypical, able-bodied radicals?
Further, leftist analysis that reduces ableism to a class problem misses the whole fucking point. Your class revolution might resolve some economic burdens, which is awesome, but it will not make for a more accessible society unless you consider ableism beyond a class framework.
Read 5 tweets
9 Jun
Aside from work in Disability Studies and Philosophy of Disability?

Sami Schalk - Bodyminds Reimagined
Dewey - Experience and Nature
Dogen - Shobogenzo
Sara Ahmed - Queer Phenomenology, Cultural Politics of Emotion
Shelley Tremain - Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability
If I were in a Phil Mind/Cog Sci program, or advise students in said program, they would have to have a thorough grounding in Disability Studies, Philosophy of Disability, and some non-western tradition to broaden their assumptions about "the mind" and how we have "minds."
For example, look at what Mark Johnson has done with "mainstream" Phil Mind/Cog Sci and pragmatism: he gets his Dewey "mostly" right, but when he brings neuroscience to the table, he ejects all of Dewey's thinking about how diversity of bodies leads to diversity of minds.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!