Jason M. Swarts
Eng 395
Professor Strickland
31 March 1997What I would like to do in this micro essay is pose a few of the questions that I have about the Mas'ud Zavarzadeh text that we have been working with. In light of our recent discussion of human agency in terms of enacting change within a capitalist system I would like to take issue with one aspect of Zavarzadeh's critique of Post-al theory.
On page 39, Zavarzadeh writes that "[t]he only way to be effective in post-al left practices, . . . is to go along with the ruling institutions." Further, Zavarzadeh writes that going along with the ruling institutions requires us to "'include' and reform from 'within.'" I understand this critique as saying that revolutionizing a capitalism economy cannot be achieved by digging a rat hole in the system from which we "cooperate" and reform. This kind of a reaction is akin to oppositional behavior (as Tal has already pointed out, it is amazing how our two classes overlap). This "living" in the spectacle (if you will) of capitalism is merely a temporary, localized form of opposition which eventually does nothing to change the material means of production or the system of consumption that makes that production necessary. To put this idea into more concrete terms, when computer hackers break into the web site of the movie studio that produced the movie _Hackers_ or when they break into the web site of the Department of Justice (I think it was this one) and graffiti those sites, it eventually proves nothing because even on the off-chance that someone actually happened to see these detournements, the results would either be erased as the Department of Justice did or it would be co-opted as the producers of _Hackers_ did into an example of what actual hackers do and why they are so cool. In a sense, this type of oppositional behavior is at best temporary and local and at its worst, reformist?
What I would like to know is how revolution or change can occur in such a way that it affects the material conditions of production while at the same time being recognizable as a revolutionary force? Is this recognition even a requirement? We keep talking about how post-al theory and other localized detournements of fashion and other things eventually falls short of affecting any lasting change, but I'm not sure that large scale or whole-sale revolution is going to be any more productive. I think that part of what draws our attention to these localized acts of opposition is the fact that they do occur in a way that contradicts or stands in opposition to their surroundings. This contrast characterizes and defines the act of opposition. Revolution, on the other hand, almost seems to remain in the realm of the unthinkable. Because revolution is an act that changes everything, it tears away the system that it stands as a critique of, leaving only the new system without a means for understanding its genesis.
It seems like there should be room for maneuvering here. I am uncomfortable with the idea that living in a capitalist economy affords us only two possibilities. We can either cooperate and reform (which Zavarzadeh seems to indicate is merely reconciliation) or we can reject capitalism in its entirety. Is there any room in between? Can we develop strategies in which we can operate from a position of power to affect change (do labor unions work this way or am I being naive?) and not rely solely on tactics of opposition which in the end are temporary and ineffective? I think that there is. In particular, I am thinking about different media activist groups that draw up subvertisements, deface billboards, run anti-consumption commercials, etc. While groups like _Adbusters_ and _Media Carta_ operate tactically, I get the feeling that with their growing recognition and exposure (running commercials on national television and trying to print anti-cigarette advertisements in _Harpers_) will inevitably give them recognition and the attention that they can utilize as a position of power to affect change. I have to think that the decision of one cigarette company to confirm that cigarettes are addictive could in some ways be attributed to the pressure that comes from these oppositional groups. While some might point to the government and class actions lawsuits as the reason why some cigarette companies are changing their tunes, I don't think it is fair to say that opposition and reform from within is completely don't help out in this affair.
Then again, maybe I am just enjoying the privileges that I have in a capitalist economy to the extent that (either consciously or unconsciously)I am willing to try out strategic opposition because it seems more controllable and perhaps conservative in a very literal sense of the word. I would like to think that I am in favor of revolutionizing a system of privilege but I think for the sake of the awareness that I spoke of earlier that we need to re-examine our options for living especially if they are presented as "revolt or conform."
