A Communist Theory of Writing: Virno, Lyotard, and a Rewriting of the General Intellect
This chapter rewrites the general intellect in order to formulate a communist theory of writing. Such a theory is not concerned with the content of writing, but rather the character of the act of rewriting, one that is patient and occurs along a general l
- PDF / 195,060 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 46 Downloads / 129 Views
A Communist Theory of Writing: Virno, Lyotard, and a Rewriting of the General Intellect Derek R. Ford
Introduction What is a communist theory of writing? What does it mean to write like a communist? A first response to these questions might hinge on the orientation of the writing’s content. Communist writing is writing about and for communism. Communist writing subjects capitalism to critical analysis, examining its differing histories and various contradictions to formulate revolutionary theories of communist praxis. This chapter takes a different route of response. Rather than focus on content, I propose that communist writing is a particular kind rewriting, a patient rewriting that occurs along a general line between intellect and stupidity, speech and silence, and knowledge and thought. My response emerges from several rewritings of the general intellect. I begin with a speech by Lyotard (1988/1991), which distinguishes between rewriting as remembering and rewriting as working through and introduces the role of digital technologies in rewriting. I then turn to Paolo Virno’s (2003/2015, 2004) rewriting of the general intellect, which expands the concept beyond determinate capabilities and knowledges. Yet I show that this rewriting at the same time compresses the general intellect into a fundamental and linguistic truth that lacks an antagonism to capital. In the remainder of the chapter, I rewrite the general intellect again, returning it to its indeterminacy by positing a general and postdigital (squiggly) line between intellect and its other.
D. R. Ford (B) DePauw University, Greencastle, IN 46135, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 M. A. Peters et al. (eds.), Knowledge Socialism, East-West Dialogues in Educational Philosophy and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8126-3_6
99
100
D. R. Ford
Rewriting for Knowledge or Thought In a talk delivered at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Madison, Lyotard (1988/1991) addresses the topic of ‘rewriting modernity’. Although the formulation was given to Lyotard by the conference organizers, he says it is a better way of phrasing the ‘postmodern’ genre because of two shifts it enacts: it changes the ‘post’ into a ‘re’, and then applies the ‘re’ to ‘writing’ rather than ‘modern’. The ‘re’ is more appealing than the ‘post’ because it clearly eschews any attempts at periodization. The modern is not something that is before the postmodern; there is no temporal break between the two. Further, the distinction between a ‘before’ and ‘after’ eclipses the ‘now’, ultimately relegating it to the after (as in, ‘we are in the era after modernity’) and disallowing the pursuit of excess and surplus, or that which cannot be represented. This is because ‘the postmodern is always implied in the modern because of the fact that modernity, modern temporality, comprises in itself an impulsion to exceed itself into a state other than itself’ (25). There is always excess and a surplus—an untamable thing—at work in modernity. The post
Data Loading...
