Paul Dillon introduced collective subject's 'awareness' as the criterion for
processes to count as historical ones.
This brings me back to the question I asked before: how is it that people,
as collective subjects, are often unaware that they create history -- even
as they participate in and enact social processes that shape their own
history? Why is it that history becomes clear often only in the hindsight?
it is very likely that Rosa Parks wasn't aware, on the spot, of how her
courageos act was going to affect the social processes, was she? But even at
the level of a collective subject, the real significance of events often
becomes clear only after the fact, doesn't it? Like with people back in the
80s in Moscow who moved very slowly in the subways (in Mike's recollection)
but who prepared and eventually enacted, in their collective activities, a
fundamental historical change, a change of history (for better or worse, we
still have to see; further history will show).
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H.Dillon
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 2/13/2002 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: History
Kevin,
I don't think your questions were unclear. First, it is not a question
of a
conscious subject for all experience, not at all. Histories exist for
collectivities and despite the keenest wishes of the Enlightenment
thinkers,
there still is no conscious subject of our collective experience, a
collective experience given to us initially through the shaping our our
senses and minds in the process of socialization; thereby enabling it as
our
very OWN collective experience: In any event, of all of the things in
any
event, including processes and relations, which of those things
understands
the event as part of its history, and can act with a representation of
the
event in such a way as to influence the succeeding events? the table,
the
chair, the electric socket, the books, . . ? As far as I can see the
only
things in any event for whom that event can figure as part of their very
own
history are humans.
Basically there are a lot of histories out their, from family histories
to
the history of a sports team or even a particular sport, the history of
the
world, and for all of these there are people who say to themselves.
This is
part of my history, this is the history I'm carrying forward (either
consciously or unconsciously). All of us are fundamentally given the
cultural frameworks within which we enact histories inscribed in those
cultures and by enacting those histories (those scripts) we have room
for
some improvisation, innovation. Some of that improvisation and
innovation
that is any individuals personal life also becomes significant for
others,
for whom it becomes part of their own history.
The "walking my dog" theme came from E.P. Thompson's critique of
Althusser:
The Poverty of Theory. His point being that the larger histories, whose
processes and consequences fundamentally shape the histories of the
individuals who make up the societies, are obviously selections,
certain
events defined as significant. Now of course this raises a whole series
of
questions about who writes the history found in books. Although this is
vitally important, one thing is common to any interpretation: some
events
can be and are defined as relevant to historically defined social
subjects
of greater or lesser magnitude.
From a dialectical materialist perspective, that historically defined
subject is not simply a textual relation (eg, not simply what is found
in
books or in statue strewn public spaces or street and highway names) but
is
the outcome of material processes (Marx talked about human societies
"metabolism" with the natural environment and from there the domains of
human society). Most interesting in this regard and certainly
illuminating
from an activity theory perspective would be histories of specific
industries, I would think, since their members identify themselves to a
greater or lesser extent as representatives of that industry in the
sense of
"professions" and thus have uniquely relevant historical events (Boyle's
birthday is probably celebrated in some chemistry departments somewhere,
and
if it isn't I'm sure there are many chemists who know it. They consider
it
part of their history.). Similarly, Enron stock is part of some
people's
own history but not mine. And they probably will, on the basis of that,
form a collectivity (act as historical subjects) and take legal actions
including changing the laws of the society (i don't know right now if
campaign finance passed or not), laws that obviously determine the
structure
of any member's personal history at a very fundamental level, if not
completely. It's those other laws, the ones that aren't legislated and
are
just as easily broken, that are such a bitch.
What is a wannabe anyway?
But the dog v. Rosa Parks issue is like this: when Rosa Parks refused
to
give her seat up, it became a historically significant and motivating
event
for many people that galvanized a social process (a collective subject
in-itself) that changed some of the fundamental laws that shape the
individual members of other collective subjects, in fact the people
themselves, who, in a very real way, were enacting their own history,
and
for whom Rosa Parks provided a powerful symbol around which to generate
solidarity, community, to overcome contradictions that previously kept
the
"in-itself" collective subject from emerging as a historical agent That
movement changed some of those unthinkable laws back then too. I have
no
doubt that fundamental racial attitudes have changed in Amerika and that
racists in are now a minority and everyone consciously is encouraged to
struggle against it and them, etc. Even homophobia has become the
popularly
defined illness not being homosexual. And this is certainly a result of
the
collective action of gays and lesbians. Likewise, for this collective
subject, the Greystone (?) event (defined differently by different
people)
became a significantly, historically galvanizing event that led to
widespread changes of unlegislated social attitudes and prejudices. It
isn't really part of my history in any way, any more than a landslide in
which I wasn't caught is, or a volcano erupting in Colombia, although I
may
empathize with the principles and ideas of the people who consider it
part
of the history, or the individuals who suffer the consequences of
natural
disasters.
When I walk my dog I probably motivate no more than curiousity or
ridicule
since it's only 18 mos. old and I'm still always working on its
training.
Is that explanation clear?
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Rocap <krocap@csulb.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: History
> Dear Paul,
>
> I'm not sure I follow.
>
> What occurence, event, instance that can be talked about does not
> involve a conscious subject?
>
> If you mean when you put "walking the dog" in parentheses that the
> abstract action of "walking the dog" is not history, that seems
> self-evident.
>
> Or if you mean that any hypothetical structure or fiction is not
> historical (that becomes a little trickier, but I'll "suspend
disbelief"
> - though I'm not sure what to do with the history of ideas or a
history
> of concepts).
>
> But surely walking any particular dog is an historical event for any
> conscious participant, witness or person who hears/learns about it
(?).
> No? What am I missing? Is there a hierarcy of events that can count
as
> history? Who decides?
>
> Sorry to be unclear.
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:20 PST