They are trying to change the structure in small ways that fit in the world as it is; the changes they want are within the system. That's my definition of liberal -- change within existing structures. Legal defenses are pretty much by definition liberal. My take on it is in the essay I just posted flocked, in fact; I want illegality to be defended too, I want there to be the idea of something more than an enclave within the corporate web. Now, I *don't* want that from OTW, because that's not their goal, and I understand that. But I still want it. I want the greater transformation, I want to think OTW in alliance not only with Creative Commons and open source but with social justice activism on and off the web. I have some connections to such RL activism, though not enough to claim any kind of cred, and I've seen amazing small-scale things get done by people who inform all they do with a radical anticapitalist, antiracist, anticolonial analysis. I can't look at OTW without wondering what it would be like with those tools involved, even while I still support what it does on its own terms. Like, as I said, more-or-less supporting gay marriage legislation while also opposing it because I don't believe in the kind of normativity that values marriage above other kinds of relationship.
I tried to address the fundamental hypocrisy of being a radically-minded academic in my reply above. For me the crucial issues revolve around capitalism and colonialism/neoliberalism rather than gender; I write critically about both structures while benefiting from them. And I have thought about the potential value in leaving academia and joining the activist world, but despite the fact that being in the system renders one liberal by default, I think that the academy needs radicals so that students aren't just being taught how the system works and how to find their place in it but also that it's fucked up and what the cost of their place is (and how not everyone and not all culture accepts the status quo).
Again like I said above, I don't believe in a noncontradictory ideological position. We all want to live comfortably even as we may deplore the systems that give us comfort off the backs of others; trying to live a pure and untainted life is probably more likely to lead to burnout than anything else. That isn't to say that I think it isn't worth *trying* -- but I think there are times when strong, negative critiques need to be made even if they can't be backed up with immediate positive action. They are probably already neutralized by being made within the academy, and I believe it's really important not to close oneself up in the ivory tower -- to be an intellectual rather than just an academic, if you like, something I try to do -- but I suppose I do believe in the value of ideas for their own sake, and that's why I do this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-13 03:41 pm (UTC)I tried to address the fundamental hypocrisy of being a radically-minded academic in my reply above. For me the crucial issues revolve around capitalism and colonialism/neoliberalism rather than gender; I write critically about both structures while benefiting from them. And I have thought about the potential value in leaving academia and joining the activist world, but despite the fact that being in the system renders one liberal by default, I think that the academy needs radicals so that students aren't just being taught how the system works and how to find their place in it but also that it's fucked up and what the cost of their place is (and how not everyone and not all culture accepts the status quo).
Again like I said above, I don't believe in a noncontradictory ideological position. We all want to live comfortably even as we may deplore the systems that give us comfort off the backs of others; trying to live a pure and untainted life is probably more likely to lead to burnout than anything else. That isn't to say that I think it isn't worth *trying* -- but I think there are times when strong, negative critiques need to be made even if they can't be backed up with immediate positive action. They are probably already neutralized by being made within the academy, and I believe it's really important not to close oneself up in the ivory tower -- to be an intellectual rather than just an academic, if you like, something I try to do -- but I suppose I do believe in the value of ideas for their own sake, and that's why I do this.