First off, I apologize for the pun, but it is a disease I have carried from birth. What can I say? I am not very dignified. I attribute it to my excitability after reading Dana Cloud's pieces, because finally, I see the light; rather, I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel and it makes it all clear. After weeks of reading abstract seeming classical theories, this week's Dana Cloud readings have been complete light bulb moments. There I was tiptoeing cautiously along the yellow brick road of Marxist revolution thinking, "Is this really a good idea?", when I met Cloud and Cheney who said "Wake up a smell the Starbucks!"
Cloud, in her piece on Fighting Words, presented us with a splendid chronology of the state of the Staley resistance. As Cheney notes, "she argued that although a great deal of work in critical organizational communication has addressed the inequalities inherent in the capitalist workplace, this research often stops short of attending to the economic dimensions of exploitation and of recognizing the real and necessary antagonism between employers and workers." In the Doing Democracy piece Cheney does defend the field of communication scholarship bringing to our attention work which is sharply critical of the growing economic inequalities and calling for democratic micro practices which do not depend on the "complete structural transformation of the economy".
It was here that my constant issues with revolution as opposed to reformation were laid to rest (until the next provocateur comes along). I see how a system which is "base exploitative" would need a major overhaul, to even initiate some form of material change. Like I said earlier, with systems like many of the current capitalist ones, I can see how there would no real light at the end of the exploitative tunnel. In the Fighting Words piece we were painted a picture where it became evident in Cloud's words that "The capitalist workplace is a paradigmatic case of coercive power relations because workers depend upon the employers for survival and because employers depend upon labor to produce goods for the company's profit." In the Staley case, it became evident that the persuasive rhetoric of words lacked any real transformative potential (in this particular case) and Cloud suggests that the "deployment of other, materially coercive (though not necessarily violent) action might have been more effective" [ In her notes she gives the example of a non violent strike as being a coercive and effective action].
Further, in Doing Democracy, Cheney and Cloud warn us that "we should not overestimate the degree to which workers action can be achieved purely in discourse, even though persuasive campaigns can sometimes take hold within spheres beyond the organization, which in turn shape public policy and then regulate corporate behavior". It was reading this, in conjunction with a study of the material reality of Staley that reinforced the belief of revolutionary transformation. Also, as the readings progress I am very cautiously able to extricate myself from my own traditional heuristic of violence. Just as this reading aided immensely the understanding of revolutionary necessity in a contemporary context, I would love to read something that at least grapples with the concept of revolutionary violence in a very material sense. Till then, it is very comforting to achieve some sort of neatly packaged concept for once - especially for the wannabe critical scholar whose desirable goal is discomfort.
Cloud, in her piece on Fighting Words, presented us with a splendid chronology of the state of the Staley resistance. As Cheney notes, "she argued that although a great deal of work in critical organizational communication has addressed the inequalities inherent in the capitalist workplace, this research often stops short of attending to the economic dimensions of exploitation and of recognizing the real and necessary antagonism between employers and workers." In the Doing Democracy piece Cheney does defend the field of communication scholarship bringing to our attention work which is sharply critical of the growing economic inequalities and calling for democratic micro practices which do not depend on the "complete structural transformation of the economy".
It was here that my constant issues with revolution as opposed to reformation were laid to rest (until the next provocateur comes along). I see how a system which is "base exploitative" would need a major overhaul, to even initiate some form of material change. Like I said earlier, with systems like many of the current capitalist ones, I can see how there would no real light at the end of the exploitative tunnel. In the Fighting Words piece we were painted a picture where it became evident in Cloud's words that "The capitalist workplace is a paradigmatic case of coercive power relations because workers depend upon the employers for survival and because employers depend upon labor to produce goods for the company's profit." In the Staley case, it became evident that the persuasive rhetoric of words lacked any real transformative potential (in this particular case) and Cloud suggests that the "deployment of other, materially coercive (though not necessarily violent) action might have been more effective" [ In her notes she gives the example of a non violent strike as being a coercive and effective action].
Further, in Doing Democracy, Cheney and Cloud warn us that "we should not overestimate the degree to which workers action can be achieved purely in discourse, even though persuasive campaigns can sometimes take hold within spheres beyond the organization, which in turn shape public policy and then regulate corporate behavior". It was reading this, in conjunction with a study of the material reality of Staley that reinforced the belief of revolutionary transformation. Also, as the readings progress I am very cautiously able to extricate myself from my own traditional heuristic of violence. Just as this reading aided immensely the understanding of revolutionary necessity in a contemporary context, I would love to read something that at least grapples with the concept of revolutionary violence in a very material sense. Till then, it is very comforting to achieve some sort of neatly packaged concept for once - especially for the wannabe critical scholar whose desirable goal is discomfort.
Comments