Collecting Collectors

I think the most interesting thing to me about collections is that the word can be applied to so many different contexts. I voiced me excitement in class over what Debbie called the "post-marxist" bit in Stewart's piece that pegged collectors as both producers and consumers. I don't think I was excited about this simply because I like Marx, but because for me it hinted at a much larger (and probably Marxist) point.

If you think about it, communities are collections of people organized to fulfill their functions within the context of their respective social environments. To think of living beings as parts of a collection is a fascinating concept to me because for a collection to exist it must have a collector. Before this blog is bombarded with comments I should make clear that I am not hinting at God- far from it. I am however hinting at an organizational force which in the context of Marx would be nothing more than the economy. Human beings are far too complex to simply be summed up with money(get it?) and yet it seems as if we always are. I've chosen the Academic route because it seems like the only thing I can stand doing most of the day and still earn a living at. If I were to do what I really wanted it would probably entail playing a lot of guitar, traveling, and probably a lot of video games as well. None of these interests would prove fruitful financially and none would serve much purpose in the context of any community. Why then does art and literature continue to exist? I would a venture a guess that it is because not all human behavior is tied to survival. The paradox is that one must indeed survive to carry out such behavior, often leaving no time to do so. If I'm to retain any type of clarity I should probably just say it now- the rhetoric of progress and human achievement that everyone seems so gung-ho to buy into is to me a moot point. I believe firmly, that the principle of economic categorization present in all human collectivities stifles individuality by forcing assimilation through necessity. Jesus christ I write abstractly- I need to fix that at some point. What I mean, is that I believe in free will and that social construction is partly a result of personal interest, despite the countless ways that we are influenced. What I mean, is that there are many things I would rather spend my time doing that would be of no good to anyone but myself (unless you like my writing or my music). The principle of collectivity prevents that, because it is organized(or categorized) around the idea that we must fulfill social functions, progress, and survive. I say, progress is necessary to the extent that we can break these categories down and actually have time to enjoy ourselves, which I guess in the end makes me Marxist.

I just learned something new about myself. Neat.

I wasn't exposed to theory until the last year and a half of my undergraduate education. In many ways, theory supplanted religion for me. I was exposed to it in the wake of religious rejection and strong existential questions, that theory seemed at least partially to answer them. I became obsessed with it- I took more classes, read what I could get my hands on, and even though many of original questions remained theory seemed to have dwarfed their original importance to me. What I have since learned, is that theory lacks practice at a fundamental level. Criticism is not synonomous with change, nor does it often offer alternative models. It also kills the simple pleasure of reading and writing by complicating and convoluting everything.

At one point I tried to inject theory into almost all of my writing, including poetry. After about the third dismal failure I realized that there was no way to negotiate theory and poetry without sacrificing some element of either- namely, the beauty of poetry and the practicality theory. It really gets back to the whole value of aesthetics. At what point do we criticize the conditions of existence and at what point do we enjoy what we have?

If a defense of theory must be made, it will be that it usually means well. There are instances of competition and intense criticism in certain institutions, and a multitude who do indeed treat it as one would a religion- but the majority of these are failures as critics and thinkers(yeah, I went there). It's the same with any type of writing. The "cream of the crop" so to speak, more often than not is concerned with bettering social existence. However, constant criticism can never suffice, and praxis remains as THE essential question in validating theory.

As for me, I like to be balanced. I read enough theory to convince myself I don't live in a delusioned world, and I stay away from it enough that I'm still able to actually enjoy reading and writing once in a while. It probably means I won't be the next great theorist, but y'know- if that means not having my head up my ass, I'm okay with that.

Home sweet home

They say home is where the heart is, and maybe that's why such a large quantity of academic writing lacks heart. Home is a private social space that is part of a much broader social network. It is the privatization of home that often separates it from scientific or intellectual "fields"- places and times that have been canonized into academia proper. High clout intellectuals such as Freud and Marx have touched on home in their writing, but always in regard to the learning of broad social behaviors through familial relationships. Without family, home is a place of solitude. It is the one space that allows for unhindered expression because there is no audience, and this is probably the reason that I prefer to do the majority of my writing from home.

The institutionalization of proper intellectual and scientific fields means that it becomes necessary to travel away from the home in order to learn empirically about the field of one's choosing. Research is conducted in accordance with normed academic behavior so that credibility can be attained. I have never felt the need to travel for any intellectual endeavor- I would much rather travel for pleasure. At this point, there has been nothing for me outside of reading and personal expression and it is probably for that reason that my writing has become abstract over time and probably difficult to read. If I could back up everything I say with concrete empirical research, perhaps it would improve my writing but I find it difficult to imagine that it would increase my passion. My heart is at home, and so is my writing.