[ show plain text ]
Since everyone else on the list has been quiet during the last few days, I
thought now might be a good time to raise an issue that I have been
thinking about for some time ... indeed, years.
Ever since our founding in September, 1995, our discussions have been
characterized by *controversy*. Time and again, we discovered in those
discussions how our perspectives and interpretations differ. This, of
course, is entirely to be expected in an international group that is
characterized by *diversity* in theoretical perspective and intellectual
and political tradition.
There's nothing wrong with this, of course. Indeed, I think that there is
an overwhelming feeling that our discussions have clarified positions,
enlightened, educated, and challenged. All very well and good, but it
leaves unanswered a rather fundamental question:
* what can we agree upon?
* Would you care to suggest a proposition (or propositions) that you
think is uncontroversial, given who is on this list, and that we can reach
consensus on.
Then, we will hopefully see if the propositions that we think we can agree
on are propositions that we _actually_ agree upon.
This could prove to be a very valuable (and perhaps surprising) exercise.
For instance, if we can reach consensus on a particular issue (e.g. a
contemporary issue concerning state repression and political prisoners),
it opens the door for a *political statement by the list*. Or is a desire
to periodically integrate *praxis* into our list activities too much to
hope for?
Any thoughts?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:56 EDT