nav-icons nav-icons
Progress in Political Economy (PPE) Progress in Political Economy (PPE)
LOGIN REGISTER
LOGIN
REGISTER
linklink
  • Home
  • About
  • Manchester University Press Book Series
  • Past & Present Reading Group
  • A Political Economy of Australian Capitalism
  • Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE)
    • Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE)
    • JAPE Issues
    • JAPE Submission Guidelines
    • JAPE Young Scholar Award
  • Australian IPE Network (AIPEN)
  • Forums
    • Forums
    • Debating Anatomies of Revolution
    • Debating Debtfare States
    • Debating Economic Ideas in Political Time
    • Debating Mass Strikes and Social Movements in Brazil and India
    • Debating Social Movements in Latin America
    • Debating The Making of Modern Finance
    • Debating War and Social Change in Modern Europe
    • Feminist Global “Secureconomy”
    • Gendered Circuits of Labour and Violence in Global Crises
    • Scandalous Economics
    • The Military Roots of Neoliberal Governance
    • Politicising artistic pedagogies
  • Literary Geographies of Political Economy
  • Pedagogy
    • Five Minute Honours Theses
    • Piketty Forum
    • Radical Economics Pedagogy
    • Unconventional Wisdom
    • Journal Club
    • Marxism Reading Group
  • Wheelwright Lecture
  • Events
  • Contributors
  • Links
    • Political Economy At Sydney
    • PHD in Political Economy
    • Master of Political Economy
    • Centre for Future Work
    • Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ)
    • Climate Justice Research Centre (UTS)
Travelling with Lukács
Previous
International Student Mental Health and General Well-Being: why it's time for policy action
Next

Toward collective intellectual labour; or, How seven critical scholars got along with each other and co-authored a journal article

by Sirma Altun on June 7, 2022

Toward collective intellectual labour; or, How seven critical scholars got along with each other and co-authored a journal article

Sirma Altun, Christian Caiconte, Madelaine Moore, Adam David Morton, Matthew Ryan, Riki Scanlan and Austin Smidt | June 7, 2022

Tags: Georg Lukács
Georg Lukács
| 1 406

We’ve all been there. We’ve all been at a conference or seminar outside of our “home” discipline, and sat in the audience feeling surprise, exasperation, seething frustration, or all of the above. How can it be that our colleagues can be struggling with this question, when [insert your favourite theorist here] has already given us the tools to comprehend it? Or maybe in the course of your reading you’ve come across someone characterising and critiquing your subdiscipline, but they’ve built such a straw figure that it must surely be critique as parody. “Just go and read [formative text]”!!! Surely being a critical scholar is not that hard?

But it is. It can be bloody hard. Getting through those central texts necessarily involves hard, grinding labour. And it should! So, this post is about how the good university—to borrow from Raewyn Connell—should be about collective reading groups that make that journey easier. When we appreciate the overwhelming complexity of the social objects that we attempt to comprehend through political economy, serious attempts to theorise those objects must retain some of that complexity. Reading Henri Lefebvre, or Cedric Robinson, or Doreen Massey, or Milton Santos, or Silvia Federici is hard. Reading Louis Althusser is very hard!

This is something we ought to remember, when we engage with others who have not shared the same intellectual path that we have. Every time we make it through one of these challenging, formative texts, it changes us as scholars and as people. Hence, through the Past & Present Reading Group we have experienced an organic, collective strategy that makes the enterprise a little easier, and much more fun. This has come to the fore most recently in both our collective reading of György Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness and the realisation of a collaboratively authored journal article that has now just been published in Review of International Political Economy that asserts his relevance to critical political economy and radical geographical studies alike. Our earlier blog post ‘Travelling with Gramsci’ provides a reconnaissance of the argument available HERE. So maybe our point is that in the modern academy there lies a praxis that might offer a way to bring scholars closer together to the critical power of political economy and geography? Maybe the answer is collective intellectual labour?

That said, it should be admitted that the practice of academic collaboration is not without its tensions and misapprehensions. As the experience of writing the article has shown, this could be due to the strong methodological assumptions of disciplines that, initially at least, sit uncomfortably against wider philosophical arguments. This is seen in the first part of our article, with a focus on the work of Jean-Paul Sartre and Moishe Postone. The existentialism of Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason, for instance, is undoubtedly a Marxist existentialism, one concerned with fundamental social problems as much as with the struggle of consciousness in the pursuit of truth. And when in his reinterpretation of Marxian categories Postone insists that social critique is intimately related to what could be, is he not thinking of a social truth that is, to some extent, indeterminate, that keeps one foot in the domain of capital and the other outside of it? As we inferred throughout the collaborative process, it is this very tension between philosophy and social relations that, more broadly, makes Lukács an ideal candidate to work through and in dialogue with other authors and each other.

Ultimately, then, the possibility of an incompatibility of theoretical approaches between us as individuals proved to be secondary to our common analytic purpose—namely the assertion that Lukács transformed class consciousness into an absolute, which cannot bode well in a social context that is itself dominated by abstractions and totalising modes of thought (i.e. by the commodity form). Such a concerted recognition of the “issue” with Lukács, together with the central problem of capitalist society, permitted us in turn to transit fluently towards themes related to space and nature. Indeed, it is this focus on “issue”, this driving demand that our analysis be relevant to pressing contemporary concerns, that is definitional to political economy. And as our article shows, the methodology of deliberately reading Lukács from the vantage point of converging socioecological crises both bears fruit and allows for meaningful collaboration between a diverse array of scholars. The praxis of collective intellectual labour is at its core political, and that politics must be grounded in relevant issues. The further alienated our analysis becomes from those real, tangible political stakes, the easier it is for the collective enterprise to collapse into petty squabbles. But how to transition from the philosophical to the political concerns and the contemporary relevance of Lukács? This was the challenge of our article. Ultimately, a commitment to totality as a methodological premise, we argue, demands both reflexivity and historical specificity. In acknowledging the risks of a Lukácsian analysis and working through others who have pushed forward relational comparisons and the concept of totality, we were able to recover the utility of his claims and necessity of thinking through crises relationally.

In working dialogically, both with each other and through other texts that spoke to Lukács, we were able to produce an article that was much more than the sum of its parts. By dividing our labour around three themes—critiques of Lukács by Postone and Sartre, the value of totality as methodological premise, and socio-nature and the production of space—we were free to start from different points, whilst engaging with a common goal of untangling the relevance of Lukács for contemporary political economy and radical geography. Although there was a clear division of labour both within and between the sections of our article and each section had its own central logics and function, we always came back to a whole.

The challenge was to work within the limits assigned. We were seven people with seven different projects, positions, and styles, yet were producing one collective text. This required a socialisation of the labour process, a giving up of ownership, and the capacity to let go if your carefully crafted paragraph was in the end superfluous to the whole. Once sections were drafted, the article passed through each contributor to edit (no track changes!) as they wished.

This process of collective intellectual labour—a process of division, reflection, and rethreading—produced a coherent (although not without its contradictions) whole. What emerged was one article, but more than one argument; multiple threads are woven through each section. And it was in the process of plaiting, that the parts of Lukács’ work (that we as individuals may have felt uneasy with) were worked through in dialogue with the group, which allowed each of us to develop our own understanding and appreciation of his work. Taking this on as a single task, like reading theory alone rather than as a collective, would have produced a radically different text and we as authors would not have been challenged to reassess our own preconceptions.

Collective intellectual labour is hard but struggling alone is even harder. Perhaps key to Lukács’ continuing relevance is his argument that the process of collective struggle is itself productive.

Share this post

  • Tweet
  • Share Post:

Author: Sirma Altun

Dr Sirma Altun is a graduate from the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney. Her thesis, ‘The Production of Space in Hong Kong and Taipei: Socio-Spatial Struggles over Global City Formation’ was the recipient of the Institute of Australian Geographers (IAG) Award for Dissertation Excellence (2021) and she was also the recipient of the 2020 Frank Stilwell Award in Political Economy. She is a full-time Lecturer in the Department of Politics and Economics at Ankara University.

Author: Christian Caiconte

Christian Caiconte is a Tutor in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney. His PhD thesis, currently in the examination stage, drew on Marxist-Lacanian critical theory to investigate the social excesses of South Korea’s developmental era. His research is now on the social consequences of contemporary South Korean capitalism, with a focus on its entertainment industry. He has published in Review of International Political Economy.

Author: Madelaine Moore

Dr. Madelaine Moore is a post-doctoral researcher at Bielefeld University, Germany. Her research develops a political economy from below by exploring water governance and the emergence of eco-social policies through Marxist and Feminist theory. Her PhD, which explored struggles over the expropriation of water in Australia and Ireland, won the Jörg Huffschmid Award and she was a Rosa Luxemburg Foundation scholar. Her monograph A Time of Reproductive Unrest will be coming out in early 2023 with Manchester University Press in the Progress in Political Economy book series.

Author: Adam David Morton

Adam David Morton is Professor of Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He is author of Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy (2007); Revolution and State in Modern Mexico: The Political Economy of Uneven Development (2011), recipient of the 2012 Book Prize of the British International Studies Association (BISA) International Political Economy Group (IPEG); and co-author of Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis (2018) with Andreas Bieler. The volume Henri Lefebvre, On the Rural: Economy, Sociology, Geography is out in 2022 with University of Minnesota Press, co-edited with Stuart Elden.

Author: Matthew Ryan

Matthew Ryan holds postgraduate degrees in Political Economy, and in Economic and Social History, from the University of Sydney and the University of Cambridge respectively. His research has focused on neoliberalism and its manifestations in Australian fiscal policy, as well as contributed to debates around ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’. Most recently Matthew’s research has considered the origins of coal mining in colonial Australia, looking to inform contemporary debates regarding the historical roots of global ecological crises, and probe alternative futures.

Author: Riki Scanlan

Riki Scanlan is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Economy. Their preferred pronouns are they/them/theirs. Their PhD research currently focuses on the intersection of debates around urbanisation, rent, and colonialism. They are fascinated by theoretical questions of space, time, and capital and buy more books than can be reasonably read.

Author: Austin Smidt

Austin Hayden Smidt is a political philosopher, producer, writer, podcaster, and performer. He produced the cinematic adaptation of the best-selling book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work, and is the co-host of the Owls at Dawn and Wisecrack “Show Me the Meaning” podcasts. His book Sartre, Imagination and Dialectical Reason: Creating Society as a Work of Art was published by Rowman & Littlefield International.

Related Posts

 

Travelling with Lukács

We have travelled with Lukács. Despite the global pandemic conditions of lockdown induced by Covid-19, as a group of scholars forged through collective intellectual labour, we eac...

 

Heller on Needs, or How to Think Radically in a Quantified World

This post is written jointly by the Value, Health and Radical Needs Reading Group, a collective of activists, early career researchers and PhD candidates interested in the study of...

 

10 Questions on Georg Lukács

Following the completion in the Past & Present Reading Group of Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness we thought it would be novel to pose a set of questions about...

 

History, Class Consciousness, and the Scandal of Philosophy

The publication of Georg Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness in 1923 created a rift in the international Marxist movement unlike any other. The book challenged key tene...

Comments

  • Raewyn | Jun 7 2222

    Well done, friends! Great to see the process of collective work so thoughtfully treated.

    0

Leave a Response Cancel reply


Join our mailing list

© Progress in Political Economy (PPE)

Privacy | Designed by Nucleo | Terms and Conditions

  • Home
  • About
  • Manchester University Press Book Series
  • Past & Present Reading Group
  • A Political Economy of Australian Capitalism
  • Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE)
    • Journal of Australian Political Economy (JAPE)
    • JAPE Issues
    • JAPE Submission Guidelines
    • JAPE Young Scholar Award
  • Australian IPE Network (AIPEN)
  • Forums
    • Forums
    • Debating Anatomies of Revolution
    • Debating Debtfare States
    • Debating Economic Ideas in Political Time
    • Debating Mass Strikes and Social Movements in Brazil and India
    • Debating Social Movements in Latin America
    • Debating The Making of Modern Finance
    • Debating War and Social Change in Modern Europe
    • Feminist Global “Secureconomy”
    • Gendered Circuits of Labour and Violence in Global Crises
    • Scandalous Economics
    • The Military Roots of Neoliberal Governance
    • Politicising artistic pedagogies
  • Literary Geographies of Political Economy
  • Pedagogy
    • Five Minute Honours Theses
    • Piketty Forum
    • Radical Economics Pedagogy
    • Unconventional Wisdom
    • Journal Club
    • Marxism Reading Group
  • Wheelwright Lecture
  • Events
  • Contributors
  • Links
    • Political Economy At Sydney
    • PHD in Political Economy
    • Master of Political Economy
    • Centre for Future Work
    • Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ)
    • Climate Justice Research Centre (UTS)
 

Loading Comments...