Recently, the collective members of MonkeyWrench Books and Pallaksch Press in Austin, TX published a set of essays in book form called “Impasses.” Here I intend to respond to the essays and the questions directly and indirectly posed.
There are a great deal of questions presented in the short volume so this will not be an easy nor quick effort. The volume is an impassioned but far too brief exploration of several important threads. I’m afraid my responses to the questions will end up with a bunch more questions due to the condensed source material. Or rather, i have many questions for the authors so i can better understand the ideas and the backdrop for the essays.
Before I dive into the specific essays I have to start at the title of the book and the introduction. I’m unclear about what is at an impasse and exactly what the functional definition of an impasse is.
In our studied patience we may be able to discuss what others pass over in silence: the generalized impasse which is our situation. In a moment when the old ways of engaging seem not to be having the anticipated effects, we offer both some meditations on what it means to be where we are and a gesture toward new ways of understanding and resisting. Each of the five conference pieces sets out from a stalemate where all options seem exhausted and all avenues explored. For us, to confess to an impasse is not to admit defeat, but rather to acknowledge we have reached a critical point the continual process of thinking and refining our ideas. If we are still discussing, still figuring out how to speak with and listen to each other, then the spark of resistance is not extinguished.
Here i’m unclear whether the impasses are such that the authors believe there is a real impasse or whether this is just a literary device to inspire discussion. In one sense they are suggesting there is a general impasse for the overall situation in which they exist. Then later they suggest that instead they are still figuring things out, so not at an impasse.
The title and overall structure suggests that the authors believe there is an actual impasse and that they have a possible method, this book and its questions and the process that generated this book, to move past these impasses.
I’m digging into this because the clear statement of whether there is a real impasse has material impact to the the interpretation of the book.
I hope to engage the authors in a conversation to iron out this initial point. From there i will proceed to answer, from my perspective, the questions posed at the end of each essay and then dig into the contents of each essay. I will then make a general response to common themes and overall anarchist philosophy and tooling which is lightly touched on in the appendix and through out each essay.
I believe the spirit of the book and the collective, based on the authors’ website, is about engagement. Nothing more and nothing less. In that regard that spirit is alive and well with me.
To clarify, this was a joint publication effort between Monkeywrench Books and Pallaksch Press. Only one of us is a Monkeywrench collective members and some of us maintain a healthy animosity towards the store and collective.
What is this distinction you are trying to make between “real” and “literary” impasses? Obviously we’re not driving a car that has hit a road block (nor is this a street demo confronted with a line of cops). It is a metaphorical device for how “the ways of doing anarchy” are not having their intended effects. Where do you see us claim to have the method to move past this impasse? Our intentions, which I believe are made clear in the introduction, are precisely that we do NOT have the answers, hence ending with some questions to point out the troubled spots and contradictions in our writing and way of thinking. The questions at the end were written by others, for the authors of each piece to ponder. Though you’re welcome to engage with them, their sole intention is not for the reader to answer.
I am curious to hear what you have to say about each piece, but be forewarned that many of us do not maintain an “anarchist philosophy” per se. Also, see the note above to clear up misconceptions you likely have about “the authors’ website.”
-One of the writers
Thank you for the response. I will make the clarification on joint publication in the post and reply back to your excellent comment in full shortly. The clarifications on format helps my thinking.
-r
> What is this distinction you are trying to make between “real” and “literary” impasses?
If it is believed that there are real, non metaphorical impasses I would want to see much more evidence of these impasses. If the intent was simply to be a metaphorical device then I won’t look for more evidence. I will simply move on to the issues and questions posed.
I think it’s an interesting statement to see that the ways of doing anarchy are not having their intended effects. I’m not sure I fully grok what these intended effects were. The ways of doing anarchy strike me as being very unpredictable. The world is complicated and asking lots of questions and pushing for open engagement would seem to increase the space of possible futures.
> The questions at the end were written by others, for the authors of each piece to ponder. Though you’re welcome to engage with them, their sole intention is not for the reader to answer.
Excellent! Very interesting approach. It’s unclear in reading the book that this is the format. Now that I know I appreciate the questions differently.
> I am curious to hear what you have to say about each piece, but be forewarned that many of us do not maintain an “anarchist philosophy” per se.
thank you for this clarification. My assumptions probably over reached on this. My main response to the book has little to do with actual anarchy and anarchist philosophy (if that could even been fully spelled out) and more to do with whether I consider the words representative of how the world may actually work.