Add new comment

"Somehow I ain't impressed by those grand analyses of what previous authors had to say about such detached subjects as 'asceticism.'"

So go ahead and don't be impressed by them. Far be it for me to try and "convince" you of anything that you're disinclined to be convinced of. But, as long as we're talking about not being impressed by things, I'm not particularly impressed by anti-intellectual platitudes that seek to justify self-sacrifice to some alienated 'Cause' - even if that cause is understood to be anarchy itself. You can view a critique of asceticism as "detached" and "academic" if you want to, but I view it as the most pragmatic of considerations, as it pertains directly to me and my self-enjoyment.

"This is where I'd lean more towards non-academic thinkers such as Vaneigem, Bonanno, and even Debord and Tiqqun."

You do that. Meanwhile, I'll continue "taking what I like and leaving the rest" from whichever thinkers I feel have something interesting and/or useful to say, regardless of whether their ideas emerged within an "academic" environment. A curious thing about anarchists is that, because they mostly define themselves based on what they're opposed to, they have a habit of seeing opposition where none exists. There is no binary choice, for instance, between Vaneigem on the one hand and Deleuze on the other. It is equally possible to borrow useful ideas from both thinkers and there's nothing inherently contradictory about doing so. Whatever opposition you perceive exists between these two thinkers has more to do with your own sensibilities than it does with some irreconcilability between their respective ideas. Besides, as the self-professed Vaneigem fan that you are, I suspect you're familiar with his quote that "[t]he call for sacrifice... is a funeral knell." You don't arrive at this sort of position without having a rather pointed critique of asceticism.

"There's something to be said about how Deleuze/Guattari just like other post-moderns have worked very hard at maintaining philosophy as an inherently-bourgeois practise enclosed within the ivory tower of academia..."

Arguably so, just not what you would *like* to say about it. Critiquing institutionalized academia as a bureaucratic apparatus is a completely different thing than refusing to engage with the actual *content* of certain bodies of ideas simply because they were formulated in an academic setting. This is a distinction that Wolfi Landstreicher made quite clear in his article, "Neither Intellectualism Nor Stupidity." I am totally on board with rejecting the mental/manual division of labour that gives rise to "the Intellectual" as a social role, but using this as a rationale for anti-intellectual moralizing is another matter entirely.