One of my constant aims has been getting the discussion of OOO/SR texts outside the incestuous ghetto, making the discussion wider than the usual partisan publicity. Too long have OOO partisans tended to “withdraw” from discussion. Their attemps to enstate OOO/SR as a Kuhnian paradigm, as an unquestioned background for normal theoretical activity, is entering a new phase with its recent “make books not blogs” marketing strategy. Yet dialogue, while now more difficult, still seems most worthwhile.
OOO/SR is obsessed with recounting its own history and with enumerating its members, but has no respect for its critics, grouping them together indiscriminately under the rubric
of “most frequent objections”. An obsessive feaure is the constant reference to the original Goldsmiths event which seems to have been based on a total misunderstanding. In fact the “movement” seems to have the most boring history possible, and its members recount it so that our eyes glaze over and we absorb the rest uncritically.
This history is a mere ritual invocation taking the place of any real effort at historical contextualisation. Its presence legitimates a crass neglect and ignorance of alternative ideas, as they do not fit into the self-congratulatory historical narrative that its authors purvey.