Freedom Dreams marks a significant intellectual turning point for Robin D. G. Kelley—“a kind of crossroads.” In the opening pages, he expresses his alienation from “the same old protest politics.” His stated purpose in Freedom Dreams is to recover the visions of social transformation advanced by black radical movements. For a born-again Kelley, the path to liberation will not be… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (2)Page 1 of 1 pagesI appreciate Professor Johnson’s time and effort in writing this review, but I didn’t really recognize my argument. I don’t dismiss organizing; on the contrary, I argue that participation in social movements change people, alter the way they see the world and provide some sense of what is possible. It is not about “dreaming” as if new visions just spring out of one’s imagination in isolation from social struggle.
I make it clear that this book isn’t supposed to be a handbook for making revolution, but rather a history of what particular radical movements hoped to accomplish if they won. How is this “sidestepping” the question of organizing? There are many people who have written on contemporary organizing strategy, my sister Makani Themba-Nixon being one; Eric Mann, another, and there are many others. This is not what I wrote about. I sense that I’m being accused of not writing the book Professor Johnson wants me to write. Moreover, much of the critique is not at all addressed to Freedom Dreams but to Race Rebels, a book I published nine years ago.
Professor Johnson missed the whole point about the imagination, which is unfortunate because unless organizers find some time to talk about what kind of future they are working for, left politics will be reduced to putting out fires and reacting. Its important to recognize that the basic premise of the book is that the catalyst for political engagement has never been misery, poverty, and oppression but hope; the promise of constructing a new world radically different from the one theyíve inherited.
Posted by Robin D. G. Kelley on Mar 12, 2003 at 7:45 PM I was pleased to read Kelleyís response to my review. Nonetheless, I was amazed by his claims that he did not recognize his argument and that my review spoke more to Race Rebels than Freedom Dreams. Aside from passing reference to Zoot suits, my review is squarely addressed to his latest work. Whatever retroactive application my critique possesses has more to do with his analytical consistency than an oversight on my part. Likewise, I certainly do not criticize Kelley for not having written a handbook for making revolution. Quite the contrary, I would be extremely suspicious of any work which claimed to do so. I tried to draw attention to certain limitations with Kelleyís conceptualization of politics, radicalism and revolution.
While I am confident we share a basic desire for the revitalization of left opposition and the radical democratic transformation of American society, his book and my review bear key interpretative differences. Kelley sees value in celebrating the millennial aspirations of radical movements but not in dwelling on questions of political efficacy and resonance. I do not think that it is intellectually or politically useful to shelve critical interpretation of radical movements. Another key problem rests in his take on revolution as a secular ìGreat gettiní up morniní.î My view of revolution is not as apocalyptic. Rather, I would argue that alternatives to hierarchy and exploitation can be found in the mundane and even the mainstream. For instance, public transit, the internet, labor-saving technologies, public education funding and zoning codes can all be subverted to meet human needs and create greater freedom for all.
I did not miss Kelleyís argument regarding the imagination. I simply do not agree with him. Interestingly, in his response, Kelley reasserts that unless leftist begin to discuss the kind of world they want, organizing will be reduced to ìputting out fires and reacting.î It is this questionable characterization of organizing I criticize. Why should we assume that instrumental political activity or even organizing in crisis situations is somehow devoid of a broader, substantive vision which transcends short-term goals? Fire fightingóeither in the literal or activist senseóembodies certain values such as altruism and mutuality which are certainly radical in comparison to the narrow self-advancement, consumerism and privatism promoted throughout the wider society.
Posted by Cedric Johnson on Mar 22, 2003 at 5:55 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Cedric Kwesi Johnson
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
