FAQ: Theory, Practice, and the Journal Matthew Wolf-Meyer and Davin Heckman

Why "reconstruction"?

Whether or not we have reached the nadir of postmodernism, it has become evident that what is required of thinkers is an attempt to rebuild after the destructive nihilism of postmodern apathy. Much like the American South after the Civil War, it is a time of reflection and forward thinking: For those of us who care about the future, there is the obvious need to work towards something, and with time, thought and effort, Reconstruction should help to affect such an end. As such there are also questions that need to be answered:

How does Reconstruction reconcile the project of scholarship with the lack of authority embodied in postmodern thought?

As a project, Reconstruction will take its own shape as material and criticism is added, changing the meaning of what came before and creating new possibilities for things to come. Because of its collaborative nature, Reconstruction should allow us to reconsider the concept of the "organic intellectual," allowing many types of intellectuals from many traditions and non-traditions to insert themselves into academic discussion. But more importantly, Reconstruction contains the potential for intellectual projects that are themselves organic in their growth -- living cultural texts which are not subject to the authority of individual scholars. As such, the concept of scholarly "authority," which is bound up in the concept of authorship, is surpassed by a vital, evolving, intellectual movement: no one voice speaks, instead there exists a chorus of articulated thought.

What is the purpose of Reconstruction?

Over time the material published in Reconstruction will begin to be organized in a cellular format, which is to say that related articles will begin to be grouped together, allowing the reader to follow currents of thought from one point to the next, often times resulting in a far different final outcome than initially thought possible. As such, Reconstruction acts as a form of conceptual mapping, as set forth by Fredric Jameson -- one idea flows into another endlessly, and only by tracking these ideas will any sort of comprehensive understanding take place.

In the near future, as publications in Reconstruction become more and more numerous, a conceptual map will be available online, linking the readings together in a visual attempt to consolidate what might otherwise be impossible to properly conceptualize. As such, expect to be able to navigate based upon ideas rather than titles alone.

This then is the purpose of Reconstruction: to be able to formulate a conceptual map of our human culture, unlimited in scope, and only comprehensible through such a far-reaching project. Thus, scholars in all fields, academic and recreational, should feel free to participate in this conceptual map of the world -- only through communication between thinkers, intermingling of ideas, can anything effective be accomplished.

What is the level of interaction between those who create scholarship and those who consume it?

Scholars should be willing to confront the reactions of their audience, and to counter with insight and arguments of their own: information should not be dispensed, but acted out. As such, the articles that are to be found in Reconstruction are only the first part of a process of informing. Readers should feel willing, and able, to respond to the writer through our message boards and know that not only will other readers respond to them, but also the writers themselves. Education cannot happen in a void, and it is only through this form of intellectual interaction that we will be able to impart on readers a proper understanding of the project of Reconstruction and the meaning and possibilities contained within each of the intellectual efforts contained herein.

Moreover, readers should feel empowered to respond to articles with article length studies of their own. The intellectual conversation is not bettered by proselytizing.

What is the future of the journal in the age of electronic mediums that render capitalism meaningless?

The notion that information, and wisdom, should be paid for, as emblematized in the traditional academic journal, is utterly ridiculous, soaked in hubris, and ultimately harmful. Information, particularly that which is meant to educate and has the ability to charge its readers with insight and activity, should not only be made free, but accessible, interactive, and known. The spirit of capitalism that has infused the academic pursuits of the twentieth century must be eradicated if there is any hope for the future of scholarship, particularly as scholarship becomes, in the wake of feminism, more acutely personal in nature. And more so as scholarship works to critique the culture which has spawned it. As such, all information contained within Reconstruction, although it will retain the copyright of its author, will remain free and accessible -- other journals that insist on payment will slowly atrophy and eventually fail, as their eyes and minds turn ever inward in the downward spiral of intellectual decay, while journals that impart interactivity among the contributors and the readers, in such venues as message boards and chatting rooms, will flourish and become the inheritors of the intellectual potential of humanity.

What can be expected of Reconstruction in the future?

 

Additional questions will be answered as they are asked. Please feel free to ask of us any pertinent question.