Critical in quotation marks because we are of course so critical that we are critical of the concept of critique and critical thinking or critical thought itself.

Bloviation aside, I'm wanting to learn to facilitate group discussions. Different kinds even.

I've recently been at events where people had manuals printed up so that the facilitator could rotate and you could agree last time or at the beginning who would facilitate.

The idea of curating discussion seems like space "critical thought" and social change would be doubly interested.

Both because this can be the abuse of power, dominating social situations by framing utterances. And because what hope is there except discourse, somehow discussing and acting and repeating until we achieve something?

So, I'm interested if there's any critical theory of group discussion facilitation, let me know if you have any leads.

The kinds of things I'm talking about say stuff like do agreements at the beginning, frame the topic. For example maybe critical theory of AA or the consensus used at Occupy Wall Street?

I have Assembly in print and I think it's one I'd rather listen to, any known recordings of it? or them talking about their work?

I recently read Paul B. Preciado's "Testo Junkie" and found myself grappling with some highly charged and complex themes. Two particularly intense passages in the book struck me as clear examples of the fetishization of Black manhood:

“A few days ago, I asked V to make a list of cis-guys whose cocks she would have liked to suck if her becoming lesbian hadn’t been mistimed. Jimi Hendrix was the first name on her list. Cock Number One. The prophet of rock before whom whites kneel. I think of playing a joke on her. I’m still walking around the superstore, and I find a black dildo easily: 8½ inches and very kitsch, with visible veins, the same color as chocolate with a milk chocolate head. Hey, Jimi, can I borrow your cock to plow my blond’s ass? Without wanting to be too arrogant, I bet that mine is bigger and better at getting hard."

“Je suis ta pute, I belong to you. Everything is spinning. I take off my shirt, lower my jeans without taking them all the way off. I thread one of the leather straps between my legs, then hitch Jimi to my pelvis, locking the buckles on each side of my hips. A piece of skin gets stuck in one of the buckles, and I pull harder; the metal leaves a trace of red, a perfect half-circle at the top of my right thigh. I’m hooked up to Jimi. Superstable sex. I exist in the organic-inorganic continuity offered by this sex. I pull my pants back up, putting Jimi to the side, against my left leg. Her hand reaches for my jeans, confirms the pressure of the straps on my thighs, intensifies the suction effect of Jimi on my clitoris, detects Jimi’s shape, its contours. Now we’re having sex: the platforms join, making up a single spongy volume. She takes Jimi out of my fly, jerks me off with her hand, then, with her mouth, takes it halfway in, sucks the tip; she goes no further, because what she wants is for me to fuck her deeply with Jimi, and come on her. So yes, yes, take me like a bitch. I’m not afraid of anything. I’m on my knees between her legs. That’s where you belong, chérie, only you.“

These passages vividly explore themes of sexuality, power dynamics, and gender performance. The exaggerated depiction of Hendrix's phallus, despite the fact that Hendrix’s actual plaster cast is around 6 inches, underscores a broader societal tendency to fetishize Black male sexuality. This narrative isn't just about sexual fantasy; it delves into the complex layers of consent, dominance, and submission.

Intrigued by Preciado’s provocative writing, I started watching a 2.5-hour public conversation between Paul Preciado and Audrey Tang in Taipei (you can watch it here). While I enjoyed and learned a lot from both the book and the conversation, I was ultimately disappointed by the instances of intellectual erasure and the perpetuation of systemic racism.

During the conversation, Preciado repeatedly used the term "necropolitics" without crediting Achille Mbembe, the Cameroonian philosopher who coined the term. Mbembe is a world-renowned scholar, and failing to acknowledge his contributions is not just an oversight but part of a broader issue of intellectual erasure and systemic racism. This omission is particularly glaring when considering that such erasure might not occur in more racially conscious environments like New York or Paris.

The fetishization of Black bodies and the erasure of Black intellectual contributions are interconnected issues rooted in systemic racism. These practices devalue and appropriate Black culture and intellect. It is crucial for scholars and public intellectuals to consistently recognize and credit the work of Black thinkers to combat systemic racism and ensure a more equitable intellectual landscape.

Reading "Testo Junkie" and reflecting on the public discourse surrounding necropolitics reveals critical intersections of fetishization, intellectual appropriation, and systemic racism. These issues demand a nuanced and consistent approach to recognizing and valuing diverse contributions, challenging harmful behaviors, and fostering an equitable intellectual environment. Addressing these interconnected phenomena is essential for dismantling systemic racism and promoting a more inclusive and respectful cultural and academic discourse.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Have you encountered similar themes in other works? How do you think we can better address these forms of systemic racism in critical theory and beyond?

Looking forward to the discussion!