Problems (i.e. why the exercise was done):
Problem 1: Difficulty of content and difficulty of style; we recognized that we were planning to go over an excerpt from Marx that it is very hard to understand, not only conceptually but also due to his unique and archaic style. We relied on describing it again to confront this.
Problem 2: At the beginning of the course, we wanted to confront any sense among participants that Marx is a god or, on the other hand, a feeling among the participants that we were not up to the task of studying Marx or that he is too difficult. We thought that by immediately reworking his words and changing them, and even pretending to be him, might help.
Problem 3: People have difficulty moving beyond abstractions and figuring out the content of words, whether these be slogans, concepts, chants or words used to describe feelings and ideas. The exercise hopes to treat this by utilizing a certain example of Marx’s materialist method.
Techniques Deployed:
Describe It Again
Modes:
Simulation
Surrealization
Materials:
Paper
Pen
Printed excerpts
Participant numbers:
Minimum participants: 2
Maximum participants: n/a
Group size: 2
How long does it take?
30-45 minutes
~ Instructions ~
Put the participants into pairs. Hand out an excerpt from Marx [we used one from the Introduction to the Critique Of Political Economy] to each pair. The excerpts are prepared before class by dividing them into smaller pieces about a sentence long, which we call elements. Number each element 1, 2, 3, etc. however many there are. For example:
| ONE: It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. TWO: The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. |
Now, on their own piece of paper, tell the participants to rewrite each element in their own words, element by element.
The aim is to try your best to figure out what Marx is saying and translate it into your own words. Don’t write “I think Marx is saying that…” Pretend to be Marx, and re-describe the ideas as if you were him writing it for the first time. This is not a test of interpretation. Do not be afraid of making mistakes, there is no such thing in this exercise. Instead, be bold and ask your partner questions, share your misunderstandings. As you progress through the exercise, you might feel like you understand the earlier elements better. You can return to them, cross things out, rephrase, etc. When we are done, we will hang up our re-descriptions on the wall next to Marx’s and spend time reading each other’s work and see what we’ve learned. |
Now allow the pairs to work through the entire manuscript together, talking about it and agreeing to a re-description and then re-writing. (See example image)
When the pairs are done, they should autograph the bottom of the manuscript and it should be hung up on the wall next to Marx’s original.
Criticism / Results of this exercise
The exercise forced a synthesis of the two participants’ ideas, which is less likely to happen if the pair was only made to discuss and not write down one round of Describe It Again (DIA). This does however run into the problem of time, where groups can spend an inordinate amount of time on one excerpt due to disagreement about a certain word or phrase. This is especially the case when the participants have substantially different backgrounds or familiarity with certain texts. We feel that it is also important to stress that it is perfectly OK if people do not get through the entire passage that is chosen, if there are lot of elements. In the one we used, there were 19 elements. Most people did not get to the end, and that is fine.
There was vacillation on how exactly participants were supposed to DIA: make it more concrete? more abstract? put it into our own words? make it easier to understand?
You can run into the problem of timidity, where one participant may not feel fit to interpret the text, which leads to the other participant essentially doing the whole exercise. One group confronted this by rotating the ‘lead describer’.
What’s the time?
in Al-Quds -
in Panama and Chicago -
in Burkina Faso -
in Scotland -
in Al-Quds -
in Panama and Chicago -
in Burkina Faso -
in Scotland -