Jen Angel offers up a seriously in-depth analysis of her time at the helm of Clamor Magazine, which closed shop this past December after seven years of publishing. Due warning: "Seven Years of Clamor: challenges, successes, and reflections" is a pdf file. But you may very well find it to be important insight into independent media and movement building. As Angel states at the beginning: "Many organizations and movements are poor historians... " Angel hopes to remedy that, in an article in which the table of contents (!) includes such items as "Entry Points: Helping New Voices Be Heard" and, my absolute favorite, "Midwest Represent!: Why Geography Matters."
I have to admit to mixed feelings about Clamor. I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute two articles to the magazine. I respect its independent, non-profit, collective structure, its DIY ethic, and the passion that so many people brought to the pages. It was truly an accessible media, allowing new writers and artists to tiptoe into journalism and be heard. The magazine featured an impressive range of politics, economics, and culture. They often had great reviews of books and films, and its final crescendo--an expose of American Apparel--was crucial. And Clamor's roots are truly in action.
And yet.
I was often frustrated with the lack of depth in Clamor. I suppose that's a consequence of making yourself accessible to new and young writers (present company included). But I wished more from the editors, that they might stay the magazine from safely settling into movement jargon; bandying about the keywords of social justice activism, as if the keywords told the whole story, excusing the writer from an analysis.
Here's a short list of the sort of language I mean:
--Genderqueer
--Ze (used as a pronoun, to emphasize a refusal to submit to the normative he/she distinctions)
--Gender binary
--Colonization
--Conscientization
--Oppression
--Revolution
--Radical
--Hierarchy
--Prison industrial complex
--Military industrial complex
Don't get me wrong--using language well is imperative for progress (witness the war over the terms "pro-choice," "pro-life," "anti-abortion," anti-choice," and "pro-women" in the reproductive rights struggle). And many of the above terms are ones I embrace and use regularly.
But Clamor often relyed on such termonology to carry the weight of an argument, rather than piecing out the argument (or, more accurately, the point-of-view) itself. The magazine seemed best suited to instruct young activists on how to appear to be activists, offering the vocabulary for a bullet-point survey of worthy causes.
Seen in the best way possible, Clamor was a great way for young activists to grow comfortable in their identity, sensing the wider community among them. But for myself, I wish Clamor pushed further--so that the magazine pushed, dug, and generally was unsatisfied to skim on movement language, and instead, to make explicit why such language may or may not be deserved.
Comments