Each year, the 13\/13 public seminars focus on a different set of problematics at the very heart of contemporary critical thought. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the first 13\/13 public seminars focused on Michel Foucault\u2019s 13 series of lectures at the Coll\u00e8ge de France in Paris, all of which were edited into books, with the complete set finally published in 2015. We engaged in close readings of Foucault’s 13 Coll\u00e8ge de France lectures at 13 public seminars at Columbia University. This produced the first “13\/13”, the\u00a0Foucault 13\/13 series<\/a>. The name and idea, 13\/13, was born. During the next year, 2016-2017, the public seminar focused on 13 critical readings of Friedrich Nietzsche and produced the\u00a0Nietzsche 13\/13 series.<\/a> During the 2017-2018 academic year, the seminar focused on 13 modalities of uprisings and produced the\u00a0Uprising 13\/13 series.<\/a>\u00a0The following year, during the 2018-2019 academic year, the seminar focused on the relationship between critical theory and praxis, and produced the\u00a0Praxis 13\/13 series.<\/a> During the 2019-2020 academic year, the seminar returned to 13 fundamental texts of critical theory, and produced the Critique 13\/13 series<\/a>. Last year, during the 2020-2021 academic year, the seminar went completely virtual, due to the pandemic, and focused on the history, theory, and future of abolition. It produced the Abolition Democracy 13\/13 series<\/a>.<\/p>\n The current 13\/13 public seminar for 2021-2022 focuses on the ideas and manifestos of 13 \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d who ignited revolutions. The new series is designed in conversation with the literary critic and cultural theorist, Professor Biodun Jeyifo<\/a>, who will open the series with me on September 22, 2021.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0review essay<\/a>\u00a0on the broad project of these 13\/13 public seminars, Biodun Jeyifo urges us to turn our attention to \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d because, by contrast to the more academic critical philosophers, \u201cthey have not been studied enough as a historic, global and comparative phenomenon.\u201d As Jeyifo rightly insists, there is a difference between returning to Sartre and Foucault, or instead turning to Kwame Nkrumah and Ho Chi Minh. This raises crucial questions:\u00a0How is it that some ideas and manifestos, more so than others, have ignited, animated, or galvanized people to rise in revolution? What is it about these ideas and their theoretical moves\u2014and not others\u2014that have had revolutionary effects? What can they tell us about critique and praxis? These are some of the questions we will explore this year in Revolution 13\/13.<\/p>\n The ambition of this year’s 13\/13 public seminar is set out in more full detail on the home page of Revolution 13\/13<\/a> and also reproduced below. Please do read the full articulation of this year’s project.<\/p>\n Welcome to Revolution 13\/13!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n If the central argument is a rousing reaffirmation of the mandate to make theory change the world for the better, which group is better qualified to make this happen: the \u201cilluminati\u201d of critical theory or activist thinkers and \u201cworldly\u201d philosophers?<\/p>\n \u2014 Biodun Jeyifo (2021)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In a review essay<\/a> on Critique & Praxis<\/em> and the broader project of these 13\/13 seminars, published recently in the British Journal of Sociology<\/em><\/a> (vol. 73, issue 3, June 2021), the literary critic and cultural theorist Biodun Jeyifo asks whether, as we chart a path forward toward critical praxis, we should turn to the writings of the more academically-inclined critical theorists or to those of more revolutionary philosopher-activists. Would we be better off reading Adorno, Arendt, and Foucault, or Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Luxemburg, and Mao? Should we privilege the \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d who actually ignited real revolutions?<\/p>\n Biodun Jeyifo emphasizes that it is not productive to pose the question as if one list, one tradition, was preferable to the other. \u201cThere is no incommensurable divide between the two lists or traditions,\u201d Jeyifo underscores in correspondence. Yet turning our attention to the \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d would be beneficial because, by contrast to the academic critical philosophers, \u201cthey have not been studied enough as a historic, global and comparative phenomenon.\u201d<\/p>\n The challenge raises a number of questions that the earlier 13\/13 seminars had posed: To begin with, what is a revolution<\/a> and how does it differ from an uprising, riot, or insurrection? Is the very idea of revolution too closely tied to \u201cthe modern concept of revolution<\/a>,\u201d or alternatively, to anti-colonial wars of national liberation at mid-twentieth century? Is the metric of \u201cigniting an actual revolution\u201d too closely tied to the \u201csuccess\u201d or \u201ceffectiveness\u201d of a mass mobilization, and what do those words, \u201csuccess\u201d or \u201ceffectiveness,\u201d even mean? Are revolutionary outcomes the product of historical contingencies, of a historical conjuncture, over which philosophers themselves have little control? And how exactly do we distinguish which thinkers are more academically-inclined and which are the worldly philosophers who brought about revolution? Surely there are differences between, on the one hand, Lenin, Luxemburg, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, and, on the other, Adorno, Arendt, Beauvoir, Foucault, Said, and Sartre. But are those differences contingent on their location in history? And do they reify particular definitions of revolution\u2014such as an armed uprising versus a transformation of our subjectivity?<\/p>\n We have examined and addressed all these challenges in the 13\/13 seminars, and yet\u2026 as Biodun Jeyifo rightly insists, there is a difference between returning to Sartre and Foucault, or instead turning to Fidel Castro and Kwame Nkrumah.<\/p>\n The 13\/13 project has tried to give primacy neither to theory, nor to praxis, but instead to constantly confront and clash theory and praxis on the model of a large particle collider. And we have, over the years, dedicated seminars to many who could be considered revolutionary philosophers, such as Aim\u00e9 C\u00e9saire<\/a>, Angela Davis<\/a>, Frantz Fanon<\/a>, Paulo Freire<\/a>, Gandhi<\/a>, Marx<\/a>, and Mao<\/a>, among others, as well as to revolutionary movements like the Arab Spring<\/a> and Standing Rock<\/a>. Yet there are many worldly philosophers that we have not discussed\u2014and that Biodun Jeyifo urges us to interrogate: Amilcar Cabral, Fidel Castro, Nawal El Saadawi, C.L.R. James, Claudia Jones, Walter Rodney, among others. What is it about these thinkers and their work that affected critical praxis differently? What unique insights can we glean by turning the prism toward their writings and actions?<\/p>\n Tough questions all\u2014perhaps the place to begin is to draw a list of those worldly philosophers and social movements that ignited revolutions. Here is the beginning of such a list, drawing on Biodun Jeyifo\u2019s review essay, with contributions from \u00c9tienne Balibar<\/a>, Che Gossett<\/a>, Fonda Shen<\/a>, and Omavi Shukur<\/a>:<\/p>\n Looking over this list, we might ask: What is it about these ideas, manifestos, and writings\u2014and not others\u2014that ignited revolutions? What work did these books do to spark mass mobilization? How and why did they bring about revolutionary action, even if short lived?<\/p>\n Now, to be sure, there are several objections that can be raised to this framing: Does it privilege the men who wrote their own history? Yes, no doubt; but there are also women and queer thinkers on this list: Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, Claudia Jones, Doria Shafik, Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Marsha P. Johnson, Silvia Rivera, Ani Pachen, Nawal El Saadawi, Mariame Kaba. Does it fall victim to the \u201cgreat man\u201d theory of history? Again, yes, no doubt, even though there are collectives on our list as well, including ACT UP, the Alcatraz occupation movement, the Combahee River Collective. Does it privilege physical, violent, or armed resistance over other forms of transformation? Once again, yes, even if Gandhi and MLK feature on our list as well. Those who have accomplished the long and tedious work of cultural transformation, over the longue dur\u00e9e<\/em>, may be less present on this list. Does it privilege national identity, given that so many of these activist thinkers were involved in wars of national liberation and, thus, tied to notions of the nation? Yes, here too. And, there is no question: we need to explore, with Saidiya Hartman, the voices that are missing from the archive\u2026<\/p>\n Does the list also privilege national identity, given that so many of these activist thinkers were involved in wars of national liberation and, thus, tied to notions of the nation? Yes, here too: every name, every revolutionary in our list is specifically identified with his or her country. But note that in the syllabus itself, we have expanded the national and regional spaces in which the lives, works and praxis of the \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d had their impact. Moreover, even when the purview is limited to a single national space, that space is not dominated by one titan; rather, it is a contested space in which contending theories of changing the world clash, often going beyond ideas to decisive impact on the world. Indeed, in this particular regard, this edition of the 13\/13 seminars departs from some previous editions in the fact that the normative dominance of single-author oeuvres of academic philosophers gives way to the usual double or multiple oeuvres and practices of activist thinkers.<\/p>\n In the end, a question remains: How is it that some ideas and manifestos, more so than others, have ignited, animated, or galvanized people to rise in revolution? What is it about these ideas and their theoretical moves\u2014and not others? What can they tell us about critique and praxis? Should we not explore, perhaps for this 13\/13 seminar series, what the \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d can tell us about critical praxis theory? Yes, let\u2019s do that this year. Let\u2019s do that together. Welcome to the revolutionary ideas, manifestos, and texts of the worldly philosophers\u2014or, for short\u2026<\/p>\n Welcome to Revolution 13\/13!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Bernard E. Harcourt Each year, the 13\/13 public seminars focus on a different set of problematics at the very heart of contemporary critical thought. During the 2015-2016 academic year, the first 13\/13 public seminars focused on Michel Foucault\u2019s 13… Continue Reading * * *<\/h2>\n
The ideas and manifestos of \u201cworldly philosophers\u201d that ignited revolutions\u2026<\/h1>\n
CCCCT Seminar Series 2021-2022 (7th<\/sup> edition)<\/h2>\n
ACT UP (U.S.) (see Uprising 9\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
The Alcatraz Proclamation (U.S.) (see also Uprising 12\/13<\/a> on Standing Rock)<\/h2>\n
\n
Amilcar Cabral (Guinea)<\/h2>\n
\n
Fidel Castro (Cuba)<\/h2>\n
\n
Aim\u00e9 C\u00e9saire (Martinique) (see Nietzsche 6\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Che Guevara (Argentina)<\/h2>\n
\n
The Combahee River Collective (U.S.)<\/h2>\n
\n
Angela Davis (U.S.) (see Abolition Democracy 9\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Nawal El Saadawi (Egypt)<\/h2>\n
\n
Frantz Fanon (Martinique\/Algeria) (see Nietzsche 8\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Paulo Freire (Brazil) (see Critique 13\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Gandhi (India) (see Uprising 5\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Emma Goldman (U.S.)<\/h2>\n
\n
Antonio Gramsci (Italy)<\/h2>\n
\n
Stuart Hall (Jamaica & UK)<\/h2>\n
\n
V\u00e1clav Havel (Czech)<\/h2>\n
\n
Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)<\/h2>\n
\n
George Jackson (U.S.)<\/h2>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/em>C.L.R. James (Trinidad)<\/h2>\n
\n
Jean Jaur\u00e8s (France)<\/h2>\n
\n
Marsha P. Johnson and Silvia Rivera (U.S.)<\/h2>\n
\n
Claudia Jones (Trinidad)<\/h2>\n
\n
Mariame Kaba (U.S.) (see Abolition Democracy 13\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Audre Lorde (US) (see Critique 12\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Martin Luther King, Jr. (U.S.) (Uprising 8\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Hans-J\u00fcrgen Krahl (West Germany)<\/h2>\n
\n
Lenin (Russia)<\/h2>\n
\n
Rosa Luxemburg (Poland\/Germany)<\/h2>\n
\n
Malcolm X (U.S.)<\/h2>\n
\n
Nelson Mandela (South Africa)<\/h2>\n
\n
Mao (China) (Uprising 2\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Jose Carlos Mariategui (Peru)<\/h2>\n
\n
Marx and Engels (Germany\/UK) (see Abolition Democracy 5\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Jarwaharlal Nehru (India)<\/h2>\n
\n
Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)<\/h2>\n
\n
Ani Pachen (Tibet)<\/h2>\n
\n
Walter Rodney (Guyana)<\/h2>\n
\n
Thomas Sankara (Burkina Faso)<\/h2>\n
\n
L\u00e9opold S\u00e9dar Senghor (Senegal)<\/h2>\n
\n
Doria Shafik (Egypt)<\/h2>\n
\n
Ali Shari\u2019ati (Iran) (see Nietzsche 13\/13<\/a>)<\/h2>\n
\n
Eric Eustace Williams (Trinidad and Tobego)<\/h2>\n
\n
Prison Writings<\/h2>\n
\n