Reassembling Rubbish

On partisanship

All knowledge is partisan to some degree. This is another way of describing what Donna Haraway (1991) calls partial and situated knowledge. Knowledge is always partial and situated, it cannot be otherwise, so to describe something as partisan is to describe it accurately rather than to disparage it. But just because all knowledge is partisan does not mean all knowledge is equally so (see Sayer 2010 p. 46).

Note the range of synonyms for 'partisan':

supporter, follower, adherent, devotee, champion; fanatic, fan, enthusiast, stalwart, zealot, booster.

There is a big difference between a supporter and zealot. Part of the point of mapping a controversy is to develop and tune our sensors, our equipment for judgement, our tools of discernment, to detect the differences between zealous fanatics and supportive fans.

This page has replies:

  1. It can be a rational choice to become a zealot. In 2002, I published a rather reasonable and rational editorial "Setting a Higher Standard" on the need to establish best practices in used electronics exports. http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/setting-a-higher-standard/That established a dialog with BAN, resulting in publication in 2004 of the CRT Recycling Test https://www.scribd.com/document/17382643/Ban-Crt-Glass-Test-2004 which sought to sample recyclers mass balance of broken glass to test their export claims. In 2005, I invited Total Reclaim of Seattle, a recycler BAN would trust, to visit SKD factories in Guangdong province (Jim told Craig to "take pics of children"). In 2006, I provided nuance to Charles Schmidt and discussed my comments with Jim Puckett, but felt I had done a disservice to African Tech Sector workers when Puckett got the 80% waste claim into a scientific journal. In 2007 and 8, I worked with BAN on the EPA R2 standard stakeholders panel, negotiating the compromise "must be legal" when we disagreed over Basel Convention Annex IX, B1110. At that meeting however, Sarah warned me no to act like I was their friend in order imply their support for a position they disagreed with. And thus we founded WR3A. In 2010, after BAN launched a scathing attack on a state of the art CRT remanufacturer in Semarang, Indonesia, I invited BAN to the "California Compromise" to agree on BAN standards for exports, with the plan to use California SB20 funding to supply better product than even I could provide. That was directly against my commercial interest. That failed, and then Joe Benson was accused that year. I contacted BAN about Joe Benson and they told me to basically fuck off (saying there would be no more communication until I towed the line). Today, several people call me a zealot. Ok. John Brown was considered a zealot. The question is, at what point can a rational person come to the logical solution that a zealot (or public defender, or anti-defamation representative) is necessary? At what point does zealotry become a personal moral sacrifice of perceived integrity? At what point does Susan B. Anthony decide to live with sl*t-shaming? It is necessary to offer nuance and moderation to win majority consensus. However, John Brown's Harpers Ferry raid was probably necessary, according to Frederick Douglass (1881 commemorative address). https://www.nps.gov/hafe/learn/historyculture/frederick-douglass-at-harpers-ferry.htm Social fear of unrest will forever kick the can down the road and leave strong positions to invested partners. If the facts become very morally clear, the zealot creates the path for Lincoln.