Radical Relevance: Toward a Scholarship of the Whole Left

Abstract

Radical Relevance: Toward Scholarship of Whole Laura Gray-Rosendale and Steven Rosendale. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005. These are hard days for Having ruled roost for sixty years, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, they are now m disarray-short on both leadership and program. This fragmentation of is of wide critical concern and central theme of this book. The authors, Laura Gray-Rosendale and Steven Rosendale, professors at Northern Arizona University, describe their goal as effort to rethink left, seeking a scholarship of whole left. But alas, they never define just what the is and what is to of. Their thirteen collected essays presuppose dissatisfaction our contemporary Just what is responsible for that condition? Checking several sources for left definition, I come up with this: those who desire to reform or to overthrow established order. Isn't that what right wants to do too? One part of most definitions ties m nicely our book title: those holding more radical views than other members. In recent times, that definition best fits Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took office in 1932 and held for four terms. His New Deal was precisely that. Why has become, in some aspects, an old deal in twenty-first century? Is today's new deal being advocated by conservative Republicans rather than onceradical Democrats? Times can change faster than names or labels. So what will we have if we get, to use authors' phrase, whole left? They dodge this crucial question, saying that it would be futile to attempt detailed synthesis here (vu). Why so? They do give good reason for diminishment of in America: homogenization of national political discourse under twoparty system, exemplified and exacerbated by aftermath of much-disputed 2000 presidential election. The thirteen essays vary in length, depth, and relevance. Five center on need to expand established triad of race, class, and gender. They want to accommodate new pressing issues that have not been related to central triad, such as ethnicity, environment, and disability. The authors do not present cogent plan for doing this and end up Left Pipe Dreams. Crucial questions go unanswered. Why, for example, has leftist community failed to address adequately Native Americans' needs and experiences? And why has failed to give serious attention to pressing environment issues? If we are to remain relevant in 2005, metaphors like sustainability, conservation, preservation, and survival must emerge. …