In the winter of 2004 at UC Davis, I had enrolled in a critical theory seminar that, after the first week, I regretted signing up for. I looked online at the other offerings, and there was a seminar on Foucault, taught by one Marc Blanchard. I decided to email him to see if I could join the class, albeit a week late. I went on and on about how much I appreciated Foucault’s contributions to theory, how I had applied Foucault’s writings on panopticism to my Master’s thesis, etc., etc. Marc wrote back a positive if utterly cryptic email, in all-caps, with no greeting, no punctuation, no sign-off:
DO IT
I remember thinking:
What am I getting myself into?Now, looking back over my notes from that first seminar, here is what I see:
Marc wanted us to develop, over the course of the quarter, a provisionary outline, a plan, for a final project—this I have in quotes: “Something that is important to your guts.” Yes, that sounds about right. Marc was not interested in ‘theory’ as an academic pursuit pf postures and alignment. He
was interested in things that were important to our
guts, to our actual lives. And this, in turn, would make for the best academic engagements with 'theory' I could ever imagine.
Marc recommended that we learn to become intellectual “pickpockets”: that as we read, we learn to take things that are useful, and in this nefarious sounding advice was one of his truly profound (and practical) contributions to my own scholarship and pedagogy. Ideas are definitively
not property, and that is precisely what makes them revolutionary and potentially emancipatory. Marc taught us how to become familiar with ideas that might not be ‘ours’, but also might not be
anyone’s, and therefore the ideas could be used to illuminate any number of contexts—and always: the more
real, the better.
In one class, Marc explained the goal of the class as such: “We go very slow, then we get bogged down, then it is the end of the quarter—and we stop.” How many times have I unknowingly repeated some variation on this theme to my students? For it is so true: as humanists, the best we can do is to endlessly decelerate, conceding each ‘end’-point as the beginning of another, even slower, set of inquiries.
For Mark, slowing down and asking serious questions—he called this “field work”—was a direct mode of critique. He once said, “The regime doesn’t want you to say anything, so that you’ll just shut up and shop.” I don’t think anyone left class and went shopping that night. And I think we all had more questions about this regime—questions that we would go on to
vocalize, in class as well as at home and at work.
Of course, Marc was nothing if not enigmatic. One time he claimed, “
problem solving is a capitalist idea.” Wait—what were we supposed to do if not
solve the very problems that we
discovered through theory? But Marc would be on a new point, explaining how “to
think is to make a norm.” Wait—as a critic of social norms, how can I not
think? Marc’s seminars were relentless investigations that reported to no agency, no authority—and yet this somehow caused everything to be profoundly ethical, and everywhere to be open to scrutiny. And somehow, to enhance the paradox, this never resulted in existential disorientation. Rather, what happened in those seminars—and what has influenced so many of Marc’s students outside of class—was a supremely
human connection: fiercely intellectual, and remarkably grounded in the everyday. Marc brought to life the best of the humanities, in its fully engaged self-aware, thoroughly critical mode. Marc’s lessons are dear to my heart and ingrained in my mind, and through these lessons Marc's spirit comes to life in spontaneous contexts and fresh applications every single day.