Today, I would like to discuss a clarification to my response in relation to Aivintis’ response, “The Countermajoritian Necessity”. This will not address any of the salient points within the article, for I am still considering my response on the matter. However, several key points of the article have moved me to respond in this manner. In particular, I aim to address a key issue: that I extrapolate Aivintis’ conduct from that article. With this, I aim to argue that the article presents within itself an assertion of reality, which can be criticised and interrogated without considering it the entire brain child of the author.
To begin with, we may start with this quote as a starting point: “If one writes “undemocratic” to mean “tyrannical”, they are showing little cognitive depth. I am saddened that Loreintor would think such of me.” This is in relation to the wider point that “undemocratic does not mean tyrannical”. However, this quote implies that I criticise Aivintis for writing this, which I do not. Instead, I criticise the article and its portrayal of the Conclave through the lens of its use of “undemocratic”. The point here does not lie with the author, but with the article.
Fundamentally, once an author publishes a text, they no longer have ownership of that text. In effect, they no longer become the sole determiner of the text’s meaning. The text then becomes a claim on truth, an assertion that this is the reality of the matter. This is also echoed by “The Countermajoritian Necessity”, in which Aivintis writes: “My paper was not normative, seeking to describe how the political system should be. It was empirical, seeking to describe the existing state of the political system as it is now.”. In effect, by publishing the article, Aivintis removes it from the context of the author, and embeds it into a new context: the discourse on the Conclave.
All texts tend to speak on a specific discourse. Discourse, here, is defined as the exchanges of meaning in search of truth. In a discourse, truth is defined not by one person’s assertion, but multiple people’s assertion in relation to others. It is this collision between two people’s ideas that creates truth within a discourse, and we can only obtain that truth if we distance the idea from its creator: analysing that idea “as-is”. No singular idea is truly supreme in a discourse, the value of an idea is only found in its relation to other ideas: whether those ideas support or reject that idea, whether those ideas modify the idea, or even if other ideas change the perspective of the original idea. Fundamentally, these articles take a life of their own in the Conclave discourse, a life separate from its creators.
The crux of the matter, the reason why we must separate the article from its author, is this: we will never truly know what another person meant. Writing, fundamentally, is a translation from thought to words, a translation that can cause some errors. It is important to treat the text as it stands alone, because by doing so we may interrogate at least some part of authorial intent. To use a metaphor, we can treat a piece of writing as a mixture of intent and execution. No amount of good intent will save an article from poor execution, and no amount of good execution will save an article from ill intent. Our focus, therefore, must be on the execution: the text that we can see, that is right in front of us.
This does not, however, mean that authorial intent is useless: far from it, in fact. Authorial intent matters because intent informs the execution. How something is said, what is being said, the frame used to say something: these are choices made by the author. By understanding this, we may then seek to ask questions such as: “why is the article structured this way?” or “why is the Conclave referred to as undemocratic?” or even “how does the article use democratic and undemocratic?” I acknowledge the intent that the article may have by analysing how the execution was created. Does that mean that my assertion is instantly correct? Of course not, it simply means that that was what I saw.
From this, we can also extrapolate that the same can be done for my response, too. Aivintis’ response contributed to the discourse by further defining the article’s intent: that it was empirical, that it aimed to document the Conclave as is, etc. The article even makes mention of the Countermajoritian Judiciary, which adds to the discouse a possible role of the Conclave. Ultimately, my response was able to trigger follow-ups from Aivintis, further clarifying the arguments and assertions as well as filling in gaps that I attempted to point out.
As a University, UTEP is in the unique position where anyone may put forth assertions into discourse. It, essentially, is a forum for discourse, where anything, from the Conclave, to interregional politics, to real life debate, can be written about. We cannot, however, simply stop at that, because discourse is the exchange of meaning. An article, published, asserts a truth about a world. That truth can then be criticised, accepted, or used as support for another article. These responses, therefore, enrich the different meanings that can appear in discourse, which allows us to more fully attempt to define truths within our little corner of the internet. In the end, it’s about the pursuit of truth within a discourse as to why we write texts, respond to others, and exchange definitions of meaning with each other.
I do not want this to be a Hamilton the Musical moment: “We smack each other in the press, and we don’t print retractions”. I want a discussion on why the Conclave matters, why it exists, and how it is embedded in our governmental systems. The article, as was presented to me, appeared to have a one-sided view of the Conclave, which is why I sought to write my response. But this does not mean that I treat this as what you think, Aivintis. In fact, I’d like to say that no text can fully encapsulate how an author thinks: for when a text is published, it becomes a static reference of the thoughts of the author at that moment in time. Therefore, we must focus on execution, and acknowledge intent. That way, we may continue to pursuit truth, a rich system of meaning that aids in understanding what the Conclave truly is.