The thirty-year span in which Social Text has been published has seen its own great transformation in the university. Pursuing the injunction to be what Andrew Ross termed "a journal of tendency" invites consideration of how we might think of our editorial work in an activist and interventionist vein, and a persistent motif in the journal's efforts has been a tracking of the politics of our work. Academic labor nestles in the three major organizational forms of the past hundred years: the professional association, the industrial union, and the political party. We can think organization immanently, as a revaluation of where our work takes us and to what effect. Organizational immanence is intersectional, multiple, polyvalent, precisely what we have come to know about identification and interpellation. Hence, organization is not simply an institutional body to join, but an imaginary or register invoked by the material implications of intellectual work. As the professoriate loses the autonomy that had marked education as an end in itself, the professional association is impelled to reconsider its disciplinary socialization from simple reproduction through replication of a grammar of specialization to the pressing epistemological outcomes borne by critical interdisciplinarity of the sort that the journal has abidingly sought to textualize. That this breakdown in epistemological self-regulation is a crisis of academic labor is amply exposed in Marc Bousquet's work (ST 70, 2002) on the waste product of higher education -- an internal excess that ends rather than being authorized by a credential. The remilling of professional associations to attend to their putative futures -- whether the graduate student insurrection in the Modern Language Association, the reengineering of a public sociology, or the radicalization of the American Association of University Professors -   

points to the internal transformation of the organizational forms that associate us and therefore the vitality of critique to the prospects of work. At stake in these movements is the shift from faculty governance, centered on the independence of departments to set their curricula, to university governance, where the matter of what knowledge gets made for provides a different axis from which to consider self-rule. As less of the university is centered on teaching, this question of sovereignty shifts from preservation 

of academic freedom to the mastery of administrative fiat.