No selection of what to know is politically or socially neutral.

Evidence

For, if we do not choose our own ‘bits’ of reality, those ‘bits’ will then be chosen for us by our class origin, our jobs, the circuits of our friendships and desires, our ways of spending our leisure time, our literary predilections, our political affiliationsor lack of them. There are no neutral ‘bits’, not even of not-knowing. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 545

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Foucault’s point about discourse and power in Society Must Be Defended — knowledge-delimitation as already socially positioned, relevant to Ahmad’s materialist critique of discourse-first postcolonial theory. — connects to: No topic is inherently political or apolitical — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 139; No individual’s knowledge of a country is neutral or whole. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 238; No subject occupies a neutral position in the social order (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Does Ahmad here concede a constructivist point (no neutral bits) that sits uneasily with his materialist insistence on class structure?

Broader Connections

• No description is ideologically neutral; describing constructs its own object #expands (0.88) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 384
• No individual’s knowledge of a country is neutral or whole. #corroborates (0.85) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 238
• The ideal of nonpolitical knowledge obscures the political conditions of its own production. #expands (0.80) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 69
• No subject occupies a neutral position in the social order #qualifies (0.78)