Re: AUT: Progress

["Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

hey dudes,

ahright, first off.

Peter writes:
>In some sense, I think no-one can say they understand such an event - the
>reasons that it 'worked' are so ephemeral as to almost defy description.
>That's not to say they are utterly impossible to study, but the language in
>which one can explain them does not capture what happened, and more
>importantly, does not allows us to recapture (and thus build on) what
>happened.

I know just what you are talking about.  The event in some way seems
hopelessly indescribable.  I am currently interviewing activists about the
rise of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement.  I am interested in the
relatively common (to the point of cliche) statement, "Something started in
Seattle".  What?

Now I am not so sure this viewpoint on "language" and "existence" is
inconsistent with Hegel.  I certainly find the statement "language is
negative, existence is positive" problematic from a Hegelian viewpoint.  As
Chris W. pointed out, there is a relationship between the negative and the
positive that is covered over in this statement.  Yet I also understand
where Tahir is coming from when he argues that language is necessarily a
part of existence.

I think the Hegelian viewpoint can be quite useful in understanding
relationship of language to the event.  For instance, when I look at the
protests in Seattle in 1999, it is quite clear that groups were organizing
disparate and often conflicting actions that often folded into some sort of
a Universal.  This is not to say that the Universal Idea or 'language'
enveloped the event, far from it.

For instance, there were key divisions drawn in organizing protests against
the WTO between national and local organizing, between labour unions
adopting a hierarchical representative democracy model and the Direct Action
Network adopting consensus/affinity group models, and the Black Bloc
adopting an anti-representative insurrectionary model.  (this is an
oversimplified account of the organizing, but bear with me).  The actions of
all these groups could be seen to presume Universals of sorts.  They are not
necessarily abstract or 'linguistic' Universals, rather these Universals are
grounded in the concrete and they certainly collide with what they have
repressed.

Now, these groups did not talk to each other and were even quite hostile to
one another.  DAN, in its adoption of direct democracy, ledthem to adopt a
certain sovereignty in organizing a particular territory, ascribing specific
principles to this territory -- nonviolence.  Now some people involved with
DAN consequently came into confrontation with the Black Bloc, even going so
far as to assault Black Blockers, and prevent them from breaking windows at
Niketown.  The basic argument made by many was that the Black Bloc was not
respecting the democratic decisions of a greater group, a universal if I've
ever heard of one.  Likewise, in the labour march, which turned around
before entering downtown.  Rank-and-file trade union activists broke out of
this march and join the protesters downtown.  The labour marshalls attempted
to pen them in.  In interviews with one of the marshalls, I found him
deriding this group of people insofar as they did not respect the 'agenda'
as laid out by democratically elected representatives.  'This is a family
event', he argued.  Certainly, Universal come into play here.  Now, just
because the event cannot be recuperated in language doesn't mean that people
don't try to actively 'define' the event.

Of course, this example rings like a nostalgic cliche.  Why?  In my view,
because "Something started in Seattle" (of course, many people became
increasingly critical of this term and found other points of origin, often
in the Third World).  In interpreting these events, people often overlooked
the antagonisms and divisions and attempted to elevate this action into a
Universal model for organizing.  For a time, we saw attempts to repeat what
happened in Seattle-- DC, Prague, Quebec City, Genoa.  This model became
untenable as meetings were moved into increasingly inaccessible locations.
And this Universal continued to repress antagonisms and divisions that were
never reconciled in Seattle.  Big Labour and NGOs continued to try to
control and gain a degree of leadership over what was happening.  This is
not to say that things did not change or develop, because they did; new
strategies and tactics were often deployed.  However, each action was often
seen to be part of something 'bigger'.

This is also not to say that these events were ever recuperated under the
Universal.  From my view, this event was originary precisely insofar as it
was able to break out of previously conceived models for organizing.  These
tendencies were becoming increasingly visible through the 1990s, but in
activism in Canada and the United States, many people who I interview argue
that the 'coming out party' (ie. the introduction of a new Universal) was
Seattle.  Of course, why do words seem hopelessly inadequate in describing
this 'event'?  Why couldn't people ever agree on a way of defining this
movement?  Well, first insofar as no singular group had the power to
completely define it.  But I can see value in D&G's insight, that these
actions were opening possibilities which directly 'felt' by the
participants.  The 'memories' of such events can not be captured in
language.

Of course, this is a simple view which I am playing around with and it
certainly has some gaping holes.  But I find it helps in my analysis of
interviews.

peace, man :P

--chris

>From: Peter van Heusden <pvh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To:
>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To:
>aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: AUT: Progress Date: Thu,
>11 Nov 2004 12:23:50 +0200
>
>Tahir Wood wrote:
>
>>>>>ldxar1@xxxxxxxxx 11/11/04 09:46AM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>The basic line of the critique, some may remember, was:  Hegel confuses
>>language with existence, reducing the totality of what exists to the
>>conceptual forms of language.  Hence the primacy of the Idea, which is
>>nothing but a misconceived representation of language.
>>
>>Tahir: This hoary critique seems to me to miss entirely the speculative
>>nature of Hegel's thought. But since I do not claim to be an expert on
>>Hegel (although very interested) I will rather say the following, which I
>>think is at least in a Hegelian spirit: Firstly, there is no way for
>>existence to be thought at all other than through language, but any
>>linguistic representation of the world will in time reveal its inadequacy
>>and be superceded by another through a process of negation - here, note, I
>>am not merely referring to words but also to propositions and indeed
>>larger formations such as texts, whose content is made up by assemblages
>>of propositions. Things may well exist outside of our conceptions of them,
>>but they are only known at all through language, therefore a 'progress' of
>>spirit, insofar as one conceives of such a thing, is entirely dependent on
>>our language of understanding. So a radical separation between language
>>and existence can only lead to incoherence - as
>
>>if language is not somehow implicated in existence. But when one looks at
>>human, that is, social, existence, this existence is in fact only possible
>>at all through language. If it is possible in some other way then it would
>>need that to be explained to me. Thus a formulation like "existence
>>exceeds language", while obviously true (trite) in one sense, is quite
>>wrong in another, where language is indeed the very condition of
>>possibility of (social, human) existence.
>>
>>
>>
>Finally something I think I can relate to. I know buggerall about Hegel,
>D&G, etc. compared to the people having this argument, but this question of
>language is one that I think I can relate to. One of the things I've been
>studying for a few years is the way that struggles seem to emerge out of
>'nowhere' (that spontaneity that Chris Hurl mentioned), and one of the
>bases of such spontaneously emerging struggles seems to be the existence of
>a set of relationships and life practices that provides the impetus for a
>sense of solidarity, and thus mass (as in big), rather than individual (or
>'private'), response to circumstances. And this is an area where I have
>felt unsatisfied by those who see a 'dialectic' of struggle, since what
>seems to happen is an event (e.g. a big fight with the cops to stop water
>cutoffs) that often leaves little 'visible' trace. In some sense, I think
>no-one can say they understand such an event - the reasons that it 'worked'
>are so ephemeral as to almost defy description. That's not to say they are
>utterly impossible to study, but the language in which one can explain them
>does not capture what happened, and more importantly, does not allows us to
>recapture (and thus build on) what happened.
>
>I guess another way of putting it across is: emotions, feelings, etc. - are
>they structured in language? Yet they are of vital importance. I think one
>of D&G's points (the only D&G I've read is Anti-Oedipus) was to explode the
>idea that the human psyche is 'structured like a language', and maybe that
>is relevant here - D&G would argue that psychically (or is the world
>psychologically?) we are not built out of myths, etc. i.e. our basic
>buildings blocks are not language (they have this whole thing about
>language in Anti-Oedipus I don't really understand).
>
>Having said all that, where I do find myself going along with the dialectic
>idea is in terms of building - like Harald described, building the kind of
>infrastructure. I've lived through some pretty powerful events over the
>last few years, and one thing I've learnt is that while we cannot capture
>or hope to recapture or rekindle these events, it makes sense to have
>infrastructure (in terms of trusted comrades, networks of resources) to
>support whatever is going to happen next - to amplify a moment, in a way.
>I've got no idea which side of the fence this puts me on - I just know I
>like bits and pieces of D&G (the flows stuff in particular), Marx (lotsa
>stuff) and Foucault (his take on power and governmentality), without
>claiming to 'understand' them or be consistent. ;)
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---