I've promised this essay and I'm terrified of writing it. I can't possibly deal with all the issues I wish in a couple pages. But I want to try.
This movement makes me proud. I am not the left-wing guy who constantly feels ashamed of America - I think those attitudes are reductionist. I'm usually in disagreement with power, however.
Okay so I think a way to get into this conversation is to talk about the narratives that I see forming and to talk about what I think in response. The most common critique that I think is coming from people I'd define as sensible is that they need to articulate themselves more clearly. They need something akin to a manifesto.
I disagree. I think what this movement should do first is grow. What is happening now that's so wonderful to me is two-fold. First, the movement is an honest-to-god rhizomic network. It is not a top down structure. This movement is networked. The beauty of the network is that it can celebrate difference. Lots of movements cannot tolerate difference. Right now the political Right in America has a really tough time with difference. And it's not just the Right. The Left (these terms are problematic, I know) often just fractures itself off into mini groups - the environmental left, the animal rights left, the anti-corporate left, and so forth. But when a group is networked in this way - the first time I've seen it in my life - they can embrace and thrive off of difference. This is something to celebrate.
So the second reason why I think it's helpful to stay networked - at least for a while - has to do with the difference between anxiety and fear. Fear is always directed at an object. I am afraid of this Monster, but if he'd go away, my fear would leave. However, anxiety does not work that way. Anxiety is not directed towards anything in particular. But what is happening now is that the Corporate Structure that is being critiqued (which is not the same as being anti-every-single-business ever) is feeling anxious. They don't know how to stop it. Why? Because it's not clear what would stop it. If there were a clear set of demands, it might end, or be co-opted by some group like the Unions or the Dems or Moveon (all groups that I don't particularly care for in one way or the other.) Building this movement this way is more powerful.
The other critiques I'm hearing I think are just misreadings. I've heard people point out that the protesters use corporate items. Yes. No shit. They breathe and shit too. That can only come from someone who doesn't understand capitalism at all and is neck-deep in false-consciousness. Which is when you pretend that sewage station smells like flowers.
Also people want to say these guys are anti-business. No. They are anti these particular business practices. If you reduce everything down to a simple statement, you eliminate the particulars and since everything is a particular, this is beyond problematic.
Usually people on the left, Steinbeck said this well, claim that the problem is that Americans think one day they're going to be rich and therefore do not enjoy critiquing the rich. I think Steinbeck said something like we don't have poor, we just have temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Maybe. My hunch is that it's much more complicated than that. It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that the rich own the means of dissemination. I mean I've given the Tea Party a hard time, but I honestly didn't disagree with their complaints at first. But then they got co-opted. No, you aren't mad at Banks. You are mad at the government. This is a false dichotomy. It's the same fucking institution. Call it a corporatocracy or something such as that.
This goes far beyond left and right - in fact those terms are part of the discourse that keeps most people off of the streets and yelling at their television. I'm proud of all those guys and girls. We were happy when the Arabs rose up this Spring and Summer. Let's be happy when we do it. All systems of power wish to serve power. It's as true here as it is in Russia. Let's stop being surprised by that. If we're still surprised by that.
I love this! I think your fear/anxiety distinction is really smart: one is object oriented, the other a state. I think we could extend that to the protesters themselves: they are living through an anxiety, a state of being perpetuated by our "culture." That is why there is no one demand; there is a desire for a different state of things (as you note, it's not the government or the corps: it's the structure that includes both and the ways they interact).
ReplyDeleteYour tone is great, too: well tempered with flashes of anger, as if you just couldn't keep it at bay.
I'm always flummoxed by the word "power." I don't think power is something one has per se; nor is it something that goes away. Power is always a dynamic; it is not wielded like a club. There are different kinds of power — police, government, law, but also sexual, charisma, etc. My point being that I don't think it's a matter of overthrowing power but of shifting the power dynamics. I've use this figure before: it's thermodynamic, an engineering problem.
That's interesting about power. I think I do tend to think of it as being something that is held on reserve, at least by some. Like when the police man yells "stop." I stop because I know he has a reserve of power that he can use if I don't.
ReplyDeleteBut certainly one thing the protests have shown is that police power is not a given. So, yeah, clearly that would suggest dynamic. So if it isn't held and doesn't go away, where would power be located? Emergent in the moment, depending of course on possibilities inherent in the situation? (Like I can yell stop all I want, but I don't necessarily possess the possibilities that a policeman does, if that makes sense.)
I think a lot of about the debtor relationship. The bank, from one perspective, has all the power: here, we'll give you money but at a price and if you don't pay us back we'll....hurt your credit! But once I have the money, I have a certain power: I don't pay them back and they're screwed.
ReplyDeleteConsider the S&M dynamic: Who has the power? Is it the dom? Or is it the sub who's asked to be dominated?
My point being: power does not (only) come from above nor is it only expressed through law and violence. It is always a dynamic, always two-way if not multi-way.