Get political? We already are!

[imomus]

Click Opera -- although it does frequently mention issues like sustainability, inequality, and urbanism -- could be reproached for passing without comment over the major "political" developments of our time, as newspapers might define that word. No discussion of the recent Mumbai bombings, no mention of Israel's incursion into Lebanon or the effect of that conflict on the price of oil, no G8 talk, no speculation on when Tony Blair will step down. In newspaper terms, this blog is deep in the culture pages; as far from page one news as from the sports section. Today I want to mount a double-pronged defense of that -- hey, oxymoron! -- non-political policy. I want to argue two things: that it's okay to avoid politics, but also that avoiding politics is simply politics of another kind.

The first thing I'll say is that, as an ex-satirist, I know the danger of satire. Satire ties you in to your enemies, puts you on the same page as them. If I tied my intellectual agenda to the latest bomb explosion or military incursion, even to decry them and call for restraint (as if terrorists and generals would be listening, anyway!), I'd basically let hate and aggression come to dominate my worldview. And it's likely that, subconsciously, whatever my "high moral ground" position on these events would be, a little part of me would be secretly thrilled to be where the action is, and secretly delighted every time some spectacularly violent escalation took place, just as a satirist is when the people he attacks do something which shows them at their most ludicrous, hateful and stereotypical.

Secondly, I think that the object of (the best) politics is the disappearance of (the worst) politics. In classic Marxist theory, for instance, the state is eventually supposed to wither away. Engels wrote: "As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary." (Lenin, of course, disagreed somewhat.)

But thirdly, I think that the things I talk about are a form of politics. I would never abandon, for instance, communicating the joy I feel visiting a sound installations exhibition, because that would be abandoning a certain vision of an experimental, creative world, a utopian vision. I had a thought the other day: that the "future" has turned out rather disappointing, compared with how I imagined it was going to be, mainly because of the conservatism of people, their refusal to embrace new forms of living. But that the excitement I got from imagining what the future would be like corresponds much better with the excitement I now get from art and culture, where a much more progressive, playful and experimental mindset prevails. And I really do consider what goes on in this zone to be a kind of brainstorming on behalf of the whole world, a "what if?" exercise that's immensely important.

Fourthly, there is a politics of texture, colour and shape. I would, for instance, consider the way I choose to dress or decorate my house much more important than the fact that I get to vote every four or five years in a national election, and get "represented" by one of two politicians with pathetically unimaginative ways of seeing life. The "stateless" way I live is already post-national. I say "already" as if we're all one day going to be post-national. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I know that it's the way I live now, and I'd consider it a good aspiration for the world. (Of course, Al Qaeda could also be said to be "post-national".)

Lastly, I want to talk about Japan. Commentators on Japan often complain about the political apathy of Japanese youth, and it's true that the feel of the country is "post-political" (no wonder it was a Japanese who coined the phrase "the end of history" -- before history, in the form of 9/11, made a mockery of the whole idea). I must say I've been very seduced by the non-contentious nature of life in Japan, but I don't think it's non-political at all. The Japan I know (and I freely admit I don't know any yakuza or politicians or corporate bigwigs) is committed to peace, environmentalism, equality, animal welfare. It's also committed to quality of life issues, textural issues and technological innovation. If politics is more about doing than voting, more about virtuous habitus than hatred and debate, then Japan is politically exemplary.

The photos in this entry are of cafes linked by Tokyo Cafe Mania. The link comes, naturally, via Jean Snow's blog. Now, people who read both Jean Snow and Marxy, asked which is the more politically progressive, might be tempted to say "Marxy, of course! Jean never writes anything about politics! Marxy's always talking about rising nationalism in Japan, analysing the limitations of Japan's likely next prime minister, or tracing the influence of the yakuza." But I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut. Jean Snow not only blogs about Japan in a much more Japanese style than Marxy does (in itself a political gesture), he's even a bit of an organiser and agitator: he's started a series of regular discussions at Cafe Pause. Like keeping a curbside garden, setting up a friendly LOHAS cafe, or caring for an injured cat, this is a political act. Jean's site is also filled to the brim with information about the doings of Japan's most progressive artists, architects and designers -- in other words, he's paying attention to the best elements of Japanese society, not the worst ones. This "textural intelligentsia" -- rather than the fusty political class -- is the likeliest source of progress in Japanese society. Hell, in any society.

Takashi Murakami declared, when he launched his Little Boy exhibition at the Japan Society in New York last year, that Japan had been infantilized by American domination since World War II, stripped of a political role. Whether you agree with that depends, of course, on what you feel about childhood. It's either a form of castrated adulthood -- or it's way ahead, a time when we're at our most free and creative. To act like a child is not to act non-politically.

Tony Blair told his colleagues recently: "If you want to own the next generation of politics, you've got to own the next generation of ideas." I wonder if it's occurred to Blair that the next generation of ideas might not have much use for the definition of politics -- and the political class -- he represents?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I see what you're saying about the future being disappointing, or coming too slowly; but while technology is advancing at an exponential rate, you can't simply cast off all the customs and ways in one generation.

How many generations of man did it take before someone figured out how to use that first tool to smash something?

History has carried out a kind of natural selection on our customs and ideas. Those societies with bad customs either cast off those bad customs or the society itself stagnated. Those customs that helped society advance were held on to, and passed on to posterity. It took tens of thousands of years for society to reach the relative stability and affluence that we take for granted. If man's reason were enough to catapult us into "the future" -- into Utopia -- it would've happened a long time ago.

This is why the conservative is so wary of individuals who think in one generation the world can be saved by inculcation of their pet ideas. Change has to be enacted slowly and naturally.

Man is the only rational creature on this planet. To exalt the ignorance of childhood beyond the reason of adulthood is to deny man's nature and all that the trajectory of history shows us about the destiny of mankind.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I'm learning a great deal about "the world according to conservatives". Except who you are; you lurk nameless in the shadows as anarchists once used to! If what you're advocating is simply moderation, caution and common sense, why the secrecy?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm Henryperri. I live in North Carolina. I'm 26. I'm a civil servant. I'm 6'0", 165. I'm a recovering radical leftist. Anything else you'd like to know?

[aberrantangels]

I don't know about our host, but I recognize your name from past comments here, and I have to ask: are you posting anonymously because you choose to, or because you have to?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Someone posted a "joke" from North Carolina the other day about nuking India and China... but that wouldn't be "change... enacted slowly and naturally", so I'm going to assume it wasn't you, Henry.

[(Anonymous)]

I deleted my journal in the hope that it would keep from spending so much time on this site. I'll sign my name to future posts.

-henryperri

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Yes, otherwise "all cats are gray in the dark"!

From <blank> With Love

[(Anonymous)]

As an anonymous, can I ask what people’s issue is with it? Stopping defining ourselves is, one day, how we’ll stop wars. Do they think that a 100x100 pixel image, a user name and a few opinions suddenly makes them more than a disembodied voice in a reader’s head, a ‘virtual person’? Would they kindly print their full name, address and telephone so I know I can trust their words in my head? One of the novelties of the internet is anonymity because what we say (and how we react) in a social context is more explored and explainable than the games we can play in the anti-social ‘off the record’. Why insist on the old-fashioned ‘authorial’ voice, and the usual one-upmanships than go with it, when they want to explore genuinely new areas? Surely that is (one place) where the internet becomes a more interesting zone than just a ‘magazine on screen’ (or book, or lo-fi tv..) “Oh, it’ll be an arena, chaos, a reversion to childishness.” Well, dear people who advocate child-like qualities, take and learn from the reality rather than some ‘little angel’ fantasy. Definition, difference and snobbery hasn’t brought about peace. Anywhere. Ever. “Oh I don’t trust things I can’t see.” Hush, child, it’s not the bogey man.

Actual ‘lurking’ is different. If you haven’t fathomed that the future is two-way (and comment at least occasionally on the places you visit) you are either dim or rude (or ‘shy’, I guess, that curious marriage of the two).

Re: From <blank> With Love

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have no problem with anonymity. I don't intend, for instance, to disable anon posting. It's just that everybody who chooses to be anonymous here gets the same name, Anonymous. There's no way to respond to one Anon posting without seeming to respond to them all. One Anon gets tarred with the brush of what another Anon has said. So I advocate "handles" even for Anons. There's no virtue in being nameless, but it doesn't have to be your real name.

Re: From <blank> With Love

[paranoidkoala.livejournal.com]

But...all names are real!

Re: From <blank> With Love

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

Right, there is a great freedom in post anonymously and extemporaneously. But follow up is so awkward. You simply do not know who you are talking to. Forgive ending my sentence in a preposition but I believe that language adapts.

[cheapsurrealist.livejournal.com]

Anything else you'd like to know?

If it is true that you were once a radical leftist what caused your transformation? Was it sudden? Like a blunt trauma to the head?

How many generations of man did it take before someone figured out how to use that first tool to smash something?

Why are conservatives so obsessed with smashing things?

26! Ah youth is wasted on the young.

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

You make it sound like evolution has a pre-determined goal though, and that we've reached its end point. All of the customs and behaviors that still persist aren't necessarily 'good' just because they haven't killed us yet.

[(Anonymous)]

I think change is inevitable. I'm not advocating that we "hit pause" like the Amish have done, but rather suggesting that it be arrived at slowly and naturally; not overnight, using whatever revolutionary or one-size-fits-all doctrine is fashionable at that particular moment.

Whatever mankind's goal is -- if there be one at all -- we surely cannot know; but we can glimpse the path that man is on through the unfolding of history -- some might take it as the manifestation of a "supreme design."

How we choose to interpret it depends on whether our sympathies are with the deists, where God is transcendent and nature is His creation, or the pantheists, where God is immanent in all of nature; the former assumes a kind of purposive creation, and the latter an indifferent perpetuity of the Force of Nature. I side with the deists, because if I consider the world and its history, and the trajectory of mankind, I think there is probably more evidence for the existence a "grand design" than against it.

If man was born with reasoning capabilities so great as to solve the world's problems in one generation, then we would not be here discussing these issues today. Our principle -- our sense of what is right and wrong -- is formed not necessarily through our reason, but from the observation of history and the cumulative wisdom and traditions passed down from successive generations of our ancestry. I'm wary of any individual who thinks we can confidently toss off this wisdom overnight.

I agree its likely that not all of our customs are good for us; and if they're not, I have faith that mankind will cast them aside naturally, not impulsively, lest we also throw out some good ones along with it.

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

Well, there we go. I'm devoid of faith, you're not. Unlike you, I think pursuing these grand patterns is part of the problem. One man's belief is necessarily another man's conflict. The fact that we, as a species, continue to exist, doesn't really say anything to me. And yet, we continue to exist, much as any number of species continue to exist.

I don't believe there is an answer. Certainly not to be found in the conduct of human affairs throughout history; and I don't believe it's to be found in the present or the future, either. Quite simply I think an answer implies a question, which I also do not perceive. The existence of the human being, of matter, of the universe, does not beg any questions to me. Our thinking, influenced by the development of our languages, desires a coherent syntax and grammar for the natural processes around us. I don't think that is always a reasonable demand. Through a glass, darkly, as I recall one of your fellow thinkers described it.

I think we have a rich historical imagination much wealthier than history itself. Human conduct follows a fairly predictible curve. The wisdom of history is largely the story of the slightly more intelligent making housekeepers out of the great bulk of humanity.

But please, don't take my lack of faith in a grand design as pessimism. I'm certain my life is just as meaningful (to me) as that of the next fellow's, who happens to believe a giant ball of spaghetti created reality. I'm no less alive for it, and I don't think it renders my judgment suspect.

Live and let live, right?

Stanley Lieber!!

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

You're nothing but a neo-nilihist!

Re: Stanley Lieber!!

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

More like a Buddhist. But I'm not really that either.

In any case, way to address the points. :)

wtf

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

Dear sl,

I go to the trouble to type up my thoughts on your writing, and I get chastised for not being substantive enough?

<< The fact that we, as a species, continue to exist, doesn't really say anything to me. And yet, we continue to exist, much as any number of species continue to exist. >>

We continue to exist because we are survivors. As are the other species that continue to exist.

Probably the other species will not get off the planet before the humans waste it. But the humans will get off the planet. Just ask Richard Branson.

I plan to be off the planet, in one form (perhaps non-human) within the next eighteen months.

You sound sad to be human. I say celebrate our ability to transcend, if not evolve.

Re: wtf

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

Sorry if I seemed rude. Are you one of the anonymous posters above?


'You sound sad to be human.'

Life is struggle.


'I say celebrate our ability to transcend, if not evolve.'

I agree!

you make me mad

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

<< Sorry if I seemed rude. Are you one of the anonymous posters above? >>

I am not an anonymous poster, can't you see that? You are acting disingenuous. xoxo haarriet

Re: you make me mad

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

All right, you've confused me.

happy hapyy

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

Don't you think momus is quite pleased that his entry has elicted such discussion?

I myself wd feel proud if one of my topics begat such discource

Re: happy hapyy

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

I dunno, he sometimes expresses annoyance when people respond more to his 'political' posts than the ones where he doesn't declare strong controversial positions. I assume he continues to post because he likes getting responses, yes (based on some previous posts where he's decried the lack of comments).

I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me here.

You know what, Stanley Lieber?

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

Every man I've ever met, in my life,21century America, is pussy=whipped.

Are you not pussy=whipped? You are so proud.

Re: You know what, Stanley Lieber?

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

I don't know what that means.

What is your preference?