Get political? We already are!
Jul. 15th, 2006 12:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-16 01:40 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-16 06:55 pm (UTC)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!!
Date: 2006-07-16 07:04 pm (UTC)Re: Stanley Lieber!!
Date: 2006-07-16 07:08 pm (UTC)In any case, way to address the points. :)
wtf
Date: 2006-07-16 08:14 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-07-16 08:17 pm (UTC)'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
Date: 2006-07-17 04:10 am (UTC)I am not an anonymous poster, can't you see that? You are acting disingenuous. xoxo haarriet
Re: you make me mad
Date: 2006-07-17 04:13 am (UTC)happy hapyy
Date: 2006-07-17 04:18 am (UTC)I myself wd feel proud if one of my topics begat such discource
Re: happy hapyy
Date: 2006-07-17 04:26 am (UTC)I'm not sure where you're trying to lead me here.
You know what, Stanley Lieber?
Date: 2006-07-17 04:25 am (UTC)Are you not pussy=whipped? You are so proud.
Re: You know what, Stanley Lieber?
Date: 2006-07-17 04:27 am (UTC)What is your preference?
Dear stanley
Date: 2006-07-17 04:33 am (UTC)Re: Dear stanley
Date: 2006-07-17 04:34 am (UTC)I heart imomus
Date: 2006-07-17 04:40 am (UTC)He's like the sexiest teacher you ever had.
But he ignores me for the most part sigh
Honeysuckle
Date: 2006-07-17 08:51 am (UTC)my boyfriend's hands
Date: 2006-07-17 08:56 am (UTC)orgasm addict
Date: 2006-07-17 09:01 am (UTC)Some of his audio work
Date: 2006-07-17 09:07 am (UTC)I love my Mom
Date: 2006-07-17 09:39 am (UTC)Don't know why I'm thinking of my Mom, notice imomus doesn't talk about his Mom much.