Ringing the Changes
“I shall not keep you long, he cried. Cheers from all the assembly. I have called you all together for a Purpose. Something in the way that he said this made an impression. There was almost silence, and one or two of the Tooks pricked up their ears.J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring.
Indeed for Three Purposes!
Alas, it's not my eleventy-first birthday party, but like Bilbo, I shall not keep you long. I do however have Three Purposes. And purposes well worthy of their italics I think. If I’m really lucky, I might even manage an Announcement.
Actually the Announcement should come first.
InFlight is changing.
No, that's not quite true. InFlight has changed.
And now it's about to change some more.
InFlight is becoming a group blog.
Which brings me to those Three Purposes. Or Three Graces perhaps, because certainly I consider all three of them to have grace in abundance.
I've asked Nanette, supersoling and DuctapeFatwa to become -- well I'm actually not sure what the right term should be. FPers? That's a bit arrogant for what is a very little blog. Contributors? But everyone who posts makes a contribution, often far more of a contribution than the 'post' per se as one can plainly see by looking back through the archives.
Hmm. People who post articles and/or facilitate other people posting articles on occasion and/or generally keep things ticking over. That's what I've asked them to be. All of them were doing that already, but I've asked them to do it here as well, as they see fit. And to my delight (and immense relief!) Nanette, supersoling and DuctapeFatwa have all agreed. Logistics are still being sorted out (what a wonderful euphemism that is for 'dove is still figuring out how blogger works!')
And while I'm at it there are a couple of other things I wanted to say as well. (If brevity is the soul of wit then alas. . .)
There is something about InFlight that I'd like not to change. Doesn't mean it won't of course.
I'd like it to be non-national space. I think it has, for the most part, been non-national space so far and I'd like it to continue to be.
I guess I've also been thinking about homes and coalitions and how these things are not like each other.
And I've been reading and thinking a bit about Bernice Johnson Reagon's speech, Coalition Politics:Turning the Century
I'd like to discuss her speech: I'm not quite sure where to begin. The century she spoke of turning has of course turned in the interim. But twenty-five years on (more or less) since she spoke it seems to me that her words could have been said for the first time this morning. Anyway, every time I think I've got the beginnings of a coherent sentence, I find myself turning my head this way and that, saying 'hmmm. Do I really mean that?' and going back to her words.
So I'd like to invite someone to start. And someone else to join in. And when I find some words, so shall I.
posted by dove at 11:41 pm
35 Comments:
Huzzah! I feel as though the bar where I formerly liked to hang out and listen to folk tunes and blues has been taken over by belching rednecks--but I've found the coffeehouse across town where my favorite band is still playing.
May I hang around if I promise not to torture any more metaphors?
:o)
If my home on Eastern long Island weren't under a tropical storm warning tonight I would have to conclude that the night sky must be full of wishing stars because I feel as if a dream of mine has come true :o) And yet I know that the stars are still there despite the clouds, and in that I see a lesson to be learned about people, and about percieved friends especially. It's easy to lose sight of the brightness that shines from within someone when on the surface all one can see is darkness and brooding grayness. Most times, once the winds recede, the brightness of a soul, like a star, will return. It's good to remember that in a time like this. It's also good to be among the company that I am. It's an honor I've rarely experienced.
Thank you Dove for asking me. And thank you to all who might drop by and contribute.
Peace
I'd like to begin with these quotes from Ms. Reagon<
"There is no chance that you can survive by staying inside the barred room.(Applause) That will not be tolerated. The door of the room will just be painted red and then when those who call the shots get ready to clean house, they have easy access to you. But that space while it lasts should be a nurturing space where you sift out what people are saying about you and decide who you really are. And you take the time to try to construct within yourself and within your community who you would be if you were running society. In fact, in that little barred room where you check everybody at the door, you act out community. You pretend that your room is a world. It’s almost like a play, and in some cases you actually grow food, you learn to have clean water, and all of that stuff, you just try to do it all. It’s like, “If I was really running it, this is the way it would be. Of course the problem with the experiment is that there ain’t nobody in there but folk like you, which by implication means you wouldn’t know what to do if you were running it with all of the other people who are out there in the world. Nowthat’s nationalism. I mean it’s nurturing, but it is also nationalism. At a certain stage nationalism is crucial to a people if you are going to ever impact as a group in your own interest. Nationalism at another point becomes reactionary because it is totally inadequate for surviving in the world with many peoples".
Where to begin? it reminds me how insular so many of us can be when we've percieved ourselves to be one, or one of a collective group of those babies who have been tossed into the corner. I'd say more about infantile approaches to the world here, but in my current state of mind what I say might not be particularly helpful LOL. In any case, especially when we feel wronged or misunderstood it's a natural response to surround ourselves with likeminded people. Even like minded victims. But as Ms. Reagon says, there is another whole world outside that barred room, and in order to have a chance to save it from itself we must naturally go out into it. I personally try to risk doing just that. I try, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not, to find a common ground from which to begin an understanding. Often though, too often for my optimistic heart, I find that no amount of effort will achieve a common grounding. What to do? Dismiss those who I can't agree with? It won't make them go away. In the end I think it's best to pass them by and seek out the next group who may have just peeked out from within their own barred room and try again. For tonight I think I'll seek connentment in the need not so much to connect or finding common ground, but in the commitment to continue the search. To not give up. To at least pledge to myself tonight that tomorrow will be dedicated to reaching out again, at least for that one day. After that I'll save my day's endings for decisions about my next day's beginnings.
Peace
Hi raging hippie, mind if I sit at your table and listen to the music?
Maybe we can dance together later on, hopefully it won't be any form of torture.
DuctapeFatwa,
I understand what you are saying. Time is short and wasting anymore of it, or putting off facing the hard questions for another day is a tactic that is dangerous in our present predicament. I know that this is a non national space but as a former child who studied the underneath of his desk many times while sirens wailed through the halls of his school I can tell you that not all of us have a sense of having time to waste. I've felt threatened from the outside for many years, that is until I began to explore deeper into the machinations of my own country of origin, the U.S. and found that while there is much that is good, there is also much more that is not good. That this place is more a danger to the rest of the world than any other is to it. And thus it is a danger to itself and it's hopes for surviving much longer into this new century.
How to reverse the fall? I don't know. I see good people giving monumental efforts all the time. And yet for all their efforts, nothing changes. There isn't even a slight pause or hiccup in the drive to destruction. You tell me. What is the answer beyond your call for all gunmen to be repatriated? They'll no more listen to you than they did to the three hundred thousand of us who said the same thing last September in Washington. To the U.S. media we didn't even exist. And what can one man do? What if I chose the most radical of solutions? Even if our present dear leader ceased to exist, there will be another and another to take his place. Not that I think resistance is futile, it's not. But like you, I believe the world will force a final solution for my country. And maybe that is all I can hope for. As an American, when that time comes, it will be decision time as to who I will give my allegiance. I can't tell you now, if I'm honest, what that decision will be. When the walls start crashing down and the liberators begin to overun the defenses, will I step aside and let them through without a fight? Or will that child who cowered under a desk so many years ago remember his training and indoctrination and stand up to the outsiders, the perpetual enemy? I don't know. I only know like you, that time is growing short, and that a decision will be forced upon me, whether I'm ready for it or not.
Good morning Alice :o)
Thank you for your comments to me at BT. They caused me to take a step back and catch the lump that was rising in my throat :o)
Well, looks like I shall have to straddle two worlds from here on, as I am not yet ready to leave the pond, but I certainly cannot be without all of you, either! But first, a personal thing to share, so in case I am not as visible for periods for the next couple of months, you'll know why. Damned cartaracts, it is, that are making reading a real challenge and turning my writing into a mile high pile of typos. But a fuixable thing, thank goodness!
As for why I am not ready to leave the pond: i am enjoyng observing and engaging things there from the pespctive of human dynamis and cimmunication styles. This has been a lifelong faascinatiuon and field of self study for me. I am convinced that at a great deal of all conflict is can be boiled down to ineffective, or inaquate human communication styles. Right now I can't think of a better place to observe and engage with this, than BooTrib.
But I also see my own perspectives expanding every day to emcompass "all my relations" around the while globe, in which I see the US as but one country among many.More powerful and richer, certainly, but on the level of human beings, we are certainly not any more exceptional that ordinary people anywhere else.
I am a world citizen, as much as I am a citizen of this one country, and that is the window I am peering out of now. So I am very glad to see this be a "non national site..yet still not have to swing all the way over to being an "anti american" or "anti anyone" site.
I love the idea of a "pro-WORLD" place.
Alice, please pull up a chair. I got here early, so I think I have the best table in the room.
I'll try to find time later to elaborate on Ms. Reagon's speech (so much going on in there, it's as dizzying as the altitude she mentioned), but the line that I keep coming back to is one that super quoted: "Nationalism at another point becomes reactionary because it is totally inadequate for surviving in the world with many peoples."
We're well past that point and have been for some time.
We're living in a world in which the true ruling bodies--in the sense of having the greatest influence over how we live our lives--are multinational corporations that have the advantage of operating across those imaginary lines on the map (and often outside of the reach of any given nation's laws). We rely on these unaccountable, nebulous entities for jobs, goods and services, healthcare. And they owe their allegiance entirely to profit.
And so these amoral organizations founded on greed recognize no borders, while compassion can't even get a passport.
Wrapping one's personal identity in the flag of a particular nation is as dysfunctional as too-close identification with a sports team--it only leads to fighting over who gets the ball. The key difference is that there aren't any soccer teams with nuclear weapons.
One wonders why it is that corporations can organize and operate on a global level, while the idea of government unconstrained by artificial borders seems breathtakingly radical. But even if the thought of government without borders is too ambitious a construct for the moment, it's time to realize that treating the geographical location of one's birthplace as something as personal and fundamental to one's being as gender isn't just outdated--it's dangerous.
Dove,
I've tried but can't seem to change my username from Michael to supersoling. I did change my profile at my own blog but it won't change here. I know that you're as befuddled at some of this as I am, but maybe if we put our heads together we can solve it. If not, then i'll leave my name as Michael since it is a fine name afterall ;o)
Ooooookay, I guess it did work afterall :o)
Disregard what i just posted. Now on to the bigger problem of actually coming up with something coherant!
Very cool! I'm excited to see the transformation of the site. I've been lurking and doing alot of "yeah, that's how I feel too", but still feeling alittle gunshy on the topics of war. I'll work through it but suffice it to say that I'm glad to be here, there and everywhere. Peace, Pacem, Pax, Pace y Paz :)
DTF,
You have said nothing here that requires any forgiveness at all on my part, so how can I forgive you?
I love 'threadstarters,' I think it's a great name. As soon as I (grumph Blogger!) figure out how to change it in the template I shall do so -- speaking of which
as a quick dry technical aside: has the email invite come through yet?)
Just popping in quickly. First of, congrats on hosting a group blog with some very esteemed contibutors, dove. (Watch out for that DTF guy. I hear he's an old curmugdeon sometimes.) :)
super, I think, asked what one man can do. Gandhi was just a skinny little Indian kid playing in the streets at one time in his life.
Regarding moving beyond one's comfort zone to expose oneself to other opnions, Swords Crossed is the most current experimental blog project of that sort. No swearing. No personal attacks. I haven't been there lately, but it was a congenial place when I did visit. Free for alls without boundaries neither solve nor advance anything and there must be compromise present in any useful discussion of such important matters.
I haven't read the speech, but will later on. Thanks for letting me post here and best wishes to all.
Rant away about capris , but that shoe nonsense - well - that was simply beyond the pale! :)
(j/k high heels suck)
dove is trying (and still trying to find words to post here) -- I take it the last attempt didn't reach you?
You're showing as having a pending invitation on blogger: I shall persist!
Dove and DuctapeFatwa,
I just forwarded the invitation I got to Ductape. Hopefully he will get that one.......
On Time's winged charriot hurrying
near:
Bernice Reagon spoke in 1981. I remember few things about that year but some of those few are indelible, even if from my vantage point a little like flashes of clarity in a thick fog. The Springbok Tour: barbed wire, police violence. Reagan, folksy, soft-spoken and so unmistakably red in tooth and claw. And the time: the clock hands set then at four minutes to midnight, ticking steadily away.
In short, did Reagon anticipate the current Situation? She was speaking to a particular time and place, yes, but one not devoid of related Situations, which also had their own unmistakable aura of desperation.
So then, what to make of these words:
"we think that the issue we have at this moment has to be addressed at this moment or we will die. it is not true..."
I think they go with these words, a bit like the two poles of a magnet.
"If coalition is so bad, and so terrible, and so uncomfortable, why is it necessary? That’s what you’re asking. Because the barred rooms will not be allowed to exist. They will all be wiped out. That is the plan that we now have in front of us"
Because what I hear there is, I think, the same kind of urgency to which supersoling and DTF both refer.
When I hear Reagon saying "this is not true", I'm reminded about Nancy said a couple of days ago (and I'm going to shamelessly paraphrase, generalise and take liberties with your words Nancy) that people have to be able to feed and clothe themselves, while trying to dismantle their 'it' whatever that may be, because otherwise their efforts will not sustainable because they won't be around to sustain them.
I think what Johnson is doing is inviting us to do is to settle in for a long haul and in particular, to think about what it might require to stay in that haul if we expect it to outlive us. (It will. But I don't mean in that sense of 'wait be patient, these things always take time'). And in these urgent times, what do we want to throw into the next century -- that century which none of us now writing will see. Or far more modestly, into the next half century that some of us, if not many may see. Or not. Some of those things might be really basic: that there be a next half-century, for example.
Dove, and all,
As I was reading your take on Ms. Reagon's thoughts about coalition building I couldn't help but be reminded of the recent troubles and accusations of anti-Americanism that have gripped one particular American political blog. As a former member there I had found myself appreciative of the fact that there was a diverse group of mostly Americans there who had one goal in common, they're opposition to the current American leadership and it's head(case) leader, George Bush. Among those gathered there were Democrats, Greens (like me), some conservatives, anti-this war and anti-all war activists, present and former members of the American military, both G.I. and Commander,intellectuals and workers, foreign nationals, Atheists, Muslims, Christians, and Jews.Writers, politicians, war resistors and protestors and letter writers. Have I missed any? I'm sure I have. But my point is that a very diverse group of people had come together, or found each other, with one goal in common, the removal of the present leadership of the U.S. With a secondary goal as a result of that removal to have logically been the ending of the American occupation of Iraq.
But events there this past week have given a glimpse into the difficulty of not only building cohesive and lasting coalitions, but perhaps that those coalitions aren't effective in their results precisely because of their diversity. Maybe it's all a wishful illusion. Because it seems, at least to me, that the one key ingredient that is most needed, and obviously most lacking, is a compassion for the depths of the wounds that our collective govt. is inflicting on the peoples of those nations we have invaded or in our tacit approval and material backing of the invasions of other nations like Lebanon by our Zionist ally Israel. It's been demonstrated for all to see that when true introspection is called for and a true reckoning for crimes commited and supported by the U.S. is needed, that the American Nationalism and Militarism that lay in the hearts of most of those so called coalition members will rear it's ugly head and lash out at any and all who question Americas greatness and goodness. And all the parts of that coalition fracture and fall away from each other. What's worse and more revealing than that is that those former compatriots will then begin attacking one another, not only the one who had the nerve to point out a few simple truths to begin with but any who have the gall to agree with those simple truths. All the while the bombs continue falling and the flesh continues to be burned off of the children of Iraq and Lebanon. And therein lies the foulest example of American exceptionalism. That it's petty arguments among it's own so called modern and compassionate citizens are ultimately more important than the murders and rapes of a few dark skinned children, half a world away.
I'm sorry that this has little to do with the writings of Ms. Reagon, but this subject has been occupying space, too much space in my beautiful mind, as Barbara Bush once said when asked what she thought about the deaths of American soldiers. She is a proper poster child for the American psyche. It's possible that these coalitions are guilty of doing more harm than good by the ease with which they are distracted away from the tasks that they got together to carry out in the first place.
Non-national space, safe spaces and coalition space
I'm just wondering if I should say something about 'non-national space' or at least how I'm using it (which need not be how other people do) I don't mean, for example, that people shouldn't write about particular places, or for that matter think through things pertaining to patriotism/nationalism. And challenge them.
And of course people come and go with whatever identity they come and go with. How could things be otherwise: it's not as though one can just 'check' one's identity with one's coat at the door. And for that matter, it may be a different identity -- or it may be some other aspect of identity -- that one embodies tomorrow, next month, next year or however long (as Bernice Reagon said "Say if it was Mary when they came South, by the time they were finished it was Maria, right?"). But I don't think a non-national space should be somewhere where national identity -- and the idea of organising loyalties, beliefs about virtues, ideas of ownership and exclusion et al ad infinitum -- goes unquestioned if that makes sense.
I guess part of what I mean by 'this is non-national space' is that it's not national terrain: it's not the terrain of any one country.
(I can never remember the proper term. Oxymoron? Tautology? Or that all-purpose fail-safe vernacular "State the bloody obvious why don't you?). Which, in a world where national identity is one of the key mechanisms around for assigning and denying economic, social and political power in ways that are hugely entangled with race and empires past and present -- and where national identity is naturalised pretty much everywhere (usually in ways that align very neatly with race, empire and fear), that might take some work maintaining.
Supersoling,
I think what you're saying is in a way why Bernice Reagon was speaking: I guess I take her to be speaking at least in part from that experience of dissolution and from thinking about what to do next.
I think there's something in there that's really relevant about not confusing safe spaces with coalitions -- which I think is something that happens very often. And that idea of coalitions being something that have more than one goal at a time -- have to in order to exist if nothing else, is also something that I take to be important from her writing.
I don't think that this can be a 'safe space' in the sense that Reagon writes about, simply from a practical perspective if nothing else. (Or a 'community' or a 'home' or the other things that are used as synonyms for 'safe space' -- and I agree there's a need for safe space, I'm just not sure that this can be it). If it's going to be an 'anything' (and I'm not sure it needs to be anything other than non-national terrain -- I think it possible that that's quite enough to be going with ;) ), I'd say it might be best to think of it as a coalition from the get go. Is that making any sense? If it isn't, it's because I don't know what I think about this yet fully: I keep on going back and forth.
I know there's been an abundance of meta lately, obviously here as well as elsewhere. Which is yet another thing I go back and forth about.
Dove,
I understand, and hesitated before posting my comment about that one specific failed coalition. And it's content was specifically why I didn't post it as a subject but as a comment. It was just what came to mind after reading the other comments. I thought it made a connection for me. Safe space? I don't think there is such a thing out there, whether national or non national. Everyone's particular sense of events or opinions about causes and possible solutions will and should be challenged. Sometimes those challenges can seem and feel unsafe. To lose oneself in safe places is to remain locked in a barred room. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and many opportunities wasted.
I will try harder to keep your wishes in mind when expressing things. Sometimes, well, most times, my mind is more alive when I first wake up in the morning and thoughts just tend to flow before I've had much time to think them over. Of that I'm guilty ;o)
I'll thank you again for inviting me here. It's a great honor I assure you :o)
Supersoling,
I'm just glad and honoured that you agreed.
"I will try harder to keep your wishes in mind when expressing things."
Well my main wish is for you to write more. And that you won't be writing thinking 'what will dove think?' if that makes sense.
scribe,
Have you checked out the various accessibility gadgets available to make your online experience more palpable?
There are text to speech programs, spell checkers, larger font capabilities etc.
The blogosphere needs your voice. If you'd like some help locating some of these programs, let me know.
super wrote:
But events there this past week have given a glimpse into the difficulty of not only building cohesive and lasting coalitions, but perhaps that those coalitions aren't effective in their results precisely because of their diversity.
The thing that struck me immediately upon reading that is that it is not the matter of diversity which causes problems, imho. It's the absence of a skilled leader.
I have chaired various boards and committees consisting of some vary diverse opinions and people. What an effective leader does is to find the compromise acceptable to the majority while noting the importance of the dissent. It takes patience and open-mindedness and it's a difficult model to transfer to the blogopshere community structure where the need to find such a consensus is not seen as being the primary goal. Although, I do believe that when tensions arise in that atmosphere, there's definitely a place for the blog leader to step in and call for a ceasefire. Simply pleading for people to "understand" each other does not work when a few may be derailing the conversation with their own agendas. (I have to add that the rating system really is not helpful since it does not represent the will of the entire community. It would only do so if all involved participated in it. Notice how lost some people feel when they don't have the ability to assign someone a number in other settings where they then have to express their actual opinion. Can you imagine a congress where members held up numbers?) :)
That's the other point: it (the blog community model)is an ongoing conversation unlike the function of a committee that exists to find solutions and workable policies. So, while coalition building is one function of a blog which works in areas like realizing all opposed to Bushco can agree at least on that, the more philosophical discussions do, indeed, seem to be without end.
As for diversity, as I noted, respect for such ought to be the number one priority - especially in any group that claims to embrace principles of true democracy. As I wrote elsewhere, one of the most important 12 step program traditions reminds us to place "principles before personalities". It's all about focus.
So, I don't see the diversity as being the problem. It's the need for responsibility on behalf of the members (no matter what the setting) as well as the guidance of a leader whose function it is to remind people of that responsibility - as often as is necessary.
nanette,
Is that like offering position papers? (nerdy term, I know)
Got it. Thanks, Nanette.
Just a thought: wouldn't it be nice if we could discuss issues online in total anonymity ie. not self-identifying by race, nationality, gender etc? Then we wouldn't have people thinking the fact that they say, for example, 'I'm an American' adds any weight to their particular opinion. Self-identity would be muted and people would be forced to rely on actual arguments to make their case because, for some, when it becomes emotional and personal (in the realm of 'how dare you insult ME?) all perspective seems to fly out the window.
afterthought:
Then again you run into a situation like that of DTF where people who don't self-identity leave other people to guess and then base their attacks on those guesses, which is absolutely asinine. But I suppose that reflects the need by some who are so personally attached to their identities that they just can't deal with someone else's anonymity. I hope that made sense. In some cases, it' just a no-win situation but that's where an effective leader or moderator could step in to get things back on track.
I'm rambling...and I'm probably off-topic. Sorry.
The whole hyperreaction to a perceived insult to "American-ness" also makes me wonder about negative reactions to "political correctness." That is, perhaps some of the people who object to "too much PC" don't really understand why insults and slurs directed at minorities and women are not just your average offensive comment.
This goes along with what Nanette wrote--why was a perceived anti-American comment so quickly equated with racism and sexism? Isn't it obvious that insulting or stereotyping a person on the basis of minority status (or female gender) helps maintain an unequal power structure and therefore has a harmful effect that goes well beyond hurt feelings?
One aspect of my identity is that I was born during the Baby Boom. If someone writes that Baby Boomers are the most selfish humans yet born and that the world will be better when they've all died off, I may bristle at the insult. But it wouldn't occur to me to equate "anti-Boomerism" with racism or sexism, because Boomers are hardly, as a group, a traditional target of discrimination.
Perhaps those who would equate "anti-Americanism" with racism or sexism do so because, in some perverse way, they perceive a threat to their sense of superiority to be the functional equivalent of discrimination against minority groups and women. In that way, the reaction is very similar to that of dominionist Christians who insist they are being discriminated against if they are prevented from discriminating against others, and who seem incapable of grasping the irony.
If you're supposed to be superior, then someone who suggests that you're no better than anyone else poses a threat to the natural order of things. Maybe that explains some of the disproportionate outrage.
Second that, Nanette - I'd love to see you write about 'hominess' and coalition Nancy.
Regarding the issue of self-identification catnip (off-topic? what's that? ;)) -- just really briefly. I think people need to be free to self-identify or not as they choose and need to be free to do so about what they choose.
I don't think the political and the personal are easily separated (nor would I want to separate them). I think too, that in the absence of people being able to self-identify as they will, what's likely to happen is not equality per se, but rather a situation in which the perspectives and modes of being political favoured by whatever the dominant grouping is along any of those particular axes of identity would be further reinforced, rather than challenged.
Hmm. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in addition to argument, I think politics is about experience, the interpretation of experience and how both do (or do not) shape how one sees the world and what kinds of things one takes as axiomatic in argument.
It's a catch-22 I think. Or a catch 23. 24 even?
In person, say something and yes, all kind of extraneous motives, suppositions and assumptions will be assigned to one's words on the basis of perceived identity, whether implicit or explicit. "He's just saying that because he's 'x'" or "He's saying that, he can't be a real x," "She was told to say that" etc.
And the same happens when one discloses aspects of identity in writing (or indeed through any form of cultural production, witness the need for the Guerilla Girls )
Don't disclose and an identity that seems to fit the words can easily be imputed and one's words / productions legitimised or delegitimised on that basis.
So that's the catch 22.
Here's the catch 23.
"But that pure communication of unadorned intellectual essences has been neither sought nor desired, for the most part it sits like an unwanted gift . . ."
DTF, I remember reading what you wrote over at Manito's about coming to know and have deep affection for people through their writing -- and an affection that is unclouded by whether their desks are tidy, or whether they wear sandals with socks that come up to their knees in the middle of summer and similar such trivia. And you know I agree with that -- that that happens -- at least I hope you do. (I think that in the end that is also true offline -- one ends up looking through the foibles as it were).
But here's what I wonder about that gift of pure anonymous thought, sitting as it does on a table in our rather sad a/s/l world. If we open it, and try to move there without equivocation (without the kind of imperfect back and forthness of 'disclose if you want to / don't if you don't want to / some hybrid of the two (which is I think what in practice most of us do))-- would one find equality in that space? Or instead would one find that it had mysteriously inherited the starting conditions present in the world at the point the box was opened?
I fear the latter.
And I think that as things stand, those starting conditions would privilege particular kinds of argument and particular kinds of evidence in ways that lent themselves to reproducing inequalities rather than ending them. (Obviously, some ways would be appropriate, "My zebra eats flamingos, therefore wearing top hats is immoral" is clearly not an argument of any kind).
I guess it's evidence more than argument that I worry about: if one moves away from experience and the effort to make sense of that experience as a source of evidence, where does one go? To written sources, to 'objective' evidence. Which is fine, but does raise the question 'in whose hands have the pens mostly been?'
I'm not trying to make some kind of essentialist argument here -- leastwise I don't think I am. I certainly hope not. I think people can have radically different experiences, in life and yet interpret them in such ways as to come to the same or similar conclusions -- that interpretation bit matters hugely, so far as I'm concerned. And obviously, one's experiences include things like reading books or watching television. And nor am I saying that experience and its interpretation is the only source of evidence that should matter, or that it should be the main source -- or that it is always even relevant at all as a source of evidence. But I don't think it is never relevant either.
Re. western/American cyber spaces
Yes. And when turned around: apples and oranges. Not even that. Bananas and octopi. Cats and meteorites.
I don't want to advocate rejecting that gift (or laugh and pooh pooh, though I admit that brevity is eluding me lately, so I'm not quite sure what to say about the lengthy monographs except that I hope that would not be their subject).
I want to say something more like, it might be fragile: handle with care and only after having -- I don't know -- having cleared some of the other stuff off the table put a cloth down so that none of the little bits get lost if there turn out to be lots of little bits or something. (those poor metaphors!)
What I wonder about is what happens if we do try to move there with equivocation, rather than without it. And without the intent of a/s/l. Does that give us a bit more wiggle room?
To which, I think the answer is 'maybe' (if it isn't moot by this point). And 'perhaps.'
One could say, 'but isn't that what's been happening already? Look how badly it worked out. A/S/L. And yes, that's true. But.
(I'm not sure what comes after that 'but.' It's just a contrarian, 'I'm going to resist that conclusion even though I'm not quite sure how to do so yet 'but.' Consider it a promissory note)
I think I see that revelation as double-edged: one can use it but it can and will be used against one. (And sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, prudence being among them, one cannot use it, even when one might wish too) So it has, I think, to be decided on a case-by-case basis -- in terms of what to disclose or not, I mean, or perhaps more appropriately, when to say "I know this happens because it happened to me and this is what I think it meant" or any of many variants of this, more or less immediate, more or less direct.
Enough is enough, and white people have the same access to literature, to music, to the people themselves, if they are interested in learning to understand the cultures, what is stopping them? If they are not, why should we spend so much of our own energy trying to be "accessible" and "acceptable" to them?
Reminds me of Stephen Colbert's Alan, his token "black friend" (who he has since dumped after finding out that he attended an antiwar protest). That's all fictional, of course, but it certainly demonstrates the point, doesn't it?
In terms of access to people of different stripes, I was pondering that today after reading an editorial by Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz who spoke out against Israel's use of force. (I googled him and found that he's been a vocal critic of his homeland for many years). It's funny, I thought, that one could point at him and conclude 'See? There's at least one Israeli who doesn't agree with what Israel's done' - as if Israelis are a monolithic group with the same opinions on everything. Yet, that's a tendency some people have and it certainly relates to the 'good American/bad American' screeds we've all witnessed.
Some so feel the need to generalize because the individuality factor has been lost. So, perhaps the need to have a 'black friend' is an effort (by some) to build a bridge to conquer those stereotypes - to get beyond the generalizations to some point of understanding. For others, it's just a faux show of warped solidarity.
And, I'd remind you, that the same goes for us white folks. We need to make ourselves accessible so that people who aren't white have the chance to understand that we're not monolithic either. Further, even though I identify as a "liberal" or a "woman", that does not stop me from criticizing the actions of others who are too etc.
I've lost my choo choo train of thought...
I did admit that those who chose not to self-identify would still run into problems online for the simple fact that they made that choice, because so many must find some way to denigrate the person rather than argue about their positions on issues. So, even in anonymity, there is no bliss.
(nanette: Blogger is often bloggered. Make sure you copy & save your post before you hit preview or enter.)
catnip, there are Israelis who "disagree with their homeland" to a much greater degree than Gideon Levy, who has written some very good pieces, I am glad you discovered him :)
That's the point I was trying to make - that no group is monolithic in thought - not even the neocons! Case in point today was a reco diary at dkos about some Israeli professor who spoke out against Israel. Reco'd - as if that's an anomaly.
I agree that the numbers of reformers is small but I don't necessarily think they should all leave the US as your contact might. Vive le resistance. If some do want to leave though, that's okay with me (because, obviously they need my permission, right?) :)
I'm uncomfortable with all of this uncomfortableness (new word) about Israel. I understand the reasons, I think, and I've warned about the silence on the left-wing blogosphere before, so here we are now.
An interesting identity discussion occured at dkos tonite wherein some said: I consider myself Jewish before the fact that I'm a Democrat (paraphrased) even though said person may never have had a connection to Israel beyond their religious identity. It just gave me cause again about which identity we place at the forefront at any given time as well as our reasons for doing so. Then there's the apology type of statement: I'm Jewish but I don't support what Israel is doing - as if any apology is needed for one's viewpoint.
It's just all very odd. Understandable on some level, but odd to me. More food for thought, I suppose...
Incite. Incite. ;)
(Whisper, conspire, plot, look furtively over shoulder and pull collar up on raincoat, pull the fedora down over the nose peering out from eyes deep in shadow.)
Nanette said:
"Now, though, I tend to think that this sort of faceless, raceless, everything except for minds-less meetings mainly is something that works to the advantage and comfort of the majority online culture."
That's I guess what I was trying to get at, though in a far more round-about and brevity-impaired way.
And yes, one is damned if one does and damned if one doesn't, which can, as you say DTF, be a kind of liberation.
Hmmm. I have more to say on this though, so I guess I'm racking up the promissory notes again.
I've been trying to think through why I fairly consistently end up disclosing my foreignness, even when I could choose to not do so. (Offline there's no option, of course, other than to never open my mouth, because as soon as I do the game's up. And it's interesting that until I open my mouth I'm perceived as British unlike many people who are British who are perceived as foreign until they open their mouth. But even then, the national identity imputed to them will not necessarily change.
On a tangent, well maybe it's a tangent. I caught the tail end of a T.V programme this evening (it was on MTV which to my dismay no longer seems to show music) in which a young man had to choose one of three women to date. The twist, if one can call it that, was that he had to decide which to choose on the basis of meeting their mothers and relying both upon his observations of them and on their descriptions of their daughters. (What the mothers thought of the young man, and what the daughters made of those impressions was less important though it did feature in passing: supply and demand I guess).
Anyway when one of the mothers spoke it became apparent that she was from Elsewhere. Or had at some point in her life been from Elsewhere and the traces of that Elsewhereness still lay on her tongue. So he said, "I can tell you're foreign" -- being perfectly friendly, just making conversation and so on, and it was quite innocuous. I have lost count of how many hundreds of times I've had that very conversation myself there and in the U.K.
What was odd though was her response: she said that yes, she was foreign and that's why she had an accent, but he mustn't worry, because her daughter did not have an accent at all, having grown up in the United States. She didn't say it, but you could see the thought clunk into place as she tried to say it without saying it: "My Daughter Talks Proper English." As though she, herself, did not.
There was something about that moment which was painfully embarrassing.
Anyway, back from the tangent.
Why is that foreignness something I disclose? I'm not sure that it's a 'public service' exactly -- maybe it's more of a kind of stroppiness.
That fact of foreignness doesn't confer authority for a lot of the things I write about it -- anti-war and freedom of movement stuff. I'd get more of that authority, I think, if I did manage to let people think I was a white American (as opposed to a white foreigner) since that would grant me a kind of 'objectivity,' a perceived impartiality. Though that can backfire too.
Thinking about it -- it's not so much that I used to find people making assumptions about me as an individual that were incorrect, as that a 'we' would be invoked as all-encompassing and inclusive when it was not. 'We're all good Americans here, trying to sort this out' and its ilk (that's a made-up quote but you've heard the sort of thing). And at that point one can either disclose or not disclose and in either case, certain assumptions will be made one way or another.
DTF said:
". . . with the exception of venues specifically designed and intended for a particular ethnic group, on the American internets, one is presumed white until one declares otherwise."
Yes: when push comes to shove, that's why part of why I disclose being white because at least then it's explicit not implicit.
But in the end, I think it is that I can't imagine how I would write without that foreignness coming out sooner or later. Or what I would write, for that matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home