Typing (and Thinking) out Loud Part II
In the last Typing (and Thinking) out Loud thread, Nanette observed something 'weird' while writing about bell hooks's conclusion that "This means that the world we have most intimately known, the world in which we feel "safe" (even if such feelings are based on illusions), must be radically changed. Perhaps it is the knowledge that everyone must change, not just those who we label enemies or oppressors, that has so far served to check our revolutionary impulses." ( bell hooks, From Margin to Centre 166).
Nanette said:
Yes. I think it does seem backwards. I think we've come to take some things that we shouldn't have as 'natural', 'inevitable', 'that's just how it is.' Human nature.
When one is told 'but that's just naturally how it is,' I think it can be useful to take a long hard look at who benefits and who does not benefit from that particular natural state. And how? Because asking those questions might lead us to wonder whether 'it' -- whatever the 'it' may be -- is in fact an intractable 'state of nature' or whether it is instead no more than a 'state of affairs' that just happens to be wearing a convincing disguise.
So. What are the 'it's' you would like to make unnatural? Why? And where would you begin?
---
As a postscript, I just wanted to say 'welcome' to everyone who has come here to write over this last week. It's good to see you here, albeit not always under the easiest of circumstances and certainly in far from the happiest of times.
Nanette said:
You know how sometimes you hear a word or a phrase that you've probably heard thousands of times in your life, but at that particular point in time it just sounds... weird? Like it's a new thing, and maybe doesn't belong there. This happened to me yesterday when reading an article and having it say "human rights organizations say... ".
Human rights organizations. Care for the children charities. Anti poverty/feed the poor organizations.
Don't those just seem... well, weird? Why, at this point in time... or really, at any point in time, should we need huge, international organizations that have to lobby for human rights? Or beg for food to feed people? It doesn't usually seem weird though, it seems like well... that's how things are supposed to be. After all, someone has to do it. Right? But it all seems backwards.
Yes. I think it does seem backwards. I think we've come to take some things that we shouldn't have as 'natural', 'inevitable', 'that's just how it is.' Human nature.
When one is told 'but that's just naturally how it is,' I think it can be useful to take a long hard look at who benefits and who does not benefit from that particular natural state. And how? Because asking those questions might lead us to wonder whether 'it' -- whatever the 'it' may be -- is in fact an intractable 'state of nature' or whether it is instead no more than a 'state of affairs' that just happens to be wearing a convincing disguise.
So. What are the 'it's' you would like to make unnatural? Why? And where would you begin?
---
As a postscript, I just wanted to say 'welcome' to everyone who has come here to write over this last week. It's good to see you here, albeit not always under the easiest of circumstances and certainly in far from the happiest of times.
posted by dove at 8:42 pm
8 Comments:
The Earth produces enough food to feed every single person on the planet and yet people still die of starvation.
Why? They can't afford food!
A totally man made construct where pieces of paper entitle one access to the Earth's produce.
Certain people, and I am one of them as I'm sure are most readers of this blog, enjoy a certain lifestyle simply because we were lucky enough not to born in Sierra Leonne, where life expectancy is around 42.
The world is, indeed, "weird". But the people who most profit from the way it currently works control most of the media and have defined people who have questioned this abnormality as "unpatriotic".
Hi Kel,
"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy. "
I miss Douglas Adams.
And I think 'unpatriotic' is one of those labels best worn with pride on one's lapel.
I was thinking more about what I'd like to make 'unnatural.' A little piece of paper: it's not where I'd stop, but in the absence of a magic wand, it is where I might begin.
Birth certificates. Why does one need a certificate to be born? Well, I suppose technically it's a certificate for being born. Sort of like for completing a fun run or something. Except. What earthly purpose does it serve?
Several I think: it's the way that the State gets its hook into those newborns it wants (and increasingly, in states like Ireland , there are newborns that are unwanted because they are the children of non-nationals, because they are the offspring of that 3% of us who did not stay put.
And as the foregoing suggests, that little piece of paper is a means of assigning privilege: it confers (or denies) a right -- and there's an unnatural phrase if ever I saw one -- to live in a particular part of the world. And that's a right generally refused to those people not born on that particular little patch of earth and/or without parents in possession of similar little pieces of paper. And if it is conferred, it is only grudgingly and after a protracted bureaucratic whine, of the kind that a overtired, bored and hungry toddler who, having been dragged about a dusty museum of medieval iconography for three hours (where one was allowed to touch absolutely nothing and there was no cafe let alone one with children's meals and menus on which to scribble) and then confronted unexpectedly with learning about the 'wonderful world of sharing your chocolates' for the very first time ever would justly be ashamed. Consider the length of the sentence an index of the protractedness.
And what are the little pieces of paper that one gets if one endures this lengthy hissy fit? Naturalisation papers. A little piece of paper to make you natural.
Made of pure and wholesome ingredients. Just like the spray on hair. Because you weren't 'natural' before.
And this -- this little piece of paper -- that divides us from each other, that says 'unlike them, you are allowed to live here' is something we are told we should be proud of?
That little piece of paper: that's where I'd start.
nlinstpaul, like Nanette, I'm really looking forward to hearing how your thinking on your 'its' develops.
Nanette and DTF,
Oddly enough, my current reading is a book called As Used on the Famous Nelson Mandela: Underground Adventures in the Arms and Torture Trade . It's a scathing look at U.K. arms dealing under New Labour. Despite its grim subject matter, it's a book that has made me laugh, albeit the same kind of laughter that I imagine Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal elicited when first published.
Nancy,
please don't apologize for writing your thoughts out. I, for one, greatly enjoy what you write. I only wish I had more time today to read and participate here. The reason for leaving now being those little green pieces of paper that we all seem to spend so much time chasing down :o)
I jsut have to step in here with a original quote I heard the other day in Nancy's own voice. She was talking about her work and her staff, and said..
"There is greatness going on right now!"
It seems a fitting response to what you are doing right now too, Nancy.
Let me enthusiastically second supersoling, Nancy and do a bit of ‘going on’ myself.
What you've said about the inglorious and perpetual scrabble for funding and the weariness of people who are in a position to give is all too familiar, albeit from a different place and a different context. And there are so many problems, all of them pressing, all of them desperate, all of them having the potential to blight lives or claim them outright if not addressed right now, right this very instant. So how does one prioritise? What does one do first? Who does one try drag out of the waves and onto the beach? (Bearing in mind that the person doing the dragging in one context may be the draggee in another)
It creates a bizarre situation where small organisations with overlapping interests – organisations that should be allies in other words – are instead pitted against each other, competing for scarce resources. Except that in fact, as Kel pointed out, the resources aren’t scarce at all, it’s just the ‘available’ resources that are scarce. And that one might euphemistically term a ‘distribution problem.’ Or – as you do – a question of misplaced priorities.
(And despite having been a violinist myself a long time ago, whose paid work even included playing with orchestras, I would wholeheartedly second your observation that the craft of violin playing, at least in the times and places we now inhabit, is nowhere even close to the top of the list of skills that we should put a premium on. In a world where things had gone less badly wrong, perhaps it wouldn’t be as outrageous, but certainly not in the here and now.)
But digressions aside, it makes it very difficult for organisations to trust each other, I think. And I’m damn sure that it makes it difficult for people to trust each other, for broadly similar reasons.
I’m doing my best to avoid the s-word.
So, how does one prioritise then? And if – despite having even perhaps agreed overall goals – it’s still not possible to agree on immediate priorities, what would it take to accomplish the more modest goal of bringing ourselves out of competition with each other?
Much of this is at a tangent to what you wrote I think, but for whatever reason – maybe earlier conversations Nanette and I have been having – it came to mind.
p.s. scribe-- spectacular writing!
I would like the following to be unnatural:
http://jadedreality.blogspot.com/2006/07/dissent-democracy-rhetoric-and.html
Post a Comment
<< Home