💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › a-morefus-deconstructing-all-relationships.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:16:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Deconstructing All Relationships Author: A. Morefus Date: Summer/Fall 2006 Language: en Topics: green anarchy, critical theory, activism, lifestyle anarchism, green anarchy #23 Source: Retrieved on 10 August 2018 from http://greenanarchy.anarchyplanet.org/files/2012/05/greenanarchy23.pdf Notes: from *Green Anarchy* #23, Fall/Summer 2006
Not only do we desire to change our lives immediately, it is the
criterion by which we are seeking our accomplices. The same goes for
what one might call a need for coherency . The will to live one’s ideas
and create theory starting from one’s own life is not a search for the
exemplary or the hierarchical, paternalistic side of the same coin. It
is the refusal of all ideology, including that of pleasure. We set
ourselves apart from those who content themselves with areas they manage
to carve out – and safeguard – for themselves in this society even
before we begin to think, by the very way we palpate our existence. But
we feel just as far removed from those who would like to desert daily
normality and put their faith in the mythology of clandestinity and
combat organizations, locking themselves up in other cages. No role, no
matter how much it puts one at risk in terms of the law, can take the
place of the real changing of relations. There is no short-cut, no
immediate leap into the elsewhere. The revolution is not a war.
– At Daggers Drawn
Theory is a dirty word in many anarchist circles. Often, it is dismissed
as “useless”, “masturbatory”, or “privileged” by those wanting to either
prioritize living their lives and expressing themselves as freely as
possible within the confines of this death trip (art, sexual
exploration, building communities of mutual aid, primitive skills,
etc.), those who wish to “just shut up and fight” (riots, sabotage,
armed struggle, etc.), or the ones who stifle theoretical development in
favor of going through the same perpetual and unfulfilling political
motions (politics, activism, etc.). While most of these pursuits can be
beautiful and significant in the deconstruction of this society and the
creation of free modes of living (aside from the bureaucratic,
managerial, and activist gibberish), they are not in any way conflicting
with the evolution of multifarious organic critical theory. In fact,
without such an ongoing personal and collective investigation,
examination, and critique of the complexity and depth of the totality of
civilization and how we are affected by it, no personal or social
transformation is even possible. And certainly any experiments we
participate in will be seriously limited by our unwillingness to
question more deeply our intentions, goals, effectiveness, and
contribution to larger contexts. This is why I argue that the
development of personal critical theory in concert with a larger
theoretical framework, and connected to practical action is a vital
anarchist project. The deconstruction of all of our relationships, from
the personal to the communal to the larger social context, and in
particular from the perspective of developing anarchist strategies, is
essential.
Theory is integrally connected, whether we are aware of it or not, to
all of our actions. Even most of what we perceive as instinctual (at
least at this point) contains complicated thought processes that are
unique to us, our experiences, our desires, and in many cases,
unfortunately, our ideologies. Any time we conceive of a desire, theory
is a part of reaching its obtainment or the effort put towards it. Yet
not all actions are derived from a critical theory, or a theory that has
been vigorously developed to incorporate and understand the complex
nature of the totality, and our place within it. Also, not all theory is
connected with practical application in our world. But, for theory to be
relevant, it must concretely pertain to our lives and not merely be an
abstract overlay or removed concept. A theory disconnected from
practical application will have an outcome on our world, but most
likely, not how we perceived it or wished it to be (i.e. pacification,
complacency, abstraction, arm chairism). However, our critical theory,
by its very nature, cannot be something that is complete, solid, or
ironclad. It is something to be freshly encountered and perpetually
reconceived in our daily lives. It is less a methodology or program for
doing or thinking, and more a persistent, thoughtful, and candid
perceiving, understanding, and interacting with our world. No doubt,
basic desires, wishes, interests, etc. may remain relatively constant,
but how we experience and approach them is best left open and genuine.
Whether we develop our own critical theory or not, we will be guided by
theoretical positions and pushes. Is it not better to deeply engage in
the creation of our own unique subjective theory, in connection with
others, than to – knowingly or not – accept the motivations and
theoretical framework of another, whether individual (parent, teacher,
boss, guru, specialist, etc.) or institution (church, political system,
organization, ideology, etc.)? Since many have never been encouraged to
develop critical thinking skills – they were socialized to be followers,
to prefer a more complete and “time-tested” worldview, lack the
confidence to develop their own theoretical basis, or are just plain
lazy – people are generally more easily guided by the theory of the
other. This usually leads to either the full-throttle adoption or
acceptance of a single ideology (religion, patriotism, all assortments
of politicism), the concoction of various splintered ideas (new ageism,
postmodernism), or the lack of interest in thinking at all (apathy,
passive consumerism). Regardless of the direction, thinking is done for
people, and the paradigm that creates these ideologies is maintained, as
it guides all thoughts and actions within, perpetuating the alienation
between ourselves and our world.
Critical theory, that is self-derived, inquisitive, discerning, and
deliberative theory, attempts to limit the influence of external belief
systems and to develop the starting point from within ourselves, and
therefore limit the alienation between the self and what is attempted to
be understood or changed. A direct relationship is created. This is not
to say that any of us have the answers, that there is not a historical
framework to interpret, or that others cannot connect deeply to this
process. It just means that all analysis stems directly from our
personal experience and our own eyes, and thus is more connected to our
desires, and therefore more relevant to our practice and lives in
general. The connection to others in this pursuit can be a helpful and
vital process, but ultimately, we must internalize and use critical
processes to make these experiences pertinent to us, rather than simply
wear their clothes. This is also true of examining the “historical
record”, which should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism. We
cannot view others’ positions or a historical context from a fixed or
ideological position, but from true inquisitiveness. It is too easy to
read what we want (or our ideology wants) from any source.
Critical theory is not limited to one specific element of life, although
at times it might be helpful to temporarily isolate a specific dynamic.
Ultimately, if it is to have any deeper relevance, these separate
investigations need to be contextualized into a holistic perspective
that incorporates an understanding of the totality. Critical theory is
not bound by the dualism of morality, but instead looks to understand
the complicated nature of all relationships. Dichotomies are merely
oversimplifications, usually stemming from a theoretical framework that
is agenda driven, rather than from one’s true desire to comprehend our
world and our relationship to it. These dualisms are typically intended
to guide specific behavior, which may even change in given certain
circumstances, but whose theoretical rationalizations remain. This
approach implies an essentialness to understanding, where as critical
theory stems from subjective desires in the context of the world and our
relationship to it. Our desires inform the questions we ask. Since
critical theory is not guided by outside agendas, there is no fear in
asking certain questions, because there is no ideology to uphold which
might be contradicted by certain unrestrained honesty. Ultimately,
transparency in a theoretical process that is not guided externally can
be the only way we can seriously examine ourselves and our world. It
connects theory and practice in a way that is consistent with our
desires. And, it honestly seeks authentic accomplices in our actions and
in our lives.
One of the primary obstacles to the development of critical theory is
the exclusive focus on carving out space in the world to develop either
healthier relationships with ourselves and those we are in community
with, or to explore fetishized aspects of our desires. The first can, in
general, have many positive aspects, but only if viewed and acted upon
within a larger context, while the second can provide temporary
exploration, but is often a perpetual trap which becomes a
“lifestyle”[1], scene, or counterculture. Both form boxes that are
difficult to get beyond, and both perpetuate an illusion of making a
significant break with society. Because they almost entirely move from a
reactionary position (providing an alternative to or escape from
“straight” society), and because they do not typically seek society’s
destruction (thinking they can coexist within or on the edge of it),
they do not evade the limitations imposed by society. They are often
guided by ideologies which attempt to make ambiguous the alienation in
our lives, and aspire to convince us of the tolerable conditions of this
existence, and prevent many from recognizing our role or situation in
this society. Add to this the fact that the recuperation of any remotely
radical theory and activity within this context is almost a given; a
safety valve built into the system.
In a culture in which we are told that “comfort” is paramount and “if it
feels good, go for it”, it might be wise to more deeply investigate both
the motivations for this perspective (capitalism, for one), as well as
our socialization[2]. Now, I love pleasure, don’t get me wrong, and
would be the last to suggest one deny themselves of any, especially if
we are in touch with our intuition and senses. But without at least some
investigation into where our desires emanate and how authentic they are
to us, we can easily fall into unhealthy situations, reproducing the
sickness of society, or become misled by fragmented or distorted
feelings. But how do we begin to figure out what are socialized
behaviors and which are desires that stem from our unique being? Since
we are so immersed in the muck of society, this is an ongoing and often
tricky exploration with no cut and dry distinction in most cases. And,
once we can start to grasp what aspects of our perceived desires seem
authentic, it is then a matter of not isolating or elevating a specific
desire as the primary or sole focus of our lives, at the exclusion of
others. We are hopefully driven by a multitude of desires, some
overlapping, and some even contradicting, but unless we can touch on
many of these as a related push or complex theory, then we can become
unbalanced or even obsessed. This is all part of the process of critical
theory.
As the narrow-minded solely-seeking pleasure seeker or short-sighted
scene dweller often neglects larger contexts, it frequently seems the
case that they are constantly at odds with direct action, militant
struggle, or insurrection. They may view these activities as a danger to
their projects, a threat to the prosperity of the communities,
counter-acting their work at "finding peace in this world", or
inconsistent with their convoluted ideologies which allow them to
acquiesce escape, or dwell in apathy. Any critical perspective on these
projects would either question their meaningfulness, or at least,
understand that they are temporary, and that their true longevity (for
those which actually do make a significant break with the system) is
dependent on the ultimate destruction of the institutions of
hierarchical power. This comprehension, and the action which moves with
it, removes to "lifestyle" from anarchism, and makes anarchy a lived
practice stemming from critical theory.
The opposite extreme of the counter-cultural or “escapist” model is the
duty-filled revolutionary specialist. Neglecting huge portions of social
and other relations, the revolutionary specialist often makes theirs a
singular path. It is exclusively about a physical fight or solely a
material concern. It is often guided by ideology or superimposed
political theory that one adopts to greater or lesser degrees, while
personal critical theory is neglected ,or in many cases, prohibited for
the good of the People or the Revolution. Often, this is a result of one
who thinks it impossible to realize their own unique personal
desires,feeling they are unrealistic, that they lack the imagination to
connect to them, that it is out of their control, or that they should
take the back seat to the larger battle. They put themselves into a
larger struggle for removed or abstract concepts ("two arms for the
Revolution"). They may sometimes even appear to be self-motivated and
passionately driven, but ultimately they indenture themselves to "the
Cause", which inevitable assigns roles and obligation. Giving these
fractured or alienated solders "meaning" to their lives, the ideology
guiding these sheep instills them with morality, guilt, sacrifice,
responsibility, and obedience, not to mention the self-righteous (and
often dangerous) indignation to do "what is right" for the Revolution
(all of these values warrant a lengthy study themselves). Ideology, if
"correctly" applied or consumed, is the basis for most justifications of
horrific acts. History is filled with these acts and players, yet mostly
re-written to suit the purpose of the ideology.
Aside from the ideological constraints of the revolutionary specialist,
the separation of the actor from cast, or the problem of the expert,
comes into play. As we will see with the activist, the revolutionary
feels they can be part of a specialized group to act in the
implementation of a strategy aimed to solve the problems of the world.
They will be the ones who will make/change history. This mode of social
change makes no significant break with the mode society currently
thrusts upon us, and is thus a reactionary procedure; simply a changing
of the guards. Already we are alienated and removed from directly
controlling our lives, and merely switching who makes these decisions,
especially when they claim to be doing it for us, should be met with
disdain. The revolutionary specialist is still a politician, no matter
how righteous their rhetoric, inspiring their slogans, grand their
promises, or handsome their beret.
Similar to the revolutionary specialist model, yet usually less extreme
in both agenda and in action, a typical response to the miserable world
we currently inhabit is the idea that if we could only organize
properly, do the "good work", or focus on the right issues, we could
achieve a "better world" This model also incorporates the worst of the
"lifestylist" or scenester, as it is an illusion of working towards
significant social change and living differently than the norms of
society, when in reality, they are defined by it. This often plays out
as the activist model, an ineffective, delusional, moralistic,
self-righteous, alienated, and specialized method for shaping social
change. There is inherent in this process, a lack of critical theory.
Activism is the strategy of being active in this society; to be engaged
as an operative within the modes, logic, and outlets of the system.
Whether legally, morally, philosophically, or theoretically (or a
combination of them all) constrained by and consistent with the system's
values and processes, one is a player in the system, and at most a
reactionary element in it. Typically, the actions the activist takes and
ideas they believe are not defined by them and are removed from their
lives. Rather than prioritizing their lives based on passions and
desires, they are guided by the duty-filled expectations of the activist
world, and typically asked to play a role in some guilt-laden program.
Activist types (often an annoying vocal minority) attempt to correct the
problems in the world, in order to allow things to "run better for
everyone". For instance, they deal with privilege and oppression
politics (the politicizing of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) to
correct our socialization along new ideological lines, the "correct
ones". This short-sighted approach, often with self-righteous judgement,
can never get past the simplistic and programmatic college textbook
conclusions, offering a plethora of predictable, elementary,
paternalistic/maternalistic, and opportunistic solutions. Like the
revolutionary specialists, although even more directed by the system,
activists become the experts in change, especially in connection to
their specialty, the single issue. They "raise consciousness" through
repetition, as they hammer their cause into our heads.
After years of going through the motions of ineffectual resistance, many
renegotiate their relationship with “activism”, or, hopefully, give it
up altogether. Typically suffering from burn-out and frustration, the
only long-term persona for the activist is the eternal defeated
optimist, often sacrificing themselves to the state and victimized by
the delusional egos of their (often unrecognized or unacknowledged)
leaders.
By rejecting moralistic and sacrificial tendencies for those of direct
immediacy, we not only feel more connected and a part of our activity,
but ultimately are able to stay healthier and have a better chance of
achieving short and long-term goals. The only worthy activism is to
encourage people to think for themselves and to feel.
If we are to actually connect with our desires, or live anarchy, there
can be no separation between theory and practice. The two are
intertwined and dependent on each other. There is always a theoretical
framework (or fragments of many) at play, so it is just a question of
how much we determine what they are. We can submit to other theoretical
positions, knowingly or not, or we can develop our own. How we do this
is a personal adventure, although we can certainly learn much from
others, especially in approach or techniques (rather than detail). But,
despite the amount of time some spend in the development of critical
theory, certain traps or limitations in its exploration and expression
are common-place. For instance, mystification, ambiguity, jargon, and
the disconnection from an engagement with the world we wish to play a
role in all form barriers to comprehension and expression, and
contribute to a lack of clarity in our thinking and in sharing of ideas.
The flip-side to the activist model (which goes through the motions or
acts in the world mindlessly), is the arm chair intellectual or
political theorist who is critical of everything, theoretically, yet
never connects abstract concepts to actual life or has a practical
agenda; The Lazy Boy Revolution. This dwells in ineffectiveness at the
same level as the activist, revolutionary specialist, or
counter-culturalist, yet it carries with it a higher level of smugness
and self-righteousness as it contemplates and interprets the world from
a false and “safe” objectivity. And, of course, avoiding the
crystallization of ideas and “the problem” and “the solution” program is
a must, as abstraction can only distance ourselves further.
The deconstruction of all of our relationships with the world we inhabit
is a difficult challenge, but necessary if we are to move thoughtfully
and strategically. This requires the creation of our own critical theory
that is derived from and is, a lived reflection of us. This certainly
does not necessitate a positive vision, but does imply strategy, which
combines and creates coherence between theory and practice. Remember, we
are of this world.
[*] Lou Reed, There Is No Time
[1] “life-style” (ism) is a touchy subject in anarchist circles, mostly
stemming from how it was used by Murray Bookchin to dismiss any
anarchist trend or subset which differed from his own. That is an absurd
way to use the term, and is not how it is used here. The purpose of
using “lifestyle” in this context is to mean a style of living one’s
life . This is usually driven by either superficial elements (fashion,
hipness, music, etc), or one specific element of one’s life they
identify with (sexuality, hobbies, political orientation, diet, etc).
There is often a homogeneous sub-culture that informs the “style” this
life takes from form to detail. It often lacks much in terms of critical
theory.
[2] “comfort” is a word which is loaded or informed by the expectations
of a culture. It is a manufactured concept that is dependent on
standards of a context. For instance, some find comfort living in a
gated community or riding in a Hummer, while others find comfort cooking
on a campfire or drinking whiskey for breakfast. There really is no
absolute measurement for it.