💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › a-morefus-between-analysis-and-vision.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:15:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Between Analysis and Vision Author: A. Morefus Date: Summer 2003 Language: en Topics: green anarchy, Green Anarchy #13, critical theory, analysis, strategy Source: Retrieved on 21 August 2018 from http://greenanarchy.anarchyplanet.org/files/2012/05/greenanarchy13.pdf Notes: from Green Anarchy Issue #13, Summer 2003
I am cruising currently, right now. I am cruising because I have
dedicated myself to all that is creative and destructive in my life,
right now. And I am equally in love with every aspect of my life, and
all the ingredients that have caused me turmoil and all the ingredients
that have caused me glory. I am the living whispered warning in the
Roman general’s ear “glory is fleeting”, and in that verb, that active
verb, “fleeting”, there I live; there I reside in this moment. I have
dedicated my life to the idiom, “I don’t know”, and I am in love with
the frantic chaos of this limitless universe.
- Timothy “Speed” Levitch, The Cruise
Pointed threats,
they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn,
from the fool’s gold mouth-piece,
the hollow horn,
plays wasted words,
proves to worn,
that he not busy being born,
is busy dying
- Bob Dylan, It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)
As anarchists desiring to be relevant outside of the mostly insular
academic journals or often sectarian theoretical discussion groups, it
is important to openly explore the space between analysis - the critical
look at the entanglement of systems, institutions, and circumstances
which have brought us to this point (i.e. civilization), and our own
personal and communal liberatory visions - the world we are trying to
create (i.e. a return to wildness). This is an acknowledgment of the
complex and multi-faceted nature of any political or social movement,
the space it inhabits, as well as the interpersonal relationships which
develop within and outside of it. Some level of reconciliation with the
conflict between our own unrestrained aspirations and the world we live
in must occur before we can proceed in changing ourselves or the
condition in which we dwell. This is not a support of compromise as a
method of action, or a “let’s wait till later to fight” attitude, but
instead a mediation of the infinite directions and obstacles we must
navigate around and through. I am not speaking of what has been
described as “anarcho-realism”, for that implies a denial of
subjectivity and also usually entails “playing their games” or
“selling-out” as a model of social change, thus putting it into direct
conflict with anarchy. In order to be effective and in tune with the
process of change, however, it is important to prioritize fluidity and
flexibility over rigidity and purity, and to understand complexity as
something which contains contradiction.
For a qualitatively different world, it is helpful to synthesize the
positive aspects of previous attempts at creating liberated societies or
circumstances, to learn from past mistakes, and most importantly, to go
beyond, or apart from, prior methods. Moving along ideological lines has
proven to be only good at superficially unifying mass populations, and
is ultimately limited by its homogenizing process and disconnection from
individual realities, as well as its lack of relevance to the larger
political context. We must step outside of the two segregated, linear,
and illusory models of social change: 1) The development of a perfect
critique along with the deconstruction our own social programming and
conception of “flawless” interpersonal relationships in order to
sometime down the road “fight the revolution” or 2) “Fighting the
revolution now” and then later dealing with the damaged survivors’
bodies, hearts, and minds (the “we’ll figure it out later” approach).
Both are limited and dangerous models to work from. Limited, in the
sense that one cannot happen without the other; they must be organically
intertwined along with many other priorities. Dangerous, because we will
never get to the stage of physically dismantling the apparatus of
control and its institutions if we are exclusively inwardly focused; and
equally dangerous, because as damaged and pathologically socialized
beings, we will reproduce unhealthy and dominating patterns, ultimately
recreating an unqualitatively different society.
Presentation style can be problematic when exploring methods of social
or personal transformation. Even though some seemingly static or factual
information may be relatively fixed, it is important to be clear that
all analysis is obtained through various social filters and particular
biases. For our personal or communal visions to remain non-ideological,
they must be presented in an organic and subjective way. It is always
good to avoid painting ourselves into boxes, yet at the same time, not
be too ambivalent. For instance, there are times and places to use
“short-hand” or “lingo”, such as the numerous prefixes anarchists tend
use in order to give a general priority in terms of their analysis or
vision (i.e. green, red, pink, insurrectionary, etc.), but ultimately
these are restraining and often make things less apparent, rather than
actually helping to illustrate complicated perspectives. Therefore, it
is good to be limber in how we explain ourselves, depending on those we
are in contact with, having a situational description. This is not to
say we should “dumb things down”. Aside from that being an elitist
attitude, it is usually not good at doing anything but alienating
people. Nor should we be chameleon-like, and try to be what flows or
fits within a specific group or clique. It is more honest and effective
to relate to others’ lives and specific circumstances, or give examples
of how you integrate your perspective into your everyday life. It is
also much more favorable and less dictatorial to raise questions rather
than to give answers. Of course, direct communication is preferred over
mediated and impersonal modes of expression/connection like Internet
posts. Finally, when discussing or presenting ideas or concerns with
others whom you respect or wish to work with on any level, it is always
important to be able to separate criticisms and internal discussions
from denunciations and self-righteous posturing, unless your only goal
is to be right or pure.
When we actually get down to the discussions of what is to be done,
within the context of our small de-centralized groups, and the larger
political and civilized realm, two limiting factors must be taken into
account: our physical needs and our psychological state. Both are direct
factors on the pace and scope from which we can bring about change, and
both deserve considerable and honest thought before, or at least in the
discussion of, developing projects or immediate objectives. We all need
to eat. We all need shelter. Within the capitalist system (and we can
pretend that we are not, or make it our primary focus to not be
dependent on it) we need a small amount of money, both for personal and
communal survival, but also to sustain most anarchist projects. We
should be cautious when criticizing this aspect of other anarchists’
lives. Pulling away from the system is an essential part of an anarchist
trajectory, yet we are all somehow dependent on it, and to dwell too
much on the hypocrisy of this will get us nowhere. It is good to be
conscious of this, and try to lessen our dependency through
re-appropriation, self-sufficiency, and simple living, but until the
capitalist system is thoroughly destroyed, we are all somewhat reliant
on it. This is a major factor in their control mechanisms. Also, we need
to keep in mind, that we have all been severely damaged by the
domesticating processes of the dominant culture. We have all been
socialized with fucked-up roles, keeping us in a perpetual state of
misery and subservience to, and for the benefit of, the system, keeping
us at odds with each other. Many are not psychologically or emotionally
capable of participating on certain levels. How can we learn to accept
limitations, and also work to decrease or compensate for them? The
healing process is always ongoing. It is a significant element of the
revolutionary process, not a before or after project. Compassion is an
important component often lacking from radical scenes and this absence
stifles healing and growth. We must figure out how to reconcile that we
are all at once victims and victimizers, colonized and colonizers,
healers and perpetuators. We can in no way be condoning of abusive or
dominating behaviors, which must be dealt with firmly in accordance to a
group’s processes, but they also need to be acknowledged as symptoms of
a larger colonizing and domesticating system. This pattern must be
broken. Privilege is yet another factor to take into account when
developing strategies or projects - our privileges or societal status as
individuals or groups, in relation to others. Yet, this should not be
seen as a limiting aspect, but more of a factor to be examined and
carefully thought about in our interactions with those around us. Too
often, all of these factors provide redundant restrictions on our
actions and our dreams, rather then being places from which our rage and
momentum can develop.
Often, people’s response to the limitations placed on the development of
liberated communities is to carve out “autonomous” spaces on the fringe
of society. While there is an important element to this, as a relatively
“free” space to create healthier dynamics, to move outside many of
capitalism’s restrictions, or as a stronger position to fight the system
from, it often becomes a “vacation-land” and escapist dreamscape.
Escapism is not a preferable route to take for many reasons. It neglects
to account for the inevitable co-optation and engulfing process by the
apparatus of the system, or the limitations placed on “escapist”
projects which may not be as apparent at their inception. These projects
may be helpful in providing isolated experiments in dealing with
specific problems or in practicing certain skills, but are ultimately
lacking in their connection to the larger context of reality, which
makes them inherently artificial, possibly useful, but contextually
vacuous. Without also being connected to projects aimed at undermining,
dismantling, or destroying the system, they often cash in on certain
privileges, rather then using them to combat the system. They make
revolution only half way, and often not at all. (...And to regress, or
be just a little reactionary, for just second... I get pretty fuckin’
tired of those “who are no longer political” or “just living their
lives” judging or even commenting on people or projects still continuing
on in resistance. It is understandable why some would lose hope in the
prospects of the tremendous project of all the dismantling that is
needed, but you cannot be outside and inside whenever it meets your
convenience or safety. Anarchy is not a past time, intellectual game, or
a social club!)
Everything we do is, in some way, a compromise of our unalienated
desires or liberated goals, and all is muddied with the unhealthy and
confining context we live in. Nothing is pure. Inactivity and
taintlessness may be a sanitary response, but what does it actually get
us but self-righteous satisfaction, nothing we can actually touch or
feel. This does not even take into account the fact that we are all, on
varying levels, complicit in the systems of domination, and therefore,
purity of ideas is virtually meaningless. For us to move towards a
revolutionary situation and a more healthy social condition, we need to
come to grips with this fact. Meanwhile we should openly critique or
understand the reformist or symptomatic projects we, or others, are
involved with; in fact, this is a necessary process in any evolving
group or movement, but not along absolutist or ideologically pure lines.
There are many important anarchist projects which are not
insurrectionary in nature, that are not directly attacking the apparatus
of the system. These are important, however, in the creation of
insurrectionary situations or revolutionary conditions. They should be
seen for their value and also their limitations. There are numerous
examples of what could be termed “reformism from a revolutionary
perspective” (outreach, education, conferences, info-shops,
publications, prisoner support, community spaces, mutual aid networks,
gardens, etc.). However, there are some important and honest questions
to ask ourselves or others when developing these types of projects: What
are the goals? What do they offer an anarchist community or movement?
How are they organized? Are they flexible? Are they meant to be
permanent? Do the inherent compromises outweigh the positive effects?
Are they supporting, running parallel to, or moving away from the
system? Can they support or compliment, or are they in conflict with or
limiting, the possibility of insurrectionary moments? Is their creation
needed to move towards a revolutionary situation? Are they restricting
the movement towards a revolutionary situation? For example, we need to
obtain our physical nourishment from somewhere. Some
anarcho-primitivists take a more absolutist approach in stating that the
only appropriate skills to be learning in this regard center around
hunting and gathering. While many primitivists and green anarchists
agree that this form of subsistence is ideal, preferable, and least
dominating, the fact is, this is almost impossible at this time for most
people. The reconciliation for many is to learn methods of growing food
such as some forms of permaculture, which are outside of the traditional
methods of agriculture and in tune with natural processes. This is often
done alongside learning primitive skills and with the understanding that
there is a certain level of domestication involved in growing food (but
certainly far less then eating tofu at vegetarian restaurants). For
many, this is one of numerous possibilities in a temporary transition,
which can occur during a natural and human encouraged re-wilding
process.
If we remain only in the analysis or visionary realm, never getting our
hands dirty or touching the ground, we will go nowhere. We cannot be
limited by only looking back or forward, and we must certainly do more
than just look (analyze/criticize/theorize). We must be willing to make
mistakes and experiment. Anarchy is alive and organic and situation
oriented. It is a process, not a historical framework, theoretical game,
or utopian endpoint. We must attempt to effect the physical plane and
make anarchy now, even if it is not complete or immaculate. It is in the
process that we experience anarchy, not in the idea or as a conclusion.
The connection between anarchism and the decentralized forms of feminism
can be seen as a positive example of the withering of a seemingly
overwhelming gap between analysis and vision, by being rooted in the
everyday life. Within anarcha-feminism, there is often a harmonizing of
analysis and vision through daily activity and the meeting of the
essential needs of individuals and their communities (i.e. community
childcare, women’s healthcare, support groups, self-defense) and the
overcoming of the obstacles of Patriarchy. D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself)
culture is a more general positive example of this dynamic, yet it often
lacks the more overt political nature. If the idea of “Revolution” is to
retain any meaning, it needs to be situational in orientation, rooted in
the personal desires for liberation, and also be relating to the context
in which it resides. It is a living and breathing phenomenon and it is
never complete. In general, it is good to avoid flattening situations,
or standardizing responses. Flexibility is the key to avoiding
stagnation of ideas and activities. Whether ideological or physical, it
is important to think outside of our (or their) boxes, however radical
we think our ideas are; it is the only way we may grow. Yes, there are
times to draw lines, to place limitations or borders around things, but
these should be temporary and consensual black and white directions and
activities in a larger sea of gray. The gray line is what holds us
together, and at the same time, respects individuality and the moment.
Create, live, and experience anarchy now!
The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to
solve, is how to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel
deeply connected with all human beings and still retain one’s own
characteristic qualities
- Emma Goldman, The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation
But I am not finished. I seem to be residing within a borderland that is
not a place of trauma and stress – but not yet a place of healing. Some
symptoms hang on, and there is a feeling like on a rocky shoreline...
The last stretch of the journey is as trying as was the beginning, I
have accomplished the bulk of the inner work, and yet I am still
grappling to believe. After a lifetime of knowing only the psychic
fragmentation that has protected me from the truth, to become true to
myself lies within vision – and yet seems beyond reach.
- Chellis Glendinning, Off the Map