💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-hiding-behind-words.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:06:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Hiding Behind Words
Author: Anonymous
Date: Autumn 2018
Language: en
Topics: language, communication, theory, myths, The Local Kids, The Local Kids #2
Source: The Local Kids, Issue 2

Anonymous

Hiding Behind Words

The process of writing a text can be agonizing. It is almost a test for

yourself and the thoughts that inform your daily behaviour. Thoughts

that you have come to consider as self-evident, you now have to

re-examine. The white sheet demands a structured exposure of your

thoughts that have mostly a chaotic flow as they erupt in your mind and

get interrupted by other thoughts, impressions, events. So these

thoughts, do they still appear valid when put in a more logical

sequence? Glueing together scattered thoughts leads more often than not

to discarding them all together. And even if the exercise succeeds and

there appears a consistent body of thought, the most difficult of

questions arises – what do these words actually mean?

Between the thoughts I hold and the words that are supposed to reflect

them on paper there is a complex interplay. While a certain distance or

separation is always inevitable, sometimes a feeling of alienation

sneaks in. It seems as if these words need a permanent re-appropriation.

Do they really correspond to my reality? There is the danger that the

internal logic of the text takes over. The words are written because

they flow with the rhythm of the text, even if they drift away from the

real thoughts and actions of the author. Wordplay can be seductive, but

also a lie. In formulating thoughts there are paths that are more easy

to take. Commonplace arguments don’t need to be reflected upon. Some

statements feel almost unavoidable because they will resonate with

others. Some are left out because they will be stumbled over.

In my effort to communicate with others – do I prioritize the effect my

words have on others or the exposure of my thoughts to others? A

reductive dualism, maybe. The idea of correspondence is close to this

project. That means that texts are part of an ongoing conversation and

are an expression of an anarchist life and the subversive projects it

contains. They are laying bare a position and its choices. But a lot of

radical speech aims to produce an effect on others rather than assuming

a position. The words become tools in shaping a discourse that begins to

live a life of its own. Mostly the sought after effect is that of

mobilizing people. This can take different forms. For example rhetoric

that speaks in statements that are more meant to be felt than

understood. Or a myth as a bonding experience on semi-fictional grounds.

Or a theory that constructs its own enclosed conceptual framework and

historical storyline.

The production of theory has become firmly entrenched in the world of

academia from where it dissipates to other institutions. In as far as

its members have passed through the most advanced levels of formation in

this society it is difficult to apprehend how theory that calls itself

radical can emerge from there. The figure of the dissident intellectual

untouched by the rat race of this society, a freethinker with no

responsibilities but to be critical, is the complete opposite of the

reality of academics. Assuring the reproduction and the continual

progress of this exploitative society is its role. A sceptical approach

to knowledge deducted from the academic world seems a wise option.

Aside from this, although often referring to academical sources, also

anarchists have attempted to construct theories in past and present. As

many theories have been abandoned or deconstructed to get a total

makeover while others never managed to stir up anything, the activity

itself is questioned (or more often, met with indifference). So there is

a need to defend the necessity itself of theory as a specific method of

understanding; namely devising a framework of concepts and demonstrating

the links between them to explain a phenomenon in its totality. But the

arguments in favour of theory often blur the lines between thoughts,

ideas, values and theory. Its definition becomes as broad as meaning any

form of brain activity. “You can’t go downtown without having some idea,

or theory, of where downtown is.” (“Critical Self-Theory” by Jason

McQuinn in Modern Slavery #3) A theory of where a city centre is located

would involve a knowledge of processes of urbanization in the past of

that specific place, an analysis of the the relation between suburbs and

centre, and from there a mental projection of the lay-out of that city.

This combined with visual observations and subsequent deduction of the

type of neighbourhood where one is, can lead to a theory of where the

city centre is and which routes lead there. But generally people have an

experience of where it is or just asks someone who has (or rely on a

technological applications that gives them directions – mostly not

because of a pro-technology theory but because it ‘works’). To overcome

a lot of problems theoretical activity poses – a split in practice and

theory, in value and knowledge and the inherent mystification and

alienation – a differentiation could be made between ideological theory

and self-critical theory. “Critical self-theory is a continually

evolving attempt at the conception of theoretical and practical unity.

It is a dynamic totality under construction, always dialectically

transcending (abolishing, yet preserving) itself.” But theory as a

permanent, dynamic activity grounded in practice might better be called

thinking. McQuinn’s theory about critical thinking (self-theory?) adds

seemingly unnecessary confusion and replaces relatable words with

abstract concepts. Precisely my point about theory. There are multiple

examples of theories promoting confusion (postmodernist academia abounds

with it). While theories that sharpen our view on the world do so at the

cost of not questioning fundamentals (about the partial validity of

facts, the approximative nature of the methodology, the subjective

position of the observer etcetera), if not, the grounds become more

shaky again and the theory just another opinion, more or less preferable

according to the tastes of the moment. Some basic anarchist ideas, in

the sense of principles (few but clear and firmly entrenched), are

better guidelines to navigate a repressive society that pushes

constantly for ‘realistic’ strategies (that always come with their own

theories as legitimization).

Myths thrive in our contemporary society. Meritocracy (everyone being

rewarded based on their own merits) makes us accept capitalist,

exploitative relations. Democracy (composed of myths like the will of

the people, anti-fascism etc.) makes us swallow oppressive relations.

The existence of myths seems inescapable so why not create our own? An

example of the attempt to breathe a new, emancipating myth to life can

be “The Witch’s Child” (“This is your story, child. This is why it seems

you have everything, but you feel you have nothing… those feelings of

anguish and rage are the same itch the seed feels in the last days of

Winter, before it bursts open and sends out its buds into the world.”).

Centred around Mayday it is actually more convincing than the habitual

repetition of the historically anarchist roots of Mayday to give it a

radical significance today (which only seems to demonstrate that

anarchists missed out on the last one hundred years). Taking apart a

mythical story wouldn’t in any case do it any justice. But as beautiful

as this story can sound, the attraction of a myth lies greatly in its

(perceived) power to shape reality. The existing myths of this

authoritarian society are hard to compete with on that level.

Consciously creating a new myth – which means not only diffusing it, but

making it a shared point of reference and attaching it to a practical

reality – entails a certain amount of self-delusion. To still echo the

myth of the Commune (the most popular in radical milieus the last

decade) requires a blindness to all the political games being played in

certain zones of radical activity. If such a myth has its effects

nowadays, it is because people want to be mobilized by others and need a

(semi-fictional) demonstration of collective power to counterbalance

their own sense of powerlessness, to adhere to something that transcends

them. And also because some are intentionally painting this mirage with

deceiving words and erasing disturbing elements from the story, denying

a contradicting reality and imposing a fake unity. Characteristics that

deprive this myth (all myths?) of a subversive potential.

Still, our words should be able to appeal to the imagination if we don’t

want to stay stuck in this dull society. Some of the phrases painted on

the walls of European cities during the revolts of the sixties and

seventies possessed this quality that subsequently has disappeared from

the streets. Partly because of being separated from action in the inner

circles of poets and artists, or because ideological recruitment became

the overruling theme. Nowadays slogans are more found in manifestos than

on walls. Texts that consist mainly of sloganeering language are not as

much communicating anything than trying to allure. A part of the

seduction is that these coded words seem to give access to the circles

of the enlightened. This is a language assembled out of strategies of

persuasion. The same tricks are applied in assemblies where organizing

means winning over, where fabricating consensus drowns out understanding

differences.

What a theory, a myth, a sing-along chorus do provide, is a sort of

origin story that gives order to the whole world and/or the feeling of

being part of a bigger picture that give sense to small (from the

viewpoint of history) acts now and here. They are capable of mobilizing

energies. But at the same time they are forms of speech where it is easy

to hide behind for to those who master the language of disguises. A

language that is similar to the language of PR campaigns which is only

effective for a moment till it loses all its artificially added flavour

and a new strategy has to be implied before the consumers leave for a

more promising product.

“Comment vivre une vie passée à parler dans une langue autorisée?” (La

chute du langage, October 2017) What would it mean to not speak the

language of authority?