💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › jaime-semprun-waiting-for-the-barbarians.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:35:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Waiting for the Barbarians Author: Jaime Semprun Date: January 30, 2010 Language: en Topics: situationist, crime, drugs, Los Angeles, riots, youth Source: Retrieved on 17th May 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/waiting-barbarians-jaime-semprun Notes: Translated into English from a Spanish translation originally downloaded in 2001 from the now-defunct (June 2011) website of “Maldeojo”: http://www.sindominio.net/maldeojo/barbaros1.htm][www.sindominio.net]] Spanish translation now available at: [[http://tierraverdediciones.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/articulos/
The barbarians do not come from a distant and backward periphery of
commodity abundance, but from its very heart. Anyone who has known how
to preserve their feelings intact, and has striven to reduce their
relations with the technologies of alienated life to a minimum, can be
persuaded of this by going among those who have been formed and deformed
since infancy by this apparatus of pauperization; they are as far from
nature as they are from reason, and by virtue of this trait we recognize
barbarism. These cripples of perception, mutilated by the machinery of
consumption, invalids of the war of commerce, show off their stigmata
like medals, their weaknesses like a uniform, their insensitivity like a
flag. What thus exudes from 14 or 15 year old adolescents, moving in a
gang through a subway in Paris, often recalls what used to be quite
specifically a trait of uniformed virility (soldiers, athletes,
militants of totalitarian movements): it smells like an old-fashioned
lynching. Hardened by contact with their technological surroundings,
calloused by the orders they are always receiving, those who have grown
up under the blows and shocks of industrially produced “strong
sensations” strive to display a yet greater hardness, the hardness of
the emancipated, on the model of those heroes of our time who are the
hardest among the hard: the masters of the economic war, either police
or gangsters, bosses of industry or of mafias. Contemplating these
militants of market totalitarianism and its aimless dynamism, one
recalls what Chesterton said about the Nietzschean” slogan “Be hard”:
that it really means, “Be dead”.
Perhaps these observations, which will be judged to be quite
exaggerated, are surprising because an almost complete censorship
concerning this topic exists; a kind of censorship which in this case
does not mean that the facts are always concealed or denied, but that,
once they are admitted, they are always dressed up, adapted to biased
interpretations, and finally whitewashed up to the point of losing all
meaning. It will therefore be objected that the brutality of juvenile
behavior is only a new, much maligned form of the old generation gap;
and even that it is often enough the expression of class hatred,
undoubtedly with little consciousness of its reasons, but that it
nonetheless possesses many good ones, which can be discovered in the no
less ancient conflict between the poor and the rich. The first of these
objections is the weakest: to maintain that there is a conflict between
generations implies that generations exist, which is belied by the
leveling of all kinds of experience and behavior. Just yesterday, it
seems, the mass society ruled by the bureaucratic machine tolerated a
relative withdrawal from the norm among its youth, rather like a test
period which would permit the selection of the most gifted opportunists.
Later, this scrap of sordid bourgeois wisdom (“man, you are the youth”)
disappeared, along with the consciousness of the passage of the time of
a life which this wisdom preserved after its fashion: one must be
capable at any age of whatever is required, through opportunities which
must be seized and “blows” which must be dealt, the social demand of
creative participation in the dynamism of the economy. There is no way
for individuality or individual chronology to subsist in the face of
this demand: a child will speak like a wise old man about his parents’
wages and of their conjugal relations, an old man will play like a child
with his electronic rattles. And what we call the “third age” reveals
itself, by its attire and by its routine, precisely as the road to an
endless youth, to a time of leisure vaguely subjected to all the
products of the entertainment industry.
The second objection deserves a somewhat more lengthy refutation
because, despite the fact that this youth which is everywhere fattened
on the same images and truly rabid in its mimicry is surprisingly
homogenous, massified and conformist, there most certainly exist among
the poorest people some kinds of behavior which resemble the old
illegalism of the dangerous classes. But the fact that they are crimes
in the sight of the law still does not make these gestures subversive:
they are ruthless in the sense of a ruthless capitalism, rather than
wild like a wildcat strike. Leftists have wanted to believe for twenty
years that the proletarian youth retains some kind of revolutionary
essence, always spontaneously subversive, always on the verge of
self-organization to transform society. In reality, no one desires, and
particularly no one among the poorest people, to take any kind of
responsibility for the world’s catastrophic course. Everyone, rich or
poor, wants to take the shortest road to the same satisfactions,
acknowledged as such by one and all: this short cut is just more violent
among the poor. The rift within society which opened up in 1968
concerning an idea of happiness, and concerning the idea of a desirable
life, did not survive and disappeared under the public relations
onslaught of “lifestyle liberation”. And we cannot content ourselves by
repeating, as if nothing had happened since then, on the occasion of
every riot or looting spree, the analysis of the Watts riots published
by the situationists in 1966 (“The Decline and Fall of the
Spectacular-Commodity Economy”), according to which, simultaneously
desirous of the objects on display and acting on the cue of the
propaganda of the market, the rioters began the critique of and prepared
themselves to rule over this material abundance, in order to reorient it
in its entirety. Otherwise, if one is content to repeat this analysis
(as has been done, for example, with a dusty lyricism and watered-down
rhetoric, by a “Chicago Surrealist Group” after the 1992 Los Angeles
riots), it is always at the price of denying that which constitutes its
rational and historical essence: the hypothesis that these riots, which
rediscovered through pillage and the potlatch of destruction the use
value of commodities, would themselves have some use for the rioters,
and would allow them to find along the road of putting the whole
American Way of Life into question “that they were searching for that
which is not on the market, precisely that which the market eliminates.”
The distance to be traveled on this road, which was a long one even
then, has become longer still or, rather, the road has almost been
effaced by those who equip this desolation. “The Watts youth without a
capitalist future”, who had chosen “another quality of the present”,
have settled for the use of drugs in order to confer intensity upon an
empty present, and have found by the same road a capitalist future in
their trafficking. It is impossible to speak without imposture in terms
of classes, when it is individuals who have disappeared, which is to say
that everyone, and particularly everyone among the underprivileged,
limit themselves to the adoption of one of the prefabricated identities
available on the market in order to be everything which that borrowed
personality permits and imposes upon them. The only luxury is that of
rapidly circulating among these representations, and of frequently
changing them; drugs appear as the spiritualized essence of this
instantaneous access to being, reduced to the impact, to the “flash” of
pure change.
In the article in the Situationist International about the Watts riots,
which was in other respects quite lucid, after the evocation of a
possible revolutionary unification around the black revolt as a revolt
against the commodity, we read that “the other pole of the present
alternative, when resignation cannot continue” was “a series of mutual
exterminations.” Unfortunately, it is this other possible outcome which
has prevailed, and not just in Los Angeles. No sentimental objection can
stand up to this fact. In this regard, there is more truth in certain
statistics than there is in pseudo-dialectical sophisms, which are as
ingenious at going to any lengths to display those facts which are in
accordance with what they want to believe, as they are in rejecting them
as mere appearances when they contradict our beliefs. Here is what some
recent statistics, among so many others, have to say about crime in the
United States: homicide is the second-leading cause of death for adults
between the ages of 15 and 24 year of age; the average age of those
arrested for murder has fallen from 32 in 1965 to 27 today; the number
of murders committed by youth gangs has quadrupled between 1980 and
1993. And to complete the picture, the suicide rate among children has
tripled since the 1950s. The remedy proposed by alarmed commentators
consists of “the reconstruction of the American family, to make sure
that our children understand the value of life, their own and that of
others.” It is a little late in the day for that, when that which once
constituted the value of life is as ruined as the family, whether
American or any other kind; but it also too late, and no less so, to see
any kind of emancipation or progress in this disintegration of the
family unit, which directly throws atomized individuals into the
brutality of a desolate life, to the desperate rivalry of those who
belong to nothing and to whom nothing belongs. (It should be pointed out
that in these conditions, family ties can only survive by putting
themselves at the service of the market, and by adopting the economic
model of the “successful small business”).
A sociologist worried about humanitarian education and socialization
will usually allege extenuating circumstances: of course these ignorant
young people are not very refined, but the “public safety” propaganda is
quite exaggerated and, besides, what opportunity have they been given to
be well-educated, brave men and workers anyway? Leftist humanitarianism,
as always, just as it does not attack what it wants to attack, does not
defend what it tries to defend. If it means to say that the violence of
disinherited youth must not make us forget the violence they have
suffered, one must not only denounce police violence (“repression”) but
all the mistreatment which technological domination inflicts upon nature
and human nature. It is therefore necessary to stop believing that
something like a civilized society still exists which has not provided
the barbarian youth with the opportunity to be integrated into society.
It is necessary, above all, to understand how the disinherited became
effectively disinherited, and more cruelly than in other times, having
been expropriated of their reason, imprisoned in their “new language” as
much as in their ghettos, unable to base their right to inherit the
world upon their ability to reconstruct it. And, finally, rather than
shedding crocodile tears about the “excluded” and the other “useless
people of the world”, it would be fitting to seriously examine in what
sense the world of wage labor and the commodity is useful for anyone who
does not benefit from it, and if it is possible to include oneself in it
without renouncing one’s humanity. All of this is evidently too much for
the sociologists, however leftist they might be: after all, these people
have the function not of criticizing society but of providing arguments
and justifications to the plethora of personnel charged with supervising
misery, those who call themselves “social workers”. It is therefore
logical that their efforts are directed above all towards the
satisfaction of the demands of “identity politics”, which offer the
choice of a role from the dollar store of imitation memberships, the
little shop of illusions where everything is found, from the Malcolm X
baseball cap to the Moslem tunic.
Less worried, because it is free of any practical relation to reality,
the extreme left contents itself with the inversion of the terms of
police propaganda: where the latter sees barbarians coming from an
underworld foreign to civilized values, the extreme left speaks of
savages, foreign to the world of the commodity and committed to its
destruction. It is the “revolution of the Cossacks”, with the ghettos
replacing the steppes. The only point these apologetics are willing to
concede is that this rejection on the part of the contemporary savages
is only slightly conscious, in any case very poorly reasoned, although
worthy because of its intentions. But if we abandon the heaven of good
intentions—leftism lives on good intentions, its own and those which it
imputes to its negative heroes—and put our feet back on the ground, the
problem is not that these barbarians reject, although very badly, the
new world of generalized brutality; but rather that, to the contrary,
they have adapted quite well to it, faster than many others who are
still full of conciliatory fictions. One can thus effectively call them
barbarians. Where could they have been civilized, and how? Watching
their fathers’ pornographic videos? Submerging themselves in the
ectoplasmic universe of digital simulations? Imitating the conduct of
brutal vendettas? All around them, both at the summit of the social
hierarchy as well as its abysses, they see that a species of nihilist
consciousness of historical collapse prevails, on the model of “after
us, the flood”.
It is, after all, the very definition of civilization to carry on with
things which have vanished like the ozone layer, cracked like the
sarcophagus of Chernobyl, and dissolved like nitrates in the aquifer.
All enterprises with a pretension to permanency having become
laughingstocks, the world now belongs to those who love speed, without
any scruples or precautions of any kind, scorning not only all universal
human interests but also all individual integrity. This worldly love
possesses exactly that quality which allows for its precocious,
instantaneous character destined for immediate volatilization and thus
to a simple, empty intensity: “Time has no respect for what is done
without it”. Drug use is simultaneously the simplest expression and the
logical complement of this concept, with its power of breaking time down
into a succession of disconnected instants. (Baudelaire pointed out, and
only in regard to hashish, that a government interested in corrupting
its subjects would only have to encourage its use.) The sole clinical
context of what has become, in these conditions of generalized
brutality, something we no longer dare to call eroticism—the atrophy of
sensuality and the hysterical search for always more violent
stimulations—alone suffices to prove that society’s disease has reached
its final stage. Everything takes place, therefore, as if, by means of a
disaster which is confusedly perceived by everyone as irreversible, we
have been freed from both the responsibility of having to maintain the
existing world as well as the responsibility of having to transform it.
In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt describes how mass
society creates the human material for totalitarian movements (“the
principal characteristic of mass man is not brutality or mental
backwardness, but isolation and the absence of normal social relations,”
etc.), and how it formed from this social atomization what she calls
“the provisional alliance between the populace and the elite.” Today we
are witnessing the reconstruction of such an alliance, without the
“revolutionary” dynamic of totalitarianism—the energy which it had
recuperated from the workers movement—but with a more complete nihilism,
in the various mafias. The ways corrupt elites and inner city gangs
settle their feuds amidst the prevailing decomposition are marked by the
same effectiveness. And mafia-style solidarity is the only kind which is
worth anything when all the other kinds have disappeared. The “unlimited
loyalty, unconditional and unalterable” which totalitarian movements
demanded of their members, and which could be obtained from isolated
individuals lacking any other social connections, who have no sense of
their own usefulness except insofar as they belong to the party, a
loyalty emptied of all ideology, is rediscovered in the total fidelity
of the gangs described, for instance, by Kody Scott (Monster: The
Autobiography of an L.A. Gang Member). To get a sense of just how far
matters have deteriorated during the last 20 years, one need only
compare Scott’s testimony with that of James Carr (Bad). While the
latter apprehends the modern social critique and is almost immediately
mysteriously assassinated, the former, assisted by our epoch, or rather
without any of its assistance, escapes the delirium of the gangs only to
join that of the “Black Muslims” and the other African identity groups.
At the end of a poem by Constantin Cavafys, “Waiting for the
Barbarians,” we find two verses which are quite apposite in these
circumstances: “But meanwhile what are we going to do without the
barbarians? Those people were like a solution.” It is therefore in order
to conceal its real disaster and to exorcise the specter of an
interminable decline if left to its own devices that a society searches
for enemies to fight, objects of hatred and terror; just as in 1984,
where the obligatory expression of hatred for the enemy Goldstein serves
at the same time as a pressure release valve for hatred of Big Brother,
the fabrication of a fearful and hateful “barbarism” is all the more
effective the more it derives from a very real and well-founded fear
which operates to the benefit of conformism and submission. The
“banlieues”, as the media use the term to in fact designate the entirety
of urbanized territory (the old historical centers, principally destined
for commercial use and tourism, already preserve nothing of the happy
confusion which is proper for a city), have thus become, with their
barbarian youth, the “problem” which providentially sums up all the
others: “a time bomb” placed under the seats of those who suddenly
realize they are sitting down. Like so many other “problems”, this one
is spoken of not in order to resolve it (how could this be done?) but in
order to manage it, as they say: in good French, to let it rot, they
will help it with all the immense means available to this end. It is
this kind of modern management that is meant by the term, “Los Angeles
Syndrome”. When the police and their media spokespersons speak of the
“Los Angeles Syndrome”, they are not so much expressing what they are
trying to obtain as what they are trying to avoid, less what they want
than what they fear: which is to say that they are describing the way
they want those situations which they cannot avoid to turn out. And it
is well-known how modern domination, which has not without reason been
defined as spectacular, has appropriated the techniques of the
entertainment industry on a grand scale, and has for some time been
capable of manipulating mimetic impulses and causing those feelings that
it wants to arouse to have the appearance of having always existed,
anticipating the spectators’ own imitation, on the model of a
self-fulfilling prophecy. In this way, by virtue of the spectacle’s
mirror effect, those who “love to hate” as much as the modern barbarians
are quite ready to love being hated under that name, and to identify
themselves with its prefabricated image. “They have the hate”, according
to an expression whose flavor does not fortuitously evoke contamination
by a disease.