duke_aldhein: outside in

duke_aldhein (

duke_aldhein) wrote,
@ 2006-07-24 15:09:00

outside in
I had a little rant on here some time ago about 'the nonsense we take for granted and call education'. There were a couple of comments I wanted to pick up, summed up by

csn:

I tend to think that working within the system to change the structure is more effective than attempting to demolish it from the outside, though...

I wanted to come back to this, because so many intelligent and well-intentioned people succumb to this argument and much energy and talent is wasted as a result. I have yet to find a situation in which there is genuinely no choice except between 'working within the system' or 'attempting to demolish it from the outside'. In fact, I would go further - those apparent opposites have a common effect. To do either is to worship 'the system', in the sense of investing it with absolute importance and power. (This is also an argument against 'anti-' protests of any kind - although it must be balanced with the potentially transformative experience of participating in such events...)

The arguments I make about structures like our present education system are not arguments for an assault on them, but for investing one's time and energy in developing alternatives that have the potential to render them obsolete. In this sense, the most effective activists are similar to what, in the world of business, people call 'disruptive entrepreneurs'. What distinguishes the conventional entrepreneur from the activist is the priority put on measurable, monetary value - Pick Me Up, for example, is produced and distributed for free, but those of us involved have generally felt well-rewarded. I think of this kind of activism as entrepreneurship rooted in the diverse flows of value that make up human community, rather than the single (though important) flow of value dealt with by conventional economics. (One consequence of this difference is that the activist-as-disruptive-entrepreneur is better prepared for disruptions of economic 'reality'.)

Two distinctions may be useful. The 'DIY Culture' of the punk scene and much 'anarchist' activism has similarities to the the way something like Pick Me Up is produced - but it also tends to centre around a purist rejection of the mainstream economy which leads back to the worshipping-the-system-by-attacking-it problem. The kind of activism I celebrate is unashamedly pragmatic, because it sees 'purity' as not only unattainable but undesireable. On the other hand, I would distinguish this kind of activism from 'Social Entrepreneurship' because that goes under that label involves filling the gaps in current structures rather than innovating to render them obsolete. (I'm not saying that may not be valuable, I'm just making the case for another approach.) If I had to give the people I'm talking about a label, I'd call them Guerrilla Social Entrepreneurs.

One other element is important to this kind of activism - a deep grounding in the diversity of ways that people have lived at different places and times. This is why I find such value in the work of anthropologists like Hugh Brody, writers like John Berger and Alan Garner, social thinkers like Ivan Illich, as well as theologians. Rather than the utopian thinking which has shaped 'progressive' politics for two centuries, it is an attention to the variety of ways of living people have already practised that gives the confidence and the insights necessary to question what we currently take for granted.

I'm skimming over a lot of ground here - ground I'll hope to cover more satisfactorily in the closing section of the book - but I'd value people's questions.

Finally, to give an example relevant to the original subject of education, let me say a little about a project I'm currently involved with. This is an attempt to create an online mechanism for putting people who want to learn a certain skill or discipline in touch with one another and with those who can teach them. The idea is not to facilitate online learning, but to use the internet to make it easier for people to find others to learn with or from in their local area. I can't go into much detail, as we're on the point of getting development funding and need to be aware of the risk of someone else coming along and lifting our idea - but perhaps you can see the potential of such a project for disrupting the existing structures of education. (It's certainly something I'll be interested in discussing once we're further down the line.)

(Post a new comment)

	badasstronaut 2006-07-24 03:49 pm UTC (link)
	I must admit it's scary that parents accept this sort of thing without a lot more fuss. The state can't detain an adult against its will unless it's been arrested or is a danger to itself or society. (Reply to this)

blacbutterfly
2006-07-24 09:49 pm UTC (link)

Interesting thoughts...I would clarify the anti-protest-as-system-worship concept by pointing out that many of the proactive things we create are largely the result of inadequacies within the conventional framework, and therefore it may be necessary to combine the creation of alternatives with attacks on the current paradigm. For example, while proactively creating solid links between communities in a given area is necessary in order to render the BNP and their ilk irrelevant, in the immediate sense I do feel there's also a need to confront them directly.

Have you come across the Dual Power strategy? In an anarchist context (and in the way I take it, not necessarily shared by all), it is a form of revolution which differs significantly from the traditional storm-the-state approach, in that it instead works on the creation of alternative institutions to take over the running of society in the here and now until the state and capital are simply rendered obsolete, making the process more gradual, more participative (i.e. less focus on a dedicated band of revolutionaries), and IMO more likely to work. Putting it in this context does not negate the need for confrontation - most of the world's land is in private hands and therefore creating autonomous sources of food means taking land MST/Diggers style, for example - nor the need for some form of conscious effort, given the state's remarkable ability to recuperate most forms of struggle. It is however something I find of interest.

On another subject, not sure if you're aware - this weekend in Leeds there's the prayer-i58 gathering to discuss upcoming events and more generally Christian anarchism, info at www.almostfamous.co.uk/i58 - thought you might find it of interest.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	blacbutterfly 2006-07-24 09:50 pm UTC (link)
	Ah balls, the link above was meant to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Power (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

duke_aldhein
2006-07-25 07:01 am UTC (link)

Thanks for the link - that's very interesting. There are certainly parallels between the anarchist version of the Dual Power strategy and the kind of disruptive entrepreneurship I'm interested in.

However, I'm suspicious of the discrete line between "Alternative/Counter Institutions" and "Dominant Institutions". For one thing, it seems to give too much credibility to the power-claims of existing institutions, rather than recognising the extent to which "power" is rhetorical. This leads to the idea that what is needed is an alternative ideology - an alternative rhetoric of power, which aspires to replace the dominant ideology - and therefore to dominate in turn. (Although I believe the kind of projects I'm committed to are 'revolutionary' in the vernacular sense, I prefer the term 'radical', with its reference to roots, because it doesn't suppose a critical moment when one ideology displaces another.)

Another concern I have is with the confusion between the cultural and the political that tends to occur in activist communities focused on creating self-consciously "Alternative" or "Counter Institutions". In practice, most social centres I've visited are deeply unwelcoming to anyone who doesn't bear the hallmarks of the counterculture dominant within them. (The Matilda centre in Sheffield, which I was involved with, was definitely guilty of this.) Too often, I've seen people behave as if anyone who doesn't conform to their cultural movement is at best a hapless victim of the dominant ideology, at worst a political enemy. (This is actually a problem that's fed by the 'affinity group' tactic, useful as it can be - to effect change, we need to be able to find common ground with those for whom we feel no great affinity.)

For similar reasons, I've become suspicious of the whole language of self-consciously "political" people. I suppose it's an "If you see the Buddha, kill him..." thing - we tend to venerate the terms and concepts of our overtly political approach to the world, to the point where they become obstacles to the change we want to see. Less words (or less importance placed on words) and it's easier to see how those who aren't at home in our discussions may be doing more to bring about that change than we are. [Though 'less words' is easier said than done - for me, anyway! ;) ]

I probably won't make it to Leeds at the weekend, as I'm organising a (self-consciously unpolitical) Manhunt in Sheffield on Saturday afternoon - but I hope to finally meet i58 people in the flesh before long!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

blacbutterfly
2006-07-25 11:17 am UTC (link)

Power may be rhetorical in some senses, but the only power I'm interested in is that which governs our own lives. And the power of business is NOT simply rhetorical - they have power over our ability to obtain food and shelter, backed up with force when necessary.

I don't recognise their power as legitimate but it does exist - and must be challenged.

On the alternative ideology/power/domination thing, again, wouldn't necessarily agree. The ability to govern my own life is not "power" per se, but autonomy - self-determination - where power may be considered authority over others. I'm not interested in dominating others, but at the same time, I refuse to be dominated by others in turn.

There is a quote from the Zapatistas that "power is not taken, it is created" that sums up a lot of how I feel on this.

Agree entirely on the "counterculture" sentiment. This is one of the problems inherent in activism in general at present (at least here), in that it is essentially a subcultural identity and community along the lines of any other (e.g. goth, punk, sci-fi fan...) rather than a genuine movement for social change. It can be summed it up quite nicely as "I need comrades, not friends."

With that said, however, I do want to create alternatives to the current status quo, not in the sense of "alternative" culture, but on a purely practical level. This does not require the subcultural bullshit that tends to go along with it; what it DOES require is a desire to take things a bit more seriously.

Not entirely sure what you're getting at as regards affinity groups...I define an affinity group simply as a group which comes together for a particular action at a particular time, and so the only "affinity" they need is a common goal for that action. Personal affinity and friendship is largely irrelevant - tho they do tend to influence what happens, I would put this more down to the activists involved than the tactic itself.

Share your concern on the political language issue. One of the most simultaneously hilarious and demoralising documents I've read is the Middlesex Declaration of Europe's Precariat, which concludes with:

We are eurogeneration insurgent: our idea of Europe is a radical, xenophiliac, libertarian, antidystopian, open democratic space able to counter Atlanticist, Hobbesian, Darwininst, warmongering, securitarian neoliberalism.

The reaction of the VAST majority of the world on reading that is something along the lines of "what the bollocks?" And if things are written in a way most people will not understand, how are ideas supposed to propagate?

On the other hand, however...I do see theory as being important in as far as producing longer-term strategies and being able to understand where we are, where we have come from, and where we hope to be. The term "precarity" is a case in point - it may be largely ghettoised activist jargon, but it is referring to very real increases in insecurity and disposability in often quite disparate areas - housing, education, employment - which can nonetheless be understood collectively. I would argue then that the problem is not the development of our language, but rather, the way in which that language is used to essentially reinforce the lifestylist/subcultural ghetto that is activism.

fair enough re: gathering :-). any chance of you getting to the climate camp and/or greenbelt in August? a few i58ers should be at each. enjoy the Manhunt :-).

- Jonathan

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

duke_aldhein
2006-07-25 03:08 pm UTC (link)

Jonathan - I have a feeling that when we finally meet, we'll talk long and hard about all this stuff, as we clearly both engage deeply with these questions. For now, let me try to pick up one thread from your comment.

To say that "power is [fundamentally] rhetorical" is not to suggest that it doesn't have real consequences, but that different tactics are necessary to avert those consequences to those we would choose if we took the claims of "power" at face value. (I read your Zapatista quote about power being "not taken, but created" as being in line with this - which may mean we disagree less than you think.) "Power structures" are made up of people and exist only as long as enough people act as if they exist. For example, the state may have an army to deploy against you, but its ability to do so depends on its perceived legitimacy - if enough soldiers are sufficiently sympathetic to those they have been asked to attack, that structure breaks down - thus even the most concrete forms of power-in-action are effective only within the limit of power-as-rhetoric.

On the other hand, confrontational approaches to existing structures strengthen their rhetorical coherence. (Which is why Osama bin Laden and the Neo-Cons are each other's best friends - no conspiracy theory is needed to explain this, but it is this principle which makes the conspiracy theories satisfying - at least for those who look to explain outcomes as a result of intentions.)

Thank you for pointing me towards the hilariously solemn Middlesex Declaration! Unfortunately all my weekends in August are taken up with either work or weddings, so I don't think I'll make it to the climate camp or Greenbelt, which is a shame. But I'm sure our paths will cross soon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

blacbutterfly
2006-07-26 01:25 pm UTC (link)

heya,

cheers for clarifying on the rhetorical issue - turns out we agree :-). there's a song by Seize the Day (brilliant band - some songs for download at their site and others here) called "Bigger, better, brighter" which contains:

"and it seems like nobody's in control
just money making money and it's got no soul
and it's got no power but the power we give
when we doubt that without it we could live -
Imagine! (it's easy if you try...)"

I'm curious about your definition of "confrontation"...to me, creating institutions which intend to replace capitalism is in itself confrontational in a much more serious sense than a couple of kids chucking rocks. Economic and social confrontation as oppose to physical or political, if you like.

On the other hand however, such institutions would inevitably come under attack and then need to be defended - so again, a form of confrontation, but one coming from the bottom, as oppose to attempting to BE the "top".

fair play re: August, hope you have a groovy time with anything you're up to :-).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	mcgeary 2006-10-15 08:19 pm UTC (link)
	I've just ordered 'A Bag of Moonshine'. One reason, among others, is that it might give me some idea of what the alternatives to schooling are. (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

Advertisement