A Note On Protests
One of the greatest threats to the potential of true radical leftist militant activity in the modern era - especially in the United States - is the notion of a "protest." If we can take assume that a society functions, to a certain extent, like a biological organism, we can understand why.
Let us imagine that there are certain drives or emotions - produced in chemical reactions in the body - that are produced in society as well. We see festivity in celebrations such as New Year's Eve, Carnival, retrospect in days such as Memorial Day, congregation during times of duress, etc. If we are to assume, as many contemporary writers have posited (including Fredric Jameson) that individuality is conformity par excellence, and every subculture is equally necessary in order for the status quo to be maintained, we can begin to grasp the necessity of the "militant" Left and the idea of protests.
Like any other emotion, every subculture has a certain amount of rage that needs to be dispelled. We can see that the societally mandated outlet for rage amongst the contemporary Left is found in the idea of coordinated, organized, peaceful protests. Young, "rebellious" teenagers go, meet up with older "liberals" who have ideas of radical regime change, and the result is some sort of pathetic affair where very little may actually get accomplished, but everyone feels good and cleansed afterwards. We can view this process as a sort of catharsis necessary in order for upper and middle class liberals to tell themselves, "I'm doing my societal duty, now back to work."
The Foucauldian interpretation of all this - which I am in accord with - is that the discursive powers that be need the left, need the militants, need these so called revolutionaries, anarchists, communists, etc., in order to remain in power and keep the status quo in place. Without these forces, the Government faces the possibility of a truly revolutionary, militant response in its constituency.
It goes back to the biological interpretation. Every society will always have a certain amount of steam it needs to let off in relation to its Government, much as every body always has a certain amount of adrenaline it needs to let off. It doesn't matter how the adrenaline is let off; all that matters is that it is let off. Once this happens? everything can go back to normal - until you need to let off some steam again.
The same is true of protests and a liberal desire amongst the contemporary left - the process of protesting, voicing your opinion, etc., is far more important than anything that might happen afterwards. The act of posing as a liberal has become the definitive mark of a liberal. What is necessary is a return to true militancy, and an abandonment of any liberal-intellectual armchair philosopher position. As a character says in Jean-Luc Godard's 1968 Sympathy For The Devil (One Plus One), "the only way to become an intellectual revolutionary is to stop being an intellectual."
If this cliched outlet of protests, merely voicing your opinion, etc., is abandoned, leftists will not find their interest in revolutionary politics lost. They will find it renewed, and with a new thrust. It is only when liberals abandon the societally sanctioned modes of subversion (protesting, writing letters, etc.) that a truly revolutionary break in the political landscape is possible. Anything that the powers that be allows is automatically something they sanction. If they sanction it, it is because they need it in order to support their own status quo - so that the revolutionaries who are "subverting" (actually reinforcing) the regime don't go off and actually become creative, and find something to do with far more potential.
One of the greatest threats to the potential of true radical leftist militant activity in the modern era - especially in the United States - is the notion of a "protest." If we can take assume that a society functions, to a certain extent, like a biological organism, we can understand why.
Let us imagine that there are certain drives or emotions - produced in chemical reactions in the body - that are produced in society as well. We see festivity in celebrations such as New Year's Eve, Carnival, retrospect in days such as Memorial Day, congregation during times of duress, etc. If we are to assume, as many contemporary writers have posited (including Fredric Jameson) that individuality is conformity par excellence, and every subculture is equally necessary in order for the status quo to be maintained, we can begin to grasp the necessity of the "militant" Left and the idea of protests.
Like any other emotion, every subculture has a certain amount of rage that needs to be dispelled. We can see that the societally mandated outlet for rage amongst the contemporary Left is found in the idea of coordinated, organized, peaceful protests. Young, "rebellious" teenagers go, meet up with older "liberals" who have ideas of radical regime change, and the result is some sort of pathetic affair where very little may actually get accomplished, but everyone feels good and cleansed afterwards. We can view this process as a sort of catharsis necessary in order for upper and middle class liberals to tell themselves, "I'm doing my societal duty, now back to work."
The Foucauldian interpretation of all this - which I am in accord with - is that the discursive powers that be need the left, need the militants, need these so called revolutionaries, anarchists, communists, etc., in order to remain in power and keep the status quo in place. Without these forces, the Government faces the possibility of a truly revolutionary, militant response in its constituency.
It goes back to the biological interpretation. Every society will always have a certain amount of steam it needs to let off in relation to its Government, much as every body always has a certain amount of adrenaline it needs to let off. It doesn't matter how the adrenaline is let off; all that matters is that it is let off. Once this happens? everything can go back to normal - until you need to let off some steam again.
The same is true of protests and a liberal desire amongst the contemporary left - the process of protesting, voicing your opinion, etc., is far more important than anything that might happen afterwards. The act of posing as a liberal has become the definitive mark of a liberal. What is necessary is a return to true militancy, and an abandonment of any liberal-intellectual armchair philosopher position. As a character says in Jean-Luc Godard's 1968 Sympathy For The Devil (One Plus One), "the only way to become an intellectual revolutionary is to stop being an intellectual."
If this cliched outlet of protests, merely voicing your opinion, etc., is abandoned, leftists will not find their interest in revolutionary politics lost. They will find it renewed, and with a new thrust. It is only when liberals abandon the societally sanctioned modes of subversion (protesting, writing letters, etc.) that a truly revolutionary break in the political landscape is possible. Anything that the powers that be allows is automatically something they sanction. If they sanction it, it is because they need it in order to support their own status quo - so that the revolutionaries who are "subverting" (actually reinforcing) the regime don't go off and actually become creative, and find something to do with far more potential.
posted by Z. Wigon at 3:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home