by CHELLIS GLENDINNING
Pedro Susz is like a
diamond; he has many facets. It´s not just that Para una filosofía de
la insubordinación (La Paz, Bolivia: Plural Editores, 2012) reveals
the rare mind that integrates erudition with vision, the intellectual with the
passionate; he gives philosophical reflection on today´s pressing question: how
can we traverse to the other side of the confusion and cynicism overwhelming us
after all these centuries of too-often futile dissent against
Power–-particularly when the impulse to resist has disappeared not in
Falcon sedans and military airplanes, but behind the electronic screen?
I Think, Therefore I Am
Between the XV and XIX centuries the African continent lost more than
100,000,000 young men and women. –-Pedro Susz
After laying out the principles of quantum
physics as his jump-off point for our efforts toward freedom and justice, Susz
takes us on a journey through the philosophies that emerged from the European
epochs of exploration, exploitation, and empire. Next we trek through ideas he
calls “intermediary” such as Marx and Heidegger and then to postmodern, postcolonial,
and multi/intercultural thought, all the while picking out the questions
various philosophers have asked in an attempt to apply them to today´s world.
Susz ends with an analysis of the challenge contemporary power presents: our
total and involuntary encasement by the projections of industries/technologies
of communication.
He makes clear that philosophy seeks to
clarify the relationship between human life, the conditions in which people
live–-as Foucault indicates, truth is a historical construction–and the essence
of existence. The search, then, is never complete. In the end the nature of
reality overpowers the capability of words to describe. As soon as one
philosopher defines it, another puts her ideas to the fire of criticism. No
sooner has Emmanuel Levinas touted the wonders of Liberation Theology than
Slavoj Zizek points to its limitations. Heidegger is the cat´s pajamas,
Heidegger is passé. Frantz Fanon is too political. Etc. The search for
truth also never ends because, due to the insatiability of Power,
technology “advances,” always to favor expansion, efficiency, and control,
always transforming the socio-economic conditions of survival and therefore
perceptions.
The mind is amazingly fluid.
Universalities exist–-birth, family, community, ecology, food, sex, ceremony,
song, death–-shaping limitations and possibilities, but the dynamic between
thought and conditions produces a diversity of perspectives. The gratefulness
to Mother Earth characterizing the spiritual ideas of Native peoples may spring
from the practice of receiving food directly from their own mothers and from
the waters, minerals, plants, and animals of nature. What, then, do we think
when we eat food from tin cans and plastic bags, made from chemicals whose
names we cannot pronounce? Or when food scarcity, whose origins begin with
ecological disasters and selective distribution by multinational corporations,
causes starvation and riots?
The development of XV-XVII century
European philosophy becomes more comprehensible. Suffering the collapse of
ancient systems of land-based community, desperation from abusing their own
lands, lack of sanitation, plagues, wars; uncertainty, fear, and hate–-they
created compensating concepts. Science based in instrumental reason and the
separation of humanity from nature, actions from values. Myths of universality
and the birds-eye view (characteristics of post-traumatic stress). A psychology
seated in the fracturing of mind from body (likewise). The superiority of upper
classes, racists, and patriarchs. The arrogance to conquer everything–all of
which not only offered psychological comfort, but supported bourgeois
orderliness and the administration of Power.
For the thinkers coming afterward, the
task became to put words to the effects of such a debacle and propose ways to
strengthen insubordination. And here we are, centuries later, still trying to
confront/dismantle/eradicate/escape/
infiltrate/join/reject/replace/resist/subvert/take-on/take-over Power.
Times/Spaces: A Small Detour
… permanent insubordination, the dare of the moment, seems to be the only
form of affirming our irreversible decision to reposition the dialogue, the
creativity, the imagination… –P.S.
During the 1980´s and ´90´s the Elmwood
Institute in Berkeley, California, presented a platform to develop dissident
ideas. I was a member of the Council along with Fritjof Capra and Jerry Mander
(both of whose work Susz mentions). Also Ernest Callenbach, Charlene Spretnak,
and other thinkers/activists. In 1991, in preparation for 1992, we met with
colleagues from North American indigenous communities, including Jeannette
Armstrong (Okanagan) and Larry Emerson (Diné). The aim: to explore connections
between our ideas–-to Capra, the New Paradigm-–and traditional Native
philosophies. For days and nights we shared thinking on the role of community,
the politics of sovereignty, the nature of the cosmos, etc.-–with remarkable
frequency, the Natives teaching us.
One of the shared ideas was that each
creature, artifact, and inanimate object is made of energy; nothing is fixed,
everything in transition. We agreed that linear time is a fantasy and that
instead we exist in the presence of swirls and levels, multiplicities and
synchronicities, suggesting a reality given to symbols, dreams, impenetrable mystery,
chance, possibility. For us in Berkeley, the implications were spiritual and
philosophical; we weren´t able to formulate applications to the collective task
of achieving justice and liberation.
Our Jacques Ellul
Society/Mega-technology Conferences (1989-1996) aimed to amplify ideas and
strategies for action. Again, Mander and Capra. Also Theodore Rozsak, Vandana
Shiva, Gustavo Esteva, etc. The approach was systemic analysis, considering not
just the immediate dangers of specific technologies but the functioning of mass
techno-capitalist civilization as a whole. The content of our discussions is
collected in the book Turning Away from Technology (1997):
mega-technology and development; the relationship between government and
promotion of new technologies; the ramifications of fragmentation and
hyper-velocity; technological encasement and consciousness; etc. When computers
and cellular telephones were disseminated to consumers (the saving grace of a
declining Wall Street), the institute collapsed–-to my mind, the victim of
these new means of communicating and the disorientation that this produced
among us; in the analysis of Kirkpatrick Sale, because “We lost!” In the
end our contribution was neither education concerning this missing thread of
analysis in our social-change movements nor tactics for political action; it
was solidarity, a precious quality but not the expansive one we had hoped for.
We were not the only ones incapable of
proposing a next step–-and for good reason: technological upheaval was turning
the world upside down.
Toward Postmodernism
… a time in which nothing is what it seems and everything that appears is
not. –-P.S.
The postmodern environment was one of
lightning-fast links and interlinks, actions and interactions on a screen; mediated
reality; non-stop innovation; the fracturing of person from meaning, action
from effect; enforced relativity of experience, ideas, and events;
individualism-on-steroids; the speed-up of the clock and shrinking of space;
hyper-reality based in scandal and spectacle—-producing the tool of
deconstruction, yes, but also solipsism, expectations of cyber-paradise, a
dogma of extreme relativity, paralysis and resignation.
Susz´s exploration of this world´s way of
thinking illuminates its major points of criticism. It describes a fleeting
reality without location in body, place, matrix, history, will; it affirms the
de-contextualization of discourse; it encourages nihilism and narcissism; it is
synonymous with neo-conservatism; etc. Frederic Jameson highlights another
angle: all of postmodernism´s postulates are symptoms reflecting the experience
of transnational globalization. He presents the notion, very much in line with
a psychodynamic approach, that this stage has been necessary for illuminating
capitalism´s masks.
Passive Consumers, We
… the time we inhabit now seems the era of the revenge of the image… –P.S.
Para una filosofía de la insubordinación reads like a Paco Taibo detective
novel: we sense that it is going towards something but we can´t imagine what
that is –- along the way creating a parallel universe of realizations in the
reader. I haven´t felt such ecstasy while reading since I devoured the works of
Lewis Mumford 30 years ago.
At last–-through
centuries of changes and centuries of ideas about the changes-–one glimpses
a dénouement on the horizon. With his early development of
what Regis Debray has called “mediology,” Cornelius Castoriadis gives Susz the
springboard he needs. Although Castoriadis´ declarations on the fissure between
technological development and its lack of morality rings of a cost/benefit
analysis that neutralizes censure, his insights into the effects of
television–made remarkably early, in the 1970´s–is extraordinary: TV´s ability
to perpetuate authority via imagery; its use to close off modern society from
outside influences; loss of the collective/embodied agora in favor of a screen
and the subsequent privatization of the individual; infantilizing of the
viewer; wiping out of cultural memory; the mixing of fact with triviality until
all becomes insignificant; perpetration of what Octavio Paz has called
“Complacent Nihilism”.
We are wedged, says Susz, between the
media´s mega-conglomeration achieving a global uniformity of thought that would
have made Hitler envious–as Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno warned in 1947,
a union “of Nazism and the North American cultural industry”–and castration of
the potential for resistance due to its relentless emphasis on consumerism,
publicity, and entertainment. The subsequent “iconic overdose” “transforms the
people (active political subjects) into the public (passive mass-media
consumers).” Susz compares this “media labyrinth” with the myth of the Minotaur
in which Minos traps the half-man/half-bull monster in a construction of
impassable pathways–-acting as dictator between people and reality; shaping
ways of thinking, knowing, and feeling; drawing boundaries between what is
admissible (Power) and what is not (insubordination).
Castoriadis comes alive with his concept
of “radical imagination” as the essential element for mustering trails out of
the labyrinth toward socio-political change. He proposes an ontological leap
toward cultures and institutions harvested from human heritage, and the scene
is set for Susz´s imaginative ideas.
Electronic “Republik”
… the web, let´s call it that, is constructed, woven, by a spider and,
additionally, with a precise end in mind, to trap flies of the type the weaver
eats. –P.S.
At last the theme of techno-manipulation
of time and space arrives. I have been waiting for this with bated breath,
believing it will be the Turning Point. But instead follows a chapter covering
theories on the effects of television. Laino and her Piaget-inspired ideas on
the mimicry of behaviors enacted on the screen. Postmodernists showing how TV
promotes capitalist values of bourgeois consumerism. Etc. And then the
computer.
Susz´s insights never fail to blow the
mind, and the chapter “The Digital Labyrinth” is the diamond of his thinking.
He launches his discussion with the observation that “nobody feels called to
think about the consequences of arrival to market of the newest model of vacuum
cleaner” and an investigation into the ideas of Zizek on the internet from a
Marxist viewpoint.
Why is this medium so seductive? Because
it echoes the established paradox of contemporary image-based culture,
juxtaposing the myth of objective truth against subjective experience. Because
it dares to rupture traditional social roles, for instance that adults know how
to do things better than young people. And because, according to Zizek, the
all-important image is available thanks to this inscrutable machine, and so it
becomes as sacred as the image; also, for his skill with the keyboard, the user
feels like God creating virtual reality—an ironic, Mobius Loop-like
compensation for his isolation behind the screen.
But then there is the personal stress of
sifting through messages from one´s 2000 “friends” and the infinite, unceasing
multiplication of data, situations that Susz says produce a “new state of
slavery.” There is the diminishment of the subject for lack of options offered
by a controlled labyrinth telling one where to go and for lack of control over
one´s own creations on the net. There is the conflict between the “freedom” of
decentralization that the internet´s marketing touts and the
standardization/centralization of thinking perpetrated through both cyberspace
and mass media, which José Luis Sánchez Noriega calls its “ontological regime.”
There is the propensity of empire to homogenize world cultures “inside the same
commanding force characterized by consumerism and frivolity.”
And the unrequited promise of “digital
democracy.” This rapidly becomes a myth in the context of a technology whose
motive is to maintain power not just via penetration, surveillance, mining,
manipulation, and influence, but through the very structure of its machination
that offers “a territory seeded with multiple false options, inherited
prejudices, and the fears of each user of power´s infiltration.” Too there are
the false promises of “capitalism without frictions,” of “the imaginary
communities installed on the web, giving pabulum to the supposed crack in the
media monopoly,” of the machine´s amazing memory–the “Cloud” that Susz
describes as “the dungeon of collective memory loss,” which in reality is a
system of factory-warehouses harboring thousands of computers devouring enough
mega-watts to demand a new Hoover-size dam while vomiting toxic chemicals.
And finally, the tragic defeat of a direct
relationship between the embodied subject and a world–suffering extinction of
the biosphere, species, communities, cultures, wisdom—that pleads for help to
save its millions-of-years of evolution.
Along the way, our author makes what he
minimizes as a couple of “digressions.” In the first he presents what turns out
to be an indispensable (and Jacques-Ellulian/Lewis-Mumfordian) clue: in order
to comprehend the dynamics of Power, the necessity of investigating the
correlation between the development of social organization and ideas with the
history of technology. The second is a response to the first, covering themes
of the onset of mass mechanization—such as the divorce between technical
dissemination and morality; the rationalization that technology is neutral;
parallels between social forms put in place to facilitate the industrial
revolution and the role of media; the entanglement of technics with belief in
utopia.
Dilemmas and Desire I
A titanic force is needed to recover the right to say NO… –P.S.
It can be no surprise that Susz identifies
contemporary Power as the digital takeover. “Its weapons are not tanks, nor
missiles, nor neutrons,” José Pablo Feinmann concurs. “It´s television. Film.
Journalism. Magazines. Radio. Cable channels. And most formidably, the
Internet.” In his concluding chapter Susz applies his phenomenology of direct
experience to what exists–-these engines of consumerism and consciousness-–with
proposals for understanding and, with liberated software, using them better.
After devouring such a stellar piece of work, I am suffering a letdown.
My focus lies on a
different trajectory: roots and archetypes. Along with critique of mass
techno-civilization, my spotlight is directed toward protecting/salvaging
endangered qualities, forms, and practices that humans have developed for two
million years. Ergo: I tend to see use of the cyber-technologies
created to facilitate Power by transnational corporations, non-democratic
governments, and the military as incongruous and yet another technological
fix–not to mention the health threats posed by their dissemination of
electromagnetic radiation. I have learned, though, that differences in strategy
can spring not from actual disagreement but from their positions in chronology.
And, of course, from the strength of diversity of personalities and
perspectives. We stand face-to-face with a predicament that invades and
threatens every facet of life. If we apply the insight of Diné medicine man
Larry Emerson–the treatment for ills caused by empire is the medicine
created by empire–might the very technologies created by mega-civilization
carry potential to unravel its own dysfunction?
It is because of such factors that Susz´s
conclusion presents, not a disappointment, but rather a challenge to widen my
panorama.
Dilemmas and Desire II
We don´t take note of reality just to register it, we do it to produce an
effect… -–P.S.
Another challenge arises. Still Susz does
not cross into the world of the imagination. For sure he has his suggestions on
how to spark what Morris Berman has called “the re-enchantment of the world,”
and with these he pulls no punches. Digital technology, he says, presents
possibilities beyond modernism´s obsessive singularity and postmodernism´s
excessive relativity; at the same time it echoes and supports the new forms of
Power of techno-globalization.
He offers guiding
principles garnered from quantum physics: 1) “… time and space are intuitive
forms inseparable from consciousness;” 2) “scientific fact does not exist;” 3)
we reside in a state of “not-knowing;” 4) “… each part is its own whole and, at
the same time, part of a greater whole;” and 5) the radical imagination is
stirred by silence and reflection. With these he launches his aikido,
reclaiming/reforming the concepts of the subject and the end
of history lost in the swirl of postmodernism-–via the frameless,
experiential, always-unfinished, virtual image–-until individuals become
vibrant participants in history again.
But where is his
exposition based on quantum physics of a radical use of time/space toward
collective liberation? Through hundreds of pages I have waited for the
illumination of a quantum insubordination. But, as inBuen vivir: Para una
democracia de la Tierra by Giuseppe de Marzo–-which contains only blank
pages-–our author, in his own quantum way, leaves the invention of such
ideas to the imagination of you and me…
Spring of Questions
I focus…on a wide range of questions oriented toward mobilizing her/his own
capacity for critique/reflection, that of the reader I mean… –P.S.
In supposing that Susz
would offer up new modes of launching rebellion, have I myself been complacent?
I admit I don´t know how to proceed in a way that doesn´t repeat the same old
political conundrums, that are not merely expressions of contemporary
philosophies… but are effective.
How might we change the
current obsession with time? Like a Tibetan Buddhist with her demons and
deities, meditate on the forces of destruction, the quality of courage, and
proud rebels of the past? Instead of shopping or aimlessly surfing the web, get
together with our comrades to make history? Like a Luddite
with his hammer, sever/scramble the sources of operation of the media, their
satellite dishes, wireless antennas, and computer programs? Re-take art/craft
via the traditions/visions of artists and land-based people? Participate in
Slow Food and Slow Money? What would Slow Media look like? Slow Technology? In
our meetings of the Jacques Ellul Society, we made a list of questions for
judging technologies–for instance, what are its effects on the health of planet
and person? Does it preserve or destroy biodiversity? Serve community? Produce
equality–or concentrate power? Who does it benefit? How does it affect
perception of our needs? Does it reduce, deaden, or enhance human creativity?
And what of the usurpation of space by the
forces of Power? Might we re-dream dignity via the reuniting of mind with body,
of human with nature? Launch movements without solo leaders, but with everyone
equal and participating? Reflecting the Mariposa Effect, acknowledge that each
radical provocation and each creation of sanctuary ricochets to all, thereby
multiplying actions like springtime waterfalls? Inspired by India´s Salt
Marchers and today´s cyber-whistleblowers, reject the construction of
destructive public works like giant dams, oil pipelines, industrial-size mines,
and towers spreading electromagnetic radiation? Join indigenous and secession
movements seeking human-scale self-determination? Reclaim places “owned” by
Power–farms, buildings, parks, factories, websites, ideas, interpretation—as do
the hacienda-claimers in Brazil, the squatters of London, neighbors creating
community gardens, hacker-journalists divulging Power´s manipulations? Márgara
Millán proposes that we think of cities—constructed for the circulation of
capital and machines—as “spaces in dispute”; we resist the separation between
city and country by defending parks, planting seeds in every crack and plot,
and farming public spaces; that we challenge the velocity of time by amplifying
spaces for walkers and bicycles.
Perhaps the task would
require the perception of a shaman balanced between the nature of the cosmos
and the laws of this world? Perhaps the result would be a politic like that of
the Zapatistas–with its phenomenological confrontation in every moment (Now) in
every place (Here)? With its vision of Mexico as a net of horizontal
communities and its reconstruction of ancient/horizontal modes of
self-government incaracoles/”snail shells”? With its dedication to
land-based sustainability and celebration of the purity of a “future
primitive”? With its Buddhist-like mindfulness and patience?
I am reminded of a
conversation I had with a Keres man from Laguna Pueblo/New Mexico who had been
elected his village´s representative to the tribal council. Sitting on
low-slung lawn chairs beneath an August full moon, Stan Lucero told me that his
was the only village not using rational discussion; rather the elders consulted
the spirits to determine how to vote; his job was merely to attend the council
meeting to register the choice. I was brimming with envy when he turned to me.
“You are fortunate,” he said. “I am bound by tradition. You get to
create the newways.”
Thinking as if Liberation is Possible
… a perception that places in each of us the capacity, the tendency, to say
´no´ and to imagine that another reality is possible… –P.S.
While Para una
filosofía de la insubordinación doesn´t conclude with the concrete
suggestions toward a quantum politic I was hoping for, while its dynamism does
not achieve a grand denouement, the book is something else. It´s
a tour d´force of analysis of historical philosophies,
presenting one particularly radiant idea: the thoughts emerging or of interest
in these times—quantum physics, ecological biology, interculturalism, Buddhism,
etc.—contain the potential to shape our ideas about freedom and how we might
pursue it. One thing is certain: after reading the book, it will be impossible
to travel the labyrinths/streets/airways/ television/ newspapers/internet
without a consciousness sorely sensitized and disquieted–but also animated.
Like the Zapatistas, Susz implants the idea that we begin with What Is and,
with the passion of a diamond flashing light, apply a radical imagination
toward a future we cannot begin to guess.
Chellis Glendinning is the author of seven books,
including When Technology Wounds, Off the Map: An Expedition Deep into
Empire and the Global Economy and Chiva: A Village Takes on the Global
Heroin Trade. She may be contacted via www.chellisglendinning.org.
_____
De COUNTERPUNCH, 11/02/2014
No comments:
Post a Comment