Le désir de me servir du « je »
Continuer à dire « je » m’était nécessaire. La première personne – celle par laquelle, dans la plupart des langues, nous existons, dès que nous savons parler, jusqu’à la mort – est souvent considérée, dans son usage littéraire, comme narcissique dès lors qu’elle réfère à l’auteur, qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un « je » présenté comme fictif. Il est bon de rappeler que le « je », jusque-là privilège des nobles racontant des hauts faits d’armes dans des Mémoires, est en France une conquête démocratique du XVIIIe siècle, l’affirmation de l’égalité des individus et du droit à être sujet de leur histoire, ainsi que le revendique Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans ce premier préambule des Confessions : « Et qu’on n’objecte pas que n’étant qu’un homme du peuple je n’ai rien à dire qui mérite l’attention des lecteurs. (…) Dans quelque obscurité que j’aie pu vivre, si j’ai pensé plus et mieux que les rois, l’histoire de mon âme est plus intéressante que celle des leurs. » Ce n’est pas cet orgueil plébéien qui me motivait (encore que…), mais le désir de me servir du « je » – forme à la fois masculine et féminine – comme un outil exploratoire qui capte les sensations, celles que la mémoire a enfouies, celles que le monde autour ne cesse de nous donner, partout et tout le temps. Ce préalable de la sensation est devenu pour moi à la fois le guide et la garantie de l’authenticité de ma recherche. Mais à quelles fins ? Il ne s’agit pas pour moi de raconter l’histoire de ma vie ni de me délivrer de ses secrets, mais de déchiffrer une situation vécue, un événement, une relation amoureuse, et dévoiler ainsi quelque chose que seule l’écriture peut faire exister et passer, peut-être, dans d’autres consciences, d’autres mémoires. Qui pourrait dire que l’amour, la douleur et le deuil, la honte ne sont pas universels ? Victor Hugo a écrit : « Nul de nous n’a l’honneur d’avoir une vie qui soit à lui. » Mais toutes choses étant vécues inexorablement sur le mode individuel – « c’est à moi que ça arrive » –, elles ne peuvent être lues de la même façon que si le « je » du livre devient, d’une certaine façon, transparent et que celui du lecteur ou de la lectrice vienne l’occuper. Que ce « je » soit, en somme, transpersonnel, que le singulier atteigne l’universel.
1 note
·
View note
you go to a lesbian blog and find it says women only!! no men allowed!!! and go oh! excuse me, um, what about other lesbians? plenty of lesbians are genderqueer... and they go well, okay, go fuck yourself tim chop off your sweaty dick and stop calling yourself a lesbian. you do not have a dick, actually. you think about that fact often, even though it does you no good. you do not tell this person that.
you go to another lesbian blog and it says women only and you try again, and this time they change it to wlw + nblw only (non-men who love non-men :D). and you'll say hey i appreciate that but gender's not really that cut and dry for a lot of people. someone could be both a man and nonbinary, for instance. i just worry that you're looking at nonbinary as a generic third gender, or an extension of womanhood. i mean yeah you include nblw in your tags but all your posts are about pussy-havers exclusively. what's with that? and they say go fuck yourself you pervy man pretending to be a lesbian. you tried to sneak in but i won't let you.
so you go to a lesbian blog with a dozen or so posts about queer people needing to be more weird about it and you sigh in relief. but you still see the men dni. that's odd. hoping for the best, you say hey! i know you mean well but please maybe don't put men dni at the end of the lovely posts on your lesbian blog bc some lesbians are men. and they'll be like ok!! well you're allowed ;) and you say no that's not. no. some men are lesbians not just me. you think about your own dicklessness and wonder if that's why you were given entry. and you add that even if male lesbians are allowed, there's no indication of that. how would anyone know without asking? and they're like ohh gotcha gotcha well men dni + this is for sapphics only!! and you'll be like ok well that treats the concepts of men and sapphics as mutually exclusive identities and i just told you that's not true and you agreed with me so.. i don't think that solves our problem. and they're like. ok. fine. men dni but genderfluid and multigender people are allowed! and you're like no see that's. that's still the same thing.. you're saying the same thing just with different words. if you don't want men to interact but you're fine with multigender/genderfluid/etc ppl interacting then you either don't see them as Real Men (because they don't reach a standard of Full Manhood) or Complete Men (because they're only Part-Time Men), both of which suggest that they are, in some way, not men or less-than men, which is invalidating and defeats the point of the exception in the first place (accommodation) OR that you don't really mean the dni which is confusing and inconsistent and makes guydykes feel weird and uncomfortable and excluded from the lesbian space you're trying to cultivate. and they're like um. ok. so. cishet men dni? and you're like well i think that makes more sense, but what if someone identifies as both a cishet man and a sapphic? again, if we're trying to accommodate the genderfucky populace then that has to be a possibility that is considered. and they say god you people are never happy. what do you want me to do? what am i supposed to say to keep the right men out? and you pause. you empathize with the need for a space free from dudes trying to fuck you straight and feminine. dudes who watch lesbian porn and joke about what they'd do if they were allowed into girls locker rooms. who look at you like a piece of meat, and like someone who looks at women like pieces of meat in the same way he does. you get it. you know. you want a space where you can be sapphic, too. that's why you came to these blogs in the first place. you brace yourself and you say well i don't know that there are "right men" to keep out. i don't know that there's any single label that would accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish. you could go for "sapphics only" or "queers only" and i think that might be the closest thing to what you want, but it's never going to be perfect. creating any exclusive space is going to shut out people you didn't account for, and the broader the label, the more people will be shut out that you didn't want to shut out. and what about people who don't know if they're allowed? what of questioning transbians, where are they supposed to go? and, frankly, i think i might rather my dykey posts get read and appreciated by a gay guy who sees me as a man than a woman who only sees me as a sacred womb, pure from male perversions or violence or whatever. i think community might just be more complex than a dni can handle. and they look at you and say i don't want to not have a dni. i think you're too permissive. you can't just "what about" or microlabel your way into everything. go fuck yourself, i bet you're not even a lesbian anyway. go find a real problem to get mad about.
you go to a lesbian blog. you ignore the men dni because you know you probably don't even count to them. or maybe you do count and, out of respect for your manhood, they'd shun you accordingly. you try to feel okay about that. you scroll past dozens of posts about mediocre men and gagging at straight friends' boyfriends and how gross and undeserving men are of the beautiful women they couple up with and how all women should be gay so they can get treated right and and and and and. you finally find a post about curling into someone you love and feeling at peace and try to lose yourself in it. you know that feeling is what unites you, what makes you belong. you try to focus on it. you think about carding your hands through a butch's hair or lacing fingers with a femme and feeling warm and loved and more yourself than you ever have before. like this is who you're meant to be. you read about lesboys and butch boytoys and genderfucky dykes and big hairy deep-voiced wonderful women (like you want to be someday, like you wish you could make yourself) and you try to ignore the men dni underneath each and every post. and you daydream about meeting someone kind and earnest at a lesbian bar even though you don't think any such bars exist within three states of you and you can't drink and don't want to drink because you need to be in control of yourself at all times so you don't fuck up like you're always about to and here in the nonexistent lesbian bar you feel wanted and safe and in good company. you picture your ideal, happiest self. it is a mistake. ideal-you has a goatee. not the mascara one you smear on and call drag even though you know it's not drag, not really, the beard you call drag because you think everyone would look at you sadly if you told them it was just to pretend you had something out of your reach. a beard that's soft and that you grew and that cannot be smudged away if you get too comfortable with it. the dream shatters. your people pull away from you, their scoffs mixing with the mind-numbing gay girl bedroom pop you learned to settle for just to have something that almost resembled you, they all pull away and turn their backs and do not look at you. you're too close to being a man now, even though you're the same amount of man as before. and they know you're not supposed to interact with men, not as you would with dykes, at least. and it sours. it's all your imagination, all in your head, but it sours.
you sigh. you think about how small you are. how short, how narrow, how feeble. how your voice pitches up when you talk to strangers because it's easier to speak quietly when it carries more, and because you're nervous. because it's a chore to talk, like everything is. you think about testosterone. you think about how your family would look at you, the questions they would ask, your answers they would only pretend to accept. the uncomfortable glances and whispered questions they'd try to hide from you. you think about how small you are, and how small you will always be. how you don't know of a way to fix it, but even if there was one, no one would want you anymore. you'd be the only one thinking it made you a cooler dyke. you think about how you don't even want a T-voice all the time, how you'll never be able to switch it at will, because you don't know how and can't bring yourself to figure it out. you think about how your throat closes around every hint of your own attraction. how wanting is perverse, how wanting is invasive, how wanting is embarrassing and too vulnerable so it must stay anonymous, as an online witness, and how you can barely manage to form or maintain friendships because your brain makes you pull away, always spinning out and struggling to recover from the simplest of interactions. how they'll all leave you and you won't chase after them at all and how that will hurt them. how stuck you get. how it looks like nothing's holding you back, how that frustrates everyone who thought you were going to be more than you were. the people you love who understand except when it comes to being ghosted, being shut out. how you don't want to hurt them. how you can't tell them that because you're stuck. how you turn to stone when touched, how you never reach out, how you lose your speech and can't look at people, how your autism is fun and sexy until it becomes real and you never see them anymore, how much you longed for someone who knew everything without you having to explain, and who loved you anyway. how unreasonable you know that is to expect of anyone. you think about that not-even-real lesbian bar. you think about how you still can't drive. how you can't leave your home on your own, without dragging somebody into helping you. how you can't leave your body. how you can't leave your manhood behind.
you think about finding another lesbian blog and ignoring everything. about skimming it for the parts you can juice some meaning from. the parts men ignore and don't understand, and how typical of you it is to do so. or the parts where you're not welcome and you should accept that, because it's for lesbians only. how you are a lesbian anyway. how you're meant to choose lesbian or man, how each is a betrayal of some kind to yourself or your people, your family, your lovely strangers, your rare friendly acquaintances. about the parts that tell you you're not wanted, that you're ugly and lazy and gross and insert yourself everywhere without even asking. about the parts that tell you you are hated, and how lesbians are above it all by rejecting men. how lesbians are each blessed miracles. about the parts that say you should be ashamed of being whatever twisted confused freak you are, of everything, of looking and wanting or not looking or not wanting, of picking and choosing instead of taking it all in with a smile. after all, shouldn't you take it? or is your ego too fragile, as men's so often are? aren't you tired? good. we're not here for your consumption. and we sure as hell don't want your company or "community" or whatever. didn't you read the sign? no boys allowed. and if you want to come in you have to make up your mind. as if you haven't told them the only answer you have. you're both. you're both.
you know you broke the rule by interacting.
but it gets lonely sometimes. you wonder if they know.
36 notes
·
View notes
Über das Schreiben von Geschichte
Die Dinge der Welt haben eine Dimension der Präsenz.
Präsenz, das heisst räumliche Nähe und Substanz. Gumbrecht hat diese Idee in seinem Buch In 1926: Living at the Edge of Time entfaltet, dem Versuch, mit einem Geflecht von kurzen, aufeinander verweisenden Texten zu Alltagsphänomenen das Gefühl zu vermitteln, im Jahr 1926 zu sein.
Gumbrecht verfolgt seine Idee in der Tradition der Kulturkritik, die «den Verlust von Dinglichkeit» bedauert. Seine These lautet: seit 50 Jahren löst eine neue «Zeitkonfiguration» das im 19. Jahrhundert entstandene «historische Denken» ab. Gumbrecht beschreibt diesen (veralteten) Chronotop in folgenden Perspektiven: a) Im «historischen Denken» bewegt sich der Mensch auf einer linearen Zeitachse, in der die Zeit das «absolute Agens der Veränderung» ist. b) Auf seinem Weg durch die Zeithorizonte hinterlässt er ständig Vergangenheit hinter sich. So erscheint die Zukunft als ein offener Horizont von Möglichkeiten. c) Zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft ist die Gegenwart ein Moment des Übergangs. Dieser kurze Übergang war das «epistemologische Habitat» des modernen Menschen: Er handelte, in dem er aufgrund seiner Erfahrung aus den Möglichkeiten der Zukunft auswählte.
Dieser Chronotop ist gemäss Gumbrecht also passé: Die Zukunft sei kein offener Horizont von Möglichkeiten mehr, die Vergangenheit wolle nicht (mehr) vergehen und die Gegenwart mit ihren Gleichzeitigkeiten werde immer breiter. Eine der Grundbedingungen für diese Entwicklung: die Globalisierung. In ihr ist der Austausch von Informationen von physischen Orten abgekoppelt. Eine neue Vorstellung von Zeit als Grundbedingung für die Bildung von Erfahrung scheint sich also, gemäss Gumbrecht, festzusetzen. Wir würden nun von Erinnerungen aus der Vergangenheit überflutet. Gleichzeitig bewegen wir uns in immer mehr Alltagswelten und Netzwerken. Wir sind von einem Repertoire aus Zeichen und Strukturen umgeben, die der technologischen Kommunikation entstammen. Diese «Hyperkommunikation» zerfresse die Gestalt, die wir bislang unserem Alltag gegeben haben. Die Struktur und Spannung, die vom existentiellen Gegensatz zwischen Gegenwart und Abwesenheit gelebt hat, werde aufgelöst. Gumbrecht bestreitet, dass virtuelle Debatten in sozialen Medien neue gute Ideen hervorbringen. Der Grund: Erst die physische Anwesenheit ermögliche wirklichen argumentativen Widerstand, der in wechselseitige Inspiration umschlagen könne.
Ist Hans Ulrich Gumbrechts Kritik am Verschwinden der Zukunft einfach nur melancholisch? Nein, nicht nur. Die Diagnose von der «Verbreiterung der Gegenwart » scheint plausibel: Die Gegenwart ist nicht mehr das Messer, das ein Stück Zukunft abschneidet und der Vergangenheit zuweist. Gumbrechts Essay verweist luzide auf aktuelle Fragen, die sich besonders auch der Geschichtswissenschaft stellen. Die ständige Verfügbarkeit von Informationen wird das «historische Denken» und damit auch das Handwerk der Historiker massiv verändern.
Zugespitzt lautet die «Anamnese» zum Schreiben von Geschichte in Anlehnung an Gumbrecht wie folgt: Informationen werden nicht mehr über Intermediäre vermittelt, sondern direkt von den Produzenten an die Konsumenten kommuniziert. Die Kontextualisierung für die interessierte Fachöffentlichkeit übernehmen zeitnah Journalisten und die Inszenierung für die Kulturöffentlichkeit zeitversetzt Kuratoren. Für historisches Arbeiten nach alter Schule bleibt in diesem Modell kaum noch Raum.
1 note
·
View note
Now, Tommy... Girl, you know you messy for this one.
You knew GOOD AND DAMN WELL Buck had that damn soot on his face when he walked into that room.
Had my man looking crazy and for what?! Just so you could show off to the world how fine you man is? Mhmm... Game recognize game baby, game recognize game. 😎😎🤫😏
73 notes
·
View notes