#participatory object

[theoraclephobetor]

Franklyn makes Hannibal so uncomfortable and he hates this little cheese man so much.

Dan Fogler is a master for acting this character in such a smarmy and unsympathetic way - and he does it without making Franklyn actively evil or mean. There's just this undercurrent of piteous desperation in everything he does, and he's so obviously dysfunctional in a way that is deeply repellent to viewers.

For Hannibal, it's worse. Hannibal is canny enough to recognize another human who constantly wears a 'person suit'. He watches Franklyn craft himself a persona from their conversations, from his own preferences, moulding himself into a perfect friend for Hannibal. Franklyn has such an ego, and thinks that where the world failed a famous man, he - in his infinite capacity for support and friendship - could succeed. But in crafting his person suit to perfectly fit his therapist's tastes, he makes himself repugnant to Hannibal.

Franklyn is doing to Hannibal what Hannibal is trying to do for Will - he wants to make himself into Will's anchor, to get behind his walls and touch greatness, to be his saviour (in a way) and show Will his true potential.

And yet Franklyn is objectively pitiable.

Which means Hannibal, seeing his actions played out by this small man, has to grapple with the fact that he is also a small and desperate creature. He is also pitiable.

This is the same episode where Will talks about the Chesapeake Ripper as an insignificant thing that should not have been born and can never really be a person - no matter how hard it tries. He talks about the Ripper's person suit as an extrapolation - something that must exist because how else would he have evaded capture - but what Will sees in that moment is the Ripper.

Will takes so much longer to figure out Hannibal because he gives Hannibal his trust so early on in the series. He isn't looking too deeply below Hannibal's facade (which I firmly think he sees) because he trusts that there is something behind it that vaguely resembles a person. Hannibal gets all the credit for seeing that Will has a cruel streak, but Will also sees parts of Hannibal that (almost) no one else has spotted - mainly, that he holds himself firmly apart from people, even as he charms them.

And Will is completely right. Hannibal is so lonely that he goes to find Will when he doesn't show up to an appointment. He has been confronted with his own loneliness through Franklyn, while at the same time needing to shore up his identity as the Chesapeake Ripper after two copycat kills. Sorbet is all about Hannibal's identity crisis working in opposition to his desire to make Will Graham his friend.

That's also what Bedelia sees when she calls out Hannibal's person suit/human veil. Like yeah, she'll have a glass of rose and a nice conversation with him, because she honestly does like the character Hannibal's been puppeting for years. But she knows it's a shadow play. She knows that they may be friendly, but friendship requires knowing Hannibal. Bedelia peeked beneath that veil - once, at her most vulnerable moment - and she never forgets that the person suit is tailored for a lonely predator. She never forgets that the only way he was able to truly connect with her was to manipulate her into killing.

Bedelia's place in all this is so interesting to me, because for a little while she is the audience surrogate. She has the same knowledge of Hannibal's character as any viewer who grew up with The Silence of the Lambs. Later she becomes a participatory character (until Hannibal makes her a surrogate for Will), but in the beginning she exists to help show the watcher what they already know. She reaffirms - in a time when Will and Jack are becoming untethered from their realities - that what the viewer knows about Hannibal is true. Bedelia is the viewer's anchor in this narrative, up until the point she chooses to disappear from it.

Though she knows better than to clearly say as much, I think she hears about Franklyn and knows exactly why Hannibal wants nothing to do with him.

[palmviolet]

top 5 books you've ever read (no genre distinction)

LOVE this question. spent a whole day stewing over it. i'm afraid i'm experiencing heavy recency bias here and there will also have to be some honourable mentions. but let's go (in no particular order)

brokeback mountain by annie proulx. now. when i tell you i could talk about this story (later published as its own book, originally published in the new yorker sans prologue (which was deliberate, thank you, wikipedia, i have Been to the Archives and i Know) and then published in the collection close range) for literal hours, i mean it. i wrote a prize-winning essay on it during my masters, examining its drafting process and what that process itself implies about queer temporality and the value of the unsaid against the great big american myths of rural frontier masculinity that don't match up to a modern world (or any world at all). if anyone wants a more detailed post on this i would Love to talk about it more. but for now, please go read this book. it's utterly transformative and maybe the best queer work of fiction i've ever read.

house of leaves by mark z. danielewski. EXTREMELY different vibe from proulx, oh boy. this is where i out myself as a postmodernist with a great enthusiasm for the big 'bros' of the scene - pynchon, delillo, later franzen and foster wallace. house of leaves is really a post-postmodern work, which is my favourite sort (i suppose a recent example would be no one is talking about this by patricia lockwood) in that its examination of literary artifice and the unreality of the world leads not towards ironic futility but to something even approaching optimism, ie. the new sincerity. this is not to say that house of leaves is a feel good work, oh no. oh boy. it's absolutely bonkers and utterly compelling, and you get a lot of weird looks when you have to use your phone camera as a mirror to understand bits of it on a packed flight into jfk. it combines two of my favourite things: postmodernism and horror. it's perfect.

in the dream house by carmen maria machado. i wrote my master's dissertation on this and it's utterly beautiful. it interacts with fiction and genre in a transformative way — and i use that in the OTW sense, the henry jenkins participatory culture sense, yes i did essentially write my masters dissertation about fanfic. machado's memoir is so interesting as a work of resistance to and celebration of genre — the media that has erased her as a queer woman suffering domestic violence, the media that she loves.

slaughterhouse five by kurt vonnegut. yes, there had to be another postmodernist on this list. i've read a lot of his work now and it's always brilliant, but this is his most famous for a reason. engages with war, temporality, and nihilism in such a moving and memorable way. there's a reason a vonnegut reference (so it goes) creeps into everything i write

lolita by vladimir nabokov. yeah, i'm including the Discourse Book. please feel free to unfollow me. a lot of eloquent writing already exists out there on why this novel is genius, so i'll settle on saying as a technical achievement it's utterly insurmountable, as an indictment of american consumer culture it's unparalleled, and as a moral object it makes a lot of people very uncomfortable, which means it's working.

you have no idea how close i was to putting infinite jest on this list. but you asked for the best books i've ever read, not my favourites... and infinite jest is ridiculously flawed. so.

honourable mentions go to: the grapes of wrath (john steinbeck), nevada (imogen binnie), the silmarillion (tolkien), and catch 22 (joseph heller).

thank you for the ask!

[drivinmeinsane]

Bad Dog

※ Ryan Gosling!Ken x GN!Reader ※

{ masterlist } ※ { ao3 }

※ Summary: You have volunteered to give Ken a lesson in being a good dog. It takes a firm hand to get positive results.

※ Rating: 18+ for explicit mature content.

※ Content/Tags: Petplay, Master/Pet, Mildly Dubious Consent, Pegging, Strap-Ons, Bondage and Discipline, Bondage, Strap Sucking, Ken has glittery cum (glizz), Instances of crack treated seriously, Allan is an innocent bystander, Semi-public sex

※ Word count: 4,274

※ Status: Oneshot/Complete

※ Author's Notes: Happy glizz fest everyone! Be sure to check out the wonderful participatory works by @hollandstrophyhusband, @ken-dom, @uncleclam, @danime25, and @ken-f-cker. A huge thanks goes to @yohohotookabiteofgumgum. This goofy fic would still be rotting in my drafts if she hadn’t helped me cook. 

It’s evening by the time you find yourself at the door of what has now permanently become Ken’s mojo dojo casa house. Barbie hadn’t wanted to keep it, electing to move on with her existence in the real world. Ken hadn’t had the wherewithal to do the same. He remained in this plastic oasis, still coming to terms with being ‘just Ken’. He wasn’t progressing anything that had happened to him. There are still too many patriarchal ideas knocking around in that blond head of his, which is where you come in.

The other Barbies had been nervous about letting you go alone to confront him, but you had reassured them that you would be able to handle the situation just fine. Ken wouldn’t be a problem. He just needed a firm hand. 

You press the large, heart shaped button serving as the doorbell. The chime echoes easily through the open concept home. Almost immediately, you hear the noises of objects being tossed aside as Ken hurries to answer the door. He swings the door open with such energy that you have to take a step back to avoid being hit with the saloon door. He stands in the doorway, arm slung over the plastic.

“Hey.” He squints at you, clearly confused as to why you’re not his ex-girlfriend.

You take in his disheveled appearance. It’s late and Ken has stripped off all the extra accessories that he piles on each time he leaves the house for the day. He’s just in his pants with the lightning bolts down the side. There’s not a watch or headband in sight. He looks softer like this, more authentic.

“Hi, Ken. I’m here to help you,” you tell him before going on the offensive and putting a hand on his bare chest. Despite himself, his eyes flutter closed at your touch and he shudders. Your other hand is occupied with holding onto your overflowing bag.

“H-help me with what?” When he speaks, it sounds as though he’s struggling to form thoughts, much less sentences. You’ve already overwhelmed him and you haven’t even gotten him upstairs yet. 

“Being a better member of Barbieland,” you respond, trailing your hand down his chest before pulling it away. Depriving him. He nearly pitches over forward to chase after the contact. He’s even more needy than you had expected.

He barely collects himself enough to scramble for the macho persona he’s developed to make up for his insecurities. He can’t quite put on the indifferent mask, not when he’s looking at you with such wide eyes. He stands aside though, allowing you to pass by him into the spacious home.

“What do you mean by a… better member?” 

“I’ve heard that you haven’t been a very good Ken lately, a lot of dolls are upset with what you’ve been getting up to.”

He frowns at your chiding words and looks away. There’s shame in the movement and you almost think he might apologize, making the lesson you came here to teach obsolete. The horse decor is so overwhelming that you reach out and gently cup his chin to get him to look at you. He’s a more pleasant sight than the 72’ inch screen of the same horse video looping over and over again. You ignore the tapestry fluttering in the corner over his shoulder. 

The blond doll is trying to put on an indifferent face and failing miserably. “It’s impossible to do anything right. I can’t even get an appliance that has freezer space. ”

Your face softens. “I know. I can help you learn.”

“There’s nothing for me to learn. I learned everything I needed to know in Century City.” He pauses, taking in the hand still under his chin. He straightens up and pulls you into his muscular arms. You fight back surprise as he swings you into a low dip. “For instance, I learned what to do when someone pretty comes to your house in the middle of the night…”

He purses his lips and leans down to plant a kiss on you. You slap him across the face, hard. “Bad dog!”

Ken recoils, nearly dropping you as he reels back. He lets you drag yourself back into an upright position by using his shoulder for support. You shove his clinging arms away. 

“I didn’t give you permission,” you say. Your tone is cold.

His eyes flit away from you. He’s holding onto his cheek with one broad hand. “Men don’t need permission.”

“Ken, you’re going to learn that they do.”

That gets a sarcastic laugh out of him. It’s unbearably obnoxious and part of you wants to strike him across the face again. You manage to hold yourself back by reassuring yourself that he’s about to get what he deserves. 

“Prove it,” he says to you. He’s way too cocky.

He wilts a little under your unimpressed gaze. Even now, Ken is in desperate need of approval. That desire is what had gotten him into trouble in the real world. You suppose the fault doesn’t rest solely upon his shoulders when you consider that he had been treated like a second rate citizen, an accessory , for who knows how long.

You catch him by the arm. He brightens up at the meager contact. He follows willingly as you make the trek to the third floor. The bedroom is equally a decorative disaster to the ground floor, but you’re not here to make too many judgements about his interior design choices. You separate from him to put your bag down on the horse themed bedspread before pulling out the first of the many items you will be using for Ken’s lesson. You turn to face him. He stands slightly off to the side near one of the support pillars. The pose he’s striking seems to be one that’s attempting to portray an aura of confidence, but it doesn’t seem to be working out for him. He seems wrong-footed and uncertain.

“Get on your hands and knees.”

He rolls his eyes at your demand but listens. The innate desire to obey is still in him. Tonight, your job will be to remind him that it exists. You feel like everything is going to plan while you calmly observe him settle in and look up at you expectantly from halfway across the room. 

It’s time to move to the next stage. Thinking quickly, you pull his faux fur coat off the bed and spread it out onto the floor at your feet.  “Come here.”

There’s a long moment where you think his pride will be too much, that he will refuse to listen to you, but he submits to your instruction once again. He does exactly what you meant for him to do. Instead of rising to his feet, he crawls across the floor to you. He pauses once he’s squarely on his coat. There’s a defiant look on his face that tries to inform you that he’s playing along just for now. 

You kneel and fasten the collar that you’ve been holding in your hands around his neck. It fits snugly with just enough room to squeeze a couple fingers in between the bright pink material and his skin. There’s no tag on the collar. He hasn’t yet earned one. While he waits, you quickly pull out another object. After a quick adjustment, it’s ready.

“Take those off,” you order, gesturing to his pants, “and put this on.” you finish, throwing the mess of faux leather straps that you’ve been holding at him.

Ken picks up and turns it over in his broad hands, trying to decipher what it is. You don’t provide assistance. You’ve unclipped the arm restraints and tossed them onto the bed next to the bag. You’ll need them later. Ken isn’t quite at the point where you need that much control over him.

“This looks like something they had at that dance party place,” he mumbles to himself. You struggle to not raise your eyebrows. Just what had he gotten up to while in the real world?

His own words seem to assist him in connecting the dots because he flashes you a smirk. He launches into action. Almost as if he’s thinking this is some macho Century City display, he tries to sensually strip for you. He does an unnecessary amount of flexing and posturing while he pulls off his pants and clumsily tightens the straps around his waist and thighs. Once he’s sure everything is in place, he settles back on all fours. He’s fully naked now aside from the harness he’s wearing. The pink straps of the harness, made complete by the pink bows settled precisely on his asscheeks, are obvious against his tanned skin. He’s waiting rather impatiently for you to make the next move, but something else seems to register in his mind.

“Well? Why am I the only one exposed like this?” He asks, brow furrowed.

“It’s part of your lesson. Remember how you made the Barbies wear demeaning outfits?” You explain, trying to keep the condescension out of your tone. You would not be removing so much as your shoes during the duration of the lesson. He had done nothing to earn an eyeful of your skin. No visuals and no touching. Bad pets don't get the privilege.

He doesn’t respond, mulling over your words. You step onto the coat and offer him a pecan as a treat after pulling it from your pocket. His eyes light up at the sight of one of his favorite snacks and he eagerly takes it right from your hand. Good behavior gets rewarded. You decide to be magnanimous and offer him another scrap of affection. You pet him, running a firm hand over his head and down his back. He shivers at the touch.

“Part of being a good dog is minding your manners. Do you think you’ve been doing that?”

“You’re the one who is supposed to be listening to me, you know.” He’s smug in his wrongness.

That’s enough of a signal to you that the lesson needs to proceed. You slick your fingers liberally with the lube that you pulled from the bag during the time it took him to spew more patriarchal nonsense at you. You move into position behind him, crouching slightly to get better access. He turns to look at you curiously.

“Look straight ahead,” you correct.

He grumbles and you’re sure that he rolls his eyes. “Why?”

“Because I told you to do it. A good dog listens to his owner.”

“That’s not good enough of a reason.” He’s whiny, petulant. 

You grab him by the hair and jerk his head into the position that you want. You’re thoroughly done with hearing him speak. “It’s about all the reason you gave the barbies when you decided to make Kendomland a reality.”

Ken stays silent after your rebuttal. His breathing is uneven, however, and you notice that he’s flushed. The back of his neck is all but glowing in the dim light. You decide that he’s ready. You transition your grip from his hair to his shoulder, hooking your fingers over the firm muscle. He won’t be able to go anywhere without purposely struggling. With your free hand, you nudge your way between his cheeks to circle his tight hole. He jerks at the unexpected touch and you feel him start to tremble in your hold as you slip a lubricated finger into him. You start pumping it inside of him, opening him up enough to introduce a second finger. He instinctively spreads wider for the intrusion. Perhaps he was made to be a different kind of doll.

By the time you’re scissoring your pointer and middle fingers in him to work up enough space for your ring finger, he’s a gasping, shaky mess. You cast a glance to check on his state and find him open mouthed and nearly drooling onto the faux fur coat underneath him, not even bothering to wipe his mouth. He’s trying to rock back against your hand, utterly smitten with the new sensation you’ve introduced him to. Abruptly, you withdraw your fingers. He whines, almost doglike, at the sudden emptiness. 

“Good Ken, good.” He squirms at the praise. “You know that good boys get gifts and I have one to give you right now.”

You produce the butt plug you’ve brought with you and press it against his entrance. It slips in with no resistance, you had fucked him right open with your fingers. He makes a wounded noise and clenches around the new introduction. 

“Oh Mattel! Oh Mattel !” He gasps, his arms are struggling to support him. He’s nearly face down on his coat while he fights to collect himself. 

“Mattel can’t help you here.”

He tries to grab for his achingly hard erection. It has been left completely neglected during this entire lesson so far and it must have him at a breaking point. He can’t be allowed to give himself any relief, however. It would spoil the lesson. You slap him across the ass, avoiding the bow-adorned strap that crosses over the pliant flesh. 

“That hurt,” he whines, the imprint of your hand blooming across his skin.

“Your actions hurt everyone in Barbieland,” you remind him.

“I was just trying to set things right,” he protests. His argument isn’t all that compelling given that he’s on his hands and knees with his asshole firmly plugged.

Letting out a sigh, you move to fully restrain him by putting the leather cuffs you had set aside earlier around his wrists. If he is going to try to touch himself without explicit permission, he needs to be bound. You guide his arms into place behind his back and clip them into place onto his harness. He’s fully restrained and completely at the mercy of whatever you decide to allow him.

Ken is trembling a little on spread knees. His body is curved into an uncomfortable arc while he sits back on his haunches. He’s a marble sculpture come to life, blinking and breathing, on the floor of his unfairly acquired residence. You know the unyielding butt plug must be digging into him in a way that feels pleasurable because his cock is standing at attention, glittery precum beading at the tip of his slit and shining like a diamond in the moonlight. 

You leave him there, vulnerable and pent up, while you go to slip your own harness on. Unlike Ken’s, it’s not meant to restrict movement. You make the final adjustments to the straps and secure the dildo that you will be using for tonight’s session. It’s made of a crystal clear silicone, gradiented from purple to pink. His lips will look pretty wrapped around it. 

Crossing the scant few feet between you and the waiting figure, you come to a stop in front of him. His gaze narrows in on the silicone cock sitting proudly against your clothed pelvis. It’s an easy thing to coax his mouth open. You simply press your thumb to the corner of his lips and he lets his jaw relax and opens up for you. Keeping his head steady with a hand fisted in his hair, you slowly push the dildo past his lips, sliding it over his tongue. You make him stretch forward so that he finds himself struggling to not choke himself on the silicone. You cannot make his lesson too easy, you’d be a bad trainer.

“Suck it,” you tell him, and he does.

His lips seal around the shaft and you’re glad that you can’t feel the inexperienced scrape of his teeth against it. You use your grip on his hair to drag him up and down the length of the dildo. Eventually he gets the hang of the motion and starts enthusiastically sucking you off. Your hand loosens in those blond strands and you merely watch him, letting him take control in this submissive capacity. He has no issues taking the silicone all the way to the base. His gag reflex is nonexistent. You praise Ken with small niceties when he makes a particularly effortful attempt. He receives a ‘good boy’ and a soft scratch of his scalp when he pulls all the way off and licks at the tip while sheepishly making eye contact with you. 

Eventually, you do have to call it quits after he’s thoroughly acquainted himself with the dildo. You don’t want him too worn out before the main part of the training session gets underway. Sliding two fingers against his warm skin and the leather of the collar he’s wearing is enough to hold him in place as you slip out of his mouth. Strings of spit connect the tip of the silicone cock to his mouth. His lips are puffy and his eyes are a little glazed. He’s clearly used, maybe a little cock-drunk. He leans after the strap, nearly face planting onto the fabric underneath him in his eagerness to continue. 

“Easy, Ken. Don’t get too excited.”

“I’m not excited,” he argues, voice rough. His body betrays him. He’s not slumped so far forward that you can’t see the way his erection twitches and shines with sparkling precum. He’s so wet and you haven’t even touched him. 

“Of course not. Down.” 

“Why? Haven’t I had enough?”

“Because your lesson isn’t over,” you explain patiently. 

Ken hesitates, eyeing the coat. He lowers himself, chest first to the floor, hissing as his sensitive nipples receive the barest hint of stimulation. His face is all but rubbing into the faux fur. The position elevates his hips for easy access. You pull the butt plug from him and toss it onto the coat. It’s going to leave another wet spot. You get the dildo ready with lube. The rapidly drying saliva coating it isn’t going to provide enough slickness to penetrate him with. 

He shifts uncomfortably while he waits for you to get prepared to breach him. Much to his obvious relief, he doesn’t have to wait too long before you’re taking his hips in hand and guiding him downwards onto the thick cock. He makes a sound like you’ve stricken him when you finally bottom out, your pelvis flush against his ass. He’s so tense against you that you take some pity on him and rub your thumb in soothing circles on his hip bone. 

“Good dog. You’re taking it so well.”

The praise drags a shudder out of him but he relaxes. He can’t hide under layers of bravado and poorly understood misogyny gained from library books when he’s at your mercy like this. You set up a steady rhythm, punching noises out of him. He’s getting loud, too loud. If he doesn’t shut up he’s going to show the entirety of Barbieland how much of a slut he is. The Barbies were aware that you would be paying Ken a special visit tonight for some training, but you had neglected to inform them of what exactly that training would entail. Ken’s rehabilitation was taking a more intimate hand than they would have presumed and you would like to keep them in the dark about precisely what your method is. You needed to get him quiet. 

Struck by a realization, you abruptly pull out, leaving Ken reeling and empty. You briskly dig the gag you had brought as an emergency measure out of the bag still resting on the bed. You should have known he would be as much of a loudmouth while getting fucked as he is in day to day life. 

“Why did you stop? Are we gonna flip things around now?” He questions with a confused look on his face, sitting up slightly to watch what you’re doing. There’s no disguising the suggestive roll of his words. How he could still think he could end up on top at this point is a mystery. You have given him nothing to indicate that he would be at all dominant tonight.

He follows up his questions with another inquiry upon seeing the pink, silicone bone secured on its leather strap. “What’s that?”

“You’ll see,” you tell him, already trying to get it into position. Ken immediately sees where this is going. He doesn’t take it as easily as he’s taken everything else you’ve thrown at him tonight. He keeps his mouth tightly shut until you work a finger into the corner of it like you had earlier. He relents and allows you to slip the pink bone between his teeth and to buckle the strap around his head. Always desperate to please anyone who takes even a passing interest in him.

You trail a hand down his spine, grab his harness at the hip and guide yourself back into the tight heat of him. You resume thrusting into him like you had never left in the first place. It’s all he can do brace himself as best as he can while you fuck into him. He meets you thrust for thrust, chasing his own pleasure. You wonder if he will end up coming from this, untouched, glittery ropes splattering over his belly and over his coat. It would not surprise you.

Over the muffled and choked off gasps of the doll you’re playing with, you hear a scuffle and a sharp intake of breath. Your eyes scan the dreamhouse before you turn your searching gaze to the street below just to make direct eye contact with a horrified looking Allan. He’s staring comically wide-eyed at the scene unfolding in front of him. He hadn’t been a part of President Barbie’s meeting about tonight, and must have not heard from anyone to stay clear of the dreamhouse cul-de-sac. His face screams that he has seen too much. Mattel, if only he had been able to get out of Barbieland when he had had the chance. 

He opens his mouth like he’s about to speak but thinks better of it, and to your own growing horror, he raises a hand and awkwardly waves to you. You weakly think that there are some occasions when neighborly courtesies can be skipped. To your own dismay, you take one of your own hands off Ken’s hip and wave back to Allan. You both wear matching grimaces. He breaks eye contact with a dazed shake of his head and recedes off into the darkness to do whatever it is he does at night. He must not be part of the Ken huddle if he’s wandering around near the dreamhouses this late. For his part, Ken is utterly oblivious during the exchange, too busy getting lost in forcing himself back onto your strap. 

With a smothered shout, he finally cums, proving you right about falling over the brink completely untouched. He soaks the faux fur below him with an obscene amount of glittery semen. He shudders and clenches around the strap still seated in him. You fuck him through the aftershocks, wringing him dry. You think you can hear him sobbing around the gag from his face down position on the floor.

You slip free of his ass for the final time this evening and take off the strap-on harness in order to toss it onto the floor. It misses the coat. He doesn’t look at you when you kneel down at his side. 

“Ken,” you say, voice soft. He jerks in acknowledgement but doesn’t turn. You reach over and undo the clips for the wrist restraints. He makes no effort to keep his arms from falling to his sides, leaden. You unbuckle the gag, working carefully to avoid snagging his hair in the process. Slipping a hand under his jaw to force his face off the coat, you pull the silicone bone from between his teeth. You tip his head towards you, but he refuses to make eye contact. His face is flushed and wet with tears and saliva. Despite yourself, you feel a small pang of sympathy at his state. It was deserved after the stunt he pulled, but he looks so fucked out and spent.

“Look at me.”

He does, obedient despite everything he’s been through. His blue eyes are teary and red-rimmed. His throat moves like he’s trying to speak but nothing comes out. Poor dog.

You grab hold of his arm, encouraging him to his feet. He stands unsteadily, almost swaying on his feet. While you undo his restraint system, you can’t help but notice that his coat is matted in wet patches. It won’t be coming clean, not with the glitter matting the fur. It’s just as well though, it was a symbol of Ken’s insecurities. You steer him the short distance to the bed after the pink straps of the harness fall at his feet. He sits down heavily on the edge of the mattress. You join him, getting comfortable before you guide him onto his side to let him rest his head on your lap. Remembering Ken’s earlier treat, you pull some pecans out of your pants pocket and offer them to him. He eats them right out of your hand. 

“What did you learn?” You question, petting him while he chews.

“I think I like being a good dog. Will… will you visit again?” His voice falters, meek. He’s back to being the more docile version of himself that he was before the ill-fated trip to the real world, however, now he has enough experience to be more aware of his actions and the actions of others. 

You continue petting him. “I suppose I could come by to pay my dog a visit if he keeps being a good boy.”

[invinciblerodent]

yknow, no, i'm not done thinking/posting/being deeply angry about the whole "bbuuuhhh Astarion is gay and was made playersexual as a game mechanic bbbuuuhhhhhhh" garbage some people still spout.

like this type of sentiment is always annoying and wrong, but it's specifically this character for whom it's especially annoying to me, just because on top of all the regular host of issues, it also deeply contradicts what I believe is the central theme of his whole goddamn story.

(excuse the rant please.)

Like, my skin already crawls at that term, "playersexual". I hate it, and find its use either vaguely ignorant at best, or blatantly pan/biphobic at worst. but even just besides that....

This character is a man whose narrative intentionally shows his presentation of himself, and of his masculinity, as being contradictory with convention. This character is one whose entire arc is about discovering who he is beyond the boxes he was assigned: a spawn, a monster, a seducer, a tool, a predator, a plaything, a victim, a sexual object... these are all identities that were forced onto him. And if he's given space to discover them, turns out, none of them are things that he actually wants to be. if you give him space, and affection (romantic or otherwise), and acceptance, and help him attain closure and catharsis, he expresses desire to be... an adventurer, a lover, a friend, a protector, so many things, but all of them in his own way. That's the point of his story, control vs. autonomy.

How.... myopic does one have to be to see that story, to play that story, to play an active, participatory role in that subversion, that search for the self beneath the masks, and declare that actually, they made him this other box for him to fit into, so... it's fine, i guess, to ignore what he says?????? it's fine if they pick and choose among his expressed traits which ones to use and which to disregard, because they decided (based on frankly homophobic and rather misogynistic stereotypes) that he cannot be different from their perception, despite him literally saying otherwise????????

Astarion's entire figure is a succession of trope-subversions. I could write essays about all the ways in which, in the romanced spawn game, the narrative sets up tropes (primarily in act 1), only to then purposefully knock them down and contradict them as the game progresses.

Like..... He was to take revenge by taking power for himself (like he thought he wanted, like Cazador did to Vellioth): ended up taking his revenge and rejecting the power that could have come with it, and despite that having a price, being content and grateful for it (and realizing that the alternative would have had an even greater price he would have paid unknowingly). He starts out using sex and sexuality as a weapon, and a tool of manipulation, like he did for many decades: ends up expressing discomfort with being seen as a sex object, resuming his sex life by saying "I love you" before his partner would have, and proposing sex with them as a beautiful metaphor for his own rebirth.

His whole story starts out with him thinking he requires protection from the player and that the only way to get that is through using his body and looks as a bargaining chip: later he discovers in himself a desire to be the protector himself, which he talks about more than once, and expresses varying degrees of discomfort at the thoughts of both using his body to gain something, and needing a protector.

There's the "this is what I'm good for" type of attitude towards sex morphing into "I am so much more than a thing to be used". There's the whole thing about how important his looks were to both him and his "usefulness" back then, despite him not being able to even fucking see them, (which also kind of includes that silly lovely gremlin-face he sometimes makes), but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

The story, and the romance plot, is about... it's about him regaining ownership of himself, it's about autonomy, his whole recurring "what do you want" line is about respecting his choices and letting him find his way to them, it's about letting him show you who he is, believing him, and loving the man behind the facade.

how absolutely fucking short-sighted does one have to be to then take that incredibly reductive stereotype of "femme-leaning man with theatrical mannerisms who cares about his looks; must be exclusively homosexual and any attraction he shows to women is just a mechanic/fanservice/flattery" (which, that's so fucking insulting to gay men, and bi/pan men, an any man who might express masculinity in a less than conventional way, and to the women who may love them [eta: and of course nonbinary people, and the people to whom masculinity means something wholly different]), and assign it to this character on their own accord, despite him literally telling the player otherwise? despite him verbally expressing attraction to multiple women, and contradicting that stereotypical interpretation wholly and out of pocket??????

like, hello??????? did we play the same game????????? did we play the same fucking game??????????

like don't think for one second that it isn't the pan/biphobia that annoys me more, it absolutely is, but this character is such a particularly egregious example, it's almost fucking poetic.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The following are suggestions for direct action organizing. These are meant as guidelines—feel free to improvise process as necessary.

Direct action utilizes hands-on intervention to directly challenge hierarchies. By using spectacle to expose hypocrisies, direct action terrorizes the status quo and revitalizes public space. In the process, it builds a delicious and defiant culture of resistance. Direct action encourages people to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior in order to create new possibilities for organizing, self-determination and activism.

Why non-hierarchical organizing?

In this country we are encouraged to think that voting is a participatory act of “democratic” choice, when in reality it means that a majority controls the agenda. Non-hierarchical organizing means that everyone participates in the process. Though there may be other models for non-hierarchical organizing, we have found consensus to be the most effective.

Consensus Process

Consensus means everyone comes to agreement before any decision can be made. In order for meetings to run as smoothly as possible, at the beginning of each meeting, someone volunteers to facilitate. The facilitator compiles a list of agenda items at the start of the meeting, keeps track of who wants to speak, calls on speakers, makes sure speakers stay on topic and keeps the agenda moving. After a proposal for action and a discussion of this proposal, the facilitator calls for consensus when a decision seems imminent; this involves asking who is in favor, who objects and who abstains. If there are any objections, the group formulates alternate proposals until consensus can be reached. Some groups have a formal process for tallying abstentions in order to decide if a proposal should be revisited. In the case of GAY SHAME, we have found that consensus occurs remarkably easily, since we have worked through our common politics and we discuss issues extensively prior to calling for consensus. We only use the more formal consensus process in the case of extreme disagreement.

If someone believes that a decision close to consensus is contradictory to the goals of the action or group, that person can block consensus. In the case of GAY SHAME, this has only happened one time in our four-year history. Of course, consensus decisions may always be revisited in the future. Usually, though, it’s all flower power and SSRIs here at GAY SHAME.

There are many different effective models for creating consensus-- feel free to share your strategies with us.

Working It Out

If you know people who share common goals, politics and strategies then contact them to arrange a time/place to meet and brainstorm ideas for a call to plan an action. If you don’t know anyone else who shares your politics, skip to step 2.

Make a call to plan an action: including a purpose/target (for example, GAY SHAME’s all to challenge the rabid consumerist monster that is corporate pride).

Create regular, free, public, accessible, meeting time and space (for example, GAY SHAME started meeting in a café with a lot of empty meeting space, now we meet in the back room of a sympathetic bookstore). Assume that all meetings are being surveilled by law enforcement and concerned citizens and plan separate spaces for organizing covert aspects of actions.

Fundraising is No Fun

True, the world is run on money and that does not exclude your direct action, but it is important to figure out ways to avoid spending money in order to further your critique of capitalism. Many people have boring day jobs that give them access to many useful resources, such as: paint, paper, markers, copies, food, etc. Borrowing, stealing and sharing can build relationships that grant writing, silent auctions and walk-a-thons never can. As a last resort, if you must shell out money then try to figure out ways to best distribute the costs.

Should You Approach the Media?

The mainstream media will probably not be on your side, especially when you’re doing something that actually challenges the existing power structure that controls most media outlets. Always remember that the mainstream media consists of corporate hacks, vultures and ghouls all vying for a chance to exploit you into your grave. Therefore, it is important to discuss early on whether you want to approach the mainstream media at all, and if so, how to ensure that your message gets across, if at all possible. Also, discuss alternative media such as “progressive” newspapers, pirate or non-commercial radio, “public” television, indymedia or any other options that may or may not be better than the corporate crap. Of course, you can also make your own media (take this web site, for example).

[sourcreammachine]

LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO 2024 SUMMARY ie, the agenda of the party that'll win

tldr: Milton Keynes, by which i mean it's keynesianism but really boring. it's the principle of keynes, but with its ambitions scaled so far back that it no longer even qualifies as social democracy

you’ve probably heard that they want to increase spending without increasing tax. the theory goes that state investments reap dividends — the deficits you run will grow the economy, so your dividends will go up, so debts will always be repaid. this how this manifesto can justify being so scant on revenue-raising, the existing sources of revenue should automatically reap more over time

but, keynesianism is very fundamentally sociodemocratic. state expenditure goes to big-ticket economic infrastructure to improve AND to public services, to improve health and wealth, which serves to grow the economy further – a slightly cold but contextually understandable framing for the fact that stamping out poverty and delivering vital public services is a moral imperative and a good thing

this wheezy manifesto fails in all that, fundamentally. there are spending plans for public services but they are tiny compared to the big-ticket economic investments. it's keynesian theory in liberal practice, and i say that derogatorily. it's the same neoliberal system with the smallest yank back towards un-neo liberalism to try to save it from itself

literally, in the Innsmouth debate last week starmer was asked why he wouldn't raise taxes on high-earners to fund the beleaguered public services that've been crushed and broken, and starmer gave a coward's answer, saying it wasn't the right thing to do, in the poorest town in the country, in front of an audience of fishpeople, not an audience of aristocrats and six-figure salarymen

which serves my point. this isn't a manifesto of enlightened, committed socioliberalism, far from it: this is a manifesto of cowardice. rumours suggested it could've been about 30 pages long, around a third of the typical length. and while it's not that short, it's been padded to hell and back with justifications, waffle, and masses of promises with no policy to make them so. even objectively non-economic policy is anaemic, with scant plans for reform, scant plans for social policy, and scant plans for anything

labour alleges it's plan is to decentralise power and end the autophagic hypercentralist leadership. but no, that couldn't be further from the truth. sir kid starver is running for president. he wants a blank cheque. he wants the right to make decisions. he "changed the labour party" to centralise power to override internal power controls, and not because he's an evil scheming autocrat, but because he has zero faith in democracy. they are the decisionmakers. they are the governors. participatory democracy is impossible, shut up and do your job: putting them in power

it’s also the only manifesto i’ve found a typo in, on page 125. naughty naughty

💷ECONOMY

LITERALLY NO TAX PROPOSALS

abolish nondoms and 'end the use of offshore trusts'

restore the industrial strategy council quango with legal authorities

make the independent minimum wage commission 'account for the cost of living', maybe raising it one maybe two bob idk, and abolish the age bands so everyone gets the adult wage

ban zerohour contracts, ban fire-rehire, strengthen rights to to sick pay, parental leave and protections from unfair dismissal

extend the oil/gas windfall tax for five more years, raise it by three percent, and close loopholes

"people who can work should work, and there will be consequences for those who do not fulfil their obligations"

reform the work capability assessment system, though based on above, it'll be to get more and quicker rejections

not increase the internationally tiny business tax for the entire parliament, letting the invisible hand wank everyone off

more registration/reportage requirements at HMRC, tactical focus on the tax avoidance of corporations and the rich [which like, aint that how it's supposed to be already?]

unify employment law / workers' protections authorities into a single enforcement body, "we will strengthen the collective voice of workers, including through their trade unions" [clarification needed]

programme to get under-21 neets into free training or work programmes with a focus on mental health

£7b centralised national wealth fund for economic investment including automotive gigafactories and steel

new state energy company, long an ephemeral promise of theirs, now confirmed to be backend-only, responsible for building and maintaining infrastructures, while the private companies remain responsible for selling the electricity to the people

remove planning restrictions on datacentres

strengthen Equality Act regulations for gender, racial and disability pay imbalances, increasing workers' ability to sue the pants off their employers

create a regulatory innovation office to coordinate new regulations for rapidly moving economic sectors, ie big tech, with a specific pledge to introduce 'binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful ai models”

aim to double the size of the cooperative/mutual sector

turn a blind eye to the City just like all other major parties

🏥PUBLIC SERVICES

free breakfasts in primary schools, but not lunches

put misogyny on the curriculum

i mean like. teaching about misogyny. that it's bad

reform royal mail 'so that workers and customers can have a stronger voice', implying preventing its privatisation to that czech billionaire

found the national care service

recruit 8500 mental health staff, reform the mental health acts

6500 more 'expert' teachers [citation needed]

double the number of CT and MRI machines

'end HIV cases by 2030'. they won't do it tho

mental health professionals in every school

build a boatload of new inhouse integrated features into the NHS app, with an inhouse appointment system, local service referrals, vaccination reminders and a pool of personal medical guidelines and treatment information

convert some colleges into specialist technical colleges

3,000 "new" nurseries glued onto primary school sites

finally end the "charity" status of for-profit private schools to make private parents pay their fair share

ok, here's the bulk of labour's trans policy, and the unfortunate reason why i've chosen to list it under public services: they've pledged to reform the Gender Recognition system, per them, "to remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor". they continue with an equally cowardly statement to 'support the implementation of single-sex exceptions'. this is a coward's position because the labour leadership is terrified of the commentariat and the terf cult it stands by. that's also why there's a fleeting line to "implement the expert recommendations of the cass review". lmao, they should call him wes fleeting. truth is, they have no plan to reform gender recognition. the abolition of the transmedicalist clause is the minimum amount of feasible and meaningful reform that could have any sort of political momentum, but that minimum is over the line for the terfs and will cause commentariat outrage. the labour right has no ability to change the situation of trans people by staying on the fence, they'd have to commit to supporting the struggle for freedom — and their choice is to stay on the fence

reintroduce the age-gated fag ban, maybe raising it from 2006 to like 2008

limit the number of branded items of uniform schools can require

replace ofsted headline grades with a 'report card system', 'bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system' but not abolish the indefensible MAT system

🏠HOUSING

ban no-fault evictions, introduce more powers for renters to challenge rent increases

reintroduce mandatory housebuilding targets, national target to build 1.5M in five years

abolish leaseholds, ban flat leaseholds and replace them with commonholds

scramble and deploy more planning officers to local councils, which are to keep stronger housebuilding plans, and with combined authorities given full power (and requirement) to plan and housebuild with their funding

reform compulsory purchase compensation laws to force the price of appropriations down to actual value rather than speculative value

explicit threat to nimby councils: "we will ensure local communities continue to shape housebuilding in their area, but where necessary [we] will not be afraid to make full use of intervention powers to build the houses we need"

prioritise brownfield development [clarification needed] but release and build on 'grey belt', their neologism for shit green belt that nobody wants

ensure social housing is central to the building scheme

ban new developments being sold to international buyers before construction ends, ie, slowing the hypergentrification of luxury districts, though possibly not fixing these areas or even doing enough to stop the trend

new New Towns, which'll be 'part of a series of large-scale new communities' [clarification needed]

🚄TRANSPORT

simply wait for the franchise-concession system to lapse, established in 2020 when the private franchise system collapsed, then give british rail the contracts as a single island-wide renationalised train operator with a unified consumer frontend

return to local councils the ability to franchise their own bus networks (ie, not centrally fund their doing so) and let them create their own unified travel networks (like the bee in Manchester)

expand freightrail

devolve to mayors rail british rail planning for their areas

restore the 2030 ban of new petrol cars, build more ev chargers

👮FORCE

raise defence spending to 2.5% GDP

points-based immigration system and restrict visas, ban employers who break migrant labour laws from hiring any migrant again, intelligence border command 'hundreds of new' officers to stamp down on desperate people wanting a better life, new home office unit for mass deportations

recognise palestine… but no commitment to do it immediately or unambiguously, only “as part of the process” etc etc etc. “push” for an immediate ceasefire

'Respect Orders', ASBOs 2, with power to ban people from entering town centres

'force' fly-tippers and 'vandals' to 'clean up the mess they have created'

mandatory referral to reoffending programmes for young people caught with knives

end the sengoku period by enacting katanagari

SVU in every police force, 'using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime

upgrade any and all hate crimes to aggravated offences, though not actually amend the definition. Brianna Ghey's slaughter was, under the letter of the current law, not a hate crime, despite one of her killers openly admitting to targeting her due to her being transgender

ban conversion therapy including for trans people

make spiking a specific criminal offence

extend protection against domestic violence in marriages to cohabitees

reduce relations with china

'build on the online safety act', not ruling out the potential for a bad internet bill

massive building of new prisons

"labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. we will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling" is the entire section on gambling. don't get me wrong, this is scandalous. the country's gambling laws are lax beyond words and an international laughing stock. The House have not hidden their infiltration of the labour party lobbies - their biggest catch is probably Tom Watson, former deputy leader-turned-gambling lobbyist, who waged civil war on corbyn, founded the major caucus against him, and so commands major respect from the labour right MPs who'll be in the new government. this pathetic paragraph means The House can continue to demolish lives for the next five years at least and the public health emergency will continue to burn. i fucking BEG prime minister starmer to remove all equivocation from the first two sentences of this paragraph, and throw the third in the bin. a punt on the game, a night in the bingo hall, the lottery are all brilliant and beloved, but The House being let loose to make money on people's lives makes it an enemy of public health.

continue to be the american empire’s prettiest bitch

🌱CLIMATE

zero-carbon electricity by 2030**: quadruple offshore wind, triple solar, double onshore wind, rollout Small Modular Reactors

**two asterisks: first to maintain a 'strategic reserve' of gas stations for energy security, and second "ensure a phased and responsible transition" to not Thatcher the communities that're employed in gas. idk, it seems like you can't do that in six short years without a radical plan

commitment to upgrading the Grid (a long-looming problem), which may well push through projects that annoy the nimbys

no new licenses for oil extraction, no new coal licenses, permaban on fracking

three new national forests, plant millions of trees, expand protected wetlands, woodlands and Pete Boggs, seed new woodland

LEAVE WATER PRIVATE despite the shit situation (shituation), but ban bonuses of dumping bosses and criminalise repeat dumping

introduce a land-use framework for economical usage of land, a policy shared by the liberals

end the badger cull, ban trailhunting, ban trophy imports, ban puppy farming

🗳️DEMOCRACY

votes at sixteen

immediately evict all 92 hereditary Filth, but keep the 25 bishops

immediately introduce an 80-year age limit for the Filth, with evictions occurring at the end of the parliament the Filth turns 80. also introduce minimum attendance requirements, and eviction for rulebreaking. 308 of the 709 filth who aren't hereditary or bishops are 75 or older right now

"Whilst this action to modernise the House of [Filth] will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of [Filth] with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them." okay. look. i know you're intelligent enough to see that this paragraph is just a get-out-of-jail-free card. president starmer has no plans to replace the Filth with democracy, because the patronage spoils system is too useful for his closed-door regime. that's also why there's nothing about electoral reform, the dumb bad stupid system simply serves him and regime-minded political operators too well. democracy is for chumps. end of story. sorry peasants

keep the indefensible voter id system

new council of all first ministers and mayors for some reason

more combined authorities, with devolution of transport, adult education, housing, and 'employment support', give the new CAs 'strong governance arrangements' and renew those of the existing ones so the CA areas have better governments

create a commons modernisation committee to modernise the commons' useless old practises, with its purview including replacing the pairing system with proxying

ban on MP second jobs in advisory or consultancy roles, task the (above) committee in restricting other second jobs, 'enforcing restrictions on ministers lobbying for the companies they used to regulate' [clarification needed]

[argyrocratie]

"Thus many collectives did not compete with each other for profits, as surpluses were pooled and distributed on a wider basis than the individual collective.

This process went on in many different unions and collectives and, unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to lead to different forms of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be expected in a free society. However, the two most important forms can be termed syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the forms created by the collectivisation decree as these were not created by the workers themselves).

Syndicalisation (our term) meant that the CNT’s industrial union ran the whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers’ union after extensive debate. One section of the union, “dominated by the FAI, maintained that anarchist self-management meant that the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as to avoid the threat of bureaucratisation.” However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file. However, the “major failure … (and which supported the original anarchist objection) was that the union became like a large firm” and its “structure grew increasingly rigid.” [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 222] According to one militant, “From the outside it began to look like an American or German trust” and the workers found it difficult to secure any changes and “felt they weren’t particularly involved in decision making.” [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 222 and p. 223] However, this did not stop workers re-electing almost all posts at the first Annual General Assembly.

In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for (and recall) the industry management at relatively regular General Assembly meetings. While a vast improvement on capitalism, it is hardly the best example of participatory self-management in action.

(...)

The other important form of co-operation was what we will term confederalisation. This system was based on horizontal links between workplaces (via the CNT union) and allowed a maximum of self-management and mutual aid. This form of co-operation was practised by the Badalona textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers’ union). It was based upon each workplace being run by its elected management, selling its own production, getting its own orders and receiving the proceeds. However, “everything each mill did was reported to the union which charted progress and kept statistics. If the union felt that a particular factory was not acting in the best interests of the collectivised industry as a whole, the enterprise was informed and asked to change course.”

This system ensured that the “dangers of the big ‘union trust’ as of the atomised collective were avoided.” [Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 229] According to one militant, the union “acted more as a socialist control of collectivised industry than as a direct hierarchised executive.” The federation of collectives created “the first social security system in Spain” (which included retirement pay, free medicines, sick and maternity pay) and a compensation fund was organised “to permit the economically weaker collectives to pay their workers, the amount each collective contributed being in direct proportion to the number of workers employed.” [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 229]

As can be seen, the industrial collectives co-ordinated their activity in many ways, with varying degrees of success."

I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated?

[dipperdesperado]

the importance of social technology in social change

TLDR: By retooling, devouring, and innovating our social technologies, we can create participatory organizations that enable egalitarian social change. These organizations should be animated by an understanding of hierarchy, its relation to oppression writ-large, and how to create and employ social technologies that distribute power, rather than concentrating it.

Introduction

We take technology for granted in general (most people I know don’t think much about how water gets to their sink unless it doesn’t work, for example), but this seems especially true for our social technologies. We take things like democracy, laws, and even the nuclear family form at face value and as fundamental parts of reality.

So, what is technology, and how does it relate to our pending conversation? What is the throughline between obvious technologies like a stone axe and my iPhone, and more nebulous ones, like speech and the nuclear family? Any technology you can imagine takes concepts and knowledge and creates a method of applying them to specific goals, objectives, or functions. This doesn’t preclude emergent uses for tools, as you can probably think of using tools in unintended ways. This definition is useful to keep in mind as we realize that the technologies at present, animating the status quo are inadequate. We need something different to make radical, roots-grasping change.

And, for the sake of change, we need a specific way to achieve it. Part of this is technological; we need to figure out models of relating and working with one another that prefigure the changes that we want to see. To create and modify those technologies, we need to figure out which concepts and knowledge we will use.

Prefiguration can be described as “creating the new world in the shell of the old”. It’s doing things in the present that we think will get us to our imagined future. This implies the need to have a coherent conception of what is currently happening, and change will look like.

Currently, we live in a hierarchical, bureaucratic hell. This might best be epitomized by trying to obtain official identification recognized by our respective state. From all of the forms that you fill out, to the additional paperwork needed, to the horrible experience of getting that information approved, there are a lot of issues that this creates, from an experiential standpoint. One of the more under-realized aspects of issues such as this is how these experiences alienate us from the ability to do things for ourselves. Bureaucracy is a way to manage hierarchy’s inherent simplification of reality. A king couldn’t actually run their kingdom themselves, so they create layers of functionaries, under their control, to (try and) manage that complexity.

Along with my opposition, I’d like to propose something. A theory of change, that allows us to do that prefiguration work, leaving behind some of the negative methods of relating as currently mediated and handled. Since we live in a very hierarchical and bureaucratic world-system, constituting a colonial-imperialist, cisheteropatriarchical, ableist hegemony, if we create non-hierarchical/heterarchical organizational forms that allow us to relate in alignment with our values, then we will achieve a more egalitarian world, because of these organizational forms addressing fundamental contradictions in the way that society, from the personal to the global scale, is administered and ordered at present.

Having non-hierarchical organizational forms will allow us to become self-managed and autonomous, gaining collective control over collective issues, and individual control over individual issues. What is hierarchy, though? For our purposes, hierarchy can be seen as the glue that brings oppression together. It binds structures of domination, coercion, and power (specifically power-over) into oppression writ-large. This is what makes the act of arranging organizational forms a pyramid, where value, authority, and decision-making ability are concentrated toward the top. It is not a problem if some friendly games and competitions employ hierarchy in the broadest sense. The issue comes where, in that game, the folks who won got to eat and the folks who lost went hungry. The power imbalance and value judgments are what make hierarchy dangerous.

Alternatively, non-hierarchical structures that prioritize non-coercive, non-domineering principles, that enable positive versions of power-to (the ability to act) and power-with (the ability to act collectively, towards collective interest) have much more liberatory potential at their foundation. That’s what we’re aiming for, social technologies that allow for horizontal relating.

The pieces of horizontal organizations

The foundation of these horizontal, heterarchical forms should be in values and principles that enable relating in that way. Some of these values might be joy, autonomy, radically informed consent, cultivating ownness-uniqueness, and solidarity. These are defined as:

Joy: This should be a group that is constantly looking critically at how we engage with productivity, work, and formality from the perspective of prefiguring spaces of fun, play, and levity -- infusing it into as much of the work as we can. If it feels like a drag, that should at the very least give us pause. While we will not be able to avoid negativity wholesale, we can be intentional about minimizing the moments where it is unnecessary.

Autonomy: Each unit of interest (teammate, team, section/wing, whole) can operate independently from other elements as it desires, without imposition.

Radically Informed Consent: All decisions that include or impact someone should be made with that person (1) in that discussion/process and (2) having as much context and information as they need to be aware of the implications of the decision being made.

Cultivating Ownness-Uniqueness: The group should allow for a cooperative orientation that is based on finding what is best for all involved as individuals, concerning the collective goals. The group should be a tool that cultivates this orientation, rather than existing for its own sake and becoming something that holds power over the people in the space.

Solidarity: People in the group should work together around common interests and affinities, made clear in the joining process, grounded in (1) centering the most marginalized in society and/or our specific context within our spaces, and (2) sharing in the responsibilities of achieving what the group sets out to do.

Having these values as described gives us a shared language from which to judge how we relate to each other using the organizational forms we will set out to describe, to make sure that it gives opportunities to widen the spaces where our organizational aims can be achieved.

The components of these forms, the building blocks that sit atop the foundation, creating the organization when assembled, are the teammate, roles & tasks, aims & domains, the team, assemblies and summits, and the areas, functions, and committees. These are defined as:

Teammate: This is the individual in the structure. A specific person, who interfaces with the other parts of the structure.

Roles and Tasks: This is how the work is distributed within an organization, in line with the foundational principles and the aims of the specific team and organization as a whole.

aims: Objectives of the unit of interest. The thing that the unit of interest is trying to accomplish.

Domains: The range of focus a specific unit of interest has within an organization. What the unit of interest is responsible for doing.

Team: A collective unit within the structure. Multiple teammates coming together.

Assemblies and Summits: Multiple teams (or delegations of teams) coming together to deliberate on mutual aims, across mutual domains.

Areas, Functions, and Committees: Ways to group teams together (or create new teams) to cover specific aims.

These allow for us to have specific modes of relating with each other around specific things that we want to accomplish, from the individual to the organization-wide scale, with the potential to connect with outside organizations.

These values and components are important to create are heterarchical organization, but it doesn’t tell us what the organization will be doing. We know that it’s meant to be aimed towards social change, but what does that actually look like? I think that there are three interrelated things that the organization should achieve for it to be successful at its overall aims. There should be robust analysis, care work, and effective, radical action. These are described as:

Care Work: Embedding the ideas of restoration, rest, healthy engagement, sustainability, and healing into the core of the organizational structure. This can be done through things like healing circles, accountability circles, meeting "non-organizational" needs that deal with the making and remaking of folks (a la childcare, food, emotional care, etc), and other methods.

Robust analysis: Creating mental models that can approach an accurate understanding of the world, along with how to be experimental and learn from those experiments (while not seeing participants as disposable, or coercing folks into things). This horizontal orientation encourages us to be able to catalyze autonomous & self-directed action, rather than make ourselves indispensable to a movement. We should use these forms to organize ourselves out of a role, in a sense, through things such as making sure other people understand how to do what we do, and not hyper-specializing.

Effective, Radical Action: The organization, through the above two functions, should be able to achieve the goals that it sets. It should be successful at the current conjuncture, and these successes should build up to the general goals of the organization. There should be a conception of strategy, campaigns, logistics/operations, and tactics.

For any of these initiatives to be successful, there needs to be a basic security culture. Pretty much any social change org that is directly effective or building towards effectiveness necessitates modes of protection for the people in the organization. We need to protect from state, corporate, and non-state reactionaries. This is worth an in-depth conversation, but basic things like not talking to those forces, being mindful of where and when certain information is shared, if at all, and screening for new members, the intensity of which is proportional to the openness of the organization, and not fedjacketing (claim that someone is the cops) people. This would be paired with collective discussion to establish those agreements, and training/collective study to inoculate folks against bad security practices.

Arranging the pieces

Now that we’ve built up the different parts of our organizations, we can describe some ways to bring them together. I propose three different organizational shapes: phantom cells, networked guerrillas, and fractal teams and working groups. These are differentiated by the ways that the teams within the org are connected and relate to one another.

Phantom cells are the most ephemeral formation that I’ll describe. These are temporary teams created with wide variations towards some goal. They don’t even have any meaningful awareness of the composition of other cells. Actions are motivated by catalyzing forces that follow a general flow of event → action → report-back → action. Something happens that motivates a cell to form and act, that cell publishes information about their action, along with instructions on how to replicate and the ideological motivation behind it, and others follow suit. This repeats and spreads out, through stigmergy. It’s like how social media trends work. All follow a similar format, evolving as they spread until they saturate a space and wane. The goal here is to combine distributed intelligence through information posting, replicability, and inspiration.

A diagram representing phantom cells. Pill shapes with the word team in the middle are spread around on a white canvas.

This form is inspired by Tiktok and the SHAC campaign. If we could have groups of folks who: (1) find concrete goals & replicable methods for finding connected goals in specific contexts, (2) create compelling narratives around acting in line with those goals, and (3) encourage easily replicable actions, consistent pressure, and sharing the results so that it spreads. This allows for action to become highly distributed, where unity isn’t based on allegiance to specific organizations, movements, or formations. This type of operation is most useful for trying to achieve protracted, quick, decisive, small actions against a target.

Networked guerrillas are cells (or teams) of folks that have a well-rounded skill set, and who work consistently together. I imagine it being like a team for an RPG (role-playing game) campaign where each character is in a different class. This group should have a relatively high amount of self-sufficiency, to be able to achieve aims within their domain without much outside assistance. Each cell is animated by a general alignment of principles, vision, and values. Cells are also designed to link up with other cells, of this type, to accomplish bigger goals and complete bigger actions. There might also be a bundle of cells “in the middle” to help coordinate resources between cells and provide additional, more specialized, and contextual resources. Ideally, there is a rotation and continual morphing of the core to not become a failure point. This is why it’s important to have the cells be as self-sufficient as possible. Every connection is an enhancement of capability, rather than a necessity. The relationships between the cells can be organized like a mesh network (many-to-many relationships between the cells), star (one-to-many-to-one relationships), and a chain/ring (one-to-one-to-one relationships), or some combination, based on the needs of the organization.

A diagram representing networked guerrillas. showing a form that combines mesh, start, and chain/ring.

Fractal teams and working groups work through a kind of fractal, heterarchical confederalism. Essentially, it flips the hierarchical nature of authoritarian federalism by having power flow from the lowest level upwards, rather than the other way around. It starts at the lowest level, the team, and we confederate upwards from there to encompass more general aims and domains, using assemblies, assemblies of assemblies, and summits. This structure also operates on the principle of autonomous collaboration, where people who are impacted by and/or are doing a specific set of tasks are the ones to decide how that task is implemented. This is meant to minimize the amount of power-over within the structure, while still fostering modes of engagement between different scales of decision making. At each level, there would be assemblies that provide the space to share information and discuss plans, and for potential working groups to meet and freely associate and dissociate as necessary. Decisions shouldn’t be made here at these higher levels of the hierarchy, as that leads to a form of power that isn’t always deliberative. Folks would execute whatever plans they see fit on the ground, based on self-organization, informed by the information that is shared within these more open, popular gatherings. The trust is put on folks to be self-directed around their needs, getting help and providing assistance in a mutualistic way, rather than a top-down way.

a diagram of the fractal teams & working groups. teams send delegates to assemblies, and assemblies send delegates to assemblies of assemblies or summits. delegates gather information and context at the above levels and come back to their team to provide context and give information to the team. They also will share the decisions made by the teams, to the assemblies and summits.

All of these forms would need some kind of intelligence apparatus. Intelligence for us will be information that allows us to achieve objectives better. We gain this information through research, investigative journalism-style methods, and espionage. It is pertinent, practical, and informative. These apparatuses will gather information (what we might usually think of as intelligence), and prevent/impede opposition from doing the same (counterintelligence). This is not something it seems like social change folks are intentional about very often, but is an important part of building, refining, and achieving the aims laid out at every scale, from strategies for wider social change to specific actions.

The basic structure of this intelligence apparatus is a specific unit of interest would (s)elect/delegate an intelligence handler to work within that unit’s domain. This handler is one part of an intelligence cell. The cell would be a compartmentalized team for the sake of mutual protection, containing a handler, analyst(s), and agent(s). Handlers are the cell coordinators, recruiting the other roles as they see fit. They act as the direct link/contact to the agent on the ground/in the field, supporting them on their missions with whatever they need. Handlers also support analysts with collaborating on research work or anything that they need. Handlers are the glue of a cell, supporting everyone towards their objectives. Analysts are the folks who make the information gathered by the agents usable. They sort and organize the information, making things like reports and presentations so that action can come from or be informed by the information. Handlers may support the analysts with those tasks. Agents are the crux of this cell—they gather the intelligence. They should be a generalizing specialist, where they understand the breadth of the context in which they act, even with a specific specialty in the type of intelligence they gather.

For these purposes, there will probably be a combination of focus on open-source intelligence, signals intelligence, and human intelligence. Finally, we have the auditor. They are also elected by the unit of interest (the one that placed the handler). This is a way to make sure there isn’t any tomfoolery happening within the cell—the auditor can look over any of the information within the cell, and compile an independent report for the sake of the unit of interest.

A diagram of the basic intelligence apparatus.

The basic intelligence process would go as follows: Information would be split or categorized into four main areas: strategic, campaign, logistic/operational, and tactical. For each of these levels, there would be a repeating loop process of setting goals in relation to those areas, gathering the information, analyzing it, figuring out how to use it, and a method to evaluate the process. Information can be gathered by agents or anyone else in the organization, anonymously. This helps bolster the capacity of information gathering.

So, we start by asking, what do we need to know to achieve our aims? Then, we ask about where we can find that information. As we’ll probably receive more information than what is usable, we want to ask about what information found is important, timely, and accurate/verifiable? After that, we want to ask how we can package and disseminate the information, along with an understanding of the audience(s). That leads us to review what we’ve done, integrate any changes, and start the process over. This is not to say that teams can’t do intelligence-gathering work themselves, such as scouting or information synthesis. It is just useful to have capacity specifically built for that work.

How these forms relate

Finally, we want to look at the relationship between the organizational forms, and how these forms change, depending on what the specific organization does. We can do this by understanding how things look through the classifications of overt, covert, and clandestine.

Overt organizations act out in the open. They operate in a mode where what you see is what you get. Phantom cells might operate as front-facing aboveground collectives of folks who have a very specific focus, with the intent to popularize and virally spread action around that focus, through building (para)social relationships. Networked guerrillas might make more intentional, long-term connections between cells, leading to a more tightly bound network. This could look like the mesh model. Fractal teams might have highly accessible and legible teams and assemblies with centralized information pipelines, creating an easy way to get involved with the movement. This point is important when we’re thinking about how to make the movement accessible.

Covert organizations act in secret, operating on the mode of plausible deniability. Phantom cells might use mainstream channels to share their ideas but operate in a way that obscures their identities. Networked guerrillas might have the cells be related using a star model, with many connections compartmentalized by those shared nodes. Fractal teams might hide membership and focus on the intake process because this formation is the most vulnerable to infiltration. Maybe this formation isn’t useful outside of the overt context.

Clandestine organizations are fully underground. Phantom cells might only spread action through hyper-encrypted or low-tech methods. Networked guerrillas might have no awareness of who or what the composition is of other teams in the network, and any connections between cells might be mediated in ways that maintain anonymity and prevent infiltration. Fractal teams likely would be a great weakness in this context.

Looking at all of these forms, across different modes of operating, we should not “pick” one form or the other in a dogmatic way. Each form should see the others as providing something of value towards anti-authoritarian ends. In other words, fractals should not decry networks or phantoms for their seemingly chaotic structures or methods. Phantoms shouldn’t shit on the other two for not being effective enough. Aligning people and actions across these horizontal forms will allow an ecosystem of forms that reinforces the ability of each to succeed. Overt groups can act as an auxiliary force for the covert and clandestine groups, and the covert and clandestine groups can create spaces for the overt groups to construct the world they are all working for.

By having principles and ethics that are sound, exploring what organizations need to do, and creating structures that enable those ethics and principles to be realized, we can have social technologies that allow us to more easily accomplish the social change that we’re seeking.

[liamlawsonlesbian]

tagged by @albonoooo, thank you, emy <33

what colour are your eyes?: brown (I used to say "chocolate brown" as a child)

tell me about your pets/your dream pet: my dog growing up was a shih tzu named merry (short for meriadoc, my family is incredibly nerdy) and he was the best boy in the world and thought he was a human. I would loooove a dog but the more realistic goal for my lifestyle atm is probably a rabbit

share some interesting fact about yourself: when I was 16 I was so hyperfixated on checking on certain actors/projects on imdb that when we had to do a challenge to be "closer to nature" for a creative writing project in 11th grade English, I wrote about trying to see how long I could give up imdb for (it was four days). My english teacher gave me an A but his only comment was a script for a conversation between me and Thoreau that ended w Thoreau saying "I'm going back to the woods"

what was the first fandom you were a part of?: hmmmm I was really intense about my interests from a very young age, but the first time I was part of an internet fandom in a participatory way was 1D

do you have any phobias?: I have an anxiety disorder but very few specific fears, weirdly

are you a picky eater? if so, what food can't you stand?: nope! I will try most things and have a pretty varied palate. I used to be a pretty snobby eater (which is NOT the same thing imo) but I've mostly gotten over that

do you eat the burger and fries at the same time or one after another?: usually mostly one after another, fries first, but I wouldn't say I'm strict about it

winter or summer: hmmmm see I really hate being overheated and don't mind being cold, so winter in a place where there are real seasons. but I grew up in a place where it's basically between 50F and 70F all year, so there I prefer summer bc I hate when it gets dark early

favourite fanfiction tropes: I love friends to lovers, I also love enemies to lovers.... basically I love any fic in which one character realizes they've been in love with a person they've been thinking about too much this whole time

are you studying or working? what do you study/is your job?: I'm a lawyer! I work for a law firm that does city attorney work for cities

what is the last country you visited: the netherlands, last february!! I went to amsterdam on a solo trip and I loved it so much

what country would you want to move to after retiring?: I think it really depends how my life turns out! but I would love to live in New Zealand at some point

who was your first crush?: this feels....difficult to answer in a concrete way bc of comphet lol but I'll say Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit

how did you get into f1 fandom?: @oscarpiastriwdc told me that I had to read the object in mirror series by @drivestraight at the beginning of May 2023 and then it was the Monaco gp and I decided to watch and well....here I am

no pressure tags for @formulahuh @piastrology @omigodyall @vegasgrandprix @argentinagp @chilegp if you haven't done it yet!

[scottishcommune]

The increase in diversity in the biosphere opens new evolutionary pathways, indeed, alternative evolutionary directions, in which species play an active role in their own survival and change. However nascent, choice is not totally absent from biotic evolution; indeed, it increases as species become structurally, physiologically, and above all neurologically more complex. As the ecological contexts within which species evolve — the communities and interactions they form — become more complex, they open new avenues for evolution and a greater ability of life-forms to act self-selectively, forming the bases for some kind of choice, favoring precisely those species that can participate in ever-greater degrees in their own evolution, basically in the direction of greater complexity. Indeed, species and the eco-communities in which they interact to create more complex forms of evolutionary development are increasingly the very “forces” that account for evolution as a whole.

“Participatory evolution,” as I call this view, is somewhat at odds with the prevalent Darwinian or neo-Darwinian syntheses, in which nonhuman life-forms are primarily “objects” of selective forces exogenous to them. No less is it at odds with Henri Bergson’s “creative evolution,” with its semimystical elan vital. Ecologists, like biologists, have yet to come to terms with the notion that symbiosis (not only “struggle”) and participation (not only “competition”) factor in the evolution of species.

- Murray Bookchin, Freedom and Necessity in Nature: A Problem in Ecological Ethics

[coldcanyon]

Why Ethics? ... the rigid isolated object (work, novel, book, is of no use whatsoever. It must be inserted into the context of living social relations ... — Walter Benjamin, 'The Author as Producer'[10] All of this necessitates continued reflection on the specific quality and nature of the social field the art object constructs and of which it is simultaneously a part, an endeavour to which the discourse of ethics is particularly well suited. Here we might be best served by turning back to Bourriad, who, despite his emphasis on practices that include a participatory dimension, neither limited himself to artists who exclusively produced events nor eschewed traditional object making, instead describing artistic practices that were concerned with 'learning to inhabit the world in a better way', a notion which encapsulates in lay terms what the discourse of ethics is chiefly designed to discern, i.e. a description of a mode of inhabiting the world. [. . .] Thus the evaluation of the aesthetic condition of ethics (the barometer by which we ascertain the value and quality of interpersonal relations) has become one possibility, if not the only possibility, for the discussion of the aesthetics of the social field. [. . .] Ethics provides one viable option which may offer a solution to the blind spots in contemporary aesthetic theory. To clarify: rather than an ethics of aesthetics, which despite being a worthy endeavour, has been undertaken numerous times before, and further, invariably resolves itself in a discourse external to that of art, the question examined here is: What might it mean to speak of an 'aesthetics of ethics'? That is, what is an aesthetics (again, from the Greek root pertaining to the perceptible, the appearance of things) of social relations, and how do ethical relations create aesthetic form?

Walead Beshty in Ethics, from the Documents of Contemporary Art series (co-published by the Whitechapel Gallery and the MIT press)

[lost-pet-city]

My next work is a speculative theory anarchist chaos magik ritual conceptual performance surrealist immersive installation sculpture using found object dada stream of consciousness drawing asemic writing from a post-colonial post-modern accelerationist tradition incorporating cubist expressionist fauvist oil pastel drawings and participatory pieces in order to

[a-typical]

...So the claim that, just as children are not developmentally ready for certain concepts in mathematics or logic, so 'primitive' peoples are not intellectually able to grasp science and technology, is nonsense. This vestige of colonialism and racism is belied by the everyday activities of people living with no fixed abode and almost no possessions, the few remaining hunter-gatherers—the custodians of our deep past.

Of Cromer's criteria for 'objective thinking', we can certainly find in hunter-gatherer peoples vigorous and substantive debate, direct participatory democracy, wide-ranging travel, no priests, and the persistence of these factors not for 1,000 but for 300,000 years or more. By his criteria hunter-gatherers ought to have science. I think they do. Or did.

— The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan (1996)

[oaresearchpaper]

Sustainable Natural Resource Management: Forests, Woodlands, and Wetlands

Abstract

Forest and wetlands are fragile communities, when human activities precede uncontrolled their roles are lost. Objective was to investigate the role of forest and wetlands as water catchment areas in Zimbabwe. Christmas Pass forest woodland and wetland in Mutare was the study site. Sample of 196 people, selected through stratified random sampling and simple random sampling, then purposive sampling for 20 key informants. In-depth interview, key informant interviews, focus group discussion, and observation was conducted. Study revealed that both forest and wetlands are important in the hydrological cycle. Noted that there are several adverse impacts brought by anthropogenic activities. Observed that water was an essential factor in sustainable forest management, and forests are crucial for regulating the water cycle. Forest woodlands and wetlands are under a huge threat for extinction, as anthropogenic activities continue to impact negatively on these areas. Forest woodlands and wetlands are a major water catchment area and there is need for catchment basin management plan for as to rejuvenate the river flow downstream. Recommended the need for best management practices (BMPs) as they are proactive and often voluntary practical methods or practices used during forest management to achieve goals related to water quality, silviculture, wildlife and biodiversity, aesthetics, and/or recreation. Noted that the sustainable management of the forest woodlands requires participatory approach of all stakeholders through capacity building and empowerment. Above all, there was need for the catchment basin to balance its role of provision of human needs and the ecosystem services.

Introduction

The deforestation involves conversion of forest land to agriculture land, or residential resettlement. Worldwide the most concentrated deforestation occurs in tropical rainforests. About 31% of Earth's land surface is covered by forests. Between 15 million to 18 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Belgium, are destroyed every year, on average 2,400 trees are cut down each minute (IUFRO, 2007). FAO (2013) indicated that only 4 billion hectares of forest are left. The world has lost one-third of its forest, an area twice the size of the United States. This is despite the fact that forest and wetland are major catchment area for water, which need to be used by the human beings.

The above degradation of the wetland and forest has significantly affected the hydrological cycle. FAO (2013) suggested that water is a scarce commodity as it availability, accessibility, adequate and safety heavily depends on climate conditions, weather and sustainable management of the water catchment basins. The first and key step in providing safe water is the selection of the best available sources of water. The best sources of safe water is found in well protected catchment area that includes forest woodlands and wetlands. In general ground water is better protected water that the surface water, the ground water is usually found in the forest or wetlands as springs (Bonan, 2008).Catchment protection is the second step in providing safe water and where, for whatever reason, source choice is limited it presents a key opportunity to minimise pathogen contamination. A catchment is an area where water is collected by the natural landscape. Imagine cupping a person’s hands in a downpour of rain and collecting water in them (FAO, 2013). The forest woodlands and wetlands are a very important water catchment basin. In most parts of Zimbabwe, it is being evident that the management of water catchment basin depends largely on the institutional setting as well as policy orientation of different communities.

Naturally, human beings, animals, birds and forests depend largely on each other and without proper management systems human beings will overrule the natural communities. This naturally creates tension between natural resources, including woodlands, wetlands, animals and birds since the demand and the need for these natural resources will increase (FAO, 2013). This has led to degradation of the forest woodlands and the wetlands. Wetlands and forest woodlands are fragile communities and when human activities precede uncontrolled, function and roles of the wetland and forest woodland as a water catchment source and species richness will be lost. According to Bredemeier (2002), anthropogenic activities affect the health of our water catchments this is through deforestation of the forest woodlands, and settlement and farming in the wetlands just to mention a few.

Humans often equate forest and wetlands with wasteland, a place to be drained, filled in, burnt off and re-purposed. In fact, FAO (2013) studies show that 64% of the world’s wetlands have disappeared since 1900. Measured against 1700, an estimated 87% have been lost. There has been serious deforestation, clearance, clearcutting, or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees the Christmas Pass forest woodland and wetland that is then converted to non-forest use.

Water has become a scarce commodity in the study area as the water catchment areas are drying up. FAO (2013) indicated that the forest woodlands and wetlands are being cleared for the purpose of timber harvesting, resettlement and farming. Therefore the study area is not spared, this has led to woodlands and wetlands around the study area losing their original status of being a water catchment basin, loss of flora and fauna species used to be seen in the forest and wetland area as there is no water to drinking. The rivers network are dried up and no water is flowing downstream. This then means that Zimbabwe has not been spared, from the adverse impacts of land degradation desertification, and drought. FAO (2013) indicated that it is estimated that 10% of land’ soils are under high risk of erosion due to the nature of soils, which are sodic. The soils break into fine particles and tunnel subsequently collapsing and forming gullies (FAO, 2013). Some of the reason for land degradation especially taking the form of desertification, deforestation, overgrazing, salinization, or soil erosion, land degradation can be caused by unsustainable land management practices, such as deforestation, soil nutrient mining and biophysical factors, such as the natural topography of an area or its rainfall, wind, and temperature.

Source : Sustainable Natural Resource Management: Forests, Woodlands, and Wetlands | InformatoveBD

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.7 Won’t Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?

No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are so shallow that they cannot separate their identity from what they own. However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form of socialism and, given the example of “socialist” Russia, needs to be discussed more.

The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As Kropotkin noted, “individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and in practice, more illusory than real” and that the “want of development of the personality (leading to herd-psychology) and the lack of individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief defects of our time. Economical individualism has not kept its promise: it did not result in any striking development of individuality.” [Ethics, p. 27 and p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has reduced individuality to a parody of what it could and should be (see section I.7.4). Little wonder Emma Goldman argued that:

“The oft repeated slogan of our time is … that ours is an era of individualism … Only those who do not probe beneath the surface might be led to entertain this view. Have not the few accumulated the wealth of the world? Are they not the masters, the absolute kings of the situation? Their success, however, is due not to individualism, but the inertia, the cravenness, the utter submission of the mass. The latter wants but to be dominated, to be led, to be coerced. As to individualism, at no time in human history did it have less chance of expression, less opportunity to assert itself in a normal, healthy manner.” [Anarchism and Other Essays, pp. 70–1]

So we see a system which is apparently based on “egotism” and “individualism” but whose members are free be standardised individuals, who hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality, capitalism standardises it and so restricts it — that it survives at all is more an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of the capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are designed to assure obedience and subordination. Given this, it comes as no surprise to find libertarian communists like Kropotkin suggesting that “as for knowing what will be the essence of individual development, I do not think it could be along individualist lines. Individual — yes, without doubt, but individualist — I have my doubts. That would mean: narrow egoism �� regressive evolution and even that would be limited to a certain number.” [Kropotkin, quoted by Ruth Kinna, “Kropotkin’s theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context”, pp. 259–283, International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 268]

So, can we say that libertarian socialism will increase individuality or is this conformity and lack of “individualism” a constant feature of the human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss tribal cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in section I.7.1. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect and increase an individual’s sense of self.

Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality. They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those involved the “social space” required to express themselves and develop their abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval noted in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution, “so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right to participate spontaneously with one’s thought, one’s will, one’s initiative to the full extent of one’s capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty; it is nothingness.” [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 346]

By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts. Thus Erich Fromm: “In all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes stronger and more solidified. For the self is as strong as it is active.” [Escape from Freedom, p. 225]

Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation as it does under capitalism. It will become stronger as people participate and act within the social organisation. In other words, individuality requires community. As German philosopher and sociologist Max Horkheimer once observed, “individuality is impaired when each man decides to fend for himself … The absolutely isolated individual has always been an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a fully developed society.” [The Eclipse of Reason, p. 135]

The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy community as it is from individual self-realisation and the fulfilment of desire. There is a tendency for community to enrich and develop individuality, with this tendency being seen throughout human history. This suggests that the abstract individualism of capitalism is more the exception than the rule in social life. In other words, history indicates that by working together with others as equals individuality is strengthened far more than in the so-called “individualism” associated with capitalism. Hence the need, as Murray Bookchin put it, to “arrest the ravaging and simplification of the human spirit, of human personality, of human community, of humanity’s idea of the good.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 409]

Communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as individuality is a product of the interaction between social forces and individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This can be seen from the 1980’s when neo-liberal governments supporting the individualism associated with free market capitalism were elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised state. As this swept across society, the resulting disruption of social life ensured that many individuals became impoverished ethically and culturally as society became increasingly privatised. Two decades later, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, complained of a broken society in Britain while, of course, skilfully avoiding discussing the neo-liberal reforms imposed by his predecessor Thatcher which made it so.

In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold your own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) social skills and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by lack of use, fear of authority, atomisation and limited social interaction. Taking the case of workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical working environment will marginalise the individual and ensure that they cannot express their opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the full or manage their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects of an individual’s life.

Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of individuality (see section B.1). In such a system, as left-wing classical liberal John Stuart Mill argued, the “business” side of group activities would be “properly carried out” but at the expense of the individuals involved. Anarchists agree with Mill when he called it “benevolent dictatorship” and asked “what sort of human beings can be formed under such a regimen? What development can either their thinking or their active faculties attain under it? … Their moral capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and dwarfed.” [Representative Government, pp. 203–4] Like anarchists, he extended his critique of political organisations into all forms of associations and stated that if “mankind is to continue to improve” then in the end one form of association will predominate, “not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.” [The Principles of Political Economy, p. 147]

Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is built upon the central assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a servile personality, one that feels safest conforming to authority and what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality, one that knows its own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in its own powers.

Therefore, as Bakunin argued, liberty “is not a fact springing from isolation but from reciprocal action, a fact not of exclusion, but, on the contrary, of social interaction — for freedom of every individual is simply the reflection of his humanity or his human right in the consciousness of all free men, his brothers, his equals.” Freedom “is something very positive, very complex, and above all eminently social, since it can be realised only by society and only under conditions of strict equality and solidarity.” Hierarchical power, by necessity, kills individual freedom as it is “characteristic of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the minds and hearts of men” and “power and authority corrupt those who exercise them as much as those who are compelled to submit to them.” [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 266, p. 268, p. 269 and p. 249]

A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage, a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation within self-managed organisations individuals will educate themselves for the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out, “participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it; the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so.” [Participation and Democratic Theory, pp. 42–43] This, of course, implies a mutually interactive transformation of individuals, their social relationships and organisations (in the words of Spanish anarchist Garcia Oliver: “Who hasn’t been changed by the revolution? It wouldn’t be worth making it just to continue being the same.” [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti in the Spanish Revolution, p. 498]).

Such a re-organisation (as we will see in section J.2) is based upon the tactic of direct action. This tactic also encourages individuality by encouraging the individual to fight for themselves, by their own self-activity, that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre put it:

“Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions, was a direct actionist … “Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct action. “Every person who ever in his life had a difference with anyone to settle, and want straight to the other persons involved to settle it .. . was a direct actionist. Examples of such action are strikes and boycotts … “These actions … are the spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppressed by a situation.” [The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, pp. 47–8]

Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and this can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when there is a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based upon the principle of direct action (“all co-operative experiments are essentially direct action”) we can suggest that individuality will have little to fear from an anarchist society. Indeed, anarchists strongly stress the importance of individuality within a society. To quote communist-anarchist J. Burns-Gibson:

”[T]o destroy individuality is to destroy society. For society is only realised and alive in the individual members. Society has no motive that does not issue from its individual members, no end that does not centre in them, no mind that is not theirs. ‘Spirit of the age,’ ‘public opinion,’ ‘commonweal or good,’ and like phrases have no meaning if they are thought of as features of something that hovers or floats between man and woman. They name what resides in and proceeds from individuals. Individuality and community, therefore, are equally constitutive of our idea of human life.” [quoted by William R. McKercher, Freedom and Authority, p. 31]

Little wonder, then, that anarchism “recognises and values individuality which means character, conduct and the springs of conduct, free initiative, creativeness, spontaneity, autonomy.” [J. Burns-Gibson, quoted by McKercher, Op. Cit., p. 31f] As Kropotkin put it, anarchism “seeks the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects … ever changing, ever modified”. [Anarchism, p. 123]

For anarchists real liberty requires social equality. For ”[i]f individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be so organised that they can participate in decision making.” [Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden, hierarchical society like capitalism. As Kropotkin argued:

”[Libertarian] Communism is the best basis for individual development and freedom; not that individualism which drives men to the war of each against all … but that which represents the full expansion of man’s [and woman’s] faculties, the superior development of what is original in him [or her], the greatest fruitfulness of intelligence, feeling and will.” [Op. Cit., p. 141]

It is because wonders are so enriching to life, and none is more wonderful than individuality, that anarchists oppose capitalism in the name of socialism — libertarian socialism, the free association of free individuals.

[melinda-pascal]

QCQ

1. QUOTE

"While, collectively, Nauman's sculptures might be the most systematic in this regard, numerous participatory artworks from the sixties and seventies are similarly characterized by a decidedly confrontational nature, in which the audience is subjected to various forms of manipulation or assault, yielding often unsettling, ambiguous experiences in which the goal of participation is not entirely clear." (p. 29)​

2. COMMENT

I chose this quote because it highlights a critical tension in participatory art, particularly in Bruce Nauman’s work. His environments engage the viewer but also manipulate and control their experience, often making the audience uncomfortable or confused. This stands in contrast to other views of participatory art, which often points out freedom, interaction, or community. I find it fascinating how Nauman complicates the idea of participation, transforming it into a challenging experience rather than an act of creative freedom.

This resonates with me personally because I've encountered artwork that requires interaction but leaves me feeling powerless, similar to how Nauman creates a controlled, even cruel atmosphere. My own experience with public art has been more about dialogue and open-ended exploration, so Nauman’s controlled environments make me question the balance between artistic intention and audience engagement. Is the discomfort meant to mirror real-life power structures, or is it simply a test of the viewer’s willingness to engage?

3. QUESTION

How do you feel about participatory art that makes the audience feel manipulated or controlled? Is this a valuable reflection of social power dynamics, or does it take away from the creative potential of the viewer’s engagement?

4. IMAGE

For an artwork that reflects the themes of participation and manipulation seen in Nauman's installations, I chose Marina Abramović's Rhythm 0 (1974). In this performance Abramović presented herself as a passive participant in a room with 72 objects on a table in front of her holding a sign inviting the audience to use any of the objects on her body as they wished. The objects ranged from harmless ones like a feather and a rose to dangerous ones like a knife, scissors, and even a loaded gun. The audience began by engaging with her gently, but as time went on, their actions grew increasingly aggressive, highlighting the delicate balance between control and submission in participatory art, which eventually led to violence and manipulation.