#radical destruction of binary with just being and understanding | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tumlbrtumlbr · 4 years ago

Text

Woman as alien: Angela Carter's Heroes and Villains.

Link/Page Citation

"Woman as an alien, the non-patriarchal alien in a patriarchal society, the patriarchal alien in a non-patriarchal society, the non-patriarchal alien experiencing the stress of positioning as a patriarchal subject - all are strategies used by feminist science fiction writers to deconstruct patriarchal ideology and its practice." (1) This quote taken from an essay by Anne Cranny-Francis is for me a very suitable starting point for a discussion of Angela Carter's Heroes and Villains (1969). Written from within the counter-culture of the 1960s, this novel is Carter's excursion into the disaster story convention, a literary sub-genre which was very popular during the period of the Cold War. (2)

Heroes and Villains is a very interesting and unsettling early book, and yet, surprisingly, one that has received "far less critical attention than one might expect." (3) Apart from a few interesting essays, (4) the existing studies of the book (primarily sub-chapters of monographs devoted to Carter) focus almost exclusively on the way the novel reverses gender stereotypes and undermines cultural codings of female sexuality as passive and masochistic. My point is different: I would like to show how, by having a female protagonist (and focalizer) who revolts against cultural stereotypes, Carter revitalizes the disaster story convention that in the late sixties seemed an exhausted and repetitive sub-genre of pulp fiction.

In order to do this I am going to briefly present the British disaster story tradition, place Carter within its context, and then discuss Heroes and Villains as an atypical disaster story that, thanks to a woman-alien who disrupts mythical frameworks that people are confined by, points to new ways of constructing narratives. I will show how the female protagonist of the novel matures and gradually learns that her post-holocaust society is based on a set of false binary oppositions it has inherited from pre-holocaust Western patriarchal society, and that her world is slowly giving way to entropy. I will then prove that Heroes and Villains indulges in descriptions of chaos and decay in order to show the deterioration of once potent symbols and thus of the mythical order which they represent. Only then, once the old order disappears, can the female mythmaker create a totally new civilization, one that does not repeat old and static social paradigms, but is dynamic and mutable. Similarly, Heroes and Villains shows that, in order not to degenerate into pulp disaster, the story should refrain from recreating already known historical epochs (for example, a new post-holocaust Middle Ages), opting instead to create radically new societies ruled by women-aliens.

Though it is rather difficult to state exactly what disaster stories are, a fair working definition of the genre seems to be the one given in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction: "stories of vast biospheric change which drastically affect human life." (5) According to John Clute and Peter Nicholls, the British disaster story was born at the end of the nineteenth century when the first anti-civilization sentiments were being felt, and people began to mistrust the idea of the white man's Empire standing for reason, progress and science. In 1884 Richard Jefferies, a Victorian naturalist and journalist, published After London, a novel describing the ruins of the greatest city on Earth; in a post-cataclysmic future our civilization inevitably succumbs to nature, savagery and non-reason. In the following years such writers as H.G. Wells, Conan Doyle and Alun Llewellyn published numerous fantastic ac counts of natural- or human-provoked disasters, the retrogression of humankind, new ice ages, barbarian raids, the destruction of Europe, etc. (6)

Though dating from the nineteenth century the genre did not flourish until the 1950s and early 1960s during the Cold War, when young British writers revived the old tradition by incorporating a new influence: that of American pulp magazines. American stories of the time were very pessimistic, as the recent war left many with a feeling of despair and fear of the nuclear bomb, political systems based on unlimited power and culture's imminent doom. In England there was a strong native tradition of gloomy fiction concerning authoritarian societies (George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Burgess), and thus the young authors of disaster stories belonging to the so-called "New Wave" of British speculative fiction (J.G. Ballard, Michael Moorcock, Brian Aldiss and others) had examples to follow. (7) Their older colleagues Walter Miller (in the United States) and John Wyndham (in Britain) were writing their post-holocaust bestsellers at that very time.

Heroes and Villains seems to belong to the same tradition as the disaster story classics: Walter Miller's A Canticle for Leibovitz or John Wyndham's The Chrysalides. (8) Miller and Wyndham describe the beginnings of a new civilization; their prose demonstrates how the deadly heritage of our times (pollution, mutations, decline and chaos) serve as the basis for another better world. In A Canticle monks of a second Middle Ages try to gather and preserve the records of our knowledge by rewriting all kinds of texts (just like the caste of Professors). Though they no longer understand what they copy, still there is hope that one day civilization will be regained. Wyndham's post-catastrophic society, in turn, is obsessed with the idea of purity and the norm. His characters want to recreate civilization in such a way as to make it immune to self-destruction. In its fear of deviations and mutants (bringing to mind the Out People) Wyndham's society is cruel and fanatical, but his novel is, just like Miller's story, full of hope for the future. Human folly and cruelty evoke terror and pity in order to improve the reader's mind. Carter's procedure in composing Heroes and Villains is to allude to Wyndham and Miller's tradition. Both Heroes and Villains and her other post-holocaust novel The Passion of the New Eve show to what extant literature today is repeating already known tales. Yet disaster fiction, a very commercial genre, enables Carter to reuse the stock motifs and to create her own often times shocking pieces. Her disaster novels may therefore be read as modern Menippea: a mixture of heterogeneous literary material. According to Mikhail Bakhtin, Menippea was the genre which broke the demands of realism and probability: it conflated the past, present and future, states of hallucination, dream worlds, insanity, eccentric behaviour and speech and transformation. (9)

Heroes and Villains juxtaposes overt allusions to nuclear fallout and mutations caused by the self-annihilation of technological society with counter-cultural poetics: subversion of the social order, new hippie-like aesthetics, alternate lifestyles, and concentration on entropy, decay and death. Carter is no longer interested in the bomb--she does not warn against the impending holocaust; but instead describes in detail the gradual dissolution of social, sexual and cultural groupings which follows the inevitable disaster and which makes room for a new female-governed future. Thus, she deconstructs the markedly masculine tradition of after-the-end-of-the-world fantasies which deal with the creation of a new order, strong leaders and outbursts of violence (as is the case in the above-mentioned novels by Miller and Wyndham). In stock disaster stories women are either commodities or breeders who are fought for and whose reproductive abilities are to amend r the drastic decrease of population.

In Heroes and Villains the Cold War motif of a post-holocaust civilization allows Carter to create an exuberant world of ruin, lush vegetation and barbarism. Three groups of people live among the crumbling ruins of a pre-nuclear explosion past: the Professors, who live in concrete fortified villages and cultivate old science and ideology; the Barbarians, who attack them and lead nomadic lives in the forests; and the Out People, radiation mutants cast out by all communities.

The Professors are the guardians of this order, and they try to uphold standards and attend to appearances such as dress and accent. Marianne, the novel's focalizer, is the daughter of a professor of history brought up to live in an ordered patriarchal society and to study old books in trying to preserve knowledge. The futility of the Professors' work - abstract research done in white concrete towers, editing what nobody would ever read - demonstrates the arbitrariness of post-apocalyptic social roles. The caste of Professors, in wanting to be different than the irrational Barbarians, must devise artificial attributes of its individuality.

Unable to cope with an existence devoted to cultivation of the past and attracted by the colourful and seemingly romantic Barbarians, Marianne helps one of them--an attractive young Barbarian leader named Jewel. He is very beautiful and he wears an exuberant savage costume, making him look like a Hollywood film star who plays in a wilderness film. For Marianne he embodies her desire and fantasies --on one occasion she even calls him the "furious invention of my virgin nights." (10) Moreover, his name might be considered an allusion to the beautiful savage girl whom Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim made the queen of his little kingdom. (11) Marianne's name might well be read as an allusion to Jane Austen's too-romantic heroine of Sense and Sensibility. (12) This canonical echo is contrasted with the association with pulp fiction: Marianne, a professor's daughter lost in the wilderness, evokes the character of Jane in the Tarzan stories. (13) It is by such literary allusions that Carter constructs her self-conscious pastiche, thus demonstrating the whole range of possibilities offered to a female character by romance and, at the same time, she points out the exhaustion of these conventions. John Barth in his Literature of Exhaustion postulates that "exhausted" literature might be saved by coming back to well-known classics and by echoing their extracts in new shocking contexts. (14) In this way Carter mingles her generically heterogeneous "prior texts".

Wounded in an attack, Jewel escapes from the village and is followed by Marianne. He then takes her to his tribe and, despite her protests, proclaims her his hostage. Marianne is a total stranger among the Barbarians; they find her repulsive and unbearably alien; like a creature from outer space in a B-grade science fiction movie she provokes fear and hostility. An educated and self-assured woman in a tribe "caught in the moment of transition from the needs of sheer survival to a myth-ruled society," (15) she is thus a woman-alien. Interestingly, as early as the 1960s Carter used a science fiction stock character to talk about women in a society that is undergoing changes: in the 1990s Donna Haraway, in her famous "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century", in a similar way makes use of the science fiction concept of a cyborg. (16) Haraway follows Carter's footsteps, and indeed makes her point even stronger, as her "cyborg" comes from the social outside and is alien to traditional gender structures. As Joan Gordon and Veronica Hollinger explain:

Haraway develops her "Manifesto" around the cyborg--product of both science fiction and the military-industrial complex--as an imaginative figure generated outside the framework of the Judeo-Christian history of fall and redemption, a history that unfolds between the twin absolutes of Edenic origin and apocalyptic Last Judgment. Like Derrida, Haraway warns that (nuclear) apocalypse might, in fact, be the all-too-possible outcome of our desire for the resolution of historical time. Haraway too is wary of cultural discourses that privilege resolution, completion, and totality. (17)

Marianne is alien to the tribe as she refuses to adopt traditional female roles. Thus, Carter uses science fiction literary conventions to talk about gender as performance much in the same manner Judith Butler will some twenty years later. (18) Elisabeth Mahoney in her above-mentioned study of Heroes and Villains reads the novel in the context of Butler's thesis, that "fantasy is the terrain to be privileged in any contestation of conventional configurations of identity, gender and the representation of desire." (19) This is a very good starting point and an interesting comparison but, as Elaine Jordan notices, "Carter did this sort of thing before Butler, so her work could just as well be used to explicate Butler." (20) The same is true for Haraway, Gordon, Hollinger and a number of other feminist critics often referred to nowadays in order to validate Carter's argument. But Carter turning to science fiction for her metaphors predates them.

The tribe (whose descriptions bring to mind a 1960s hippie commune) is apparently governed by Jewel and his brothers, but Marianne soon realizes that the real source of power is Donally, an escapee professor of sociology, Jewel's tutor, and the self-proclaimed shaman of the tribe. For Donally the tribe is a social laboratory where he tries to perform an experiment: to wit, to introduce a new mythology designed to be the founding stone of new type of post-holocaust society. (21)

It seemed to me that the collapse of civilisation in the form that intellectuals such as ourselves understood it might be as good a time as any for crafting a new religion' he said modestly. 'Religion is a device for instituting the sense of a privileged group; many are called but few are chosen and, coaxed from incoherence, we shall leave the indecent condition of barbarism and aspire towards that of the honest savage. (22)

When Marianne meets Donally she immediately recognizes his professorial descent: "his voice was perfectly cultured, thin, high and soft ... He had a thin, mean and cultured face. Marianne had grown up among such voices and faces." (23) Seeing in his study books which she remembered from her childhood (Teilhard de Chardin, Levi-Strauss, Weber, Durkheim) Marianne discovers Donally's attempts to rule the Barbarians according to the outdated formulas written down by pre-apocalyptic sociologists.

Disappointed by the tribe, Marianne runs away only to be recaptured by Jewel, who rapes her, brings her back, and then ceremoniously marries her according to a ritual devised by Donally. With the tribe again on the move, Donally quarrels with Jewel and has to leave. Marianne gradually learns how to manipulate Jewel, her quasi-royal power grows, especially once she becomes pregnant and is to be the mother of Jewel's heir. When Donally sends a message that he has been caught by the Professors, Jewel goes to rescue him and both are killed. In the novel's finale Marianne decides to become the new female leader of a new society.

This brief summary reveals that, in parallel with the action-adventure narrative, the novel also depicts Marianne's gradual psychological change. She learns how to articulate her own fantasies and to objectify the man she desires: Jewel. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that when her romantic illusions disappear she discovers her own deeper motivating desire in her relationship with Jewel: it is her newly awakened sexuality that counts, not the male himself. Though a tribal leader and a future patriarch, Jewel is in fact a passive object both Marianne and Donally struggle to possess. Linden Peach writes:

In the relationship between Marianne and Jewel, Carter also rewrites a further traditional story, that of a demon-lover, of whom Jewel has many characteristics--he is powerful, mysterious, supernatural; and he can be cruel, vindictive and hostile. However, in her description of him, Carter challenges the male-female binarism which ascribes so-called masculine qualities to men and feminine characteristics to women. In discovering the nature of her own desire, Marianne finds that male-female attributes exist within each individual. The demon-lover is also reconfigured as part of her own eroticisation of the male other. (24)

New ways of looking at herself and others set Marianne free and empower her. Towards the end of the book she feels ready to construct a new narrative for herself and make the world around believe in it. A woman-alien dissolves the tribe's patriarchal structure and commences a new phase in its history. The old order based on binary oppositions (hero/villain, passive/active, natural/civilized) and a number of taboos that originated in pre-holocaust times are abandoned. Carter does not do what a standard disaster story author does: she does not establish a rigid binarism between the Professors and the Barbarians, i.e., the civilized and the savage. The post-holocaust narrative is for her a space where she "explores the blurring of conventional boundaries and binarisms and the way in which such artificial boundaries are maintained." (25) She re-uses existing narrative patterns of disaster fiction in order to break the "Wyndhamesque" formula and instead create a new and radical vision of the end of the world.

Moreover, these post-holocaust times are shown to be not a new version of the old order, but an unknown epoch typified not by stability but by creative chaos. Step by step, Marianne realizes that the entire distinction Professors\Barbarians is as false and naive as the children's role-playing game called "Soldiers and Villains". As a female child growing up in a Professors' village she always had to play the part of the Barbarian, the villain, the other, while the boy she played with, the son of a professor of mathematics, always wanted to be a male civilized hero who shoots her dead. As a small girl she was brave enough to refuse to play such a game; now as a young woman she realizes that in the real world the basis of the division between the Professors and the Barbarians is a set of myths and superstitions. (26)

The stay in the Barbarians' camp proves to Marianne that there is no other difference but old wives' tales: to her surprise (and in opposition to what she was told in the Professors' village) the Barbarians do not represent instinct, folklore and savagery alone. They do have a lot of superstitions; they do sport ridiculous tattoos, hairdos and costumes and they do believe in folk cures--but at the same time they are very far from unreflective "nature". When Marianne first sees Jewel he seems the embodiment of the wilderness: a man fighting to survive among hostile wildlife. But he immediately destroys this impression by quoting to her a relevant bit of poetry: Tennyson's poem about Darwinism. (27) Jewel is very well-educated by Donally and likes to boast of his knowledge of philosophical theories and the Latin names of beasts, which seems as irrelevant in the dirty Barbarians' camps as the Professors' lore in their concrete towers.

The Professors and the Barbarians need each other to define themselves. Both tribes work hard to impress the opponent (the Barbarians wear tattoos and facepaint, the Professors organize armies of specially-equipped soldiers to defend their villages). They also blame each other for the hardships of post-holocaust life. Marianne's father, in explaining to her the reasons of the war between the tribes, asks at one point: "if the Barbarians are destroyed who will we then be able to blame for the bad things?" (28) Aidan Day remarks:

The Professors, failing to recognise their own repressions, have sought to hound that which is not gentle and ordered outside themselves. They have committed the crime of finding external scapegoats for realities within their own hearts and minds that they find problematical. (29)

In a world where the Barbarians discuss philosophy and shamans comment on being shamans, even the seemingly biological distinction human\inhuman is not stable and fails to structure reality. While roaming the jungle Marianne encounters mutants whose bodies and minds transgress the human norm. What is worth noting is the origin of the Out People motif: mutants and deviations often populate the worlds of post-apocalyptic stories, the above-mentioned example of Wyndham's The Chrysalides being the best known; but the way they are described is usually quite different. By transgressing the norm Wyndham's mutants reinforce the notion of being human, of possessing some mysterious human factor along with all the rights and duties, while Carter's Out People are just strange, speechless bodies:

Amongst the Out People, the human form has acquired fantastic shapes. One man has furled ears like pale and delicate Arum Lilies. Another was scaled all over, with webbed hands and feet. Few had the conventional complement of limbs and features. (30)

Their appearance shows that overwhelming entropy is not external scenery the human race has to live in, but that it touches and alters the very essence of humanness: what humans are and what humans create is falling apart. Carter is re-writing an iconic disaster story motif (that of humans genetically altered by radiation), but she gives it a new ideological meaning. In classic male post-holocaust narratives mutants are disfigured humans who suffer for the sins of the fathers: civilization should start anew, albeit preserving its essential features (humanism, liberalism, traditional family values and consequently, patriarchy). Carter's Marianne, in watching the Out People, does not believe in re-establishing the old social order with its norms and values. Heroes and Villains is not about the rebirth of humankind, but about apocalypse itself.

In this chaotic world--where there are no more essential differences between phenomena, and the randomness of things does not allow for any conventional divisions--race, species, gender and even time cease to exist objectively. David Punter comments:

The conflict ... is a multivalent parody: of class relations, of relations between the sexes, of the battle between rational control and desire.... There are, obviously, no heroes and no villains; only a set of silly games which men play. (31)

Each entity possesses its own characteristic features; but on their basis no classification can be made as, gradually, all the points of reference are destroyed. Such a process is particularly striking as far as temporality is concerned--in the world of the novel there is no objective measure of time; everybody lives in the temporal dimension of his biological rhythm without calendars or chronometers. In Heroes and Villains the flow of time is stopped forever, as shown by the beautiful though useless chronometers that for Marianne are merely souvenirs from the past, elements of pure decoration. The book starts with a description of her father's favourite heirloom:

[A] clock which he wound every morning and kept in the family dining room upon a sideboard full of heirlooms.... She concluded the clock must be immortal but this did not impress her ... she watched dispassionately as the hands of the clock went round but she never felt the time was passing, for time was frozen around her in this secluded place. (32)

Time itself has become an heirloom, a peculiar reminder of bygone days. For Marianne the ticking of the clock has no relation to the rhythm of life. Its ticking proved to be the sound of her childhood and her father's old age. She left it behind without regret as it had never served for her any purpose. The next chronometers she saw (dead watches worn by the Barbarian women for decoration) were signs of an even greater degree of timelessness as nobody remembered their initial function. The last clock in the book, a gigantic and dead apparatus, welcomes Marianne in the ruins of the old city: (33)

Prominent among the minarets, spires and helmets of wrought iron which protruded from the waters was an enormous clock whose hands stood still at the hour of ten, though it was, of course, no longer possible to tell whether this signified ten in the morning or ten at night. (34)

The gigantic size of this clock and its absolute deadness create the image of the total arbitrariness of any measure of time. Exhaustion and entropy know no time but the vague "now" which for a fraction of a second can at best turn into "a totally durationless present, a moment of time sharply dividing past from future and utterly distinct from both." (35) The post-holocaust landscape of ruined cities near the seaside adorned with dead clocks brings to mind a visual intertext: Salvador Dali's The Persistence of Memory. (36) In this surreal painting, influenced by psychoanalysis, gigantic dead clocks are melting down, showing that clock time is no longer valid. Dali and Carter (who adored the Surrealists and often wrote about them in both her fiction and non-fiction) are both trying to recreate inner landscapes: their critique of the contemporary world takes forms of fantastic neverlands.

Carter's great admiration for the Surrealist movement results from the fact that, as she holds, theirs was the art of celebration and recreation. Their techniques haphazard and idiosyncratic, the Surrealists attempted to create combinations of words and images which by analogy and inspiration were supposed to evoke amazement; such art was based on a strong belief in humankind's ability to recreate itself. The world shown in their works is "deja vue", as in a nightmare we recognize separate elements which we have already seen as they date back to diverse moments of the past. It is a world deprived of time experienced in the mind. In surrealist art: "It is this world, there is no other but a world transformed by imagination and desire. You could say it is a dream made flesh." (37) In Heroes and Villains Carter attempts to use a similar technique to depict the post-apocalyptic world in which past, present and future intermingle.

For Carter's characters the future offers no escape: they are doomed to inhabit the ruins and repeat social scenarios from the past. Living in such a world has the haunting quality of a nightmare: the self-conscious characters feel oppressed by the same surroundings, similar activities and repeated words. What is the worst is the fact that there is no escape in space either, as there cannot be anywhere to go: "There's nowhere to go, dear,' said the Doctor. 'If there was I would have found it". (38)

Madness, drunkenness and paranoia seem to be the only ways out of the grotesque post-apocalyptic wilderness where everything is falling apart; indeed, the wild world Marianne enters (and finally renews) is entropy-ridden. The story's characters can hide only inside their troubled egos, as the outside reality is nothing but an everlasting nightmare. A stifling atmosphere of exhaustion and oppression is created by numerous images of overgrown vegetation, desolate ruins, half-destroyed houses full of fungi and rotting furniture, detailed descriptions of dirt and disease all in the atmosphere of sexual fantasy and paranoid visions. These images are too vivid and drastic to be mere scenery; it is the power of death and the different faces of decay that constitute Carter's style.

Carter treats bits and pieces of old discourses (the above-mentioned allusions to Conrad and Austen, as well as to Edgar Rice Burroughs and John Wyndham) in the way the Barbarians use old garments and broken down pieces of machinery found in the ruins: apparently to adorn but, at the same time, to take delight in dissolution, destruction and death. Metatextually, Heroes and Villains depicts the de-composition of traditional modes of writing; Carter follows the example of such New Wave authors as Pamela Zoline (39) for whom the key narrative term is entropy. In the short story "The heat death of the universe" Zoline defines the entropy of a system as "a measure of its degree of disorder." (40) The "system" is post-capitalist affluent society, and in order to capture the experience of living within the contemporary mediascape she both depicts the chaos of her character's life and introduces chaos to her narrative.

Zoline's "The Heat Death of the Universe" ends with the scene when the protagonist methodically smashes all pieces of equipment in her kitchen, thereby creating an irreversible mess of destruction; all forms give way to chaos. Carter's novel has a totally different post-apocalyptic setting, yet chaos and entropy are equally important. The narration of Heroes and Villains describes decay almost with pleasure and most certainly with great precision. The text changes into a study in decomposition, the anatomy of both our civilization and the disaster story genre: they both are killed in order to be examined. "For I am every dead thing"; (41) this quotation from John Donne would best summarize the world of the novel, which does not allow for any hope. The only emotion left is curiosity: Marianne the focalizer takes some pleasure in scientific observations of decay.

Among the ruins and scattered heirlooms of the past a prominent place is given to old symbols, which at the moment of the world's death, change in significance. Deprived of their contextual power the symbols die, creating ephemeral constellations and gaining for a moment a certain new meaning. The anatomy of signification becomes a favourite pastime of Donally and, later, Marianne; but the way the two of them interpret signs differs. Donally seeks to maintain patriarchal mythical frameworks: the sharp unequal antagonism between male and female; civilized and uncivilized; reasonable and wild. Marianne tries to dismantle these oppositions: for her signs are reduced to aesthetics and the old signifying system dies. The moment she starts to observe signs for their own sake marks her growing understanding of the world around: she lives surrounded by the debris of a bygone civilization which one may study--but only for scientific purposes. New myths are yet to be created. The last conversation between her and Jewel best shows the difference between them. Jewel is still naive enough to believe in symbols, while Marianne analyzes them:

But when he was near enough for her to see the blurred colours of his face, she also saw he was making the gesture against the Evil Eye. Suddenly she recognised it. "They used to call that the sign of the Cross,' she said. 'It must be handed down among the Old Believers." "Did you call me back just to give me this piece of useless information?" (42)

The anatomy of symbolic meanings and their changes is best seen in the example of clothes. Both the dress and decoration worn by the Barbarians come either from the ruins (and thus from the past) or are stolen from the Professors' villages. Worn in new and shocking combinations, old garments gain new meanings. A similar process was described in one of Carter's fashion essays from the Nothing Sacred collection. The essay entitled "Notes for a Theory of the Sixties Style" analyzes the nature of apparel. According to Carter clothes are the best example of the decadent fashion of the sixties, as in those years they "become arbitrary and bizarre ... reveal a kind of logic of whizzing entropy. Mutability is having a field day." (43)

The term mutability is the key notion for this essay, one written two years before the publication of Heroes and Villains. In this text Carter defines style as the presentation of the self as a three-dimensional object. Wearing eclectic fragments of different vestments "robbed of their symbolic content" (44) is a way of creating a new whole whose items are not in any imposed harmony. The theory formulated in the essay seems to be the key to understanding the symbolic meaning of clothes in Heroes and Villains, where mutability is not a matter of individual choice, but the condition of the whole dying civilization.

In broader terms, symbols have meaning only in reference to the mythical structures behind them--and clothes are a perfect example of this process. In a patriarchal society, where the law of inheritance makes men value female chastity and pre-nuptial virginity, the wedding ritual has a deep mythical sense and the white wedding dress becomes a potent symbol. Donally makes Marianne wear an old deteriorating white robe during her marriage ceremony in a vain attempt to reestablish patriarchy in the tribe. For Marianne the dress is just an ugly relic of bygone epochs. Lost in the exhausted reality of dead symbols she feels she has to create their own future: first to escape the old symbolic order and then to devise a new mythology herself.

Thus, paradoxically, the novel combines the symbols of entropy and mutability; it shows the world in the moment of its disintegration, and yet the disintegrating elements are constantly being re-used to create changeable structures. In one moment we read a "Wyndhamesque" end-of-the-world-fantasy, in another Carter deconstructs this tradition. Roz Kaveney writes:

The formalist aspects of Carter's work--the extent to which she combined stock motifs and made of them a collage that was entirely her own--was bound to appeal; sections of the SF readership discovered in the course of the 1970s and 1980s that they had been talking postmodernism all their lives and not noticing it, and Carter was part of that moment. (45)

Kaveney reads Heroes and Villains in the context of the science fiction readership in the late 20th century, and discovers how Carter makes use of SF conventions. Eva Karpinski in her essay "Signifying Passion: Angela Carter's Heroes and Villains as a Dystopian Romance" refers in her reading of the book to the utopian tradition:

The dystopian romance proves to be a suitable vehicle for Carter's didactic allegory of the relationship between the sexes, an allegory, one might add, that uses the utopian ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in order to re-write the myth of the Fall as it structures Western representations of the social and sexual difference. (46)

Other critics, for example Elaine Jordan (47) use the label "speculative fiction," (48) and Carter herself in the famous interview given to John Haffenden calls her fiction "magic mannerism." (49) Thus, one can think of diverse generic formulas to describe the novel, although none of the labels is final, as the narrative itself is unstable and mutable.

The novel also celebrates new feminist myths in order to playfully laugh at them on the next page. Having got rid of Donally and having won her mental struggle with Jewel, Marianne decides on a scenario that suits her best. She has found her identity and now wants to take control over the tribe and to become a post-apocalyptic leader, which she declares by paraphrasing the Bible: "I will be the tiger-lady and I will rule them with a rod of iron." (50) In this sentence she alludes to Donally's attempt to tattoo one of the tribe's children into a tiger-girl, something which ended tragically, as the baby died in the process. But the idea of the artificial creation of a "natural" tiger-human had some appeal to the Barbarians and thus Jewel wanted to get the tiger tattoo himself.

When Jewel learned that at his age it was impossible, he planned to tattoo his and Marianne's baby. And now it is Marianne who is going to symbolically possess the tiger's strength and beauty: not by getting a tattoo, but by ruling "with a rod of iron" over the tribe. Her "rod" is probably going to be her knowledge and education, the love of reason her father taught her, combined with her ability to reconcile binary oppositions and blend nature with nurture, reason with instinct, the Barbarians and the Professors. Only a woman-alien can do this by creating a third, reconciliatory way between the two patriarchal societies. Marianne is aware that she is not yet living in the post-apocalyptic order, but still within the Apocalypse itself, that is, amidst the bits and pieces of the old world which is falling apart. Thus her declaration "I will rule them with a rod of iron" echoes Saint John's Revelation:

and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness. (51)

Marianne misquotes St John for a purpose: she aims to give old patriarchal texts a new meaning for new times. At the end of the book Marianne is, physically speaking, "ready to deliver", as her baby is to be born very soon. But here the similarities with St John end: who can be identified with the devouring dragon? Perhaps patriarchal attempts to remodel the child so that it serves a purpose? After all, Donally and Jewel wanted him tattooed and ruling the tribe according to the old pattern of power. Moreover, Marianne (in contrast to Donally and Jewel) is not so sure the baby is going to be "a man child", and so she plans the future regardless of its sex. Finally, her flight into the wilderness is in fact an act of usurping political power herself: it is she who is going to become a tiger-lady and to rule the new "wilderness", the world outside the villages of the Professors and the camps of the Barbarians.

"People kept wild beasts such as lions and tigers in cages and looked at them for information. Who would have thought they would take to our climate so kindly, when the fire came and let them out?" (52) which is how Marianne's father once explained to her why the exotic beasts roam the countryside devouring smaller creatures. After the apocalypse carnivorous cats once again become the king of beasts; they are the only ones that gained power instead of losing it. Predators could survive and rule. As this is true of tigers, perhaps it can also be true of people?

Tigers and lions are very prominent in the novel; we very soon learn that Jewel is attracted to wild cats, which is perhaps the effect of his own weakness. One of his most vivid memories is the scene when, as a teenager, he met a lion face to face and survived only because the beast ignored him. This story (which he told to Marianne) anticipates the end of the novel: when Jewel gives up and goes to seek his death he encounters another lion and again fails to attract its attention. Marianne sees the animal and cannot but admire its fearsome beauty:

She had never seen a lion before. It looked exactly like pictures of itself; though darkness washed its colours off, she saw its mane and tasseled tail which flicked about as it moved out of the edge of shadow on to the dune. (53)

Marianne is not disappointed; the lion looks "like pictures of itself": the thing and its representation for once go together. The mythical meaning of wild cats is going to survive the end of civilization and shall remain a handy metaphor. Marianne decides to rule over the tribe as its tiger-lady not in an act of imitating a queen of the wilderness fairytale motif, but in an attempt to start a new epoch with its new myths. (54) As Margaret Atwood puts it in her essay on Carter's stories "Running with the Tigers", as the tiger will never lie down with the lamb, it is the lamb the powerless female--which should learn the tigers' ways. (55) By the same token, Marianne wants to create a new definition for a power system in which the oppositions male/female, intellect/desire or civilized/wild are of no importance. (56)

When Marianne gets to the Barbarian camp for the first time she finds herself imprisoned by the patriarchal myth of a new Creation. Both Donally and Jewel want her to act out a new Eve role in order to secure a re-enactment of history which would result in a repetition of the old social and political order. Jewel advises her at the time of her trouble in adapting to the tribe to pretend to be Eve at the end of the world. The original patriarchal myth of Eden is re-enforced by a tattoo Jewel has on his back whereby Eve offers Adam an apple, and by a number of metaphors and allusions. This myth is thus very prominent in the novel and suggests the strength of patriarchal ideology--parallel to the strength of the tribe's male leaders (and also of the Professors' village: both societies are exclusively male-governed). The rival mythical intertext--the Revelation of Saint John--appears not until the end of Heroes and Villains and marks the beginning of a genuinely new epoch when Marianne, a woman-alien, takes power.

A woman-alien sets out to create a genuinely new social order and the question is whether she is going to recreate the hegemonic power-relations of patriarchal order in both the Professors' villages and the Barbarians' camps. In science fiction narratives aliens often perceive human civilization in a new way, one that enables us to see "normal" social order in a defamiliarized manner; Marianne is a stranger to her own world, she is not interested in the reversal of binaries, but in their liquidation. Carter does not celebrate her political victory as a birth of a genuinely feminist paradise: the very concept of "tiger-lady" cannot be taken too seriously. Marianne the Queen is demythologized from the very start of a reign which is going to prefer mutability to stiff order.

Marianne the tiger-lady has a long road to power behind her. Heroes and Villains tells a story of her maturation in a world full of bits and pieces of old symbols and power structures. Marianne learns to see that these binding discourses are giving way to entropy, and that in her world of total chaos new myths have to be created --and that a new, post-patriarchal epoch is yet to be commenced. Moreover, a similar procedure might well be applied to the old literary genre Heroes and Villains pertains to: the British disaster story. By having an atypical protagonist, a female-alien strong enough to destroy patriarchal social structure, Carter manages to revive the exhausted convention and to create a genuinely new story.

(1.) Anne Cranny-Francis, "Feminist Futures: A Generic Study," in Alien Zone. Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, ed. Annette Kuhn (London and New York: Verso, 2003), 219-228, p. 223.

(2.) To call Carter a "feminist science fiction writer" would perhaps be an exaggeration (though the most influential science fiction lexicon, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction edited by Clute and Nicholls, does have an entry "Angela Carter"). Nonetheless, in some of her novels she purposefully uses fantastic literary conventions.

(3.) Elisabeth Mahoney, "'But Elsewhere?' The future of fantasy in Heroes and Villains," in The Infernal Desires of Angela Carter, ed. Joseph Bristow and Trev Lynn Broughton (London and New York: Longman, 1997), 73-87, p. 73.

(4.) One has to mention Eva C. Karpinski, "Signifying Passion: Angela Carter's Heroes and Villains as a Dystopian Romance," Utopian Studies 11.2 (2000) 137-51; and Roz Kaveney, "New New World Dreams: Angela Carter and Science Fiction," in Flesh and the Mirror. Essays on the Art of Angela Carter, ed. Lorna Sage (London: Virago, 1994), 171-88.

(5.) John Clute and Peter Nicholls, ed., The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (London: Orbit, 1999), p. 338.

(6.) Clute and Nicholls, pp. 337-339.

(7.) For details concerning the New Wave of British speculative fiction, see Judith Merril, England Swings SF, Stories of Speculative Fiction (New York: Ace Books, 1968). The most important disaster novels written by the New Wave writers are J.G. Ballard, The Drowned World (Harmondsworth and Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1974) and J.G. Ballard The Wind from Nowhere (Harmondsworth and Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1974).

(8.) Walter Miller, A Canticle for Leibovitz (Philadelphia, Lippincott and London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1960) and John Wyndham, The Chrysalides (London: Joseph, 1955).

(9.) Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, tr. by R.W. Rotsel (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1973), p. 96.

(10.) Angela Carter, Heroes and Villains (London: Virago, 1992), p. 137.

(11.) Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

(12.) Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibility (Harmondsworth, New York, Ringwood and Auckland: Penguin Classics, 2007).

(13.) Tarzan's adventures were originally created by Edgar Rice Burroughs and published in the years 1914-1950.

(14.) John Barth, The Literature of Exhaustion and the Literature of Replenishment (Northridge: Lord John Press, 1982).

(15.) Karpinski, p. 138.

(16.) Donna Haraway, "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," in Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), 149-181.

(17.) Veronica Hollinger and Joan Gordon, ed., Edging into the Future. Science Fiction and Contemporary Cultural Transformation (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), p. 162.

(18.) Butler talks about gender in terms of ritual practices, a role one adopts thus excluding other modes of behaviour. What is excluded forms the "constitutive outside" the zone of the suppressed from which gender roles can be challenged, much in the same way Marianne challenges social norms in the tribe. Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex' (London: Routledge, 1993), p. 23.

(19.) Mahoney, p. 75.

(20.) Elanie Jordan, "Afterword," in The Infernal Desires of Angela Carter, ed. Joseph Bristow and Trev Lynn Broughton (London and New York: Longman, 1997), 216-219, p. 219.

(21.) Carter's numerous shamans, for example the character from Nights at the Circus, are usually totally different. They are given a role similar to that of a writer: they believe in the magic they perform, therefore what they do has the mystical quality of a true primary text. In their context the comments and analysis by Donally seem artificial and exhausted.

(22.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 63.

(23.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 49.

(24.) Linden Peach, Angela Carter (Oxford: Macmillan, 1998), p. 96.

(25.) Peach, p. 87.

(26.) For example, according to these beliefs, the Barbarians sew up cats in the bellies of the Professors' women, while the Professors in turn bake Barbarians alive "like hedgehogs".

(27.) Alfred Lord Tennyson, "In Memoriam A. H. H.," in Selected Poems (London: Penguin, 1992), Canto 56.

(28.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 11.

(29.) Aidan Day, Angela Carter: The Rational Glass (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), p. 45.

(30.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 110.

(31.) David Punter, The Literature of Terror--A History of Gothic Fiction from 1795 to the Present Day vol. II The Modern Gothic (London: Longman, 1996), p. 140.

(32.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 1.

(33.) The city is probably London and the clock Big Ben; the tribe is traveling south to spend the winter at the seaside and finally reach the gigantic ruin. Descriptions of London after various cataclysms are very common in disaster stories; examples are: Jefferies' After London, J.G. Ballard's The Drowned World and The Wind from Nowhere and Wyndham's The Day of the Triffid. Once again Carter rewrites a canonical disaster fiction motif in a new way.

(34.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 138.

(35.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 148.

(36.) Painting by Salvador Dali, The Persistence of Memory, 1931.

(37.) Angela Carter, "The Alchemy of the Word," in Expletives Deleted: Selected Writings (London: Chatto and Windus, 1992), p. 70.

(38.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 95.

(39.) Pamela Zoline, "The heat death of the universe," in England Swings SF, Stories of Speculative Fiction, ed. Judith Merril (New York: Ace Books, 1968), 313-328.

(40.) Zoline, p. 316.

(41.) John Donne, "A nocturnall upon S. Lucies day, Being the shortest day," in The Complete English Poems of John Donne, ed. C. A. Patrides (London and Melbourne: Dent, 1985), p. 90.

(42.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 148.

(43.) Angela Carter, "Notes for a Theory of the Sixties Style," in Nothing Sacred (London: Virago, 1988), 85-89, p. 86.

(44.) Carter, "Notes for a Theory of the Sixties Style," p. 86.

(45.) Kaveney, 175.

(46.) Karpinsky, 137.

(47.) Elaine Jordan, "Enthrallment: Angela Carter's Speculative Fictions," in Plotting Change: Contemporary Women's Fiction, ed. Linda Anderson (London: Edward Arnold, 1990), 19-40.

(48.) "A kind of sociological SF which concentrates on social change without necessarily any great emphasis on science or technology" (Clute and Nicholls, p. 1144).

(49.) John Haffenden, "Angela Carter," in Novelists in Interview, (London: Methuen, 1985), p. 80.

(50.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 150. This is uttered in a conversation when Marianne describes her plans for the future of the tribe: " 'they'll do every single thing I say.' 'What, will you be Queen?' 'I'll be the tiger-lady and rule them with a rod of iron.'"

(51.) St. John's Revelation 12:4-6 in The Holy Bible: Old and New Testament in the King James Version (Hazelwood: World Aflame Press, 1973).

(52.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 9.

(53.) Carter, Heroes and Villains, p. 140.

(54.) Sarah Gamble suggests that the moment Marianne becomes a tiger-lady symbolically "implies that Marianne has now broken free of the stereotyped roles--daughter, victim, wife and whore--in which she has been complicit from the text's beginning." Sarah Gamble, Angela Carter: Writing from the Front Line (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), p. 79.

(55.) Margaret Atwood, "Running with the Tigers," in Flesh and the Mirror, ed. Lorna Sage (London: Virago, 1994), 117-136, p. 358.

(56.) A. Day elaborates upon Marianne's future reign: "But while, as tiger-lady, she is going to draw on primordial Barbarian energy, Marianne, it must be noted, does not give up her purchase on reason. It is this emphasis on maintaining reason that separates her from the Donally-inspired Barbarian cult of the irrational. At the same time as Marianne stops being a stranger to her own id during her sojourn amongst the Barbarians, reason emerges as a cardinal feature of her discovery of herself.... In Marianne's case reason may order, like an iron rod, the inchoate energies of the id, while the energies of the id--the energies of the tiger-lady--may enrich reason. This synthetic model is identified as specifically feminine, in contrast with the masculine insistence on self-definition through opposition to an other" (Day, pp. 51-53). COPYRIGHT 2010 Eotvos Lorand Tudomanyegyetem, Department of English Studies

Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated:

2 notes · View notes

nastynibblesreturns · 6 years ago

Text

I'm being bullied into posting this

Context..... very little. I wrote Garlic Fanfiction (while mildly drunk) about half a year ago and..... this is the result.

———

The end of the world started with garlic. Not a Bang, nor even an underwhelming Whimper, just a simple, innocuous clove of garlic. No one suspected anything of the garlic - and, honestly, why would they? The most danger garlic caused to the human race prior to the whole Good God The Earth Is Collapsing incident was the occasional bout of bad breath or over-seasoned bolognese. Certainly nothing worthy of the scrutiny Armageddon would usually warrant.

Perhaps I'm getting a little ahead of myself. Garlic itself didn’t actually destroy humanity. No clove of garlic adorned armour and waged war on the innocent people of the planet, no clove of garlic pressed the Big Red Button to Imminent Destruction, and I certainly can't recall the last time a clove of garlic so much as looked at me. Nevertheless, the garlic was the start of the end.

It began innocently enough. A shimmering advert featuring garlic recipes popping up every five minutes on social media. A wide-spread meme of a vampire saying “fuck it” before biting directly into a clove, with various incoherent adaptations circulating the internet within the day. Garlic seemingly appearing from nowhere in cupboards and trolleys and the occasional babies' fists. It soon spiralled, however. You'd be surprised how violent groups of teenagers with a limitless arsenal of garlic can be. Or maybe you wouldn't, I don’t know.

We wouldn't know for about a year just what this onslaught meant. We wouldn’t guess for maybe a decade that the warning was intentional. We soon learnt.

I'm sure you're more than aware of how cults form and function, yes? I'm sure you can even name some of them. Scientology, Raëlism, Christianity... there has never been a single moment in all of time and space where humanity didn't have some form of radical order or organised religion. Here's the secret: it's because there actually does exist a higher power. It's always watching, always guiding, and apparently it communicates through root vegetables.

We know relatively little of this higher being. We don't know if it is singular or some eldritch mass of intelligence. We don't know it's name or gender - or if it even follows a specific gender binary. We do know that, despite its' overwhelming power, it fails to understand 3rd dimension human communication. We also know that for whatever reason or logic is follows, it did not want the world to end.

There have been endless debates about the symbology behind the garlic. Perhaps it is meant to represent the human condition; plain and rather pungent at first impression, yet surprisingly wholesome in small doses. Perhaps it is simply garlic because... well, why not garlic? Entire religions formed around the Coming Of The Garlic practically overnight, and that is when things really took a turn for the odd. Fresh cults don’t like it when governments try to control the population of garlic, it turns out. The government, in turn, don’t particularly enjoy having garlic-crazed zealots torching their property and hurling cloves through windows. Nor do the military.

Whether it was well-intentioned or not, these cryptic messages from the Forgotten Ones - we humans do like our Dramatic Capitalised Names - sparked an undeniable string of events that rocked society to the core. Fighting bred more fighting. Revolution brought along even more revolution. Conflict is,as always, the mother of invention, and the incidents quickly shifted from makeshift molotovs and garlic spray to superheated plasma rays and portable black holes. Humanity didn’t stand a chance.

Entire cities levelled. Clumps of garlic fell from the sky with all the grace of anvils. They sprouted between the cracked cities like grass, marking areas of bloodshed and death in a manner not dissimilar to widows mourning their fallen husbands during wartime. They said the world would end in a hail of fire and brimstone. They forgot to pepper in the garlic, it seems. The clouds blackened and wept over desolate landscapes. Surviving stragglers began carrying geiger counters as a makeshift gps, guiding them away from the battlegrounds through the frequency of the ticks. The Forgotten ones became more urgent with their messages, thrusting cloves into your line of sight at all hours, before falling silent. Not a single clove of garlic can be found now.

There aren’t many of us left. From a thriving planet of 7 billion, we now number in the thousands only. We wander from safe haven to safe haven like hermit crabs, abandoning each home within weeks. In our groups we scuttle, huddling for warmth and whispering of all-knowing eldritch beings. Recently there has been a stirring. We are beginning to realise something. Something important, and something horrifying.

Perhaps there never was any higher power, we realise with dawning fear. Perhaps the onslaught of garlic was never a message or a warning. Perhaps it wasn’t the sign of the end of the world. Perhaps we were the sign. Perhaps the end of the world didn’t actually start with some advert depicting a vegetable, and was instead started by the passion of billions of resentful humans taking any chance to lash out.

Perhaps the end of the world didn't start with a bang, a whimper, or even the simple garlic.

Perhaps it was just us.

#I really don't know either folks

45 notes · View notes

songbirds-and-serpents-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Response to Hedwig and the Angry Inch (dir. John Cameron Mitchell, 2001)

Hedwig and the Angry Inch (dir. John Cameron Mitchell, 2001) explores the challenges of gender and love in middle America through the eyes of a German immigrant.

A note on how I will address Hedwig. While Hedwig is female presenting for most of the film, the circumstances which brought Hedwig to that gender expression, although they may have been voluntary, were a mistake. Additionally, the final scene of the film suggests to me that Hedwig is nonbinary or agender. Therefore, I will use they/them pronouns for Hedwig in this essay.

The film’s main philosophy on love, borrowed from Plato’s symposium, relies on the problematic idea of soulmates. In the song “Origin of Love,” Hedwig orates how Zeus split four legged creatures into two legged humans and that love was when a person found their other half. I personally reject this philosophy of love as it necessitates that each person only have one match. While this philosophy works thematically in the movie, as I will discuss, I think the idea of soulmates obscures the hard work which facilitates long term relationships. Successful relationships take work, but the concept of soulmates allows one to ignore the work and simply claim that someone is not one’s soulmate when a relationship becomes. Contrarily, it may also motive some to stay in toxic relationships simply on the assumption that the other is their soulmate.

Despite my reluctance to embrace soulmates, I think the particular futility of the split children of the Sun, Earth, and Moon attempting to repair themselves is an effective metaphor for human relationships based on the concept of soulmates. Much media in our culture, especially films aimed at young children suggest relationships flourish when people are perfect for each other. However, since relationships cannot survive on compatibility alone, we can find ourselves forcing proximity, like shoving two puzzle pieces together that do not connect, much like how the split humans tried to force themselves back together.

The Origin of Love is as much a song about bringing two people together as it is about rejoining two halves of a single person. At the end of the Origin of Love, Hedwig says, “The last time I saw you we had just split in two…you had blood on your face, I had blood in my eyes.” The blood reminds the watcher of Hedwig’s botched surgery. Then, later that night in bed they wonder about their other half, “Will this person embarrass me? Can two people actually become one again?” Hedwig’s journey in the film is to repair themself from that forcible split, which occurred during their botched gender reassignment surgery. The split also affected Hedwig’s gender expression which shifted from solidly male to solidly female afterwards, which does not seem welcomed by them, as it is a product of the shame of their traumatizing experience. Much like Hedwig and their other half, the Germany that Hedwig originates from was also forcibly split apart. However, when Germany is reunited it only further complicates Hedwig’s goal to reunite themsef because Luther leaves Hedwig. This not only diminishes the value of their sacrifice, but also leaves Hedwig on their own.

The film relies on soulmates thematically, but not in the traditional sense. In Hedwig and the Angry Inch, everyone is their own soulmate and their past traumas have alienated them form themselves, so they much re-love and rejoin. This is a less problematic idea than traditional soulmates because unlike a two-person relationship, it is always in one’s best interest to repair a toxic relationship with oneself, because we are forced to live with ourselves.

When Hedwig gives Tommy the knowledge of rock and roll Hedwig ensures the destruction of their paradise. Tommy tells the story of Eden to Hedwig, saying that God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge and that he punished them when they did. However, this is not technically true. In Genesis, God tells only Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Later, God only evicts Adam and Eve from Eden once Adam bites the apple. Hedwig is Eve. They are already enlightened by the fruit of knowledge. Tommy is Adam. He knows he is forbidden from eating it but asks for it anyway. Tommy’s education in rock and roll becomes the original sin, which destroys their Eden. Because they did not sin, Hedwig finds redemption and self-love, but Tommy loses his career.

The peace which Hedwig comes to in the end with their identity is beyond gender. Throughout the film they have struggled to identify in a manner consistent with their genitalia, despite that genitalia being forced upon them. In the end, they take off their wig in defiance of that conformity. Gender identity is a Schrödinger’s cat in the sense that Hedwig can only be a gender identity that they can conceptualize. If asked I don’t think Hedwig would say they are nonbinary or agender, although I think those are better specific terms for understanding them. I think Hedwig would say, ‘I’m everything.’ The whole person Hedwig becomes cannot exist within a binary gender paradigm, so it must exist outside of it. The realization Hedwig has at the end is that that is possible.

The film does utilize some problematic stereotypes about the LGBT+ community which bothered me. Hedwig’s character is played by a cis man, not a transgender person, furthering the mainstream assumption that transgender people are cis people in costumes of the other gender. The film implies that Hedwig’s father sexually assaulted them, which is often weaponized by homophobes which claim sexual assault can turn children gay. Similarly, Hedwig’s sexual relationship with Tommy at a young age is an example of the homophobic idea that LGBT+ people prey on children. These problematic stereotypes certainly date the movie to the early 2000s, but do not diminish the relatively radical ideas about gender which it gets right. The film treats Hedwig, a deformed transgender person as a dynamic character capable of redemption and self-actualization. Hedwig’s recombination into their whole self is not sex as they had originally assumed in the Origin of Love, but a psychological transformation of self-love. As they pull off their wig in the Time Square Bilgewaters, they reveal themself to the world without shame for the first time in a long time. They walk down a dark alley, naked as a newborn baby, reborn.

1 note · View note

vixianna · 7 years ago

Text

So I Just Figured Out Something Weird About Exclusionists...

So, I was looking through a few exclusionists blogs. Normally, I’d say that was purely a #mistake, but this time it was enlightening, especially about specific claims exclusionists make about asexuality.

So, a good number of the posts I looked at were aimed at lesbian and gay people, which is like normal and nbd. They were about helping questioning people who thought they might be lesbian or gay and describing their experiences as lesbian or gay people. A large number of responses to asks were like “well if you feel lesbian/gay, then you probably are.” which super valid, that’s how it works for LGBT+ people. Except, a lot of the people I saw sending in questions, especially to like bottomsona’s blog, specifically expressed experiencing attraction to multiple genders, but were not at the moment interested in pursuing relationships with men. Most of the responses were tailored around "well, if you're not going to date men, you can just call yourself a lesbian if you are only gonna date women/women-aligned people", which is fine on its own, I’m not the label police.

However, this response was informed by the stance that that lesbian(or gay, or bi, ect) existed as a label to communicate who you intended to date not who you are attracted to. I bring this up because a really common and previously to me super goddamn weird obsession of exclusionists was focused on how "asexual doesn't communicate anything". “How can you be asexual and still date/have sex?” And it occurred to me after reading this that if exclusionists were using sexuality labels as a shorthand for “who I am sexually/romantically available to” and not “who I feel attraction to” without any implication of dating/sex/relationships/ect then all of their “asexuality is a modifier and also doesn’t mean anything and the definition keeps changing!” starts to make sense.

Instead of:

-Lesbian = woman who is solely attracted to women

-Lesbian = woman/woman-aligned person who is solely attracted to other women/woman-aligned people(this definition still has a lot of problems but it's the one that is closest to how they use it)

It's:

-Lesbian = woman/woman-aligned person who is solely interested in forming relationships with women/woman-aligned people

They mean it to communicate like availability, openness, to others about who they are going to form intimate relationships with. This connects with several inclusionists observations that exclusionists seem really fucking pissed about things that don’t immediately signal whether you are available to them or not. Or more accurately, whether you are available to what they understand to be “gay relationships” or not.

For example, this is why they feel asexuality is a “modifier” because in this case it would have to be a combination of “doesn’t desire sexual relationships” and “desires relationships with these genders”, and it’s why they are so obsessed with whether or not asexuals have sex, and with whom, and under what circumstances. Because obviously the only way asexuality means anything if it is communicating that you do not desire a sexual relationship with others.

This also explains why they are so freaked the hell out about anyone saying they are asexual, especially kids, because it would be announcing a specific aspect of your sex life (and why some of them keep comparing it to kinks?? For reasons that used to confuse me.) To them it is only communicating your desire to have sex or not(which is why they find ace spectrum sexuality especially confusing or “not real” or describe it as “just people being normal”.)

This means one of the bigger problems is them operating from the idea that sexuality labels are meant to communicate to others who you'd be open to fucking/being in a relationship with, and not a representation of like your internal experiences of attraction.

This is also one of the reasons why they are so hostile to the idea of “examining your attractions closely/at all” because it ultimately “doesn’t matter”, not if what really matters is who you’d be willing to be in a relationship with and everything else is “incoherent” and “not important”, because your label is supposed to communicate who you’d fuck/date. It is essentially why they are so hostile to a-spec identities, but it also spills over onto other groups.

Attraction, dating, ect are not so clear cut or easily defined for many members of the community, especially Nonbinary people. So a lot of our sexuality labels require more introspection as do our genders. Further, that’s one of the reasons behind the push for NBs to use alignment language(or even have it prescriptively assigned). If you don’t tell others if you are man/woman aligned(and often you have to pick either one or the other!) then they don’t know whether you are someone they could be attracted to/should be attracted to/are included in their attraction label. Or more exactly, they don’t know if you are someone who they would form a relationship with, whether or not they are personally attracted to you.

It is also ultimately, why they are so hostile to queer as a single label. Because while it, as an orientation label, definitely tells you this person is likely “sga” by their standards(which are highly flawed and cissexist lmao), it doesn’t inform you “who”/“which genders”/“how many of them” you are available to form intimate relationships with and so “is useless” and virulently attacked because of it. Never mind that it is often used by people for whom gender is a complicated subject, or picking out which genders they are attracted to is difficult or impossible(m-specs, Nbs, ect), it doesn’t communicate what they feel labels are meant to:

Who are you sexually/romantically available to?

Mind you, the claim that people are ID’in as queer in order to infiltrate the community is even more ridiculous than the one against ace/aro people.

Why?

By their own admittance, and concurrent campaign, queer is seen as a slur by straight people. The chances of some “cishet woman calling herself queer because she pegs her boyfriend.” as so eloquently described by hatetobreakittoyou, existing is literally nil. Like, in what universe are Real CisHets™ going to think "this person is really straight and one of us" about someone who describes themself as "queer"?

This means a person would be literally putting a target on their back...for what? Being an open member of a violently targeted minority group does you no favors. There is nothing for this mythical woman to gain by putting herself through the ringer pretending to be LGBT+!

It’s a coherent, if wrongheaded, expansion of their idea that identity labels need to be completely immediately clear and only exist to tell others if you’d fuck/date them, but it’s an ultimately destructive stance and ideology to have. It’s m-spec antagonistic, requiring that m-specs be both in “sga” relationships and have to be “sga” in order to be m-spec(which is you know also exorsexist). It’s hostile to ace/aro people. It’s hostile to queer people and others whose identity is far more complicated. It prioritizes lesbian and gay people(especially binary ones, and especially cis binary ones). It fractures the community, and it’s one of the main toxic tenants behind a lot of their garbage ass rhetoric.

You don’t have to be open to dating/fucking at every particular moment every gender you are attracted to to be m-spec. Your label says nothing about whether you are interested in dating or sex if you are a-spec. That’s not what these labels have historically or even currently mean in general usage, which is why there is so much cross talk when trying to come to an accord with exclusionists. They are working for radically different definitions of even typically understood sexuality labels.(bi to them means “same and others” and not “two+”, ace means “doesn’t want to fuck” and not “doesn’t experience sexual attraction/attracted to no one”, ect)

Has anyone else encountered these underlying beliefs and would be willing to talk about it? Because I’d like to get some dialogue going so that we can maybe more easily actually understand some of the underlying tenants of Exclusionism.

#ace discourse #aro discourse #ace exclusionist #nb discourse #bi discourse #it's sorta every discourse at this point #because it's like a basic difference #in how they define #sexuality labels and such

743 notes · View notes

p-r · 7 years ago

Text

cede the political

Suggested listening: This Land is Your Land by Woody Guthrie

My freshman year of high school, I was best friends with a caustic girl named Sonya. While I could write many, many, many pages about Sonya, I will ignore most of that rage for now. But one thing that I drew from her was the quote, “The American Dream is dead; good riddance to it.”

Now you may have heard that quote before and it may mean something else to you, but for her and I it was our code for “fuck the state, it sucks so badly we cannot change it.”

It was a term of edgy apathy that we thought was wiser than anything Nietschze could ever hope to utter. It was our way of justifying our dismal view of the future and our refusal of hoping for a better tomorrow.

In my year of friendship with Sonya, I have never regressed so far in my mental health. Every day with her was a day where life got slowly worse. Utter darkness and destruction of oneself was the basis of our friendship and I wanted so badly to keep her as my friend, so I let myself slip into this dark symbiosis of hatred for myself and for the world.

Every day was bleak. Every day was a new day of suicide jokes and her sending me pictures of her self-harm and her urging me to do the same. She glorified destruction and pushed me to it.

Flash forward to my sophomore year in high school. The day is October 11th. A Tuesday. She says she cannot be friends anymore. She screams, yells, tells me to leave her alone, to never leave her, to die, to live.

That night I thought my world was ending. She had conditioned me to believe that there was only her and without her there was nothing. I was nothing.

There are a lot of components to her that I don’t want to focus on with this post, so just understand that I was a dismal wreck of a human for awhile after Sonya. I had friends that kept my head just barely above water (Sarah, Lincoln, Kyle, Valerie, Dylan). Every day they battled my demons. Each sun rose for me with no desire to get out of bed and every day they, like clockwork, helped me to stand and keep fighting. Because of them, I can truly say I know what it is like to have your life saved. I was a walking dead man and they breathed life back into me. Slowly but surely I found myself to be a Lazarus.

This past May Sonya and I both graduated. She now attends Georgetown, a private university. Her first choice after being rejected from the Ivys.

She along with others ridiculed my choice to attend public UC Berkeley after receiving better offers. I chose it for a myriad of reasons, personal and confusing. But I can say that I do not regret it at all.

Today, a massive gameday, I found myself reflecting on my choice. I attend a large public university with Greek Life (of which I am a part of, despite always assuming I never would be) with parties and antics. I also attend a university with protests and activism. I also attend a university with massive research output.

Here, more than any other place, I see this power of a whole person. This university known for its protests and its radical ideas is the home of the revolutionaries.

Kids find themselves here not because they are ivy league rejects (as I am not an ivy reject and I proudly sit here) or that they got a deal on tuition (I pay 70,000 to attend); they find themselves here because they believe in the American Dream. We are the boots on the ground. The first to raise a sign. To make a petition. To call our senators.

Less obviously, we are the first to include. The first to be more aware of social constructs and norms. We are the first to realize that we are not passive participants in the rapidly growing, by the second actually, story of history.

We are history. We hold the pen and we decide.

Sonya sits in her ivory tower, I sit in the fresh dirt pile of change.

America is far from perfect, but that won’t deter me from doing what I can. My feet pound the pavement when I walk on campus so hard they can hear me all the way in DC. I am not afraid of tomorrow because I know I will fight and I know that Berkeley will give me the tools I need to stand up and raise my fist in the air.

In high school, I did policy debate, a male-dominated event that is known to be the hardest debate event. My debate partner was also a female. Kids and judges belittled us because we were women. Sonya, who was originally going to be my policy partner said she couldn’t because she was too scared to lose. She refused to stand and fight for other women.

I was the only female presiding officer at the 2018 Senatorial Congressional Districts for debate. I commanded a room with a gavel as well as any man in the room. Sonya refused to do Senate because “the house rooms are easier, I’ll get more points even though I’m female.” She ran from her challengers and I faced them.

Debaters are commonly top earners in American Society, with many becoming massive political figures (Mike Pence did debate, so did Hillary Clinton). So, I always found her proclaimed liberal views to be lackluster. She talked a great game, but when she had a chance to change the minds of the future Pences of the world or inspire younger women to become the next Clintons, she decided to hide. Give up. Reinforce norms.

I’ll admit, it was hard standing in rooms full of men looking at me with snickering glances. The boys on my team always assuming they were better despite Sarah and I’s superior record. But, I am so glad that I never gave up. Sure, debate is super small, but I believe in its impact. I believe my tiny contributions made a difference to someone. Now, I see young women that I mentored taking my place and fighting back against norms. I see them stand tall. I see men stand with them and call for change. I see hope in their eyes.

So what does this all come down to? Is the American Dream dead?

Absolutely not. The American Dream lies, for me, in the hearts of young women in debate and on the campus of UC Berkeley.

For every person it's different; maybe the rejection of binary gender roles in media, African American CEOs in top companies, maybe it's putting food on the table for your children, paying off credit card debt.

Whatever it is, the dream is alive. It's alive because we keep striving. It's alive because we choose to try again. We can see the disparity, disarray, and discrimination, but the dream only dies if we choose not to fight.

If we disengage, we cede the political, that is to give our oppressors an automatic victory because we conceded.

I am surrounded by people here at Berkeley that remind me that we are ready to fight. Brothers who support their sisters, friends asking pronouns, greek life members accepting trans people into their brother and sisterhoods with open arms. We are changing tomorrow because we don’t believe in academia, we believe in rolling up our sleeves.

Talk is cheap, y’all.

Sonya fears for tomorrow helplessly. I fear tomorrow because I know I am on the frontlines in the war.

She has given up, removed herself from the question and in essence given away her power.

She has killed her American Dream.

But mine is alive, and I hope yours is too.

Woody Guthrie’s This Land is Your Land is written out of him analyzing if long relief lines that he sees outside a church show that the dream is dead. He concludes that the dream is alive by ending the song with the lines:

Nobody living, can ever stop me,

As I go walking that freedom highway

Nobody living can ever make me turn back

This land was made for you and me.

4 notes · View notes

queeranarchism · 7 years ago

Text

8 Steps Toward Building Indispensability (Instead of Disposability) Culture

(Reposting this article by Kai Cheng Thom because Tumblr ate it. Sorry long post, page break hates me)

give an mc without integrity a mic

and s/he will rhyme the death of the people

—d’bi young anitafrika

When I first came into activist culture, I was a runaway queer kid searching for a home: a terrified, angry, suspicious, cynical-yet-naïve teenager whose greatest secret desire was for a family that would last forever and love me no matter what.

Yet I also knew that such a family could never exist – at least not for me.

You see, I had another secret: Underneath all of my radical queer social justice punk bravado, I knew that I was trash. I was dirty and unlovable. I had done bad things to survive, and I had hurt people. Sometimes I didn’t know why.

So when I found activist culture, with its powerful ideas about privilege and oppression and its simmering, explosive rage, I was intoxicated. I thought that I could purge my self-hatred with that fiery rhetoric and create the family I wanted so much with the bond that comes from shared trauma.

Social justice was a set of rules that could finally put the world into an order that made sense to me. If I could only use all the right language, do enough direct action, be critical enough of the systems around me, then I could finally be a good person.

All around me, it felt like my activist community was doing the same thing – throwing ourselves into “the revolution,” exhausting ourselves and burning out, watching each other for oppressive thoughts and behavior and calling each other on it vociferously.

Occasionally – rarely – folks were driven out of community for being “fucked up.” More often, though, attempts to hold people accountable through call-outs and exclusion just exploded into huge online flame wars and IRL drama that left deep rifts in community for years. Only the most vulnerable – folks without large friend groups and social stability – were excluded permanently.

Like my blood family, my activist family was re-enacting the trauma that we had experienced at the hands of an oppressive society.

Just as my father once held open the door to our house and demanded that I leave because he didn’t know how to reconcile his love for me with my gender identity, we denounced each other and burned bridges because we didn’t know how reconcile our social ideals with the fact that our loved ones don’t always live up to them.

I believe that sometimes we did this hypocritically – that we created the so-called call-out culture (a culture of toxic confrontation and shaming people for oppressive behavior that is more about the performance of righteousness than the actual pursuit of justice) in part so that we could focus on the failings of others and avoid examining the complicity with oppression, the capacity to abuse, that exists within us all.

And I believe we did it in part because sometimes it’s impossible to imagine any other way: We live in a disposability culture – a society based on consumption, fear, and destruction – where we’re taught that the only way to respond when people hurt us is to hurt them back or get rid of them.

This article comes out of that queer kid’s longing for forever-family, and from countless conversations with other members of social justice communities longing for the same. It comes out of my own fuck-ups having been generously forgiven by others, and from my effort to forgive those who have harmed me.

It comes from a desire I feel all around me for an alternative to the politics of disposability, for a politics of indispensability instead.

“Indispensability politics” isn’t a term I’ve coined personally. It has existed various communities for some time, and I learned it orally, though I cannot find a written source. But the following principles are ideas – suggestions for a foundation on which indispensability culture in leftist activism might be built. They are a work permanently in progress.

They’re not meant to be a new set of rules for activism. Nor are they a step-by-step guide for holding accountability processes or a complete answer to the questions that I’m raising around.

Still, I hope that they are helpful to you.

1. The Revolution Is a Relationship

sometimes

we want to close our eyes

jack off to pictures of radical disneyland

not watch as we gnaw our own

flesh into meat

—Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, “so what the fuck does conscious mean anyway”

Something that worries me about social justice communities is that we tend to conceptualize “revolution” as a product, as a place and time that we expend all of our energy and anger to create – often without regard to the toll this takes on individuals and our relationships.

In this way, “The Revolution” occupies a position in activist culture that actually reminds me of the role that Heaven played in the Chinese Christian community I grew up in: It is a fantasy of ideological purity against which our actions are judged, a place that we long to live in, but seems impossible to reach.

In our – often justified – anger and disappointment at the failure of ourselves and our communities to uphold the dream of revolution, we lash out.

We try to cleanse ourselves of the pain of betrayal by cutting off and driving out the betrayers – our abusive families, our conservative friends. We try not to look at the betrayer in the mirror.

What if revolution isn’t a product, some distant promised land, but the relationships that we have right now?

What if revolution is, in addition to – not instead of – direct action and community organizing, the process of rupture and repair that happens when we fuck up and hold each other accountable and forgive?

2. The Oppressor Lives Within

The most important political struggle I will ever have is against the oppressor – the racist, transmisogynist, ableist, abusive person – in myself.

I don’t mean to say this in a self-flagellating, self-blaming way. I’ve experienced oppression, violence, rape, and abuse from others, and this is not my fault.

I mean that I’ve started to believe that I can’t engage in authentic activism, I can’t create positive change without recognizing and naming my own participation in the oppressive systems that I’m trying to undo.

Coming from this position, I’m forced to have compassion for the people around me who I see also participating in oppression, even as I’m also angry at them. With compassion comes understanding, and with understanding comes belief in the possibility of change.

When we become capable of holding that contradiction in our hearts – when we can be angry and compassionate at the same time, at ourselves as well as others – entirely new possibilities for healing and transformation emerge.

3. Accountability Starts in the Heart

Too often, I’ve seen accountability processes in social justice communities devolve into vicious “your word against mine” situations and social power plays in which people accuse each other of harm and abuse.

As witnesses to these situations, we become trapped, caught in the double bind of either having to pick a side or doing nothing. Both options carry the risk of becoming complicit in the harm being done, and the “truth” becomes impossibly blurred.

I often wonder how different things would look if it were more of a cultural norm to understand accountability as a practice that comes from within the individual, instead of a consequence that must be forced onto someone externally.

What if we taught each other to honor the responsibility that comes with holding ourselves accountable, rather than seeing self-accountability as a shameful admission of guilt? What if we could have real conversations with each other about harm, in good faith?

In a culture of indispensability, I cannot ignore someone when they tell me I have harmed them – they are precious to me, and I have to try to understand and respond accordingly.

To become indispensable to one another, we must also be willing to be responsible for and accountable to one another.

4. Perpetrator/Survivor is a False Dichotomy

There is an intense moral dynamic in social justice culture that tends to separate people into binaries of “right” and “wrong.”

To be a perpetrator of oppression or violence is highly stigmatized, while survivorhood may be oddly fetishized in ways that objectify and intensify stories of trauma.

“Perpetrators” are considered evil and unforgivable, while “survivors” are good and pure, yet denied agency to define themselves.

Among the many problems of this dynamic is the fact that it obscures the complex reality that many people are both survivors and perpetrators of violence (though violence, of course, exists within a wide spectrum of behaviors).

Within a culture of disposability – whether it be the criminal justice system of the state or community practices of exiling people – the perpetrator/survivor dichotomy is useful because it appears to make things easier. It helps us make decisions about who to punish and who to pity.

But punishment and pity have very little to do with revolutionary change or relationship-building.

What punishment and pity have in common is that they’re both dehumanizing.

5. Punishment Isn’t Justice

Punishment is the foundation of the legal criminal justice system and of disposability culture. It’s the idea that wrongs can be made right by inflicting further harm against those who are deemed harmful.

Punishment is also, I believe, a traumatized response to being attacked, the intense expression of the “fight” reflex. Activist writer Sarah Schulman discusses this idea in detail in her book, Conflict Is Not Abuse.

It isn’t inherently wrong to want someone who hurt you to feel the same pain – to want retribution, or even revenge. But as Schulman also writes, punishment is rarely, if ever, actually an instrument of justice – it is most often an expression of power over those with less.

How often do we see the vastly wealthy or politically powerful punished for the enormous harms they do to marginalized communities? How often are marginalized individuals put in prison or killed for minor (or non-existent) offences?

As long as our conception of justice is based on the violent use of power, the powerful will remain unaccountable, while the powerless are scapegoated.

But even beyond this, a culture of disposability and punishment breeds fear and dishonesty.

How likely are we to hold ourselves accountable when we’re afraid that we’ll be exiled, imprisoned, or killed if we do? And how can we trust each other when we live in fear of one another?

We have to find another way to bring about justice.

6. Nuance Isn’t an Excuse for Harm

One of the most common responses I see to critiques of call-out culture and disposability is that perpetrators of violence and predators use these critiques to obscure their own wrongdoing and avoid accountability.

Furthermore, we, as communities, use the “complexity” and “nuance” of such critiques as excuses for not intervening when harm is being done.

But indispensability means that everyone – especially those have experienced harm – are precious and require justice. In other words, we cannot allow the fact that something is complicated or scary prevent us from trying to stop it.

Trapped in the perpetrator/survivor dichotomy of understanding harm, it might seem like we have only two options: to ignore harm or to punish perpetrators.

But in fact, there are often other strategies available.

They involve taking anyone’s – everyone’s – expressions of pain seriously enough to ask hard questions and have tough conversations. They involve dedicating time and resources to ensuring that anyone who has been harmed has the support they need to heal.

7. Healing Is Both Rage and Forgiveness

If the revolution is a relationship, then the revolution must include room for both rage and forgiveness: We have to be able to tolerate the inevitability that we will be angry at one another, will commit harm against one another.

When we are harmed, we must be allowed the space to rage. We need to be able to express the depth of our hurt, our hatred of those who hurt us and those who allowed it to happen – especially when those people are the ones we love.

It is up to the community to hold and contain this rage – to hear and validate and give it space, while also preventing it from creating further harm.

The expression of anger and pain is key to the transformation of violence into healing, because it allows us to understand what has happened and motivates us to change.

And it’s up to the community as well to then provide a framework for forgiveness, to help envision a future where forgiveness is possible, and how it might be achieved.

8. Community Is the Answer

There are no activist communities, only the desire for communities, or the convenient fiction of communities. A community is a material web that binds people together, for better and for worse, in interdependence…

If it is easier to kick someone out than to go through a difficult series of conversations with them, it is not a community. Among the societies that had real communities, exile was the most extreme sanction possible, tantamount to killing them. On many levels, losing the community and all the relationships it involved was the same as dying.

Let’s not kid ourselves: We don’t have communities.

—Anonymous, Broken Teapot Zine

The above quote is a revealing glance into the inner dynamics of social justice and activist culture.

It reveals the source of our incapacity to create accountability and the deep emotional and material insecurities that lie beneath it.

Perhaps the reason we tend to recreate disposability culture and trauma responses over and over is because we are all, secretly, that frightened runaway kid, constantly searching for a home, but not really believing we can find one.

Maybe we don’t create communities of true interdependence – of indispensability, of forever-family – because we are terrified of what will happen if we try.

But I believe, have to believe, that true community is possible for me and for all of us. The truth is, we can’t keep going on the way we have been. We need each other, need to find each other, in order to survive.

And I have faith that we can.

89 notes · View notes

thefabulousfulcrum · 8 years ago

Text

Are You Ready To Consider That Capitalism Is The Real Problem?

Before you say no, take a moment to really ask yourself whether it’s the system that’s best suited to build our future society.

via FastCompany

BY JASON HICKEL AND MARTIN KIRK

n February, college sophomore Trevor Hill stood up during a televised town hall meeting in New York and posed a simple question to Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. He cited a study by Harvard University showing that 51% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 no longer support the system of capitalism, and asked whether the Democrats could embrace this fast-changing reality and stake out a clearer contrast to right-wing economics.

Pelosi was visibly taken aback. “I thank you for your question,” she said, “but I’m sorry to say we’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is.”

The footage went viral. It was powerful because of the clear contrast it set up. Trevor Hill is no hardened left-winger. He’s just your average millennial—bright, informed, curious about the world, and eager to imagine a better one. But Pelosi, a figurehead of establishment politics, refused to–or was just unable to–entertain his challenge to the status quo.

It’s not only young voters who feel this way. A YouGov poll in 2015 found that 64% of Britons believe that capitalism is unfair, that it makes inequality worse. Even in the U.S., it’s as high as 55%. In Germany, a solid 77% are skeptical of capitalism. Meanwhile, a full three-quarters of people in major capitalist economies believe that big businesses are basically corrupt.

Why do people feel this way? Probably not because they deny the abundant material benefits of modern life that many are able to enjoy. Or because they want to travel back in time and live in the U.S.S.R. It’s because they realize—either consciously or at some gut level—that there’s something fundamentally flawed about a system that has a prime directive to churn nature and humans into capital, and do it more and more each year, regardless of the costs to human well-being and to the environment we depend on.

Because let’s be clear: That’s what capitalism is, at its root. That is the sum total of the plan. We can see this embodied in the imperative to grow GDP, everywhere, year on year, at a compound rate, even though we know that GDP growth, on its own, does nothing to reduce poverty or to make people happier or healthier. Global GDP has grown 630% since 1980, and in that same time, by some measures, inequality, poverty, and hunger have all risen.

We also see this plan in the idea that corporations have a fiduciary duty to grow their stock value for the sake of shareholder returns, which prevents even well-meaning CEO’s from voluntarily doing anything good—like increasing wages or reducing pollution—that might compromise their bottom line. Once we realize this, we can start connecting the dots between our different struggles. There are people in the U.S. fighting against the Keystone pipeline. There are people in Britain fighting against the privatization of the National Health Service. There are people in India fighting against corporate land grabs. There are people in Brazil fighting against the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. There are people in China fighting against poverty wages. These are all noble and important movements in their own right. But by focusing on all these symptoms we risk missing the underlying cause. And the cause is capitalism. It’s time to name the thing.

What’s so exciting about our present moment is that people are starting to do exactly that. And they are hungry for something different. For some, this means socialism. That YouGov poll showed that Americans under the age of 30 tend to have a more favorable view of socialism than they do of capitalism, which is surprising given the sheer scale of the propaganda out there designed to convince people that socialism is evil. But millennials aren’t bogged down by these dusty old binaries. For them the matter is simple: They can see that capitalism isn’t working for the majority of humanity, and they’re ready to invent something better.

What might a better world look like? There are a million ideas out there. We can start by changing how we understand and measure progress. As Robert Kennedy famously said, GDP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play . . . it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

We can change that. People want health care and education to be social goods, not market commodities, so we can choose to put public goods back in public hands. People want the fruits of production and the yields of our generous planet to benefit everyone, rather than being siphoned up by the super-rich, so we can change tax laws and introduce potentially transformative measures like a universal basic income. People want to live in balance with the environment on which we all depend for our survival; so we can adopt regenerative agricultural solutions and even choose, as Ecuador did in 2008, to recognize in law, at the level of the nation’s constitution, that nature has “the right to exist, persist, maintain, and regenerate its vital cycles.”

Measures like these could dethrone capitalism’s prime directive and replace it with a more balanced logic, that recognizes the many factors required for a healthy and thriving civilization. If done systematically enough, they could consign one-dimensional capitalism to the dustbin of history.

None of this is actually radical. Our leaders will tell us that these ideas are not feasible, but what is not feasible is the assumption that we can carry on with the status quo. If we keep pounding on the wedge of inequality and chewing through our living planet, the whole thing is going to implode. The choice is stark, and it seems people are waking up to it in large numbers: Either we evolve into a future beyond capitalism, or we won’t have a future at all.

1 note · View note

elisaenglish · 4 years ago

Text

Love and Symmetry: Poet A. Van Jordan Imagines the Undelivered Feynman Lecture About the Mystery Lying Between Scientific Truth and Human Meaning

“Mysteries inside mysteries in our own bodies of which we can’t make sense, another world waiting for a religion or calculus to explain.”

It is dazzling enough to live with the knowledge that everything around us — the fiery cardinal that evolved from the T-rex, the blooming daffodil that traded its sallow brown-green for blazing yellow to attract the primordial pollinators, the human eye millennia in the lensing, the eye that now beholds these wonders and inhales them into a consciousness endowed with the triumphal capacity for being wonder-smitten — is a living record of manifest possibility 13.8 billion years in the making.

Now consider living with the knowledge that all of it is not only the change log of the past, but also the pre-composed code of the future.

I consider this one April afternoon, sitting in a Brooklyn garden just coming alive with bud and bee, as I listen to a physicist-saxophonist friend electric with enthusiasm about his research exploring the radical mathematical implication that the universe might be autodidactic — that the fundamental forces, rather than abiding by the static and predictable laws we have so far discerned, might be the evolving self-perpetuating algorithms of the ultimate learning machine, algorithms that began as simple principles and went on to continually revise and elaborate on themselves, not unlike biological evolution is continually revising and elaborating on life. The fundamental poem, composing itself.

In detailing the physics behind this model, Stephon skips no beat honouring one of his great heroes, on whose shoulders this theory stands: Richard Feynman (May 11, 1918–February 15, 1988), whose Nobel-winning work on quantum electrodynamics laid the foundation of quantum computing and its promise of enlisting phenomena like entanglement and superposition in computing the previously incomputable.

Feynman — physicist, philosopher, painter, bongo-drummer and safe-cracker — belonged to that rare species of scientist who reverenced the elemental poetics of reality in lyrical prose, who composed what may be the world’s most poetic footnote and loved as deeply as he thought and saw the poetic I of his human self as “a universe of atoms… an atom in the universe.” His science and his spirit come alive afresh in a stunning prose poem titled “Richard P. Feynman Lecture: Intro to Symmetry” from the slender and splendid Quantum Lyrics (public library) by A. Van Jordan — a rare poet who reverences the elemental science of reality.

Jordan writes:

“Love begins in the streets with vibration and ends behind closed doors in jealousy. Creation and destruction. What do we pray for but the equation that helps us make sense of what happens in our daily lives? What do we believe in if not that which tells us we’re alive? Sex, laughter, sweat, and equations elegant enough to figure on our fingers. Math is spirit and spirit is faith in numbers; both take us to the edge but no further than we can imagine. You don’t believe in math? Try to figure the velocity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun to land a man on the Moon without it. You don’t believe in God? Try to use math to calculate what the eye does every second of any given moment. If Big Blue tried to work that differential equation in our lifetime, it couldn’t. Mysteries inside mysteries in our own bodies of which we can’t make sense, another world waiting for a religion or calculus to explain. Look into any mirror; it’s like sitting in a theatre watching a silent movie, but you’re the one pantomiming your story. You think you have this world figured out, but you can’t tell which hand you’re using and using and using. And why do we try?”

We try, of course, because curiosity is the true triumph of consciousness; because what Einstein called “the passion for comprehension” is the hallmark of our species. We comprehend by parsing the world into categories and classes, constantly computing the distances and differences between them. This, it bears repeating, is a beautiful impulse — to contain the infinite in the finite, to wrest order from the chaos, to construct a foothold so we may climb toward higher truth — but it is also a limiting one, a dangerous one, nowhere more so than in the artificial binaries we create in trying to orient ourselves by differentiation.

With an eye to the limiting binaries of our Cartesian inheritance, and perhaps with an eye to his own experience of love — which every artist cannot but factor into their cosmogony — Jordan writes:

“You cannot solve for the use of one side of the body over the other, so there is no single voice that emits from it. You cannot solve for the harmonics of a dual body, facing each other, both inquisitive. You cannot solve for the marriage of opposites, their fit, their match, their endlessness. You cannot solve for the morning stretch that calls to both sides, first this one, then that one, aligning the day. You cannot solve for the bass of one hand and the treble of the other, both keeping rhythm hostage under the skin of the bongo. You cannot solve for the balance of a locked door and a safe cracker’s ear against it and the move X number of clicks to the left and Y number of clicks back to the right and back past and back past till the latch clicks open in your mind.”

Complement this fragment of Jordan’s thoroughly wonderful Quantum Lyrics — which imagines the inner lives and animating forces of Einstein, Schrödinger, and other titanic scientific minds who have revolutionised our understanding of external reality — with Feynman on why uncertainty is essential for morality and his touching effort to reconcile what he knows about science with what he knows of love after the death of his young wife, then revisit Ursula K. Le Guin on the complementarity of poetry and science.

Source: Maria Popova, brainpickings.org (28th April 2021)

#quote #love #life #meaning #existential musings #all eternal things #love in a time of...#intelligence quotients #depth perception #understanding beyond thought #the science of things #more than words #stands on its own #elisa english #elisaenglish

1 note · View note

averycanadianfilm · 6 years ago

Text

The Nous of the Supreme

"Nous of the Supreme" Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle In realms other than this one this great love was begun where time as we know it has no, meaning but astral beings still have, feelings an karma rules, an karma rules graduates of ancient mystery, schools stardust we're made of vows were taken to do no harm and to, love divine spark ignited life started different aspects of the, whole physical manifestations of the same, soul destined to meet in this life for, sure dharma of enlightened ones keep hearts, pure challenges and sacrifices to test, us for who is worthy of, trust in a world where love is often mistaken for, lust the way forward is not seen is not, clear consumerism encourages selfishness an too many don't know how to, share see the suffering of others and don't, care but profound change is in the, air in the air, in the air, in the air Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle The nous of the, supreme has cycled back to earthbound human, beings activating the mind in the, heart of the whole each is a, part a radical, entanglement to be understood must be, heartfelt intellect alone won't get anyone, there cause too many modern minds are crippled by, fear Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle See the cloud in the sheet of, paper things made reflect the, maker feel the pattern cause you can't perceive, it the signal isn't a series of digits or binary, bits a musical totality a totality of, musicality is beyond a discrete, reality it a continuum we a deal, wit still the intellect open the heart the nous of the supreme has once again begun to, transmit metaphors, analogies or similes will only mislead, thee not describable by a real number system constructed by human, kind for a continuum the discrete can't, find the nous of the supreme has, returned but not to construct odes to Grecian, urns or to reveal the secrets of Mummies, to tomb, raiders or to deepen the scientific understanding of bomb, makers or to better rationalize the ecomomic system of neo-slave, traders Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle see yourself in the other see saturn in the moon see midnight at noon see the black in the white see the left in the right see the man in the woman an the woman in the man see that no one is more or less, than see the light in everyone feel the love an this unjust social organization is, undone Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle How does a part capture the, whole is this just an old story, retold a new way requires a new, consciousness this is not an old reality in a new, dress an acorn becomes an, oak not a maple, an adler or a, birch the nous of the supreme is planting seeds not to make yet another, church or to start a new line of academic, discourse or to fatten some new nations, purse LIFE can't afford more of the, same and what is happening is far beyond who is to, blame Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle Dolce stil Nuovo Dolce stil Nuovo Dolce stil Nuovo de smooth cool flow de smooth cool flow de smooth cool flow heart to heart we a need, now a transformed heartiousness we a breed, now weapons of mass destruction a leave, now systems of oppression a break, down organs of inequitable wealth distribution a CRASH, down for the nous of the supreme a soon come to your, town to your town Love is the lesson, the lesson is love no top, no bottom, no below, no above no start, no finish, a circle intellect without the heart makes it all seem like a, miracle Words and Music by Hubert Hugh Burke Nov. 19, 2009, Toronto Canada

#Word #Lyrics #Hubert Hugh Burke #A Very Canadian Film

1 note · View note

24heavven · 8 years ago

Text

When was the last time you didn’t have a single thought in your head? When you weren’t worried about running here, or calling so and so, or replaying a conversation you had earlier in the day over in your head. Presence is the enemy of your mind. The more you absorb yourself in the moment, the further your brain gets from the concept of time. Anxiety over the future, regret over the past. Constantly stuck in a pendulum swing from one end of misery to the other. If you’ve ever meditated, you know this process can be reversed and even stopped all together. The process of emptying your mind allows for you to differentiate between the voice inside your head and your true self. Ever hear the expression, “i think, therefore i am”? That was Descartes, and to this day many people still believe this. But to be defined by your mind and thought cages you. How could you ever believe in an afterlife if the only thing that defines your existence is your thoughts? In the last 30 seconds of someones life, their brain will go through a series of events, ending in just the pure “self”. The same feeling you get when you’re meditating.

“OUR SENSE OF SELF, OUR SENSE OF HUMOUR, OUR ABILITY TO THINK AHEAD — THAT STUFF ALL GOES WITHIN THE FIRST 10 TO 20 SECONDS. THEN, AS THE WAVE OF BLOOD-STARVED BRAIN CELLS SPREAD OUT, OUR MEMORIES AND LANGUAGE CENTRES SHORT OUT, UNTIL WE’RE LEFT WITH JUST A CORE.” says Shaw.

I myself have had plenty of incredibly rewarding experiences meditating. After you get good enough at it, you feel a distinct slip between reality and pure consciousness. Its more like “I am, therefore i think”. You are the watcher of your thoughts, and your emotions represent how you truly feel about them. By not identifying with “the voice in your head” and identifying as the observer of them instead you can begin to let go of anxiety and depression. Eckhart Tolle really said it best - “Be the silent watcher of your thoughts and behavior. You are beneath the thinker. You are the stillness beneath the mental noise. You are the love and joy beneath the pain.” The mind is the strongest tool of all and it’s a pity less people aren’t using it to its fullest potential.

Everyone knows that Nietzsche popularized nihilism in philosophy. This is the concept that life is inherently meaningless and none of what we do matters because we’re going to wind up dead in the Earths inevitable heat death anyway. There is no heaven, there is no hell. There only is what we’re experiencing right here and there is no grander plan outside of what we can see plainly. This could be likened to a darker version of realism, where morals don’t matter and you’re skeptical about everything. Although there are many versions of nihilism like existential nihilism and moral nihilism, this is the “gist” so to speak.

But what if we are actually living in a truly meaningless world? Would it be beneficial to submit ourselves to this mindset? To abandon hope and reject the prospect of a brighter tomorrow? If the world is truly a dark cold place, the only thing you can do is light up the darkness. If nothing you do maters, why not do better? We may be small, but the difference between 0 and 1 is the same as the difference between 1 and infinity. The universe is incomprehensibly huge and it is likely that our whole history as humans wont mean much to the grand scheme of things. When you look at life in this way, your own interpersonal problems look silly. We are here for a very, very short time. Too many people get wrapped up in day to day trivialities. You only get one chance as yourself and to waste time that could be used to bettering your future is a tragedy. At the end of the day, we are all humans. At it’s core, our experience here on Earth is the same and life is such a miracle to begin with. You’re here on Earth at the same time as the people around you that mean so much, doesn't that, if nothing else, give your life meaning? The chance of that happening was infinitely minuscule and yet it still happened.

This is called Anti-Nihilism and it can be found in many forms of media if you’re looking for it. It’s the characters out there who bravely give their lives up to a greater cause. They recognize we’re all doomed, and give away all they have to make the world a better place for everyone surrounding them, even if that means dying for it. Shinji from Neon Genesis Evangelion, Madoka from Madoka Magica, Solid Snake of Metal Gear Solid, Ralph and Piggy from Lord Of The Flies. This idea that nothing matters, but order is important nonetheless is present everywhere. The world would devolve into anarchy and violence if everyone abandoned their hope. Hope is really the only thing in this world propelling any of us forward.

This strikes the middle ground between classic organized religion where youre promised the gates of heaven and eternal bliss, or being an atheist where you go in a box in the ground and its blackness forever. It’s acceptance of the grey area. Life is not black or white, yes or no, on or off. Life is not binary. Many people who have been to the depths of depression and self hatred cling tightly to this. When you’re surrounded by darkness, the light becomes hard to find. But once you see a flicker you do anything to keep it. Accepting life simply for what it is - is freeing. The minute you accept your dissatisfaction with a situation you transmute that dissatisfaction into peace. People walk around everyday searching for their purpose when it’s been under their nose all along, giving your life meaning is the meaning of life. I staunchly believe you are brought into this world to have an amazing time. Your circumstances can be what you rise from or succumb to.

Esther and Jerry Hicks have written many self-help books. At the time of their writing careers inception, they claimed to have had a spirit called Abraham contact them through meditation. Weather or not that bit is factual - they have a message that rings so true it is hard not to believe they are accessing the “other side”. Through Abraham, they have changed lives and inspired many people to be deliberate thinkers. What they mean by deliberate thinker is someone who consciously chooses better thoughts as they see them happening in their mind. The vibrational power of your thoughts is that which shapes your world around you, and whatever you are looking for you will surely find. The mind is a tool of creation, and not a file cabinet. They speak of manifesting whatever you desire through the power of your mind - and that life can be blissful if only we should choose every day to believe it is. The quintessence of their teachings is emptying your mind through meditation.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have people like Mitchell Heisman. He was a 35 year old Harvard student who made news back in 2010 for taking his own life as a grand act of destroying self preservation. Beforehand, he had written a 1,900 page document detailing his journey to this conclusion, aptly titled “Suicide Note”. His outlook on life - or rather death - is peppered with religious and political inquisition and the nature of man. Heisman speaks heavily about nihilism. That it is simply in the nature of mankind to want to survive and choose life, a Darwinist knee jerk behavior. That this day in age, the question can be posed - “is choosing death irrational? and for what reason?” Maybe choosing to die is freedom, liberation, the next grand adventure. He goes into detail about his “Me Theory” at the end of his manifesto. His want to know his own nature so greatly overcame him, he began looking at his life experience in abstracts. Mitchell questioned everything so much so, i believe, he became depressed. He states “Disillusioned of belief in my own subjective experiences, at rock bottom, I turned to completely destroy myself. If life itself is without ultimate meaning, and is not fundamentally rationally superior to death, then perhaps the test of the worth of life is found in willing death and self-destruction.” He references Neitzche multiple times, citing that in his journey to self discovery, he can no longer believe anything. The text reads as the ramblings of a madman philosopher on the verge of an epiphany. This is the epitome of a cluttered mind. Heisman thought his way into and out of madness, ending in a bang, taking his own life.

Our world is one of at least 10 trillion planetary systems in our known universe. A mere grain of sand on the beach of the cosmos. Yet here, on our Earth, we have seen triumph and we have faced heartache as a species. Does our insignificance in size, make our existence insignificant? The short answer is no, just because we are an infinitely small part in the grand blueprint which is the universe does not invalidate us. Much like us humans can see and study and understand ants and yet ants cannot grasp human existence, their conscious experience here does not lack meaning. Paramahansa Yogananda was the first person to come to the West and popularize freedom from the concept of the “self”. Before his coming here we did not even have the language to describe the spiritual teachings he had already mastered. His impact on American society was so profound people began to fear and vilify him as a cult leader or a criminal. He forced physicists to expand the language of physics as they were, introducing consciousness into the equation of matter and energy. He feared that without a radical internal shift towards love and selflessness, we would not survive the atomic age as a species. A concern being brought up every so poignantly again today with nuclear war not far off on the horizon. In the dark landscape set before us today, all we can do is come back to the very basics of whats important here, love.

Self help literature, Movies, Music, Television, Spirituality, Philosophy. Anti-Nihilism can be found everywhere. Use the space between where you are and where you want to be inspire you, give you hope and excitement. Don’t become a victim to the uncertainty of the unknown. Letting your mind control your life is akin to the tail wagging the dog. The mind is a mechanism, a tool of creation and power. If used improperly, it becomes a cage, a nightmare. Life truly is, what you make of it. “For this is your world. Its the form of realty you perceive.”(Anno, Ep 26)

0 notes