Reflections on EXT/INT-version

I think we've essentialized the categories of 'introvert' and 'extrovert' to the point of absurdity. It's not as if we received an INT v. an EXT stamp at birth. We live in circumstances and and are formed by the pressures of a real, living, and dynamic social situation and our basic coping mechanisms on a daily basis reflect these, as we must fit ourselves to its pressures. Seeing our own basic relating tendencies as intrinsic is kind of a problematic way of looking at human behavior then. http://betweenletters.quora.com/How-to-Live-With-Introverts?ref=fb

Artistic Ramblings

I find artist descriptions to be interesting. Often they are attempts to rationalize and ascribe logic to the lives of individuals who go on to produce things, reading into those artistic objects their aspirations, experiences, tendencies, hopes, thoughts and ideas. But is art so simple, as with political protest, or really, any kind of human action and endeavor? There is no formula like artwork=experiences+thoughts*materialresourcesforexpression. This is a delusional byproduct of certain modes of inquiry that seek to homogenize and explain to the point of absurdity. There is an enormous amount of creative agency, of decision and deliberation, consideration and determination that will forever be beyond or outside of what we can render intelligible and reproducible. Art does not fatalistically follow from events but is one of the most real and profound examples of human agency and capacity to produce something from nothing, to take what is and to transform it into something completely new and novel, fashioning objects that subsequently inhabit the world and inform how we think and live and be. This is why we must protect the space and stature of the artist, whatever project they they actually engage in; their work is key to the stability of our world and our own ability to continue residing - and doing so happily and contentedly - within it.

Non Profits are Not the Solution

There is something deeply problematic about the nonprofit, as it parades as a beneficent, moral institution that fulfills and satisfies some mission but does so at the cost of its workers. I say this without the proper literary substantiation, a project that may come from this. But speaking from personal experience, administrators and managers use the mission statement as an excuse or perhaps as a tool to under-compensate employees. Exploiting a downturned market and reduced prospects for continuing or graduating students, the program systematically undervalues them by undercompensating.

Undervaluing is itself a phenomenon worth examining, as it has myriad psychological and physical effects, all of which are infinitely prominent in our own society. In undercompensating individuals, a company shows their lack of appreciation for their services, based on some kind of market calculation of what is in demand and what is available.

This is where the Market serves little purpose but to justify the efficiency-seeking denigration of workers. Similarly, a hierarchical command structure, expressed in management decision-making and supervisorial relationships, basically justifies autocratic attitudes and the predispositions of individuals to control others. In my own experience, this translates into passive-aggressive behavior where outright conflict is thought to lay in wait or has already occurred.

We need a whole new way of organizing that is liberated from the constraints of efficiency and from the chronic and seriously devastating undercompensation of workers. A part of this fight will be subverting the very theories that underpin such management practices. Another will be a radical reorganization of earning flows.

It is surprising, for all of the harmful effects crushing debt and recurrent bullying have had on the financial woes of citizens around the globe and our nations high school students, that private industry remains so uncompromisingly tied to a structure that is so psychologically damaging and spiritually effacing, too.

These are no empty claims either. Self-actualization, a Rogerian concept, is virtually impossible in said management structure, the likes of which predominates in the United States. How may we be able to find ourselves if we are constantly being ordered and directed to do this and that project? How can we really separate work and post-work? This aspect of the work world seems so essential to it as to make it possibly definitive of it.

As I write this, I'm reminded of a story a starbuck's employee friend told me. A dissatisfied customer, after having left the store and nearly consumed their drink, decided it appropriate to call starbucks and complain their inability to reach, with a straw, the last few drops of coffee remaining. they proceeded to castigate whomever they reached, using the opportunity likely to vent frustrations accrued from so many other places, aggression that is understandable and rational but misplaced. It likely even derived from problematic work relationships, as I see it.

 I'm sure there are myriad and easily explicable examples to be found everywhere, and yet it continues and often with the rationalization that it was only single individuals, populating managerial spots and inhabit the system itself that deformed and misapplied its mandate, but I argue a different position. The very notion of hierarchy and reduction of the power of decision-making is itself problematic. In the work place, for human beings to be treated as human beings, we must struggle to proliferate these spaces, creating new hopes for direction organizations in different directions and even for a self-setting of the environmental conditions.

And yet, we are forced to maintain our participation here, as we must work to survive, to achieve subsistence and some modicum of autonomy over ourselves and our progress. Here is the binding constraint that prevents all movement.

Capitalism and Human Bonds

This morning, as I was re-listening to a song I excitedly shared with a friend to solicit their thoughts, I realized that I was listening to work of art that reflected the prevailing conditions of production as much as any economic textbook might attempt to do.  The song lamentedly recalls the challenge of creating new social bonds, of accepting the dissolution or disrepair of old ones and even prescribes and active and distracted form of coping with such changing social relationships. The melody is light-hearted but taut and energetically, unrelentingly and resolutely but hopefully defiant. The audience to which the musicians play is of a distraught generation, appraised of the challenges of creating long term bonds amidst the constant pushing and pulling of capitalist productive means and their constant tendency for establishing the constraints and limits and conditions of social connections. This is the logic of the market. As competition inevitably requires changing flows, humans implicated in the system (symbolized as figures and variables themselves) are subject to its logic as much as any capital. They are forced to adapt to a world in which lasting human relationships are not the norm and perhaps not even what is celebrated as the highest form. Even a quick look at divorce statistics may substantiate this point.

Whether this is negative is another question, entirely, however, and one that I'm not necessarily or mainly concerned with. Many positive relationships exist and come from this particular social formation. Even new or recapitulated forms like polyamory are worth discussion here, as they attempt to find a kind of medium by establishing lasting connections with some but leaving open the possibility of including others in one's life. This system is not perfect either but is perhaps a stopgap measure, but it all falls apart if the communication component is seen lacking, as trust itself is called into question. What concerns me is that Capitalism as an economic system does carry with it particular kinds of social formations, and as I'm always looking for ways in which to disclose the reality, existence and peculiarity of of capitalism (much like Brecht or in his emulation), its particular nature and how it affects our lives uniquely, relationships became a natural part of this attempt. Our very human bonds are immersed in and conditioned by productive relations, as much as we attempt to extricate or hide ourselves. They are determined by our working lives, our need for food and sociality, our adherence and conformity to the working day and engagement in forms of investment, communication and entertainment. It is impossible to depart from being Capitalistic within Capitalism, but one certainly can be critical. And, as the only potential avenue for creating a new world, critique may be the only viable tool we have for staying ourselves against the depredations of the system and the multiplicity of effects it has, that we are a part of, that seem disconnected, fragmentary and contradictory. But, if you look closer, if you think about songs like this and related works of art as forged within this milleu, then you begin to see the parallel logics, you see how much sense it all makes.

Do not resist these analyses. See their validity and accept them and live with them. Living genuinely and sincerely and self-honestly is the only way in which one can be faithful to others and to a higher project of alleviating inequality and domination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIA5e4esp1g

Post-Marxist Mutterings...

Last night, after seeing Dirty Wars, a documentary on J. Scahill's book, which catalogs his findings regarding various 'obscene' military programs that go far beyond the pale of what is normally considered acceptable and justified given the extant 'threats' to freedom that exist. The movie was engaging and well-paced; the major critique I had was one that another uttered, what a girl I met there named Emma observed: that, in spite of its effective representation of particular instances involving recent wars, it's completely silent on the historical trend of which this is only a singular instance and small part. Notably, there is complete omission and mum-wording about US support for and intervention into various Latin American states at different stages in the history of the region. Imperialism is as American as apple pie, and as much a part of our relations with external countries as any other method or technique. I firmly assent to her observation and feel this would've solidified and generalized some of the overly particular claims implied or advanced in the film.

Although the film was interesting, it sparked an even more engaging conversation, one that prompted me to return to reading books that I haven't in some time now. In conversation with some old friends and some new friends, we spoke of what could be done given the prevailing conditions of oppression and domination. As is often the case, one almost immediately put forth the option of revolution, which is always frustrating to me. It's obvious and easy to say such a thing and not at all interesting or helpful to any project of actually conceiving of steps to take to address concrete problems. This stuck with me, and makes me realize that I probably can't learn much from them as far as my own knowledge of my particular area of interest goes. But having this conversation did remind me of this, but how I may go about pursuing them is still up in the air.

Two areas of concern stayed with me as I left the bar yesterday evening, along with a feeling of fallenness and a general sense that my opinions and observations were falling on deaf, unappreciative ears, or perhaps just those that didn't know how to listen to and incorporate what I was saying into their world views, which is something I should consider more strongly as well. The first regards violence. Often, advocates of revolution express (often naive) willingness to stomach and tolerate violence for some higher purpose or goal. Such a promise of one's body and others' bodies has a kind of profound and dramatic cast of high-stakes to it, that the prevailing conditions are so unconscionably intolerable that they can no longer be stomached. But I think that such claims often lack the kind of support or justification I feel they need. And they are often redolent of hot-headedness as much as anything else. My own hesitation with violence, in contrast, resides in a deep investiture of trust in Arendt's observations both on the trauma of various wars and failures of economic planning and the fact that violence itself is just not productive, only destructive. If we hope to create revolution, then it must mainly be based on a kind of democratic polity that represents a kind of power in discourse and dialogue. As well, given the high-stakes of advanced military technologies, so much more killing is possible; though Baudrillard might contest my claim in arguing the strength of the signal such technologies send and how they actually prevent the actual use of them. This aside, violence should not be taken lightly, and this is why I want to say that I'm against it on principle. Perhaps I could find a situation where I would think it acceptable and even preferred. But generally, unless there is a categorical decision to eliminate this option entirely, then what happens is we must trust those making the decision to judge the ends appropriate for such means. And this decision is normally not opened to many, as it should, and it often lends itself to the influence of many other interests, some perhaps monied, which may see benefit to the adoption and implementation of such policies. In any event, this is why I somewhat-firmly claim a non-violent position, and I depart from Chomsky here. Permitting violence at all lends itself to a means-ends calculation that may not satisfy general desires of what is actually permitted. And again we are removed from the political process.

It is at this point that my second major contribution enters. In turning the conversation to matters of political engagement and apathy, I highlighted the importance of ideology, of those aspects of our lives that reinforce our positions in a given political economy and entrench us in our daily habits and the justness of our routine and contributions to reproducing capitalism. This point, too, fell on deaf ears, and they seemed entirely uninterested in pursuing or following the point. In pursuit of developing today, I went back and read sections in Boltanski and Chiapello's The New Spirit of Capitalism to think on these ideas more, and I encountered some worthwhile thoughts to meditate on. Boltanski proposes a new way of understanding ideology, different even from a marxist one but compatible with what I was trying to get at yesterday. In discussing ideology, I wanted to stress how such a semiological system of justification is tied up with personal conflicts over what is worth one's own work and contribution. That is, I want to grant what marxists often do not and that is each person has a need to feel their work is worthwhile further than just what they can get back in profit or self-aggrandizement. This is one of the driving arguments of the book, reminiscent of A. Smith and the theoretical construction of the invisible hand. Basically 'the hand' gave people this sense that they could work and live and their contributions would in a roundabout way turn into general social welfare and betterment. This is exactly the kind of legitimation that Boltanski was referring to and what I tried to get at last night, or at least in part. Additionally, I wanted to discuss the significance of studying works of entertainment and what they teach us about what is acceptable and worth our own commitments of time. In any case, B's observations are profound because they humanize even the capitalist, and recognize that they too are caught in this system, and in a way left precarious but still see it is a preferred to other systems. In so doing, he also implies that, once they no longer feel such things, there may be potential for change. Even Marx didn't so far as to say this, or at least as far as my knowledge of his work goes. But it is nonetheless an important consideration, something to remember.

These were the two main points I was trying to make during the course of the conversation, and what I feel activists and marxists need to hear, to understand that they are working with people too and people that deserve consideration, as selfish as they may be in many instances. But the fact I wasn't heard wasn't the only reason I left the conversation a little upset. I think, in the short time knowing her, I'd developed a minute crush on the girl, and I felt my own lack of recognition was somehow tied up in such interest, in some way or another. As well, I think I really can only be around people in such situations for around 2 hours or so before feeling awkward and needing my to return to hole to read again. Oh, the habits I've developed...

In any event, another day has finished, and another is to come...