Ian andrews on Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:42:40 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime>the myth of democracy and reactivism |
>On the last panel of the TiLt conference, which was entitled "Sabotaging the >New World Order", a panelist spoke about what he saw as a reactive culture in >activism (both media and other kinds as far as I remember) that operates in >opposition to things (is 'anti') but doesn't propose alternatives, as well as >the idea of 'reinvigorating' democracy (I'm going off my memory here, so this >may not be an exact recreation of his talk. This was the basic gist of it as >far as I remember though). > >Quite a few people, both on the panel and in the audience, received his talk >quite well. > >I didn't though. The panelist in question was Marcus Westbury. I have forwarded your critique to him. Marcus said that he might post a write up of his talk to Nettime soon. I think its pretty unfair to engage in a critique of a talk exclusively from your own memory of it, especially when you attribute quotes to that person which are highly inaccurate. I found his talk refreshing and inspiring because it opened up a field of inquiry which is hardly ever brought up in forums of this type. Too often these confernences are dominated by constant presentation of the same sets of ideas (with minor variations), which are received with nods of approval from an audience of the pre-converted. It was interesting to hear something which, instead, stimulated thought, questions and arguments. I will not give a representation of Marcus' talk from my own memory of it. Rather I will try to concentrate on certain resonances between his ideas and those that I expressed in my previous post where suggested the use of a certain spirit of Marx (and the Enlightenment) in combination with a reconfiguration of democracy. >"Get back to the 'real' democracy" I don't think Marcus said anything resembling this at all. I did hear him say something about resurrecting useful tools from the historical concept of democracy such as the "seperation of powers" (police, judiciary, church, parliament, etc.). Its not a question of a return to some previous era, or some idealised past. Its more a question of utilising tools, finding new mechanisms, creating new structures that can help provide a means toward affirming social change, while avoiding the duplication of current power relations, and avoiding the solidification of these ideas into doctrine. Democratic processes, of some form or other, along with a certain irreducible idea of justice (disassociated from law), such as the (Western) concept of human rights, seem to me at the present, to be the only way forward from our present position, to affect global social change, and assume a universal responsibilty for the planet, without falling into the Western trap of attempting to represent the desires of the other. I have suggested previously that we combine these tools with what Derrida refers to as "a certain spirit of Marx," namely, a critique that can undertake its own self-critique, which resists solidification into ideological dogma, and must be distinguished from all the apparatuses of the Marxist state, party, etc (and which also must avoid the onto-theological movement of Hegelian dialectics). . >Democracy as an ideal / idea is constantly thrown up - from the Zapatisitas to >international NGO's to the idea of participatory democracy on the blockade to >parliamentary democracy (the most common form of the ideal/idea). > >The basic concept though, is the latter - the kind of parliamentary democracy >that is characterised and associated with the Nation-State. The basic concept >is not informed by current realities - ie, we don't generally associate >oligarchy with democracy thought this is what democracy in its most general >sense current amounts too (and has pretty much always amounted too). This raises some questions. Is it possible for democracy (or any other social order)to exist independently of the nation-state? Can we dispense of the institution of the nation state without dispensing with the concept of public ownership, or perhaps more importantly, channels and mechanisms of public control? Is it enough to want to replace the concept of the nation-state with something which is merely its idealized negation (or even something which is unthought). The suggestion that some kind of society that can naturally evolve outside of the nation-state schema, that would be a "society in which we wish to live" simply by _not_ being a nation-state, this simple state-denial, embodies an even greater idealism than the ideal of democracy. This particular anti-state brand of idealism seems to carry with it all the problems of right-wing born again Christian idealism, or even neo-liberal free market idealism, for me to feel comfortable with it. I think the challenge here is to rethink democracy from the perspective of the public sphere whilst, at the same time resisting the power relations of the capitalist (or any other) nation state. For example, one of the most urgent questions of today involves the question of resposibility. As governments absolve themselves of responsibility, handing it over to market forces, where it vaporises under the dubious principle of trickle down economics, the question returns: who will take responsibilty? Who will take responsibility for the dispossed, the economically discarded, the environment, world health, etc. The answer must be "all of us." But we need some mechanism to do this. I can't say what this could be, at the moment, but I would suggest that it involves a number of strategies, including the rethinking of the concept of the state that radically distances it from paternalism, and that incorporates, as Marcus suggested, the idea (from the liberal democratic state) of the seperation of powers, and a multiplicity of channels (perhaps through autonomous social actors). Also the relationship of activist groups to the (a) state also needs to be rethought. I find highly problematic the familiar situation where activist opposition _to_ the very concept of the nation-state is presented simmultaneously with demands for responsibility _from_ the nation-state. >"The notion of "one person, one vote," for example, was one of the ideals >toward which the various modern schema of popular representation and >sovereignty tended. There is no need for us to argue here that these schema of >popular have always been imperfect and in fact largely illusory. There have >long been important critiques of the mechanisms of popular representation in >modern democratic societies. It is perhaps an exaggeration to characterize >elections as an opportunity to choose which member of the ruling class will >misrepresent the people for the next two, four, or six years, but there is >certainly some truth in it too and low voter turnout is undoubtedly a symptom >of the crisis of popular representation through electoral institutions." > >The question is not "how do we bring about a 'real' democracy", for there >is no >'real' democracy to base any comparison on. The question is, does this myth >have an power to bring about a society in which we wish to live? > >I'd say no - its (his)tory is so tainted, from mercantilism, imperialism, >class >division, patriarchy, racismŠetc, that it is near impossible to 'clear out' >the concept and make it usable. Does the concept of democracy neccessarily have to be intertwined with capitalism, even though its (recent) history has been so? It has been the familiar line of Western propaganda (particularly US) that the exportation of democracy can only be achieved by establishing free market capitalism. The propaganda argument goes something like this: the free market is the means to democracy, which is the end, ie. the idealised concept of democracy is used as a justification for capitalism. Where as the reverse is more to the point: democracy is the means to the free market, which becomes the end. In other words the ideal of democracy is used by capitalism as (imperialist) tool to expand its markets. But does this ensure that the use of the non-idealized, or pragmatic, concept of democracy as a tool to achieve other outcomes, should remain an impossibility? Also, the whole history of suffrage, from the time when only the property holding elite (men) were entitled to elect their parliamentry representatives, to the present situation of universal suffrage, is characterised much more as a movement _away_ from class division, patriarchy and racism. Though, of course, this is not to say that universal suffrage has eliminated these evils which are deep rooted. We must remember that these rights were not "granted" by the ruling class, the invisible hand of the market, or any of the traditional configurations of power, but were won by resistance and struggle. However, universal suffrage,like the liberal democratic state, should not be regarded as an absolute ideal, the end of history, or the ultimate high point of civilisation, but rather as part of the political toolkit that we have at our disposal. This trajectory of democratic reforms had its beginning with the Enlightenment, and it is precisely this trajectory, away from the traditions, religion and mythology that fostered patriarchy and racism, that I would not like to see jettisoned (with the nation-state) in the new order. There are also more substantial problems with >the myth, the issue of 'representation' being the most important. Also, a myth >so laden with historical baggage is all to easy prey for recuperation by the >powers that we would claim it from. Its (his)tory makes it an 'unbalanced >sword', always leaning towards its past of mercantilism, imperialism, class >division, patriarchy, racismŠetc in 'mythical' and cultural warfare. I think what is missing here is the role of the mass media. The mainstream media, owned by the the ruling class, carry all of this baggage and, to a large extent, determine what democracy is. I believe that it is the media, more than any other political institution, that succeed in radically narrowing the scope of democratic choice. One way they do this is by making sure that the political adgenda is dominated by economic concerns. Political parties must play the game and add up all the accounts, balance the books, and conform to the puritan ideal of "thrift" in order to appear to be credible. This limits the possibility of any long term vision, and hence any possibility of social change. Progressive political parties, forced to reduce their ideas to a banal economic register, become pale reflections of the conservative parties If anything, the scope of democracy needs to be expanded, perhaps in much the same way that the scope of the labour movement expanded in the late 1960s. I really think that we need to actively affirm some ideas for progressive social change, not only for those who have been (traditionally) subjugated by capitalism, but also those who have been incorporated into capitalism (such as the mums and dads, superannuants, etc), and those who have been simply discarded by capitalism. The prospect of a revolution against capitalism is extremely remote, unless it comes, as you suggested, from the South, in which case it would be so bloody that it would make the 20th century look like a picnic. There is no longer any opportunity for making deals (such as productivity deals) with capitalism (to liberalise it), since there is no longer anything (like the threat of communism) to bargain with. We must look for new strategies, new tools.... Ian Andrews Metro Screen Sydney Email: i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au http://www.metroscreen.com.au 1981 - 2001 Metro Screen is a celebrating 20 years of access and innovation in independent screen production. Metro Screen Sydney Film Centre Paddington Town Hall P.O. Box 299 Paddington NSW 2021 Ph : 612 9361 5318 Fax: 612 9361 5320 # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net