Passivity as power?
A while ago I wrote a short text for a friend's theater piece. Both the method and subject of the piece had to do with the inclusion and role of the spectator/ participant/ audience etc, both in the work itself and in culture/ society as a whole. I have known this friend for quite some time now, and can well remember our discussions about the passifying effect of popular media (medium - television, one-way-communication). Its the inspirations of Society and the Spectacle, the analysis of how we turn into spectators, a role that we are neither allowed or desiring to get out of.We did some projects together even, I illustrated for their magazine, and the point was always to activate, motivate; "Come lets do something REAL".
In the piece the audience was restricted to 6 people. We were all equipped with headphones and thereby an individualized soundtrack guiding us through the events. As we performed the acts instrued to us, and spoke the words to our "co-performer/audience" that were told to us, we became both the work itself, not only the others, but also the self. I became separated from my body - so to speak - and observed my own performance with the same distanciated interest as the rest, or the decor for that matter.
In the text (originally written in SWE) - and its funny, I can't remember now if I wrote it before or after seeing the show (it must have been before) I talk of the allure of passivity, of giving in to being an avatar guided by the voice in the headphones. My question was in the end, if there was any revolutionary power in passivity.
http://readings-notes-ideas.blogspot.se/2012/09/avatarvaro.html
And the idea for sure is alluring: That you can give in to power, lay off responsibility, and still be radical, still make resistance (against what, like, exactly?). The text ends:
What comes next. Through the darkness.
Perhaps the only insight is that there is only more darkness, and if we hand over the power it will further or later be used against us.
Or perhaps - apart from the various monsters of humanity - there are caverns deep down in the dark, in the shapeless, blunt betweenspace where only the Avatars can fit.
And perhaps that is the strength of the avatars. Beyond the competition of the "I"s they are gathering an underground army. ;-))
However, I wasn't ever sure if I bought this argument myself. In a time when any leftist party in the West is struggling with a major identity crisis, I agree with the attempt to find new strategies and points of radical perspective. I also understand that people are seeking new collectivities and ways to confirm these.
I remember I read Zizek's "Shoplifters of the world unite" and I had a plan to write a "part 2".
In the end though, I am very doubtful of the radical potential in passivity (in this form) and also of the resistance of the masses as manifested through Twitter, FB, Slacktivism, or army of avatars. Timely, my previous notions seem to have been thought up by more people than me, and only today have I stumbled into several similar ideas of passivity/ irrationality/ resistance.
I guess I can divide the problem in two categories - 1) The problems of the radical potential in passivity 2) the problems of the assumed democratic and radical(?) potential of the decentralized mass (of people mainly using social media a lot).
First, at lunch, I was reading "Paletten" (SWE arts magazine) an article called About Irrationality* which basically connects irrationality with a non-violent strategy of resistance. The idea is that such a strategy is effective in that it changes the focus of the conflict; What would happen if the resistance abandoned the seemingly rational response of opposition and instead focuses on the structures that are the premises of the struggle and challenges the rigid positions of the opponents? Or with other words: What would happen if the resistance stopped resisting and instead focus on changing the rules of the game?**
But is this not reform? Is this not simply trying to find whatever position is left available? I do agree that changing the rules of the game is a relevant (but as often a self-evident part of any struggle - its not news that whoever is in power makes up the rules -), but from where does it draw its source of power if not from the opposition? Is the opposition not essential for the resistance? Or, we are back to, resistance to what? For the sake of it? But then, both Zizek and Mouffe speak of liberalism as a system bent on constant radicalism against the old, the traditional. It parasites on preexisting systems of moral and understanding - drawing its power from the promise of emanciption from those. In this context, are we simply seeking a new form, completely in tune with the dominant paradigm, of radicalism without substance?
Then, I was listening to the radio whilst drawing. It was a joking SWE show on P1 called "Spanarna" (14 sept) where they discuss new tendencies etc. One of the participants, Helena von Zweigbergh, talked about a phenomenon that we can call "The spectator has become the star". Basically it had to do with how much media focus is placed on the audience (as of late... I guess), photographs of celebrities acting funny when watching something has been circulated widely, newspages are opened up for Twitter/ FB comments and such comments are included as NEWS. In the show the questions were asked if this is a sign that we are breaking down old hierarchies? If its a form of resistance? If is a new form of collectivity?
Its rather late and I need to cook some food. I will end this stream of thoughts with again:
1) The problems of
the radical potential in passivity
2) The problems of the assumed
democratic and radical(?) potential of the decentralized mass (of people
mainly using social media a lot).
I can't help but thinking that in these new collectivities, in this new resistance, there is no thought, its like a headless body, the mass high on being many. I think the French Revolution was a very important step in the history of freedom, fredom of speach etc, but the memory of the guilliotine should serve as a reminder to not loosing our head and neither give in to those in power, or to the power of the headless (pun noticed and smirked at) mass.
*("Om irrationalitet")
**("Vad händer om motståndet överger den synbarligen rationella responsen "öga mot öga" och istället sätter fokus på de strukturer som är kampens förutsättning och utmanar de fastlåsta positionerna hos opponenterna? Eller med andra ord: Vad händer om motståndet slutar göra motstånd och istället inriktar sig på att ändra spelets regler?")
Stockholm
12-09-16
