Patrice Riemens on Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:15:07 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Deborah Orr: What does idealism get you today? Abuse, derision, or sometimes prison (Guardian) |
Original to: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/03/what-does-idealism-get-you What does idealism get you today? Abuse, derision, or sometimes prison By Deborah Orr, The Guardian, Saturday 3-5 August 2013 >From Bradley Manning to the Jane Austen banknote campaigners to 'outsider artists', the world does not seem to favour those acting on idealist principles these days. Is it just me, or do these feel like very strange days indeed? The world is holding its breath ? and it's stifling. Ever since the financial crash, there's been a sense of stasis, of waiting to see what emerges. As the wait goes on, the feeling of contingency becomes more oppressive. The whimsical slogan that appeared in the immediate wake of the crisis, "Keep calm and carry on", makes all right-thinking people want to hurl. But that's largely because people aren't just keeping calm. A pervasive air of resignation has taken over. Sure, there's lots of protest on social networking sites, lots of declarations, petitions, information. Yet, this feels like converted people are preaching to each other, their ideas and beliefs only gaining traction when opponents resort to anonymous abuse and threats. Far from bringing people together, social networking sometimes seems only to reveal the depths of our division. The US, self-appointed standard-bearer of western freedom, is likely to jail Bradley Manning for a couple of lifetimes because he revealed the electronic messages that those who see themselves as running the world prefer to keep secret. Yet Edward Snowden is on the run, in justified fear of similar punishment, because he did the opposite, and let the world know that those who see themselves as running it, do not afford anyone else the privacy that they insist is their right. The them-and-us mentality that the elite imposes on its citizens is so painfully obvious. Yet public anger against these twin insults is muted. In part, this is because the scale of the abuse is almost too large to grasp. But it's also because individual resistance seems futile. Look, as you are meant to, at what has become of the individuals who resisted. All this is done in the name of protecting us from terrorism. But it wasn't terrorism that brought the world to the brink of collapse. It was finance, and the way that it's conducted. The banking sector, far from being a rogue element in an otherwise functioning international society, is best viewed as a microcosm, the powerful motor of a machine for wielding control by dividing and ruling. The failure of banking indicates the failure of the whole shebang. Maybe that's just too big a failure for the world to acknowledge yet. Instead, the struggle is to heave the wounded creature back on its feet, come what may. In the mainstream media, even when it is being critical, human development and endeavour is reduced to the same old numbers game. Cuts in public services aren't wrong because they cause suffering. They're wrong because they won't help "recovery". The beast is perceived as in need of rehabilitation, when its malaise is more likely to be incurable. The conventional idea is banal ? that economic growth will return, and things will "pick up". That viewpoint insists that this interstitial period is coming to an end, that things are picking up now, getting back to "normal". But does anyone understand what "normal" will be? After all these years and all that talk, the bailouts, the new regulations, the promises of "never again", the banking crisis isn't over. Barclays has announced a giant hole in its finances; the Co-operative Bank is in jeopardy. These were banks that seemed to have survived the eruption of 2007-8, only to fall victim to huge aftershocks. The eurozone sits precariously, its initial argument that the banking crisis was "Anglo-Saxon" long forgotten, as it too awaits developments, unpredictable beyond the certainty that they won't be pleasant. Far from offering a cohesive blueprint for a safer and more secure future, politics feels entirely opportunistic. The Conservatives are removing state support as quickly as they can, their gamble presumably being that, come the next boom, there will be an excellent supply of people eager to work hard for low wages. The Lib Dems? They have sacrificed all hope of the change they once offered as a third party, just when hope and change are needed most. Worse, Labour seems just as irrelevent as the Lib Dems. As for the rising stars ? Ukip ? that's a populist party that offers only one thing ? placing all blame elsewhere, with the EU. The best that can be said of them is that they are not the English Defence League, an affiliation of pale, bloated losers who also fail to see that by continually blaming others for their woes, they advertise only their inadequacy in the face of the task of renewal. Most eerily, even the voices that were raised against the frightening rapaciousness of global capitalism while it was still in its pomp, pre-crash, seem more muted now, not less. Instead of being a vociferous member of the campaign to Make Poverty History, the Church of England offers credit unions space in its buildings, to wage war on Wonga, before retreating in embarrassment when it was revealed that the CofE invests in Wonga itself. The Occupy movement ? its flagship camp of course rejected by the CofE ? was easily dismissed for its amateurism, in a world that expects every message, whatever its content, to be delivered with all the gloss and style that only money can buy. Other recent protests ? against student loans or the inchoate opportunism of the English riots ? have been not just unattractive, but self-defeating. Environmentalism is not the mainstream force it came so close to being. Single-issue campaigning, via social networks, offers some sense of purchase for the individuals heading the campaigns as well as the masses signing petitions. And yet, women being threatened with rape or bombing because they have succeeded in getting Jane Austen on a banknote ? can there be any more potent example of the sense that there are all sorts of wild resentments out there? People seek a focus for their hatred without leaving their bedrooms, their personal narrative so bleak and negative that they reject it themselves, by remaining anonymous. The saddest thing is that those Twitter threats represent a desire to dismiss idealism of any kind ? even modest idealism ? as naïve, cranky, threatening. This week, visiting London's Hayward Gallery, I looked at the Alternative Guide to the Universe. This group show is the work of outsider artists interested in depicting imaginary utopian cities. A Congolese model-maker, Bodys Isek Kingelez, constructs polished junk models of buildings he would like to see in "the modern society of the third millennium where there will be lasting peace, justice and universal freedom". The Polish artist, Jan Gluszak Dagarama, offers his drawings of his "personal dream of an ideal city ? Humanopolis". AG Rizzoli's fantasy world is called YTTE ? "Yield to Total Elation". In William Scott's re-imagined San Francisco, there is an "emphasis on dancing and happiness". How sad it is that dreaming such dreams renders you an "outsider", untrained in the technicalities of the possible, designing buildings that won't be built, cities that won't be funded and prioritising such economically non-viable human possibilities as wellbeing. Insiders subscribe only to the art of the possible, or so they like to tell us. Waiting for these guys to come up with answers, with inspiring or moving visions? That's going to be a long and sterile wait. And idealism? Ask Manning and Snowden. It's a criminal offence. ? This article was amended on 5 August 2013. An earlier version said that Bradley Manning had been jailed, when his sentencing hearing is ongoing. # 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: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org