'Not Now, Not Ever!'

Julia Gillard's epic anti-sexist Parliamentary speech set to music

http://boingboing.net/2014/03/17/julia-gillards-epic-anti-sex.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

FYI - an occasional alternative to amazon

http://www.newsfromnowhere.org.uk/

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-interpassive-subject/

Painting from life....

http://hyperallergic.com/99056/the-people-behind-your-images-of-luxury/

Search Harvey, Graeber, Massey

http://selforganizedseminar.wordpress.com/library/

Slapstick and social observation: Beryl Reid 1968

Levels of false consciousness

Regarding a conversation I had with Corey after watching the final instalment of "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", about the myth of racial superiority within the population of The Congo which was proliferated by the Belgian colonial masters, ultimately, as a means of divide and rule; specifically, the psychology of the subjects, both perpetrators and victims:

The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk (more a liberal than a socialist) described cynicism as a third level of false consciousness: first comes deceit (being the perpetrator or the victim of it), then comes ideology (‘they don’t know it, but they’re doing it’ - Slavoj Zizek paraphrasing Marx), and finally there is cynicism. The cynic knows the falseness of what he is doing and yet he does it all the same. This might sound like deceit but there is an important difference. The deceiver deceives for his own immediate gain, i.e. in order to overcome something; he still retains a sense of struggle with the world, even if he is on the side of the victor and not the victim. The deceiver’s Nietzschean instinct, his will to power, is still intact. Whereas the cynic has decisively abandoned all of this. This isn’t to say that he lacks self interest - he has plenty of it. But he has successfully dissolved his self interest in the great sea of the status quo. He draws every sustenance, every vital need from submission to the status quo. What’s missing from the emotional profile of the cynic are things like joy, sadness, courage - and yes, anger.

http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/opinion/16546-antidotes-to-cynicism-and-fear-a-reply-to-dan-hodges

New Collaborative Project - Plus, regular soup kitchens.

I have no specific thoughts on this other than I would like to imagine a form developing from our collaboration,the substance of our meetings and our conversations.
I feel that we need to gather momentum and push ourselves into a joint show I want to see rush of creative enlivening the autumn and winter to welcome 2014.
I want a deadline and the stress of a performance to get to and leave behind.  I want the mess on the floor and the trail of evidence that we were out there. I want to raise the stakes and watch the strains develop and see different strengths and self awareness become apparent in the group. In a sense there is a forge that puts a material under intense heat and pressure and in the process transforms it.
I desire criticism - positive and negative.  I am happy for mine and other peoples ideas to be challenged examined, reexamined, agreed with and then re- disagreed with, it is all fine.  It is all healthy and constructive.
We need to regroup and I need to get out my notes and start on my 'This is Week......', this in a sense is a ritual of commencement of a new meet.
The date of the new meet will be the Tuesday 22nd October 2013 for me, this is because it is the next date when I will re-attend for a gathering that is solely a meeting: as opposed to a film and conversation.
I have to decide on whether it will be week 1 and make a division with the early part of the collaboration meetings or should it be continuous?
The soup kitchens should be revisited but when they are on and around meetings the food should be prepared and be cooking while we have a disciplined shorter meeting.
I have given a lot of 'I's, in this small piece but I am simply being honest and opening up my thoughts for others to hopefully muse on too.

Let's make lots of...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JuHIRrt5lCI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJuHIRrt5lCI

Frank Kafka 'The Law' and excerpt from 'The Trial' narrated by Orson Welles.

Before the Law

Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this first one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud; later, as he grows old, he only mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has also come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. 

Before his death he gathers in his head all his experiences of the entire time up into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body. The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the great difference has changed things considerably to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you still want to know now?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance wasassigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”

 

Notes on GILROY.

THERE AIN'T NO BLACK IN THE UNION JACK. (1987)

There is a loss of a collective 'black' population, which was meant to stand for all that is not white (Caribbean, Asian, African etc).

CAPITAL VS LABOUR

LABOUR VS CAPITAL

(Inflates class solidarity and plays down the power of racism)

Gilroy wants the book, in the 21st century, to 'make 'race' and racism into social and political phenomena once again.'

SHALL I ACCEPT THIS RESPONSIBILITY?

Gilroy views poverty, exploitation and economic marginalisation as eternal capacities of 'race' to divide and engage.
'...'race' is nothing special, a virtual reality given meaning only by the fact that racism endures.'

'...(measured in health, life expectancy, educational achievement and economic achievement) life chances for the black and minorities show a 'worsening combination of inequality, poverty and misery.''

“MULTI-CULTURAL CONSUMERISM HAS BEEN PITTED AS MORE UNIFYING IN THE STANCE OF EQUALITY THAN DISCUSSIONS OF RACE AND MINORITY MARGINALISATION.”

Instead of...

REFUGEES and ASYLUM SEEKERS,

Gilroy prefers these much more suitable phrases...

POST-COLONIAL + SANCTUARY-SEEKING PEOPLES

Gilroy argues that race should not be confused with the class struggle. It is something separate to that. 

His position with many existing positions, in their definition and understanding of 'race', are their 'capacity first to define blacks in the problem/victim couplet and then expel them from historical being altogether.'

Anti-racism must respond by 'revealing and restoring the historical dimensions of black life in this country.'

Gilroy argues that 'racism is not a unitary event based on psychological aberration nor some ahistorical antipathy to blacks.'

There is too much focus on the blacks as a problem/victim and it is time for them to be brought out this category. There is a need for much more education in the historical character of the blacks.

RACE AND RACISM IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN A POLITICAL CLASS STRUGGLE, BUT A DISCRIMINATION WITHIN FORMS OF SOCIAL SUBORDINATION. 

“The form of the state structures the form of political struggles.”

Classes are defined by their struggles. Different supposed classes can come together as one within a class struggle. This empathy unites, clearly defining class separately to race.

“BLACK YOUTH”

RACE, CLASS, CLASS RELATIONS, CLASS STRUGGLE.

Gilroy poses the question as to how these forms of class can come to be political organised outfit. 

(This was a great question posed in the 80's but is there an undeniable answer in the 21st century with the use of Twitter? I'm thinking of its crucial role in the riots of 2011)

Gilroy argues that 'racial signifiers' are backed up only by the 'ideological work which has been done to turn them into signifiers in the first place.'

...'RACE AS AN OPEN POLITICAL CATEGORY, FOR IT IS A STRUGGLE THAT DETERMINES WHICH DEFINITIONS OF RACE WILL PREVAIL AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WILL ENDURE OR WITHER AWAY.'

This occurs through racial signifiers/stereotypes.

'CONTEMPORARY RACE POLITICS'

It is dangerous to allow political powers to continue with racial signifiers and ideologies as practices that sustain them and create them become less stable and more contradictory.

'THE ORDER OF RACIAL POWER RELATIONS HAS BECOME MORE SUBTLE AND ELUSIVE.'

Categorical imperative

on behalf of Kate

http://geographicalimaginations.com/2013/07/24/theory-of-the-drone-2-hunting/

we the people

shocking and wonderful…

read this

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/28/3065359/moral-mondays-not-over-yet.html

now be cheered and watch this

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/01/3074876/video-moral-monday-in-review.html

The Pursuit of Justice

Masque of Anarchy

Injustice

Injustice is the film we watched at the Tuesday meeting. For those that didn't get a chance to see it and those that would like to see it again it is here

You can’t let certain things happen without adding to the conversation...This happened following the women's wimbledon tennis finals - what to do???

Q&A on Etiquette

PATRICIA

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative  environment?

At every meeting.

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

Barriers lessening through laughter and familiarity. Negotiations that are deeply acted out, subtleties in changes of thinking.

At any one time, has etiquette been crucial to a memorable situation?

The point at which we decided that we knew that the act of meeting (as a group), and the conversations/narrative that sprung from the group was the body of our purpose/our aim.

What would constitute as bad manners?

Domination of the listening space by one or too few people.

What behaviour is prohibited within our collective?

To insult someone, it has never been discussed but I would dearly hope that it never happens.

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

That's a hard question. Total equality and respect for other peoples work.

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

Yes, me saying it is week 16 for example. The making of drinks prior to the meeting. The ebbing down of the meeting after the main point of discussion debate, digression...

With creative freedom, how would you describe this collaborative act?

Intellectual buzz, having the freedom to move ideas in and out of your/my head and sharing the consequence.

KATE

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative environment?

At first, when we're less familiar one another, but etiquette is general good manners? Ceremony

Etiquette = good manners + socially a little unfamiliar?

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

Familiarity ( increasingly familiarity, less to explain, more at ease)

What would constitute as bad manners?

Not listening.

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

I think that we are pretty much self regulating.

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

Tea + talk.

With creative freedom, how would you describe this collaborative act?

Its growing – like sweet peas or something up a frame. That's a framework. It continues to be mutable but it's fairly firm + solid. Providing shelter and the framework support for umpteen ideas and projects. Flourishing non pejorative. Seems to be (getting) established, the plant life is taking root. Abundant blossoming, blooming *flourishing*

CRESSIDA

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative environment?

Etiquette has a resonance of 'niceness', but I feel general common decency is probably key. It

always plays a role.

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

When there hasn't been an accord, social behaviour has been 'peeked'.

At any one time, has etiquette been crucial to a memorable situation?

Yes

What would constitute as bad manners?

Not allowing others the right to differ, or express their opinions.

What behaviour is prohibited within our collective?

Slander, rudeness, ridicule.

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

a) Listen

b) Allow freedom of error.

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

Hard to say.

With creative freedom, how would you describe this collaborative act?

We're like the constituent parts of a functioning machine. A lumbering one, but a functioning one. I'm not so sure as to its purpose yet though.

MATT

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative environment?

It plays a role on all occasions, but more so in the beginning. As the group becomes more familiar

etiquette will become less prevalent. There is a kind of British issue with not wanting to offend,

this definitely happens during the meetings. Etiquette can stand in the way of criticality which will

become a problem given the nature of what we are doing.

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

As we have become more familiar our behaviours have changed. Collaborative practise has struck

me as a big factor for some as they haven’t worked in that way previously. Similarly some of the

ideas have played a similar role in shaking thing up.

At any one time, has etiquette been crucial to a memorable situation?

Nothing really stands out for me, It will be an interesting occasion when etiquette gets thrown out

of the window and one of us offends someone.

What would constitute as bad manners?

Claiming something created as part of the collaboration as the property of an individual.

What behaviour is prohibited within our collective?

Most things are fair game. What would be prohibited is not respecting/prohibiting other participants right to play an equal part in the collective should they choose to exercise that right.

But this issue could also be explored through the collective, it would have to be done in an open

manner as a creative act exploring the prohibited behavior.

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

I would like to see shifting rules, a rule ruling that no rules are permanent.

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

Meeting in the space, Patricia announcing the week, being seated, circular seating arrangement.

With ultimate creative freedom, what analogy would you use to best describe this collaborative

act?

Thermoplastic

LAURA

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative environment?

o Our initial use of etiquette was used tactically to reveal common ground that would ensure our desired outcome – to work together

o It was key in creating a space that people trusted – learned westernised protocol became the familiar language that teased out similarities and displayed familiar clues that didn’t alienate

o In no grand way it started with a common civility that we responded to

o In a base animal way we showed we meant no harm to each other [!?]

o We then expanded on this in a more sophisticated way to show how communication between us might enhance

o This behaviour acted as a familiar glue to hold the instabilities of people feeling their way into a situation

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

o Learned social performance

o Common ground

o Shared curiosity

o Sharing lived experience

o Differences in lived experience

o Similarities in lived experience

o Sharing the experience itself

o The varying histories we bring

o Differing expectations

o Differing needs

o Learned protocol

At any one time, has etiquette been crucial to a memorable situation?

o When statements have come in seemingly left-field and we work to listen and respond with an openness that goes beyond our own viewpoint

o This is usually fruitful in unexpected ways

What would constitute as bad manners?

o Blanket criticism of another’s work or idea

o Responding with disregard for another’s [anything]

o Dismissing another’s view

o Incessant over-talking and interruption

What behaviour is prohibited within our collective?

o Ugly nasty

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

o Open-ness, listening, clarity, honesty, good humour, well-meant banter, an openness and curiosity to subject-matter, mindfulness of each-other’s needs, promotion of positive external dialogue about the group

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

o That none of us bloody arrive at 4.30!

With ultimate creative freedom, what analogy would you use to best describe this collaborative act?

o Baboons tenderly grooming each other and occasionally showing off their arses.

CHIARA

How, and when, has etiquette played a critical role within our collaborative environment?

Always.

Which key factors have affected the social behaviour of those within the group?

Many people being involved.

At any one time, has etiquette been crucial to a memorable situation?

Eating food.

What would constitute as bad manners?

Mixing with the wrong crowd.

What behaviour is prohibited within our collective?

Smiling.

What rule/s would you like to see implemented within the social behaviour of the group?

Social behaviour.

Have any rituals become cemented within the etiquette of our meetings?

Tea, drinking, arguing.

With creative freedom, how would you describe this collaborative act?

The coming together of the norm.