Hello all,
*Louis* mentions, "I'd suggest that how we are assembling our worlds
around "art" and "activism" and especially "theory" are probably not
serving us the way they use to. For whom? To whom?" and *Brian*, "I am
now an elder, who must turn experience - even the experience of failures
- into something valuable for present and coming generations. Resistance
happens in the streets, but not only." *Felix*, says, "The political
center abandoned the notion of the public sphere in the 1990s."
*Andreas*, provides another vantage point, "I believe that there is a
connection between the political organization of postwar democracies and
the way in which their public spheres were structured (for instance
through large-scale public and private media monopolies)."and back to
*Stella's* item that, "Strong local units are able to materially and
discursively resist the imposition of authority from outside."
Working backwards from Stella’s point: It seems to me that THE LOCAL
is an intrinsic starting point for political activism because the local
is a critical discursive zone where people, a public, are able to
discuss and act, most directly, on the issues and conditions that impact
their lives. The local in this sense is a nascent form of the public sphere.
In the classical realm, which Hannah Arendt discussed, the local realm
is the agora, a model of the public sphere. A multi-functional social
space that was ‘the space of appearances’ where people came together to
discuss and also if necessary to act. For Arendt political discourse and
action seem to be inseparable. If we look globally, and closely, at
postwar social movements (a long list) this connection between discourse
and action enabled often inextricable and profound social and political
changes
With examples that begin to appear from 1945 forward (and we could
easily look at previous centuries) the public sphere is not only one
specific social space as in Habermas’ study but rather a variety of
social spaces according to Nancy Fraser’s important critique of
Habermas. Accordingly, there are a multiplicity of discursive zones from
which ideas become transformed in to political acts and social movements.
The connections between the so-called 'political center' and the
'political organization of postwar democracies' brings us into the
present neoliberal miasma within which the dimensions of the public
sphere range from the Occupy, MeToo, and BLM movements to Facebook and
TikTok. Simply put, the public sphere is not static or necessarily one
dimensional and is capable of enabling a broad range of political and
economic programs within which 'art' can appear as an essential and
integral element.
Louis' questions, "For whom? To whom?" can be approached first by
looking at From Whom? Meaning, from which positions and/or places, does
‘art, theory and activism’ originate? What do our local individual
‘units/collectives’ look like and what are their connections (if any)
to some variation of a "public sphere"? Meaning, am I part of some
discursive zone? And, BTW, does Nettime count as a public sphere? Does
Stella’s definition of a local unit include virtual communities like
Nettime? And, how do forms of 'resistance' that ferment within virtual
communities translate into activism…? This becomes a critical question
if we are not to be swallowed within the Neoliberal Miasma or fenced
within Trumpist ghettos.
Best
Allan
--
# 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: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: [email protected]
