PURPOSE, STRATA, CONFORMITY

Originally published on the SWORG SWILL LISTSERV on December 14, 1998

Crash writes—Sorry for splitting this up but it seemed like it may run kind of long with the replies.

Gabriel wrote—Crash, I found something on the Alt-x site that struck a chord with me. It was a Ginsberg quote: "The Beat Movement was never meant to be a rebellion. It was meant to bring in a new consciousness. The middle-class, who were rebelling against Mother Nature by destroying her ecologically, made us out to be rebellious." And also, when remarking on how Laura Miller had trashed his GRAMMATRON in the NYTBR, Mark Amerika complained that she had set up a "false binary" and "unnecessary either/or oppositions", and then proposed that we simply open our minds to a variety of styles and possibilities within any given framework. So to answer your question lemme say that I too am weary of this plethora of binary constructs that attack the imagination in exactly the same way the media controls operate. In the US, the race issue, for one, is always put to the people in binary form, but everybody knows (except those on the hot button payroll) the issue is both simultaneously more simple and more complex than it's presented in the media, but the media elite and the political hacks milk the same anachronistic cow day after day, and very little ever changes except this, we lose perspective with this increasing concentration of the THEM VERSUS THEM dichotomy.

Crash writes—I'm with you on this—it has always been a quite useful method of control to set up artificial binary conflicts to keep people angry at each other and to keep them blind to the true problems—WS Burroughs always stated that in order to truly challenge a system you have to move outside the constructs of language which is grounded in the binary system of control—of course this also leaves out most people who are unable or unwilling to approach a work such as any Burroughs book—so where should we go? I think a very effective means of challenging systems is to attack the discourse upon which they rest—language for me is the key to power—not just the spoken or written language per se, but also the language of images which are broadcast and plastered everywhere. Levi-Strauss pointed out how in primitive myths the mispronounciation of words and the misuse of language were considered to be very dangerous and very powerful methods of disrupting the system and the coded language that they used as their base of understanding/power. Is this not even more true today—when it seems that we are ever so more dependent on words/images to define our perceptions? Is not the mass media almost a form of magic in most peoples lives—turn the TV on and the tribal stories are broadcast from the hearth of your living room and the smoke signals of info are distributed to the family—turn on the computer and miraculously we can fly to any part of the world—just among our small group—when was the last time one of us spent a whole day in which we didn’t receive some kind of mediated input (books, magazines, radio, tv, film, internet, etc). What power is there in producing transgressive materials that seek to wreck havoc on the codes of the dominant culture? I don’t know, but I wonder if the many people who have pointed out that when we engage in straight binary resistance to the system we are only reinforcing that system, I wonder if they have a point—that is to say, that in resisting the dominant culture straight on we help them to define themselves and to point at easily recognizable, definable, and soon to be specularized deviants who can be set up as the new boogeyman. I know I’m rambling a bit here—but what do you all think?

Gabriel wrote— It's a blood given that corporate giants and political hacks are ruthless sluts. But why should that stop anyone with enough guts and stamina to be different, to risk it all, to tear down the walls of a slum, and build afresh, a new way of thinking; no matter how we cut the ideological cake, stone cold trailblazers can't afford to be whiners (see Henry Miller's Cosmological Eye). Of course, everyone wants to be the hot new thing (notice how hot and cool mean the same thing in the popular venacular), if only to themselves, and if they fail, they usually become grumpy old whiners accusing the system of foul play. But then Cobain and Steinbeck chose very different paths to avoid the pains of their success. Ghandi could have been a very rich man, he declined. What's wrong with making money, if one spends it well. Bill Gates is a fucking liar as his testimony before the US Department of Justice in his anti-trust litigation is proving, but he has frequently said that he doesn't believe in leaving amassed fortunes to heirs. If he spent enough millions on truly changing the landscape of certain depressed areas of renewable or reconstituted life, why would not his taxations of those peoples and organizations that COULD afford it, be forgivable? You see, there are so many complex choices presented to us, but we stumble around and usually end up either goofing along picking up a few addictions which insult our biology and agenda for happiness, or else we keep nosing the grindstone such a slave to production that we also pick up a few addictions that insult our biology and agenda for happiness on the same or the total opposite end of the scale. The key, as a few savvy Greeks agreed, was moderation in all things. But few of us (and I ain't one of 'em, unfortunately) can learn to implement stellar moderation in our lives because we are ruled by addictive personalties, and as Tolstoy emphasized, it does us no good to beat ourselves up over one addiction only to have another two or three rush in to take its place. Whether we're talking substance abuse, laziness, addiction to work, sex, well hell, you know what I mean, it's all the same problem child within us. Good news is that when faced with a ruthless giant, nature seems to sponsor us a giant killer. Not too long ago the Internet founders (a cluster of old hippies and nerds) threatened to bring the world together in a non-commercialized free-spirited community. Then Mammon got a whiff of what was happening, and started pissing in the pond. Well, we can't stymie that but we can work like hell to keep the original spirit alive, and do what we can to advocate the world we want, never flinching, but rather calling for a cease-fire to all this whining. I don't mean lay down your intellectual arms and join the enemy, but simply to accept the challenge of David & Goliath, forge partnerships, or lessen one's sights at directly competing with, but perhaps hindering the bullies by carving out a solid niche. More books are being published than ever before. But who reads anymore? It’s always a moving target or a deadly threat.

Crash writes—niche carving is a very good method of slicing into mediated realms (hey Matt im starting to sound like one of those video game players) and setting up zones of operation (much like Gabriel has started here).

Gabriel wrote—Writers have never had more freedom (despite all the Internet porn busts smelling up the coffeehouse) in history. Recall Voltaire, Rousseau, running for their lives, hiding in exile, poverty, and scorn, forgotten—save the intellectual and financial graces of the few. We artists (if indeed we are artists, and not simply poseurs seeking escape from responsibility) in the west now have such an accelerated vision of freedom, we think we are living in especially perilous times, and in the supertechnological/superpolitical sense we perhaps are, but we have also never been more free to express ourselves (no artist was born guaranteed fame, riches, or readers). I personally find Dinesh D'Sousa a very refreshing and levelheaded writer who presses the conservative argument into civility without oppression. Despite my own yearning to burst out of my skin to trumpet the last charge on a world corrupted by its own sense of infallibility whether originating from the right or the left, capitalism or marxism, I am convicted by my own sense of limitation, now always imposed from the outside, but often enough a consequence of my own choices, and those of my genetic bearing. How can I blame someone else for that?

Crash writes—yes, more books than ever are being published—but what kind of books—I have no problem with the consumption of brain candy—as Matt knows when I just told him about the Joe Lansdale thrillers. But there is no need to pursue dangerous writer/artists anymore—because they are drowned out in the flood of product that dominates the market. And who is controlling what is published? What books are advertised—open up any advertisement for a book store and peruse what is put before consumers—walk through your Barnes and Nobles/Borders. In the 1960s there were more than a hundred substantial publishers in NY, by 1980 there were only 70, by 1995 the number had dropped down to 15, presently through further merging there is only 5!!!!!! major publishers and these are also tied in with the producers of other mass mediums. Now I don’t mean to sound like I’m crying that the sky is falling down—but this must be disturbing in some way. True, the market is flooded with books like never before (as well as other forms of info) but what are these texts? Of course once again this is also a benefit to us and others who seek difference—as the mainstream producers continue to narrow their fields of interest and seek to the common denominator it opens up the possibility for very viable and strong niches of operation for smaller more specialized organizations—so perhaps this is a mixed blessing. I mean, are we ourselves cultivating some form of sub-cultural capital—as we ask ourselves these days exactly what are our true goals in these efforts. Do we intend to do something to challenge the hierarchal stratification of society—this mind-numbing mediatized comformity?

Gabriel wrote—Again Crash, when I look around these here parts I don't see this world as one straitjacketed by conformity (although I surely hear and read a lot of noise to the contrary). In the greater populations (putting aside the corporate merger trend which is just the opposite to what is happening in the neighborhoods and streets, but I guess we have Debord to explain this cause and effect to us) I nevertheless see cat fights and dog bones between warring factions along every corridor I care to explore as soldiers of each faction scrawl hard lines of demarcation to help solidify a turf. [Your] Australia may be very different from America, but when I see a group of folks working and playing in harmony I marvel at how the group has conformed to an ideal so often missing on the street, in the universities, on certain ballclubs, in art snot piss fights, no one simply content to be differenthanging on the same street corner or intellectual counterpoint but everyone bucking for superiority status. Competition ain't dead, and if competition is not dead, how can we also be lost on the mind-numbing mediatized comformity rap? Debord had it right when he said the Spectacle tosses out two opposite claims and watches the skirmish in glee, knowing that the debate will roll on forever, and the social structure remains the same. Superiority, that's what straw leaders are after. That ain't just a white man thing anymore, if it ever was (and I doubt that very seriously, the Euros just won a few wars at a strategic time in history, have gained and lost as a result). I know I'm guilty of thinking no one is my superior, and will fight like mad to prove how wrong I can be. The point is, the stratification of society is just something we're going to have to accept because it is a rather natural phenomenon despite its excesses and inherent unfairness. I agree with Matt's proclamation of a couple of posts back: ". . . abolishing hierarchies is as impossible as abolishing the state. Let's face it—anarchy without hierarchy just ain’t never gunna happen, that's my opinion anyway." As for "sub-cultural capital", methinks I'd like to see some elaboration on the concept. I'm not sure what you're suggesting. And since I've ranted enough today I'd rather not go barking down a cold trail.

Crash writes—I don’t know—I see a lot more conformity than you do—maybe its because I view the system (in the US) as encouraging a cultivated form of difference and that its ability to immediately suck up and spit out a clean, sanitized version of anything that may challenge its operations—a simplified example would be punk's howl of rage, its short time of challenge and fear from the populace—by 1977 we see punk fashion on fashion runways, London newspapers printing articles on how punks are just part of the family, punk is cleaned, sanitized and marketed—dead before it gets started—it is now just another acceptable means of conforming, albeit leaving the troubled youth a bit of dignity in believing that he may in some way be giving some challenge to the system that he feels excluded from. As for sub-cultural capital—it was an off-hand remark actually questioning my own purpose and intents (I believe we must question ourselves); and tossed out to everyone else—wondering if I may not be somehow cultivating a form of sub-cultural capital, a sanitized and safe form of alternative "cultural capital" (cultural capital: cultivated artistic and intellectual capabilities that leads to one being valued by the elites). As I said, just questioning my own intent. I have a very good friend from eastern Europe who understands resistance to a system in a way that I never could (having grownup in the states were, although they will and do kill people for the worng reasons, its not quite as harrowing and prevalent as the former soviet system). She constantly keeps me on my toes about some of my *resistance* stances and leads me to question my intent (or as I think she may see it my overly romantic/idealistic views). So I guess this was a moment of self-doubt on my part. What do we see as the problem that we should be devoting our attentions to—we seem to be attempting to come up with plans of attack without really thinking upon what we want to change or what we could best effect with our efforts.

Gabriel wrote—What we call elitism can be a major problem, but hucksterism is its whoring stepsister. They hate each other, plot behind each other's arched back, spit in each other's intellectual food, kick each other's namby ankles, and attempt to steal each other's cultural graces without even bothering to shed its skin until it's absolutely forced upon them. Both exist across every social and economical class. Both breed mistrust and greed. Acknowledging their relationship to each other however they will bond together to thwart any and all those who stand in their way, that is to say, the vocal non-elitists and the few trailblazers committed to absolute (not to be confused with pre-conceived) integrity. And they often win their battles against the non-elitists and integriters because they appeal with flattery and spectacular powers in their search for allies among the spectacularized populations in order to defeat these enemies, these straight shooters, these few honest constituents of a better world once taught them in childhood mythos as sacred and worthy but ushered away as the real world ruled by this beast we have just described becomes clearly the prince of all that worships it, and reality replaces mythos as the battleground upon which we shed our blood. How do we attack this world of theirs, if we declare ourselves enemies of elitism and hucksterism, you ask? We practice an implemented form of warfare by putting one’s personal spin on the solution, that is, we must know who and what we are, playing the humble idiot if we must, the loud-mouthed brute if we dare, but always, always keeping to the mark when it comes to personal honesty (read Henry Miller, enemies hate it when you've already laid all your own dirty laundry on the table, and they can't hose you with it in an ambush) and candor (without the elitism & hucksterism, we must define them next) but I am still nagged by something Matt wrote, which follows:

Matt wrote: As I am being my honest self here, I must declare that I could give a fuck about 1) audience 2) viral politics or 3) allies until we here at SWORG have something to show for ourselves, namely, a unified schtick (as GT initially proposed) that gives us a raison d'etre as an active GROUP. My logic is irrefutable when I say that causticness is a necessary perquisite to egotism and a necessary perquisite to ANY activity in this warlock of cyberspace, and that we should not only solidify our reasons for existing, but assure ourselves that, yes, a bit of caustic bite really is the necessary fuel for lighting the fire of collaboration between ourselves, and initiating any engagements with OTHERS.

Gabriel wrote—Agree with the whole of Matt's statement, so I guess I am still fomenting the idea of caustic abruptness (as Landry will testify I'm no rookie rabblerouser) as it is magnified in relationship to my sensibilities concerning elitism and hucksterism in the SWORG groupthink arena. But I still think the whole concern is rather premature since we have mucho mucho work to do in the chainthinking section of the site particularly since, uh, wait a minute, uh since, in fact, no one but Matt is privy to those earlier discussions which initially brought him into the Scenewash Project. Truth is I'm aware of no one but Matt who has actually signed onto anything but the SWORG-talk list, and believe me I'm far too jaded with past failed collaborations to presume ANYTHING about who is committed to what at present.

Crash writes—i like your ideas on what we need to do as far as moving past the abuses of huckesterism and elitism. And I truly believe in the need to hone and develop a true system of personal honesty—nothing could be higher on my list—because I believe that is the key in my development and that it is also vital in my dealing with others (both my personal honesty and hopefully theirs). As for other efforts need here on the website—you are correct in your statement that I haven’t contributed to the Scenewash Project—because:

A) I'm trying to get my thesis finished so I can get the fuck out of this college

B) I'm trying to set up employment so that I don't starve when I do leave.

C) These are extremely important to me, because I do not have a wife who will support me (this is what you stated Gabriel?) or Matt's very important network of comrades or Lynn's admirable corporate job or Rebunk's art gig.

D) So since I will be no good to no one living on the streets (least of all myself—trust me I’ve been there, and while fascinating I don't really have a desire to do it again, I must concentrate on this in order to become more valuable.

E) But what do you need? I write constantly. Ask me. I will write and contribute in any way—will research what needs to be found.

I hope that this is not a problem, but you must understand the situation that I'm in and that while willing to contribute, I must keep a check on the very real concerns of food and shelter. Should we attempt to delve into what we see as a problem in our societies and then use that as a base for organizing a plan for change?

Gabriel wrote— I think once we have ripped past the communist manifesto negation phase of these chats, and accept the fact that capitalism with all its excesses is still a rather young pup and has a ways to go (fifty? a hundred? 200 years?) unless raped by a burst of nuclear holocaust gangbangers before imminent global collapse, we should indeed strive to reveal to the group as a whole just what it is we as individuals strung across the marble as we are, find fascinating about dancing on the fringe with the faith that we among millions who don't give a damn, might be selected by history, fate, or hard work to make a big enough difference in the world we find so challenging, repugnant, lovable, just plain here, while so many try and fail (saving the Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life argument for a later discussion), and how we plan to organize that plan. I hope that we are now at that point, but I am not sure. Despite my desires to share my resources with a few good minds who just happen to appreciate said resources, I am not a communist, and have never been a communist sympathizer, except when it comes to a personal sharing of my own good plenty with those who have crossed my path. Unfortunately, I have been far too vigorous in displaying myself as an easy touch for hucksters and abusers of my time and generosity, and as a result, I began to grow bitter and abusive in return, groping for anything I could exploit with fingertips and gutfire since little in my opinion (and I'm talking about a 12-year stretch of woeful friendships) was being funneled my way in any kind of usable quid pro quo. After finally divesting myself of these dead-in social relationships one at a time I am only just now attempting to harden my resolve against these "communistic" tendencies of mine.

As mentioned earlier in a note to Matt, I seek to wed theory with action. Until I change my mind I must admitt I find intellectual masterbation a bit too boring, and need the grounding praxis of social purpose to give it that reality kick I need to sustain my interest at this point in my life (having no academic training since highschool graduation in 1973). That's why I in my panic to achieve something real right now rather than chase after publishing contracts which may never materialize, cannot return to the unreadable 900 page novel lost on my Macintosh. Being a child of inertia (body in motion tends to remain in motion, body at rest tends to remain at rest) my spectacle-thwarted psychology keeps requiring a return to the real sticks and stones I find out my back door, and I explode in a furious desire to help influence a change, make that unproven splash that requires the powers that be to grant us not only an audience but to recognize that we speak the truth and must act now, not later.

Crash wrote—As has been voiced by others, I too am heartened by our attempts to think these things out and it appears that perhaps we can form a communal sense of bonding that will allow us to combine our forces, perhaps leading to a cohesiveness and strength that we lack as individuals.

Gabriel wrote—Sipping Samson agonistes, I agree to a tee, hey Crash, you've arrived!

Crash writes—I seek the chance to develop a community with others who are seeking change and are willing to go about it. ’m sorry if my situation is not exactly key for mass involvement, but as I stated above I will contribute in any manner that I can. Hopefully this is enough. If not so be it—but thanks for the encouragement Gabriel and keep me posted. December—what a pissy time of year...

Editor's Note: Crash was living and going to school in Illinois at the time of this exchange. Somewhere in this swill, I referred to Australia as though Crash was living there. This exchange was our initial communication, and I had wrongly located Crash. It was Rebunk, who was in Australia. Our group was soon to include "kubhlai" from Nottingham, England, and Matt, then going to school in Austin, TX, and Rebunk. A few others did pass through the SWILL, but this crew of five was to remain its core collaboration until the group disbanded rather informally, in May, 2001.