Heart Of My Own, Burn It Down Low

I found this quote on tumblr (TUMBLR, OH MY GOD, HOW DID I EVER LIVE WITHOUT YOU, I'M SORRY I SAID ALL THOSE TIMES THAT YOU WERE JUST FOR HIPSTERS LET'S NEVER BE APART) and it is pretty good:

“For anarchists who do know something about anthropology, the arguments are all too familiar. A typical exchange goes something like this:

Skeptic: Well, I might take this whole anarchism idea more seriously if you could give me some reason to think it would work. Can you name me a single viable example of a society which has existed without a government?

Anarchist: Sure. There have been thousands. I could name a dozen just off the top of my head: the Bororo, the Baining, the Onondaga, the Wintu, the Ema, the Tallensi, the Vezo… All without violence or hierarchy.

Skeptic: But those are all a bunch of primitives! I’m talking about anarchism in a modern, technological society.

Anarchist: Okay, then. There have been all sorts of successful experiments: experiments with worker‟s self-management, like Mondragon; economic projects based on the idea of the gift economy, like Linux; all sorts of political organizations based on consensus and direct democracy…

Skeptic: Sure, sure, but these are small, isolated examples. I‟m talking about whole societies.

Anarchist: Well, it’s not like people haven’t tried. Look at the Paris Commune, the free states in Ukraine and Shimin, the 1936 revolution in Spain…

Skeptic: Yeah, and look what happened to those guys! They all got killed!

The dice are loaded. You can‟t win. Because when the skeptic says “society,” what he really means is “state,” even “nation-state.” Since no one is going to produce an example of an anarchist state—that would be a contradiction in terms—what we‟re really being asked for is an example of a modern nation-state with the government somehow plucked away: a situation in which the government of Canada, to take a random example, has been overthrown, or for some reason abolished itself, and no new one has taken its place but instead all former Canadian citizens begin to organize themselves into libertarian collectives. Obviously this would never be allowed to happen. In the past, whenever it even looked like it might—here, the Paris commune and Spanish civil war are excellent examples—the politicians running pretty much every state in the vicinity have been willing to put their differences on hold until those trying to bring such a situation about had been rounded up and shot.

There is a way out, which is to accept that anarchist forms of organization would not look anything like a state. That they would involve an endless variety of communities, associations, networks, projects, on every conceivable scale, overlapping and intersecting in any way we could imagine, and possibly many that we can‟t. Some would be quite local, others global. Perhaps all they would have in common is that none would involve anyone showing up with weapons and telling everyone else to shut up and do what they were told. And that, since anarchists are not actually trying to seize power within any national territory, the process of one system replacing the other will not take the form of some sudden revolutionary cataclysm—the storming of a Bastille, the seizing of a Winter Palace—but will necessarily be gradual, the creation of alternative forms of organization on a world scale, new forms of communication, new, less alienated ways of organizing life, which will, eventually, make currently existing forms of power seem (asinine) and beside the point. That in turn would mean that there are endless examples of viable anarchism: pretty much any form of organization would count as one, so long as it was not imposed by some higher authority, from a klezmer band to the international postal service."

-David Graeber

Reminds me a lot of arguments I've had with non-anarchist skeptics. I think that I have failed a lot in trying to explain the ultimate "goal" (if it can be called that) of anarchism because we are so used to only conceiving of things in terms of the current system (I am certainly guilty of this myself, even when trying to "spread" anarchism, sigh).

A and I talked about this tonight, and about ways in which anarchism could be supported in the current system - like how copyright laws ought to protect things under GPLs and creative commons licenses, or how the laws governing corporations could better support organizations run by consensus collectives. It is an interesting thought.

We are nerds.

The only thing missing from my life right now, aside from a million dollars and a pony, is a studio, preferably one where I can mess around on a pottery wheel and maybe learn to throw.

I signed up for throwing classes, but they don't start until July. Until them I am sad and studio-less. I FEEL SO LOST. Maybe Studio Beluga will let me hang out there.

SIGH~

Next weekend I am taking a somewhat-annual trip into the Laurentians, this time with some folks from Missing Justice for a visioning retreat. It is nice to leave the city sometimes.

Okay, so a piece I wrote about Sady Doyle's ableism a while back was reposted elsewhere and there was some messed up ableism in the piece itself, which people rightfully took issue with and pointed out.

I wasn't thinking critically when I wrote the piece - I was ranting, responding in the moment, and clearly there is ableist shit that I haven't worked out of my vocabulary, and it came through. There's not really an excuse for that; my reaction was from a place of anger at being scapegoated and marginalized by someone who should know better, which just makes it even more awful that in that reaction I scapegoated and marginalized ANOTHER group of people when I myself should know better. It just was shitty of me. Erasing ableist language from my vocabulary is something that I take really seriously, and so I'm really, really grateful that someone pointed it out to me in this case (for real, thank you - I know how hard it is to do that sometimes, so many props to everyone who pointed out the issues with my language use).

So, I am really sorry if my language was hurtful to anyone reading that piece. I fucked up. It won't happen again.

Review of the show in a student paper.

No mention of my work in the show, but it's still a good review of the show overall.

Instead of getting ridiculously sappy (WHO AM I KIDDING I'M LIKE THE SAPPIEST PERSON EVER), I will just let John K Samson do it for me because he is so good at that kind of thing.

( lyrics )

An example of school shit that is getting me down lately:

A guy in my public art and ceramics class is doing his final installation project at the convent of the Order of the Grey Nuns, a huge old building that is being converted into part of the university as the population of grey nuns dwindles (there are only a few left, and they're not actively recruiting young ladies into nunnering as a career path). In his proposal, he talked about how the "real history" of older buildings like the convent building is being forgotten because young people just don't care about history, and how he planned to represent the dwindling population of nuns with repeating, identical figures of nuns and angels installed in staircases around the building.

Of course, he hasn't actually TALKED to any of the women who are still grey nuns and still live at the site of his installation. Why would he TALK to them? They are his subjects! It's not like they might have OPINIONS about why many convents have dwindling numbers, or the conversion of their home into university property - it's not like he's planning on literally installing art in their home that they've had no input or say in or even been informed of or anything. And naturally he's not planning on going any further back in his exploration of the history of that location, to acknowledge in his exploration of the convents history the fact that the convent did not simply always exist, and was in fact established as part of a long history of religious institutions participating in the colonization and appropriation of Indigenous land and resources. I mean, I'm not saying he should write a book on that one spot, if he wants to specialize that's fine, but nowhere in his proposal or his research notes does he ever talk about the founding of the convent or allude to anything that might indicate that it wasn't always there, which irritates me considerably, because for a history-oriented project it shows a really selective and self-limited knowledge of history.

This is what I mean when I say there's a lack of critical analysis in art school. Public art is a really varied medium, and there are a lot of ways of practicing it. Public art can be advertising, architecture, sculpture, it can be something that was created by the public or something that invites public interaction with the piece, or something that is designed to inspire dialogue in the public sphere or reflect a specific community, it can be functional or decorative, political or not, but in our class we don't really have any discussion about this, we're pretty encouraged to ONLY approach public art in terms of specific sorts of installations. It's really limited, and the discourse in the class has so far actually served to discourage students from approaching members of the community and talking about what needs could be served with their installations.

Like, in one discussion, the prof said: "You need to be able to anticipate a number of public reactions to your piece. There are three main ones that I've observed, which are that the piece is left alone, or in the case of a piece that's designed to be altered and redistributed parts of it are moved and taken, or people break it." I mean, jfc. 1) there was no talk of public discourse as a reaction to the piece, or of how the piece might impact the community at all, and 2) How about, instead of trying to "anticipate" reactions like you're looking into a crystal ball, you actually talk to the community that will be interacting with your work? And see what they think about it? MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP?

I'm sick of the idea that an artist is someone who is divinely inspired or otherwise is a vessel for some greater message that they are "passing down" to the rabble through a process that is highly individualized. That art isn't something informed by dialogue and community and experience, conceived of through a process of research and discussion and development, and created using practical skills. In a way, I think the whole idea of the artist-as-divinely-inspired-messenger-to-the-masses actually serves to delegitimize art as a form of actual communication and discourse, as something with a practical function in society. And it bugs me to see that perpetuated in art school, where you'd think people would take their craft seriously enough to look critically at all the ways it can be created and used.

HANIA: How are you going to title the deformed masks?
ME: I don't know, I wasn't planning on hanging them so I don't have names for them.
PIF: They look kind of like Marlon Brando. I mean, these three do. You should call this one Young Brando and this one Old Brando.
HANIA: Hahaha, and this one could be Middle-Aged Brando.
ME: What about the fourth one? It doesn't look like Marlon Brando at all.
PIF: Secret Brando.


(For the record, yes, that is actually what I ended up titling those pieces.)

A friend of mine shared this video on the facebooks and I can't get over it or seem to articulate the ways in which it makes me mad.

A big part of it is that, you know, it's like two minutes long, so it obviously doesn't deal with any of the nuances or complexities inherent in talking about diagnosis and "labelling" of mental health issues. The image of a bunch of people ripping off their "labels" to reveal that ALL ALONG they were REALLY just revolutionaries, artists, leaders, and activists is catchy, there's inspiring music, dramatic lighting, it's very well-constructed propaganda, and the message is simplified enough (using diagnoses as labels to define people is wrong) that it's hard to argue with right out of the gate.

Less catchy and inspiring, though, is the more complicated reality of a lot of people who are diagnosed with mental illnesses. While diagnoses are frequently used as tools to oppress neuroatypical people - ways for mental health professionals and other authority figures in historically fucked institutions to gaslight neuroatypical people and justify abuse; ways to stigmatize non-normative means of communication, problem-solving etc - they are ALSO often used by neuroatypical people to access resources, information, and help that can potentially be life-saving. Both sides of this coin are VERY real, and also valid, legitimate parts of peoples' lives, often at the same time.

A diagnosis makes me vulnerable to a lot of things, the most frightening of which (to me) is institutionalized abuse - but which also encompasses a broader socially-based discrimination and stigma: if I need a certain accommodation in class or at work, should I ask for it and risk opening myself up for discrimination and hope for the best, or should I struggle through processes designed for people who function differently than I do and (again) hope for the best? AND, A diagnosis ALSO allows me access to the Centre for Students with Disabilities at my school. It makes it easier for me to access medication, should that be the route I choose to go, and easier to access support when I want to go OFF medication, should that be another route I choose to go. In a town where waiting lists for doctors and mental health professionals are often months long, it allows me to get quicker access to these people. Messages like the one in this video - that diagnoses are something that "patients" have no stake in themselves - serve to enforce another (albeit unintentional) stigma: that "patients" (ie, neuroatypical people) have no agency regarding their mental health, that we are always uninformed about the processes we go through in mental health systems, and that diagnoses are something that we necessarily need to be "rescued" or helped to "break free" from (usually by neurotypical people).

While it's true that the process of diagnosis can be and often is a disempowering and alienating one - especially for children who may not have access to the info necessary to self-educate around the issues affecting their lives - these stereotypes, repeated in this way, do NOT facilitate a better understanding of such power dynamics and injustices or help to dissemble them, because they are, well, stereotypes. Like the stereotype that people with depression, bipolar disorder, and/or other mood disorders are inherently more artistically inclined than normative folks (see also: the moment in that video when the girl labeled "bipolar" rips her label off to reveal a t-shirt bearing the word "artist"), it's well-intentioned (usually) but serves to enforce a greater stigma and disempowerment for people actually dealing with these situations. This is especially risky when such stereotypes and oversimplifications masquerade themselves with progressive language and imagery as being liberationist and radical knowledge, because in doing so they "replace" and discourage the seeking and creation of ACTUAL liberationist and radical knowledge.

Diagnosis is a double-edged sword. It's something that can cut you, and something you can use to defend yourself in a world that stigmatizes and shames your way of thinking, feeling and doing things.

The way to deal with this is not to create further shame by offering up propaganda like this, which serves to (perhaps unintentionally, but still) direct existing shame at those who actively seek diagnoses and use their diagnoses as a tool for themselves. The way to deal with this is to understand the ROOT of the problem as being not diagnoses-as-labels, or diagnoses period, but a society which normalizes certain ways of functioning and oppresses anyone who does not conform to that, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT those people seek and/or receive formal diagnoses. The way to deal with this is to understand what it means to live and/or "function" as a neuroatypical person in such a society - and to understand the benefits and joys (yes, some of us are leaders, some of us are artists, some of us are activists and revolutionaries and inventors and philosophers) AS WELL AS the struggles (some of us harm ourselves, some of us have trouble getting out of bed sometimes, some of us cry and yell and can't go outside and are deeply, life-disruptingly afraid of things that wouldn't cause a more normative person to blink) that that entails. We are anxious heroes, we are strength and limitation. Mental "illnesses" can be dis/abilities - yes, REAL DIS/ABILITIES - and dismissing them by saying (as is said in so many ways, overt and implied, every day of our lives) that it's just something in our heads, that we have a false consciousness, that we THINK it's difficult to deal with but we REALLY just need to embrace our true nature as ARTISTS and LEADERS, etc, is dismissive and insulting to neuroatypical people who often have to fight for our survival in a hostile world. It minimizes our pain and turns our joys into patronizing stereotypes.

But it does not make us more free.

Freedom means the ability to self-educate, it means access to knowledge, it means being empowered to make informed decisions about what goes into your body - whether that's herbal supplements or pharmaceutical meds or rays from a sun lamp or WHATEVER - and having the autonomy to refuse treatments you don't want. It means being afforded the legitimacy as a human being that is necessary to have your choices and your self-determination respected, whether or not your self-determination includes phrases like "obsessive-compulsive disoder" OR "organizer" OR BOTH - it means an understanding that you CAN BE both, and you can be more, if you want, and none of those things necessarily preclude others or define who you are all by themselves, but they are all as relevant to who you are as you know them to be. It means not having to choose between asking for what you need and losing the respect of the people you're close to. It means respect for the full expression of your humanity - not having to be the Model Neuroatypical Person all the time, lest you cross the line and be vilified as "crazy" for refusing meds, or as an ignorant anti-radical fool for taking them.

When all of this is understood, not just by individuals but on a systemic level, then maybe we will be getting somewhere. But videos like this one are not going to get us there. They just aren't.

So put THAT in a two-minute propaganda video and tell me about my life.

Morning: glazing pieces for installation. Ten down, ninety to go. (I'm actually ahead of schedule, lol lol) Load kiln for glaze firing.

Afternoon: Missing Justice demo.

Evening: Grinding stone for litho glass.

Night: Eat burrito. Mock trailer for film based on Atlas Shrugged. Collapse from exhaustion.

Had a placard-making session in prep for tomorrow's demo. When I got there, there was a guy there with a videocamera, filming the placard-making for a thing he's doing for APTN, about the prep work and organizing that goes into coordinating events like this. So I ended up doing an impromptu interview. Dunno if any of it will end up on the teevee, but who knows.

Things have been a little heavy lately, so me and the beau and a bunch of friends decided to go see the new Harry Potter movie at the dollar cinema for some escapism. It was weirdly paced, and the beau said that he felt like a lot of it was about killing whimsy - "Oh, look, a magical owl. Now it's dead*. Oh, look, a magical elf. Now it's dead." Also, the love triangle thing was weird. Granted, it's been a really long time since I read the books and I didn't read anything after book 4. But I don't remember that being in there? Whatevs. It was nice to have some silly escapism. I like the dollar cinema, too. The guy who runs it looks like Alice Cooper and is super nice. Also, they have 50 cent samosas at the concession stand.




*I actually cried when this happened. I cry whenever animals are killed in movies, especially pets.