note: deck quotes in brown via David Graeber‘s revolution in reverse. and a few from his utopia of rules mostly shared in reverse/chaotic/stigmergic/et-al order.. perhaps to model/invite interpretive labor. and perhaps suggesting we embrace idiosyncratic jargon ness.. rather than demanding we conform/compromise all our sharing/living/art...
Insofar as a clear distinction can be made here, it’s
the care, energy, and labor directed at human beings that should be considered fundamental.
for example, for most of what we usually think of as women’s work, as labor at all. To my mind it would probably be better to recognize it
as the primary form of labor.
No doubt all this makes it easier to see the two as fundamentally different sorts of activity, making it hard for us to recognize
interpretive labor,
The things we care most about — our loves, passions, rivalries, obsessions — are always other people; and in most societies that are not capitalist, it’s taken for granted that the manufacture of material goods is a subordinate moment in a larger process of
fashioning
people.
In fact, I would argue that one of the most alienating aspects of capitalism is the fact that it forces us to pretend that it is the other way around, and that societies exist primarily to increase their output of things.
In the twentieth century, death terrifies men less than the absence of real life. All these dead, mechanized, specialized actions, stealing a little bit of life a thousand times a day until the mind and body are exhausted, until that death which is not the end of life but the final saturation with absence. — Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life
rev of everyday life
Creativity and desire — what we often reduce, in political economy terms, to “production” and “consumption” — are essentially vehicles of the imagination. Structures of inequality and domination, structural violence if you will, tend to skew the imagination. They might create situations where laborers are relegated to mind-numbing, boring, mechanical jobs and only a small elite is allowed to indulge in imaginative labor, leading to the feeling, on the part of the workers, that they are alienated from their own labor, that their very deeds belong to someone else.
It might also create social
situations where kings, politicians, celebrities or CEOs prance about oblivious to almost everything around them while their wives, servants, staff, and handlers spend all their time engaged in the imaginative work of maintaining them in their fantasies.
on hold ness‌
.…. Political economy tends to see work in capitalist societies as divided between two spheres: wage labor, for which the paradigm is always factories, and domestic labor — housework, childcare — relegated mainly to women. The first is seen primarily as a matter of creating and maintaining physical objects. The second is probably best seen as a matter of creating and maintaining people and social relations. The distinction is obviously a bit of a caricature: there has never been a society, not even Engels’ Manchester or Victor Hugo’s Paris, where most men were factory workers or most women worked exclusively as housewives. Still, it is a useful starting point, since it reveals an interesting divergence. In the sphere of industry, it is generally those on top that relegate to themselves the more imaginative tasks (i.e., that design the products and organize production), whereas when inequalities emerge in the sphere of social production,
it’s those on the bottom who end up expected to do the major imaginative work (for example, the bulk of what I’ve called the ‘labor of interpretation’ that keeps life running).
*my add
Women’s (*and/or suppressed/oppressed/hidden men’s) logic was always being treated as alien and incomprehensible. One never had the impression, on the other hand, that women had much trouble understanding the men. That’s because the women had no choice but to understand men: this was the heyday of the American patriarchal family, and women with no access to their own income or resources had little choice but to spend a fair amount of time and energy understanding what the relevant men thought was going on. Actually, this sort of rhetoric about the mysteries of womankind is a perennial feature of patriarchal families: structures that can, indeed, be considered forms of structural violence insofar as the power of men over women within them is, as generations of feminists have pointed out, ultimately backed up, if often in indirect and hidden ways, by all sorts of coercive force. But generations of female novelists — Virginia Woolf comes immediately to mind — have also documented the other side of this: the constant work women perform in managing, maintaining, and adjusting the egos of apparently oblivious men — involving an endless work of imaginative identification and what I’ve called
interpretive labor.
The result is that while those on the bottom spend a great deal of time imagining the perspectives of, and actually caring about, those on the top, but it almost never happens the other way around. That is my real point. Whatever the mechanisms, something like this always seems to occur: whether one is dealing with masters and servants, men and women, bosses and workers, rich and poor.
Structural inequality — structural violence — invariably creates the same lopsided structures of the imagination. And since, as Smith correctly observed, imagination tends to bring with it sympathy, the victims of structural violence tend to care about its beneficiaries, or at least, to care far more about them than those beneficiaries care about them. In fact, this might well be (aside from the violence itself) the single most powerful force preserving such relations. It’s not that interpretive work isn’t carried out. Society, in any recognizable form, could not operate without it. Rather, the overwhelming burden of the labor is relegated to its victims.
what if we all have this in us.. what if this is what we’re wired for.. but from all the manufacturing consent and pluralistic ignorance .. that perpetuate broken feedback loops.. most of us are not us.. enough.. so that interpretive labor seems isolated to ie: women.. what if the violence.. [discrimination, judgment, ‌] all stems from this suffocating of (a naturally inclined) interpretive labor.. keeping us from
l
i
s
t
deeply enough to selves and each other
e
n
i
n
g
perhaps
will allow each of us the luxury of be\ing
f u l l y f i t t i n g l y ourselves.
from David (when asked if he would distinguish interpretive labor from *empathy..via twitter)..I
think of empathy as more spontaneous
*empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
in all our *silly worry about losing jobs.. what if this is the work we need most..
what if this is the work that frees us all..
*
on my take of David's take on *Jo Freeman from structurelessness page
As activists sometimes put it: in most circumstances, if you bring together a crowd of people, that crowd will, as a group, behave less intelligently, and less creatively, than any single member of the crowd is likely to do if on their own. Activist decision-making process is, instead, designed to make that crowd smarter and more imaginative than any individual participant. It
is indeed possible to do this, but it takes a lot of work.
a lot of work.. &/or a lot of
d i s e n g a g e \ing
And the larger the group, the more formal mechanisms have to be put in place. The
single most important essay in this whole activist tradition is called “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,�170 written in the 1970s by Jo Freeman,
The community refers to an entity, mainly to a homogeneous group of people, whereas the idea of the public puts an emphasis on the relation between different communities. The public realm can be considered as the actual or virtual space where strangers and different people or groups with diverging forms of life can meet. – Stavros Starvides
about organizational crises that occurred in early feminist consciousness-raising circles when those groups began to attain a certain size. Freeman observed that such groups always started out with a kind of rough-and-ready anarchism, an assumption that there was no need for any formal, parliamentary rules-of-order type mechanisms at all. People would just sit down in a sisterly manner
as soon as the groups grew to over, say, twenty people, informal cliques invariably began to emerge, and small groups of friends or allies began controlling information, setting agendas, and wielding power in all sorts of subtle ways. and work things out. And this was, indeed, what happened at first. However,
Freeman proposed a number of different formal mechanisms that might be employed to counteract this effect, but for present purposes, the specifics don’t really matter. Suffice it to say that what is now referred to as “formal consensus process� largely emerges from the crisis Freeman described, and the debate her intervention set off.
the need to redefine decision making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness
perhaps public can't have consensus w/o oppression ...
What I do want to bring attention to is that almost everyone who is not emerging from an explicitly anti-authoritarian position—and no insignificant number even of those who are—
completely misread Freeman’s essay, and interpret it not as a plea for formal mechanisms to ensure equality, but as a plea for more transparent hierarchy.
..Leninists are notorious for this sort of thing, but Liberals are just as bad. I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had about this. They always go exactly the same way. First, Freeman’s argument about the formation of cliques and invisible power structures is taken as an argument that any group of over twenty people will always have to have cliques, power structures, and people in authority. The next step is to insist that if you want to minimize the power of such cliques, or any deleterious effects those power structures might have, the only way to do so is to institutionalize them: to take the de facto cabal and turn them into a central committee (or, since that term now has a bad history, usually they say a coordinating committee, or a steering committee, or something of that sort.) One needs to get power out of the shadows—to formalize the process, make up rules, hold elections, specify exactly what the cabal is allowed to do and what it’s not. In this way, at least, power will be made transparent and “accountable.”
the need to redefine decision making.. ie: disengage from consensus ness….. p e r h a p s
public can't have consensus w/o oppression ...
huge questioning of .. freeman/male-female/interpretation/timing-ofimagination ness.. perhaps that was our interpretation (ie: obsession w consensus).. but we were missing that it begged to be..
..more a consensus of 7 billion people with their gut.. not a consensus of 7 bill people with each other.. the daily gut check being the true north.. rather than some political mech for decision making.. to get us all to waggle/consent on one idea/person..
The resulting outpouring of *new forms of consensus process constitutes the most important contribution to revolutionary practice in decades.
*most important contribution?.. perhaps.. but i'd suggest.. rather.. worst damage.. because like shaw's take on communication.. we assumed it/interpretation had been done.. and quit questioning the whole premise of decision/consensus making..
brown quotes now back to rev in reverse for rest of deck
perhaps an even more unrealistic sounding notion would be this consensus w/in each gut and that.. we still haven't gone deep enough... ie: to no consensus on an idea... rather regrouping people (freeman small enough ness).. to the like idea... so their work/interpretive-let's-just-call-it-art....isn't compromised.. by having to buy-in/sell-out to a diff mindset on their art...messing with the..
one ness ..of the dance we're missing
which begs we quit saying man/woman/feminism ness.. rather just call us human.., and too.. today... in a nother way to live...call us humans that listen deeper.. humans that act/see us (all of us or it won't work... www ness) as one.. this has potential/capability of freeing all the time we spend on labeling... and section ing off into groupings...(that are never authentically separate.. thinking e langer's.. prej decreases as discrimination increases.. and thinking all our current separations ie: blm;lgbt; refugee; et al).. and then spending our days justifying our justifying of them.. like bucky's inspectors of inspectors... being too much
taking away our time/energy/luxury/quiet/still/imagination we spinach or rock our way thru life (ie: leave or remain; man or woman; black or white... ie: separate rooms at idea/idec retreat.. where many didn't know which to choose.. main fear.. making some in each room mad if picked the other) binary ness is keeping us from us.., and killing/suffocating us let's take what i hear you saying about freeman... and rather than say... see large doesn't work... create that mech she referenced.. that can keep us small... ginormously small
Rather than abandon the search for consensus in decision-making, many began trying to develop more formal versions on the same principles
perhaps mech simple enough wasn't yet imagined... to fit in mind/rationale/practicality of interpretive labor.... but now it is... now we can... which means we don't have to continue compromising/misunderstanding/misconceiving.. smaller-size/intent issues because of larger-size/agenda issues more formal versions on same principles ... always compromises the all-of-us ness.. ie: if their is public consensus.. someone(s) is being oppressed going large has to remain... antifragile/stigmergic/rhizomatic/et-al.. that we can do. that tech can do.
much though, again, such spontaneous creations always seems to end being subsumed within some new form of violent bureaucracy. However, as I’ve noted, this is more or less inevitable since bureaucracy, however much it serves as the immediate organizer of situations of power and structural blindness, does not create them. Mainly, it simply evolves to manage them. This is one reason direct action proceeds in the opposite direction. Probably a majority of the participants are drawn from *subcultures that are all about reinventing everyday life.
well.. especially true if we see *subculture as individual.. and if we believe we are each hard wired toward revinventing everyday life.. (yr to be 5) listen - a simple message ness
Even if not, actions begin with the creation of new forms of collective decision-making: councils, assemblies, the endless attention to ‘process’ — ……...They serve more as something almost along the lines of momentary advertisements — or better, foretastes, experiences of visionary inspiration — for a much slower,
painstaking struggle of creating alternative institutions.
don't give into assuming the state...ness... be/cause then we start w us/it not being truly human\being ness.. and then have to spend our days hoping to incremental ourselves back out of a broken feedback loop.. to us there’s a nother way.. for (blank)'s sake
One of the most important contributions of feminism, it seems to me, has been to constantly remind everyone that “situations� do not create themselves. There is usually a great deal of work involved. For much of human history, what has been taken as politics has consisted essentially of a series of dramatic performances carried out upon theatrical stages. One of the great gifts of feminism to political
thought has been to continually remind us of the people is in fact making and preparing and cleaning those stages, and even more, maintaining the invisible structures that make them possible — people who have, overwhelmingly, been women.
invisibility ness.. indeed.. (little prince - most important invisible to the eye ness) perhaps problem here however.. is that this work has been a clean up mode work.. rather than an art/commons work.. so we have people/women/whoever.. interpreting/cleaning/prepping for toxic people/men/situations.. rather than people doing/being their art.. rather than what we are now capable of ..ie: eudaimoniative surplus.. for everyone.. has to be everyone or won't work.. www ness
from
*one of most important contributions of feminism.. consensus.. but comes from a lot of work
so maybe this isn’t r in r .. not a lot of prep...work... but rather... a human/ multitudinal leap... meaning... mech has to be for everyone... no bias... no labels... no prep.. so... can't be about measuring/credential ing‌
begs a hosting life bits ness l e a p for (blank)’s sake
The normal process of politics of course is to make such people disappear. Indeed one of the chief functions of women’s work is to make itself disappear. One might say that the political ideal within direct action circles has become to efface the difference; or, to put it another way, that action is seen as genuinely revolutionary when the process of production of situations is experienced as just as liberating as the situations themselves.
It is an experiment one might say in the realignment of imagination, of creating truly non-alienated forms of experience.
...efface the difference..... the invisibility becomes the liberation.. on things that matter being invisible to the eye.. or perhaps.. just invisible to the eye as we’re currently using it.. (ie: to measure/validate/judge/compete.) let’s try.. a nother way.. where the whole idea of seen/unseen work is irrelevant/disengage\able..
the huge/100%/whole ness acknowledges the reliability oriented thinking of most people in the world.. [ie: bemoaning that..here we go again.. w tragedy of the commons ness; w tragedy of the structureless ness; et al‌] but have we honestly ever given it/us a fair shot.. have we ever honestly trusted people.. enough.. along with.. a mech to facilitate alive trusted people..? i think not. i think that's why this is so huge/diff.
key is - nationality: human
when we play any binary card.. we've lost/compromised from the get go. we have to help ourselves out of this mess by constantly reminding ourselves.. of the stories going on in each head .. the every actor has a reason ness.. the danger of a single story ness.. ie: men vs women‌ on assumed group we call men - and their condition today.. toxic... because we all placed on them the responsibility of: finances - owning/measuring/valuing money; wars- killing other humans to keep us from killing humans; work - bring home money from jobs they don't love and to show how intoxicated that has made us all.. in regard to the assumed feminist movement ness.. remnants include women wanting responsibility for assumed honorable/desirable men's responsibilities: finances - wanting pic on bills; wars wanting to help kill in order to keep us from killing; work - wanting to spend hours of our day doing things we don't necessarily/always love for money
from *one reason direct action proceeds in opp direction‌ majority drawn from subcultures .. of reinventing everyday life perhaps... huge... majorities today aren't drawn from subculture of reinventing everyday life.... i'd even say... today... that subculture only lies deeply buried w/in each soul... turtle-shell-less ness.. we have to leap... so not reverse... but.. l e a p ... *(no real visible process in between) parse\ing out my *(no visible process in between) what if mech to facilitate rev in reverse..is designed.. not for rev nor reverse.. (as that might be similar to David's ambivalence w multitude) what if it's designed for a leap (no visible prep..training..work...and visible /actual...only by a few...like cleaning house..for others to leap. .not because lazy...but because..then dance will never dance..sync matters in a global do over) so designed for uncertainty/unframability/antifragility. ..
let's
let our combined/unified true north (for decision making/consensus/et-al).. be found/heard/seen w/in each gut/heart/soul everyday.. that's a foundation we haven't yet tried ie: hosting life bits where the data we focus on is self-talk .. but within a completely diff/nother way to live..
so perhaps formal ish mech.. (that Jo and/or others haven't yet seen).. would be one that's simple enough for all of us.. one that focuses on self-talk as data... so that the small can remain ginorm small no matter how many people.. even beyond 7 bill.. ie: each voice spoken.. matters.. heard by speaker/self..
t r u s t ing
that dance
interpreting that there is never/always labor.. that never-nothing-going-on ness.. this silence/invisibility.. makes us pay closer attention.. to life.. to free/dom lack of evidence/measurement/visible-labor/visible-interpretation.. doesn’t mean no labor..doesn’t mean no interpretation.. perhaps it just begs us to quit looking for validity with numbers/eyes.. spend energy instead on l i s t e n i n g deeper with heart - to self/others
all of us.. doing/being/sharing/hearing/seeing..in\visible
redefineschool.com/interpretive-labor/