veganarky - musings of experiences in a world mediated by relations of capital, patriarchy, and anthropocentrism.

a recent experience in challenging an act of racism

avolve — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:34:33 +0000

I had an “interesting” experience on a bus recently. It was very much a wake up call about the ways in which racism is (more) prevalent in Australia, to which I have recently returned, compared to Canada. I was one of close to two dozen people who hopped on the bus at a university campus, adding to the one or two people who were on it. It was an mid-evening service, after most classes had ceased. Before the bus had left the stop, a person who was already on the bus exclaimed very loudly something along the lines of “why don’t you shut up you stupid Asians?” (there may have been expletives or other derogatory terms).

The was an instantaneous silence. Of those who had joined the bus, the vast majority were from what I am assuming to be Japan (my generalisation itself is problematic; I may also be wrong on the assumption of origin). I noted one person from what I thought to be South America, and the friend I was traveling with who is from Bangladesh. The silence was short-lived, with those who were obviously the target of the comment soon talking amongst themselves again. Of note, whilst not speaking English, it was quite clear some were explaining the comment to others who may not have heard or fully grasped what was said. We could even sense a level of dismissal and ridicule in this dialogue.

I was the only other ‘white’ guy on the bus. When the comment was made, I turned to look at the protagonist to visually express my disapproval and disgust. I felt an obligation to act, as such behaviour was unacceptable. He appeared to not notice, and any tension seemed to dissipate with his complete ignorance of being essentially laughed at.

The bus moved off and for several minutes the jovial atmosphere returned. Another similar outburst followed, which seemed less profound than the previous one. This may have been because of the implicit-explicit dismissal expressed in the return to jovial conversation by those targeted. This time, I was ready to respond. I retorted “why don’t you shut up” (I have since reflected that perhaps something along the lines of “why don’t you keep you inappropriate comments to yourself” might have been a more effective response). Silence from the protagonist was the result—I was caught up in to the moment and did not note the reaction from the rest of the bus.

What came next took me, and perhaps many others on the bus, by surprise.

A few minutes after the second outburst, A voice came from the seat behind: “what are you blurting about to all of the bus”? It was the person who had made the racist remarks. I was taken aback by the aggressive tone and approach, and the physical imposition of the situation. Fortunately, I held my nerve, and responded along the lines of responding to an inappropriate comment. The person first denied making any such comment, and then stating that it was addressed to one person only. They then went on to excuse their behaviour as a result of intoxication, and tried to start up a conversation unrelated to the incident.

I soon alighted from the bus, with others on the bus taking to opportunity to move away from this person. I was later informed that the driver (either at that stop or the next one) refused to drive off until this person left the bus.

It was certainly an interesting experience...

The question of effectiveness

avolve — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:40:30 +0000

I think many (most, all?) of us are troubled by the question of how effective what we do is. And that this question exists outside of specifics about what it is exactly that we do. I was challenged on this recently, resulting in this reflection. Reflection is something we should all do, regularly and repeatedly, as long as such reflection is not crippling.

More than the last 15+ years of my life have had working for a more just world as their precursor. What actions I have taken, being many and varied, have all emanated from this maxim. The first question which arises is how do we define, label and seek to categorise effectiveness. Can we even answer such a pejorative? Who and what is the arbiter?

I have engaged in actions across various situations, circumstances and ‘playing fields’ in search of what I feel and perceive as the most effective for myself (covert, civil disobedience, and other). Reflection on what is most effective ‘for me’ continues to not just occupy my brain space. Such thought is, and should be(?) haunting…

I have been fortunate. I have not had my ‘liberties’ confiscated by the state to any level near that of so many others. I have not had my life completely defaced by the state. As someone who falls within the socially constructed category of a white person, I fall within a privileged category that affords me a number of benefits.

All this aside, what constitutes effective activism?

Is this ‘working’ 100+ (or 148) hours a week on grassroots campaigns, 40/60/80 hours or more a week for a non-prof (and quasi-non-prof) or other organisation, or working 60+ hours working in education sectors? Is it utilising all of ones ‘spare time’ outside of (benign, meaningless, soul destroying) paid employment working on issues? How do I/we respond to such questions. Are our responses valid and appropriate? Are our actions effective?

These are valid question. We will likely come up with different responses (not answers). My point here is not to get (uncritically) postmodern, accepting of ‘all’.

Actions have value. Value for those taking the action. Perceived value for those taking the action. Value for those ‘benefiting’ from the actions taken. Social value for taking action.

Value is socially constructed, itself predicated on values we ascribe (individually and socially).

I continue to reflect on such questions, and my current thoughts are direct and indirect. Beyond how much my actions directly influence individuals and society (and the self), do my actions potentially influence others to influence others (and society)? These questions we cannot answer, yet hope to tailer our actions towards maximising. In our own mindsets, contexts and perceptions, I feel this is what should should be what we aim for...

choice, intent, and feeding companion animals

avolve — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:01:31 +0000

A recent post on 'One Green Plant' by Leslie Irvine, a scoiologist at the University of Colorado, outlines three options for companion (nonhuman) animals, specifically related to what we feed them. Irvine provides her rationalisations to the ‘difficult position’ in the context of ‘ethical veganism’ (for me there is one form of veganism, and coming up with labels such as ethical is as problematic that for vegetarianism — see the redicularity of the term ‘pescatarian’ for example. To create a demarcation here, anyone who is not an ‘ethical vegan’ is not a vegan: they adopt a plant-based diet). Three ‘options’ are outlined: feeding companion animals a vegan diet; not having companion animals; the status quo (with some rationalistions).

Irvine provides some empirical support for explicit and implied arguments. With the vegan 'option', she correctly outlines that whereas dogs can thrive on a vegan diet, there are very clear and potentially serious challenges (life threatening) for cats. What is most problematic here (amongst other rationalisations) is the argument often put forward by carnists and others seeking to defend their ‘choice’, or at least make them feel better about their actions: ‘a plant-based diet requires killing’. What is referred to here are other animals that are referred to as ‘collateral damage’. I am not for a second debating that agriculture kills other animals. Every action we take causes harm and suffering: to human and nonhuman animals. The vast majority of purchases we make perpetuate exploitation and suffering on many levels, be this sweatshop labor, environmental destruction, class, the objectification of women (and bodies more generally) and the perpetuation of consumer capitalism (to start with). They key issue here, which is not addressed in any way by Irvine is intent.

We can seek to minimise our impacts in an ethically consistent manner, or we can seek to rationalise choices that make us feel better. To me, that is at the core of Irvine’s piece — how she can rationalise her ‘choices’ so she can feel better about her actions.

Amidst the politics of bad choices, which is where were are situated today, we can easily become stifled in seeking to make a good choice when there are none. With regards to the food we feed companion (nonhuman) animals, there is no good choice. It is still unclear that there is a healthy option for vegan diets for cats. Irvine claims it is also not clear for all dogs. Lets accept these claims. If we feed cats and dogs other animals, we are explicitly supporting industries that exploit and kill other animals (for profit). We are making a choice between which lives we see as more valuable: a cat, dog or other animal we have direct exposure too (an animal we may love) and animals we do not know. What is at the core of this are our own experiences. It is about us.

This is very confronting, and I have addressed aspects of this in previous posts. What we have here, alongside and deeply intertwined with being about us, is a moral conundrum. To restate a question I preciously posed, “how can I [we] justify killing one animal to keep another alive?” Putting it quite simply and bluntly, this is a decision we are making. This is not about what certain animals eat ‘in the wild’ or naturally. It is about us making a choice, our intentional actions, that cause harm. Here we can see and expand on the conundrum much further. Whatever ‘choice’ we make has consequences that are quite unpalatable. We kill other animals to feed companion animals we have a connection with, or we feed companion animals a diet that is either potentially or quiet likely to cause physical harm and death. Amidst the politics of bad choices, we do need to make one. For me, the issue here — and the key issue left (strategically?) nonconisdered by Irvine is intent. We can make arguments about how many (human and nonhuman) animals are harmed and killed by our lifestyles (some more intentionally than others). Accidental deaths, as much as we can make the argument (and we should strive to continue to reduce our impacts on other animals, ecosystems and the planet more broadly—a cornerstone of veganism), are not intentional. Feeding one animal to another, as outlined by Irvine, is intentional. To be reflexive here, deciding not to is also intentional. In either scenario and situation, an animal will die. On a purely utilitarian level, how many tens, hundreds, thousand(?) of other animals are we intentionally killing to keep one companion animal alive?

Is keeping a companion animal alive merely to help us feel better, with it being easier to kill other animals we do not have a connection with? To be (much?) more controversial here (and the issue is much bigger than this), PETA is widely criticised for is high rate of euthanasia of nonhuman animals at its shelters. Could we not see this as saving lives along the lines that other, unknown and unexperienced by us, animals are not being killed to keep them alive??

There is more to the option 1 (feeding companion animals a vegan diet) outlined by Irvine: farming methods kill other animals, and changes in methods are impractical as they are 'needed' to feed the worlds population. Whereas articles are cited, even referring to a TIME article (with a broken link) which claims that less animals would be killed with different forms of animal agriculture than if the world went vegan. The very limited scope and specific focus of the TIME piece is taken well out of context by Irvine. Referencing aside, again the issue here is intent. How many people intend to cause harm to another person every time they purchase cheaper clothing (i.e. Sweatshop labour)? How many people intend to oppress women every time they buy a magazine or product that appropriates a women’s body and perpetuates the beauty myth? To surmise, farming, as well as existing in contemporary society, is ‘bloodless’, yet should we not try to reduce our impacts. To do otherwise is a very slippery slope in which almost all actions can be rationalised-justified.

Option 2 is to not have companion animals. This is an ideal that we should be aiming towards. Yes there will continue to be nonhuman animals in shelters as long as they are seen as property, bred and sold at the whim of socially constructed human desires. Aside form continuing to work towards the end of the animal industrial complex, what we do here is the key. Making arguments to justify the killing on one animal for the benefit of the other actively undermines any critique of carnism. Rather it perpetuates the status quo irrespective of intent. Irvine’s reference to companion animals living ‘out their natural lives’ is also a stretch. The specific reference is to her (‘my’) companion animals, providing another clear implication that this is about her, and what is comfortable for her (as it is for many). We need to move beyond this…

Option 3 is the status quo, based on rationalisations mobilised for the previous options and reference to an ethical paradigm as ‘a process’. In much the same way that learning about racism, sexism, homophobia, ableness and other forms exploitation is a process, we cannot use this to justify continuing to privilege one at the expense of the other. By way of example, PETA’s sexist advertising is not a consistent (nor appropriate) approach for seeking to end the exploitation of nonhuman animals.

The reflexive ‘Some might call my attitude “excuse-itarianism”’, reference to ‘choice’, and ‘living with contradiction’ are all centred on making ourselves feel better, rather than grappling with the moral conundrum in a consistent way. What is clear here is that we privilege the animals we know at the (ultimate) expense of others. We can openly state that we will take the contradiction and surround such a statement with as many rationalisations as we like. In the end, the root here is a combination of feeling better and strategically ignoring that which we are unable to respond to. I am not saying this is easy, and I have given a number of years reflection to this challenge. At its core, this is (and should not be) about us and how we feel. It is not about deciding between one individual and another, it is potentially between one and hundreds, potentially thousands.

Yes, our existence causes harm to nonhuman animals. What is key here is intent. Intentionally harming is not consistent with progressive ideals across the board. As many ways as privileging one over others can be rationalised, the crux of the issue is, once again, human chauvinism — of us choosing who lives and dies. What Irvine seeks to justify (and many many do, often without anywhere near the level of reflection provided by Irvine) is her ‘choice’. Yes, neither ‘choice’ is a good one. Yet the choice she makes is cannot by justified from the simple utilitarian level through to seeking to be ethically and morally consistent. This is something we all need to reflexively interrogate.

Rethinking revolution: total liberation, alliance politics, and a prolegomena to resistance movements in the 21st century

avolve — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:00:56 +0000

One of the most notorious posts on this blog was published in 2006 (when I had more time available to pen and share thoughts), and has received more than 40,000 views. The post was quite a scathing critique of Steve Best. For example:

'The sweeping generalisations, clear lack of knowledge, awareness and understandings of that which he authoritatively comments on, and the lack of critical reflexive awareness are very surprising.'

The harshness of the post was perhaps a little over-enthusiastic, and rooted in my own arrogance as much as some of what I was commenting on. Reflecting how our perspectives and critique become more nuanced over continued engagement (if we continue to engage, and have the options, ability, and time to do so), Steve Best’s chapter Rethinking revolution: total liberation, alliance politics, and a prolegomena to resistance movements in the 21st century, published in Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in the Academy is a clear example. The critiques raised in my notorious post notwithstanding, the reflexive engagement, depth of analysis and very clear illustrations of what is required by those who challenge the exploitation of (all, as in human and nonhuman) animals presented by Best are worthwhile for all animal activists.

My aim here is not to summarise or reproduce Best’s arguments, beyond mentioning that he highlights substance in critiques of those who challenge animal exploitation and those on the ‘left’ who fail to grasp the commonality of the roots of exploitation and oppression. I enjoyed reading the chapter, and the conclusions drawn. I strongly recommend reading Rethinking revolution: total liberation, alliance politics, and a prolegomena to resistance movements in the 21st century.

[There are also some points of contention, and addressing these form the task for another day.]

vegansexuals

avolve — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:52:42 +0000

The term vegansexual emerged in 2007. It was coined by Annie Potts, the co-director of the New Zealand Centre for Human and Animal Studies, and Madala White, at the University of Canterbury. They were researching cruelty-free consumption, with the findings published as Cruelty-Free Consumption in New Zealand: A National Report on the Perspectives and Experiences of Vegetarians & Other Ethical Consumers. Annie Potts and Jovian Parry analysed responses to the term vegansexual following substantial media interest in the study, suggesting ‘that the vigorous reactions of self-identified omnivorous men demonstrate how the notion of alternative sexual practices predicated on the refusal of meat culture radically challenges the powerful links between meat-eating, masculinity and virility in western societies’.

On a number of occasions, I have had questions posed about my take on this. For me, it is quite simple. It is not uncommon to find ourselves attracted to people with different perspectives. It is very likely, and almost certain that we will never meet anyone who has even similar views with us on everything. There are times that the people we find ourselves attracted to have perspectives that we find objectionable. For example, racist attitudes and ideals. For me, if someone I was attracted to made a racist comment and, after this was raised with them, they continued to make such comments, they did not see a problem with this or seek to change themselves, I would not have relations with them. The same for someone who is sexist or homophobic, for example.

Not speaking out against exploitation, once we become aware of the implications of our own actions, is for me unconscionable. I am most certainly going to meet people who say something which has racist, sexist, homophobic and other implications (quite often irrespective or intent). Exploitation is exploitation. If I found myself attracted to someone who is not a vegan (someone who supports the exploitation of animals), I would explain to them why I made the decision to eschew such actions. If they decided to continue to support exploitation (be it based on gender, ableness, sexuality, appearance or other socially constructed notions) — and it is important to note there that this is a choice of theirs — I could not continue and/both have a relationship with them.

For all the reactionary comments about vegansexuals, ask yourself would you have a relationship with a person who is unashamedly racist, sexist, homophobic? For many, including myself, exploiting animals is the same.

The challenges of introduced species

avolve — Mon, 16 May 2011 23:17:11 +0000

The introduction of non-native species to regions and islands, and the ongoing implications of these, are a legacy of human chauvinism. Our ideological arrogance continues to shape decisions and forms of (strategic) ignorance will have long-lasting implications based on the actions we take today. Apparently we have learned, and continue to learn, little.

The Australian government has funded a program seeking to address the introduction of non-native species to Macquarie Island, which is located half way between Tasmania and Antarctica (see video http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3218459.htm). The hundred thousand or more rabbits, in particular, are having a devastating effect on the islands ecosystems. Past attempts at management or control of the population have included introducing debilitating and painful disease into the population, paralleling similar approaches on the Australian mainland.

The main aspect of the current approach, whilst arguably incorporates an acceptance that human folly is the source of the current ecological challenges, similarly disregards the rabbits in question. They are, in essence, being blamed (as is normative for most species) for some something we have led to. The first stage of the new program is poison baits. The baiting is timed to minimise 'collateral damage' (their term), and it is accepted that native populations may be impacted by this for up to 50 years. Subsequent stages involve trained dogs to locate the rabbits, gassing burrows and hunters shooting others.

In a society in which we can seemingly develop vaccines and other medical technologies, could we not develop a means of chemical sterilisation for the species? As a least harm approach, could this not be undertaken rather than the use of poison?? Those already born would live out their existence, with the population decreasing over a short period of time. There certainly will be implications of such an approach.

By way of exposing the hypocrisy of the current approach, are we considering poison-baiting humans given the dramatic ecological impact we are having as a species?? After all, the vast majority (perhaps all) of the ecological problems that exist today and human induced...

the techno-human condition

avolve — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:34:14 +0000

Some time 2007 I changed the design of this website to incorporate the sunflower image that has become the symbol of veganarky, of what it means to me. The image is of one of a small number of similar sculptures of sunflowers in Front Street, Toronto (Ontario) [I have made some minor modifications to saturation and hue, and to remove any background]. I have now found some words to describe part of what the image represents for me.

As a starting point, the sunflower is an almost a universal symbol for and of veganism. Prior to using this image, I had made a mashup of the green anarchy (sunflower) logo, combined with the centre of a real sunflower with overlaid masks of the global continents (centred on Australia) and the symbol for anarchism. When I first came across the sunflower sculpture, I very quickly realised this would be the replacement.

I perceived the sunflower sculpture as an intersection of the natural and the techno-human condition that is a constant struggle in contemporary postmodern(?) society. The scupltire is thus positioned here as an industrial representation and re-presentation of the natural that western societies (ideologically) seek to divorce themselves from as chaotic, subservient and of instrumental value only. It also symbolises a seeking to find my place in the natural whilst existing surrounded by an ideological, socially and physically constituted society that rejects any biocentric founding. A rejection of human chauvinism.

The industrial (cold, hard, uncompromising) representation of life that the sunflower epitomises is an oxymoron. Extending from, and central to, the struggle at the intersection of the natural and the techno-human condition, is the (hegemonic) masculine struggle with and of patriarchy. By patriarchy, I am referring to the systematic exploitation of women for the benefit of men that also requires the systematic exploitation of men through the impositions of hegemonic masculinity. Anyone who does not ascribe to such notions of masculinity are not seen as fully constituted persons. This is a constant and multifaceted struggle for many in the world today.

The manipulated image of the sculpture here is presented in greyscale. The original is not devoid of colour, rather constituted by the colours of rusting (industrial) metal. We can see in this the inevitable withering of the techno-industrial, the techno-human condition that seeks to set itself apart from the natural. With the image represented here based on a frozen-in-time snapshot — the process of environmental weathering captured in that 2007 moment when I had a camera with me and stumbled across the sculpture, there is purpose to greyscale. As presented here, is is representative of not being fully constituted, of not being able to be fully constituted in contemporary western society. The implications of social norms, of multitudinal intersecting hegemonies and the struggle with these. The greyscale represents potential. Of having the potential to gain colour as representative of becoming more alive, to move closer towards becoming a fully constituted person. Of moving ourselves towards a more with(in) as opposed to seeing ourselves as separate to the natural world. In this sense, there is always potential for this image to replaced with colour: for me, having the potential for this is the most important, uplifting, and exhilarating feature (when I am feeling optimism).

If I could sum this up in one sentence, the image represents a constant reminder of existing in a mediated world that seeks to re-represent the natural in technological ways.

Depressing realities... seeking hope

avolve — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 23:59:18 +0000

I have watched three very human films over the last several weeks: Into the Wild (2007), The Road (2009), and Che (2008) Parts 1 and 2 — in that order. I found Into the Wild both inspiring and depressing. I am still processing (or trying not to think about) The Road, which was quite challenging to watch. Part 2 of Che, which I watched most recently, left me feeling quite depressed. My initial thoughts revolved around a personal need to have something more than trying to reduce the suffering and untold destruction our species is imposing on all other species and the planet.

I described each film as very human as they each try to present the actions of the main characters, and try to get us to reflect on how we would react, in very challenging, dire, circumstances. They each portray different situations. Into the Wild is an account of the life of Chris McCandless on his (mis)adventures in seeking to find himself that concluded with his death in the Alaskan wild. I found Jon Krakauer’s (1996) book of the same name far less romantic than the film. I still find the Eddie Vedder’s soundtrack, whilst amazing, very eery to listen to. The film in itself was hard to watch, given I already knew the outcome.

As Part 2 of Che flickered across my screen, I had a similar, though perhaps much more profound, reaction to Into the Wild. I can relate to Chris McCandless, having undertaken my own adventures, and have come close enough to my own end to facilitate some deep reflection. For Che, I have an affinity with his principled selflessness, his grounded belief in love as the cornerstone of all revolutionary change — which itself is slowly becoming an explicitly stated undercurrent of contemporary social theory and praxis. This does not take away from not agreeing with aspects of his approach, nor it is a romantic idealising. I am not denying a level of romanticism, which I also see in myself finding Into the Wild as inspiring — for interlinked and also distinct reasons. He put his own life on the line to seek to assist others in breaking free from the shackles of exploitation, in seeking to live his ideals.

The Road, a post-apocolypitc narrative of a father and son's relationship and journey, does have such moments, and is arguably grounded in selflessness. Perhaps it is so troubling to me, and this selflessness is contrasted with selfishness and portrayals of peoples willingness to exploit others for their own gain. There are clear references to human nature arguments that are founded on bastardised Darwinian notions, and so often used by the conservatives and the ideological right to justify their own selfishness.

I think the roots of why these films disturbed me the most, is that I do have a hope that we—as a species—can and will wake up. That we can transform our own existence away from one based on selfishness and an ability to rationalise how we treat others in so many fucked up ways. I still have trouble with a number: 10 billion. This is how many animals are caged and otherwise exploited before being murdered for human consumption per year in the US alone. As well, the (largely) untold numbers of humans exploited every day—ranging from systematic rape, torture and murder, through to the more pervasive and unquestioned, including increasing poverty and longer working hours whilst CEO salaries that averaged $50 million only a few years ago, are now averaging upwards of $400 million.

I think what I am trying to reflect on, in how these films disturbed me so, is a self-need for something positive: something more than mere resistance and being able to have more than a little impact. In accepting the very small impact and limited control I have over the array of atrocities perpetuated every second, trying to find something more than merely waxing the deck of the titanic. It is not easy to insulate oneself when we overcome our ignorance. The question is, how can we find enough to sustain us in the wake of this.

I am not feeling as depressed as I was as the final moments of Che’s life passed across my eyes (and the preceding murder of Tania, amongst others). That said, I not able to explain the why (the thought required to pen this jumble of words is a clear factor). It is a struggle I wish I did not repeatedly go through, and one that will undoubtable continue for many moons to come..

companion animal adoption and vegan diets

avolve — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 02:42:16 +0000

After giving away most of my material possessions, saying good bye to family and friends, and moving to the other side of the this planet** I am in place (in the broad sense) to consider fostering (possibly adopting) a cat from a shelter. I am still trying to get my head around/resolve some concerns and a moral conundrum. In reflecting on these, I share some concerns that the words of others have helped me to gain perspective on — to a point which I feel I can make an informed decision.

I am opposed to the notion of a ‘pet’, of animals being chattel property. That we can walk into a store and buy an animal, that this animal becomes ‘ours’ and that we have a number of legal rights to do what we wish (within differing limits, depending on where we live) is predicated by and on human chauvanism. There are many others who have provided clear expressions of the why behind this, so I will not expand on that here.

I also have concern with keeping companion animals locked up. The most clear example being birds in a cage (I am horrified how many Australian bird species I have seen as ‘exotic’ pets in other stores and homes in other countries). I also have issues with dogs in yards, cats indoors, etc, etc. To me a cage is a cage irrespective of size. This has been one of two significant issues that have played a significant role in my not adopting an animal in the past (my transient status, and not feeling that I could provide enough care/attention, what I would consider adequate are also significant concerns/barriers). My thoughts on the housing of companion animals (in specific circumstances) have since been influenced by people who someone I meant earlier this year.

To put it simply, keeping an animal locked up is preferable to an animal being kept in a shelter, and most likely euthanised because of how fucked up our society is.

The numbers of companion animals euthanised every day is astounding (in the order of 10 million in the USA, based on 1997 figures) — all because of the manifestations of anthropocentrism, subset by notions of what is considered cute and the whims of animals as accessories.

In light of this, I feel that I can do at least something to improve the life an an animal whose suffering is no fault of there own, rather our species’ outrageous non-consideration and selfishness. In such a context, restrictions on freedom (i.e. some level of a ‘cage’) are not as significant as issue. Notwithstanding concerns that I may not be home enough, I feel that I can do something here.

My main stumbling block is a moral conundrumºº that I have struggled with for more than a decade. It is a conundrum as there is not an ideal outcome. To frame this directly, how can I justify killing one animal to keep another alive? I am aware, and have discussed the issue of vegan cats with a number of people at length — many of the stories have been fraught with concern and struggles seeking to ensure health and well being. Serious health (urinary tract) issues have emerged with many people who have rescued cats and sought to feed them a vegan diet — even those commercially available and advertised as 100% nutritionally complete.

To be clear, I do not have issue with cats being carnivores. My issue is the farming of animals by humans to feed other animals. We should not be farming animals at all. The moral conundrum is rooted in a moral disconnect at best, and a moral schizophrenia at worst.

I guess what emerges from this is that I need to do more research on the suitability of vegan cat food...

** There is much I am still coming to terms with, which has prevented me from posting any thoughts here for some time — though these will come.

ººThis moral conundrum is something I have reflected on for many years.

activist misappropriation of blame

avolve — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:38:32 +0000

Today, I came across a blog for the first time, and wanted to share the first post I read from it. There is an effective use of analogy to comment on some key issues for activists and society to reflect on. [I have not included embedded video, links or footnotes]

when we fight we let them win
http://vegina.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/when-we-fight-we-let-them-win/

“Fox pens” are outdoor enclosures that imprison foxes and coyotes, originally captured with leg hold traps, for the sake of hunters training dogs by setting a pack of dogs on one coyote or fox. Hunters often bet on whether the pack of dogs will catch (and maybe kill) the coyote. The practice is much more cruel than I just described and you can learn more about it here. The vile and cruel nature of this practice is obvious, so I am going to skip that part. (And if you don’t see why this is cruel you are clearly too far-gone to help at this point).

Outside of the torture implicit in this practice, a part of this practice that is resonating with me is the way that humans pit one nonhuman animal against another. Humans inflict cruelty on one animal by trapping and then imprisoning him or her. They inflict cruelty on others by training the good nature out of them and aggressiveness into them (most likely through deprivation of food and physical affection and/or by inflicting physical abuse). Then for entertainment, the human abuser watches as the latter torments and often viciously kills the former. The same sort of process occurs with dog fighting and cock fighting.

Looking beyond the pain and torture involved, this also strikes me as perverse because the human perpetrators get nonhuman animal victims to abuse each other. This makes their work of animal abuse easier on them. They don’t have to feel culpable or psychotic when they don’t physically commit the act of torture or murder in its most vile moments, as the coyote or fox is being hunted or torn to shreds. By having one animal do it to the other, these sadists get away with murder, without ever getting their own hands dirty.

This is the same sort of logic that makes all oppression and subjugation successful. Those in power maintain their power by getting those without power to turn on each other. The oppressed are so busy fighting each other they forget to look up and see the real villain. Social justice movements often work against each other; they see a limited pool of resources (membership, volunteers, donations, media attention) and begin to feel as if they need to fight against other social movement organizations to get these resources.[1] Animal rights activists are used to this; we often have activists for human justice movements argue that we need to take care of women’s rights or racism or “starving children in Africa” before we take care of nonhuman animals. As a feminist who begs for vegan events and a vegan who wishes that we could make our point without turning to sexist hooks, I have had enough with this intra-movement conflict.

I have had enough with inter-movement conflict as well. I see this process, where the oppressor gets the oppressed to turn on each other, replicated in the very movement that is supposed to help the foxes and coyotes and dogs in the fox pens. On multiple occasions I have experienced activists blaming each other for being falsely arrested during protests, when the police are the only ones who should be blamed. I have heard of groups taking credit for the activist activities of other organizations, fund raising events carelessly planned on the same day and distracting fights then ensuing when the double booking was unintentional. This all gets topped off with interpersonal friendship and dating drama. This is all is tolerable at the potlucks but not in organizational meetings or at protest events.

When we think of fox pens we can see the real villain is the human that supports and pays for it to happen. We do not look at the dogs and blame them for being vicious, we know the hunters did that. We do not look at the coyotes or foxes being attacked and think they should fight harder, we know it is the hunters’ fault they are attacked. We can see the big picture in regard to the fox pens. We need to see the big picture when it comes to our movement as well. And unlike the foxes and the coyotes and the dogs in fox pens who were forced into these positions, we do have a choice and it is our own fault. Until we stop letting those that maintain the institutions that oppress and dominate pull the strings, we will never have enough momentum or strength or focus to end fox pens or any other injustice.

Every time we deny that other social movement struggles are important, or try to rank order importance, we defeat ourselves. If we don’t leave room for all oppression to matter, we accept that compassion has limits. But the premise of the animal rights movement is that love and compassion is limitless. Every time we fight each other, we solidify the labels and boundaries that define our oppressions. But an important teaching of feminism is that the boundaries established by those in power exist only so that they can maintain power. When we turn on each other and fight we waste time and we get weaker, all the while doing nothing to weaken those who oppress us. If we turn to each other in solidarity and act together against oppressions, we will have a much better chance of defeating this system, or at least at making fox pens illegal.

Liminality, happiness and the importance of relationships

avolve — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 03:30:33 +0000

Yesterday was an interesting day for me. I spent most of it outside in the heat of a very hot day, which took a toll. This compounded a far from as fruitful search as wanted that I had embarked on. Repeated misrepresentations, seemingly deliberate purveyance of misinformation, and the frustration that ensued made for a challenging day. I returned to St Kitts that evening—a place I had only known for the last couple weeks—and experienced what I can only describe as a somewhat surprising sense of relief. The moment, in itself, picked up my spirits, though it was what came to follow soon after that I found worth reflecting on.

In needing to debrief myself, to take stock of the days events, I picked a place I had a little familiarity with. It was somewhere I could sit for a while, and reflect, mull over what choices I had and what actions were available to me. Whilst reflecting, I noted someone riding passing by on their bike. They were not the first to go past, and not the last, whilst I was there. In that moment, it was the the normality of it that stood out. People riding their bikes, being and feeling free and safe enough to ride their bikes (the class privilege of this was not in my mind at that moment)—the joy of it, normality, struck a chord.

A short time later in walking, I was passed by someone cruising the streets on a longboard. They were clearly enjoying themselves. As they went past, I had my first real thoughts of surfing since I left Oz. It was the fluidity of motion, the simple pleasures. Their tranquillity in effort and effortlessness. My recollections of surfing were not in any way a missing of it, rather an awareness of the spatiality of it, the connectedness and sense of place that floating amongst the waves, gliding through a bottom turn. Simple pleasures.

In these thoughts, these recollections, of an act than is very much individual, though often collective in its separateness, it is a little paradoxical that I began to reflect on the importance of relationships. Some of the most simple yet prudent advice I have been given was shared with me on an occasion similar to this, some years back. I had similarly embarked on an adventure, living in an unfamiliar place far removed from my networks and circles of friends. Relationships are central to happiness, to being happy.

Perhaps this is why I felt the relief on returning to St Kitts. In my short time here, I have met some pretty inspirational and good-hearted people. People who are engaged in worthwhile issues. Just knowing they exist seems to be enough, in my current stage of liminality, to make my days much more enjoyable...

Misplaced reactions to the Toronto G20 protests...

avolve — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:05:25 +0000

There is so much to write about, that I have not managed to put something together... I have decided to include someone else's reflections on the last weeks G20 protests in Toronto, as a prelude:

Cop Car Burned! All Criticisms of Global Capitalism Rendered Moot!
http://propagandhi.com/2010/06/959/

i don’t endorse violence. i don’t think it’s the ideal way forward to a better society. i think all sane people would agree. heck, i don’t even endorse vandalism in the “service” of social change. i’m conservative that way. but the disproportionate reaction (to the disproportionate mainstream media coverage) to the image of a burning car and some broken windows at the G20 summit in toronto needs to be put into perspective.

i won’t bother with the obvious comparative study of the isolated “violence” of a handful of protestors versus the overwhelming violence practiced day in and day out at the expense of millions upon millions of human lives by national states the world over in order to secure their geopolitical interests. too easy. too obvious. too fundamental.

i will however, point out that unless you’ve been in the situation of being a direct, physical and psychological target of overwhelming and belligerent street-level force FUNDED BY YOUR OWN TAX DOLLARS, it can be hard to understand the frustration and rage that can build over the course of an afternoon let alone over the course of a lifetime.

hell, you don’t even have to have experienced it directly. just sitting on our couches in our homes, cursing the stinking system, we all know that the state has a monopoly on ultimate violence and total control. otherwise it wouldn’t exist as it does, right? things would be different, cause we would have gotten up off our couches and changed it if we were operating on a level playing field. but their is no level playing field between the state and its subjects. citizens plainly have insufficient institutional power to derail the sociopathic behaviour of the prevailing order. frustration and rage is the predictable result.

that frustration and rage is exacerbated when you’re pitted face to face against a wall of riot cops who are alternately corralling and intentionally provoking your otherwise peaceful demonstration into a corner, firing rubber bullets at you, detaining and searching you with no cause, hitting you with batons, singling out and abducting organizers, impersonating protesters, firing gas canisters intentionally at head level, exploding sound grenades by your ears, permanently damaging your body with exposure to chemical bombs (all based on personal experience by the way) and then having it all portrayed in the media as if it were YOU that needs to be restrained and punished rather than the megalomaniacs on the other side of the fence that continue to plunder and pillage the planet at these obnoxious publicly-funded private-parties of the global elite.

in these situations, there is only so much futility a person can take before their rage can get the best of them and a burning cop car or a smashed bank window starts to look pretty appealing. yes, these are futile acts, but what do we expect people to do when they are treated like shit and the justice system does nothing to intervene on their behalf?

sure, ideally we could all rise above it and aim for a perfect, superhuman state of restraint. sure. and yes, ideally i too would prefer the demonstrations were strictly peaceful (for strategic reasons mainly) and that other, more polarizing means of demonstration and protest and disruption occurred outside of these public gatherings (where they would be more effective).

but the people who manage the security state won’t let that happen anyways. they WANT violence. they provoke it. why? it justifies their absurd budgets. it lets them test and refine (and demonstrate to the rest of the population) their methods of population control in a managed setting, preparing for the day that the shit really hits the fan and the police state finally gets to give up any pretense of democracy. why else would they have the summit in fucking downtown toronto, where spirited protest was absolutely certain to occur, rather than on some cruise-ship in the atlantic where it could all be completely avoided? these are essentially war-games being staged on our nickel. and we, the people, are the enemy.

so let’s just try to keep things in perspective when corporate media habitually fails to hold concentrations of global power to any sliver of account and instead chooses to replay footage of a stupid burning cop car on a loop for hours on end as their marquee story.

there are plenty of examples of independent video footage of cops provoking and mistreating people at the G20 summit surfacing on the net. do yourself a favour and check them out and ask yourself how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of it. or if it were a member of your family.

that’s all i got to say.

Posted by Jesus H. Chris on June 27th, 2010
http://propagandhi.com/2010/06/959/

The excitement and dauntingness of change

avolve — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:17:03 +0000

Having relocated to a new place, leaving my established networks and circles behind, has fostered some reflection — amongst the personal challenges that arise from uncertainties. I am noting two very distinct and contrasting emotions: being very excited about what may come — which dominated prior to the move, and feeling quite daunted by it all. The latter currently overshadows the former, though the former does shine through at times. I have experienced similar circumstances in the past, though seemingly find myself struggling/unprepared this time (again?).

A key basis for feeling daunted is the uncertainty. This is directly linked to being way outside of my comfort zone. I am most certain that there is good to come, and much good in time. This is why I made the decision to relocate, to embrace the opportunity placed in front of me.

It is the present, being very much present in the here and now, that overly shapes my experiences. The physical move away from the diverse and strong circles and networks that I could be fallen back on, even draw from in simple ways — their existence often being enough in itself — is most profound. I can not just visit someone, or drop by a common space expecting to note some familiarity. Draw from spatial comfort and sense of place.

I am very aware that new networks will emerge, that I need to work on creating the potential for these. It is the void that exists between this point in the near future and the here and now that is quite challenging.

My current experiences also illustrate how even one event, the actions of a single person (or more), can make such a huge difference on feelings of uncertainty and the dautingness [yes, I believe I did make this word up] of it all. This provides much relief, yet is also has a tendency, at times, to reinforce feelings of uncertainty. Concerns about the pressure this can place on who/those this emanates from, alongside the loss of this support, come to the surface at times. It is almost like a Pandora’s box. Really wanting to have this support, though having some uncertainties about drawing too much from it and potentially losing it through too much expectation or pressure on them — even just losing aspects of it. This is challenging in itself.

These uncertainties aside, and they can and are pushed aside at times — and hopefully more every day, I have already noted the roots of potential and exciting prospects. I have already had exposure to many good things, and see many more interlinked with these. I have noted people doing and being prepared to do amazing things. In as much as I my move was to a location culturally very similar, and I find myself seeking connection with very similar networks to those I previously had, it is comforting to see this. I try not place expectation that I will find these. Perhaps is that I do not want to not find them. Rather, is it that I find expectations not being met as much harder to come to terms with than not having the expectations in the first place? Maybe this is borne out of my experiences, my socialisations, of experiencing life?

All this said and done, even though this may be far from my dominant feelings since the relocation, I still think that being pushed outside our comfort zones is a good thing. In hindsight — some time down the track — I foresee that I will look back on this as a time of personal growth and the roots of many wonderful experiences. The challenge for now is to face up to these feelings, these concerns — even fears — and try to embrace the uncertainty. To look past, at times, perceived feelings of being close to personal limits — the proverbial straw, and try and enjoy the moments. To be present and enjoy the real...

The politics of tree hugging

avolve — Sat, 29 May 2010 06:25:28 +0000

I am once again in a position where I will be moving away from friends to start largely a-fresh. In these weeks leading up to my departure, I have found myself appreciating the little things: many specific trees and plants, rock formations and other features of local landscape that I see everyday. I may have seen them everyday, yet I never really noticed them. Wheres sense of place such as these are often dismissed as being the realm of hippies, they ground much deeper in the politics of space, capitalism and the disassociation it both relies on and attempts to create.

Implied in having a sense of place, is have a connection. A connection to the social, political and environmental. Being rooted in community. We are very much happier when we feel part of a community, feel that we belong. Having networks, being a part of a network, adds to both sense of place and community. We become rooted in place socially, and often so much more. This can foster an appreciation of the local environ — whether this is based on ecological values, or an everyday appreciation of function and form.

I have been reflecting on the associations I have with place — the many places that form part of my locale. These are social and environmental. My work environment is quite aesthetic, and a number of animals have moved back in after prior dislocation. The forms and function of the structures are secondary to me, though they act to reinforce the sense of place I have.

In appreciating, feeling a connection to the small things, I recalled a conversation I had with a counsellor many moons ago. I was heavily invested in campaigns seeking to protect forest areas from destruction — areas whilst far from my locale, I had developed an strong association and sense of place. Some of these areas I had visited and immersed myself in, others I appreciated based on their existence — transcending anthropocentric value. I was having difficulty comprehending the destruction imposed by our species, often for little more than notions of development, progress and capital accumulation.

The counsellor advised I ground myself — literally. To go outside and take my shoes of, to stand on the stone and grass and feel it. Whereas this may sound very new age or hippy, it directly contrasts with the dissociation that capitalism requires. By this simple act of bare foot on ground, there is a physical connection. Much the same was as placing your hand on a tree, running some foliage through your fingers — of physically hugging a tree. There is a connection there. Unfortunately some of us are uncomfortable with this. This can be that some of us can appreciate the natural without this direct physical connection, whereas for others, they are so far removed that they cannot see the benefits of such connectedness.

In my reflecting on the local, on the individual trees, plants and landscapes that have formed my peripheral visions for many years — sometimes drawing in my attention, what is clear to me is that we are far too disconnected from the real, the actual, the natural. I think we lose something of ourselves in this. Taking our shoes off and standing in the grass is a simple step towards countering this. As is stopping for a moment to take in what is around us. Slow down. Take stock. Be present.

the shallowness of the shallow

avolve — Thu, 06 May 2010 08:57:35 +0000

One thing that disappoints me very much is when those who consider themselves progressive do not live their politics. They act explicitly counter to their expressed ideals, often directly harming those around them. On the weekend, I stopped by an anarchist book store to pick up some books for my upcoming travels. The volunteers staffing the store had trouble providing the correct change as one of the volunteers had absconded with the takings. Analogous to this, a friend has been subjected to, and disrespected by, the actions of self-identified progressive male. Unfortunately, it continues (and is getting worse). Why does it seem that men are still perpetuating such self-absorbed bullshit?

In the latter example, the person involved not only acted deceitfully for a long time, they actively tried to engineer a situation in which they could flee without facing up to their actions — to be seen as not implicated or directly responsible. They sought to foster circumstances in which my friend would be forced to confront them, to be seen as the protagonist and, as a result, responsible.

Not surprisingly, the perpetrator continues to act in a similar vein — long after they were found out. They have continued to try and keep their shameful and disrespectful actions private, seeking to live their life as if they have done nothing wrong. Further, they are still seeking to position my friend as the villain, to save face. This person admitted some wrong doing in private — not accepting or taking any level of responsibility their actions. They think their hands are now clean, and are trying to maintain the façade.

I come back to it again, why the fuck is it seemingly always self-identified progressive men who think they are not responsible for their actions? Why do men continue to position women as responsible for pointing out to us when we do fucked up patriarchal bullshit? Why do men then feel like, or try to position themselves as, victims when their fucked up actions are pointed out? What is it that it is often — thankfully not always — women are the ones who (have to) call their male friends on their bullshit? What the fuck are the apparently progressive male friends doing in all this, aside from being complicit?

The protagonist is still trying to hide their actions, even implying my friend is being inconsiderate by not forgiving them. Further still (again) they are seeking to label any attempt to imply they take responsibility for their actions, to own up for their shit, as not a considerate or progressive thing to do!

I’d like to think that progressive males can act progressively rather than self-absorbed and arrogant. Yet it seems far too many are as shallow as their apparently ‘cool’ punk tattoos, short-lived haircuts and fashionista centric clothing.

Own up to your shit! Until you do, don’t think you are, or try to label yourself as, anything but the fucking shallow tool that you are.

the ubiquitous in the everyday

avolve — Mon, 03 May 2010 07:55:36 +0000

I am finding myself much more observant and reflective than I am normally aware of. What I am noting are the small things, the everyday and also the seemingly ubiquitous which mean very little to non-Australians. For example, an article the Sydney mainstream press about a rugby league commentator caught my eye with some resonating content. The source of this resonance is very much located in my leaving Australia in a month, unsure when (or if) I will return.

The article is about the life/career of Ray Warren. I am not a sporty person, though the ubiquitousness of the footy in eastern Australia fostered a clear awareness of who is and how he sounds. Reading the article also brought on some reminiscences from you childhood, with the football seemingly always on in the background.

The piece refers to the banter between Ray Warren and other commentators like Peter Sterling, who was a notional representative player. I found my reactions to the discussion interesting — partly because of my limited interest in the footy. I also thought about in terms of (an almost bastardised?) cultural capital. Anyone not from eastern Australia would haver no idea who these people are, nor have apparently fond childhood memories implanted in the brain. There would be no meaning there.

I envision that I will have many similar experiences over the coming weeks as I count down to days to departure. I am already increasingly and fondly noticing individual trees, other plants and small landforms on my regular paths...

music and my 'disaffected youth'

avolve — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:30:04 +0000

A conversation I had recently spurred me to think back to the music that had an impact on my person. I recall the early 1990s as a key turning point. The conversation referred to having a dark side, and I have been pondering a tangent of that notion.

Like many ‘youth’ of that time and generation, I was impacted on by bands which emerged in the early 90s and lyrically reflected on not fitting in with constructed social stereotypes. Most people instantly think of Nirvana, and I cannot deny the influence.

Arguably the song most remembered from that time is Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit. For me, whilst Smells Like Teen Spirit had an impact, a number of songs by the band were much more profound. The demo version of Something in the Way still sends chills down my spine. Lithium resonates for other reasons.

Radiohead’s Creep also had a profound impact on my feelings of not fitting somewhere in ‘the’ world. Wanting to fit somewhere, though definitely not wanting to fit in what I saw in the world that television and the like were portraying, and questioning what and where that may be was a key aspect of my disaffection.

The label of middle class white boy angst has been used to refer to the rise in popularity of such music. For some, it was a reaction to the rise in the number of women expressing concern with sexism and patriarchy. Men were feeling uncomfortable in their place(s) in the world. Women were the misdirected target of many men’s reactions. I was unsure of my place, though soon found that my uncertainty and reactions were directed at the world. I had not come across the term patriarchy and had a broad, if undefined, understanding that sexism was (is) pretty fucked up.

In reflecting on that period, it was the influence that one band also had on me (alongside a number of others in the riotgrrl genre) that exposed me to non-understood issues and expanded my awareness — Hole. Pretty on the Inside was so raw, angry and powerful. Live Through This was so deep, reflective and amongst it all very positive. It provided a means for me to see beyond the negative responses tied to my masculine angst about not fitting in.

I somewhat lost my intent in writing this — a lot of things swelling around in my brain of late. My initial intent was to reflect on that place in the back of your mind from where cognitive dissonance stirs. The early stages for me — the lack of a means to understand my discontent and disaffection with the world — were brought to the surface by being exposed to others with similar thoughts. This was both through listening to music and finding others who this music resonated with. It makes me feel better in myself that I did not misdirect my angst towards women, rather soon was able to work out that patriarchy and the role of men in maintaining and perpetuating it — alongside the rampant consumerism that was bulging out of the seams of capitalism.

If nothing more, these are more thoughts for the week...

neo-Marxist techno-utopianism and the population debate

avolve — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:45:08 +0000

I would not say it is uncommon to find myself more than frustrated with opinions published in the mainstream press. A piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald by John Passant, whose blog En Passant has the byline ‘revolutionary reflection on this world of ours’ did get me riled a little. The limited writings of his I have glanced at speak of tired same-old card carrying socialist rantings that literally equate the working class with religious icons. For example, apparently working class men do not benefit from women’s oppression — what cave is he living in! His piece in the today’s SMH, first published on his blog, attacks the Australian Greens. My issue with it is his reference to those concerned about population as neo-Malthusians. His lefter than left (i.e. holier than thou) rhetoric is unsurprising, unfortunately. His anthropocentric techno-utopianism fails to transcend solidly founded critiques of 60s era neo-Marxists and numerous others (including neo-Liberals today). When will the the blinkered political left and right realise that whereas technology may save us (i.e. Humans) in some form (as well as continue to impact on our lives in multitude and unforeseen ways, not all positive), what about all the other species and ecosystems that we exist alongside?

To put it plainly, ecosystems, bioregions and this planet all have carrying capacities. Passant attacks Bob Brown, the spokesperson for the Australian Greens for referring to a figure of 35 million people as not supportable. I already think Australia’s population is beyond the carrying capacity of this continent. And this has nothing to do with neo-Malthusians ideas. Infrastructure and 'quality of life' are not my priorities. Our individual and collective ecological footprints already exceed what the areas in which we live can handle. On a simple level, there is not enough water. We already flush our shit out of site, and we bury our ‘waste’ in holes in the ground — waiting to become toxic cesspits. Whereas we are impacted by this, it is orders of magnitude less than the billions of others who inhabit this planet with us.

I long for the day when neo-Marxists move beyond anthropocentrism and consider ourselves part of the environment. Yet, can we really expect vanguardists to eschew hierarchy? They are unashamedly speciesist and have vehemently dismissed, based on appeals to the ‘masses’, any criticisms. Similarly, environmental concerns were not seen as a key issue only a few decades ago, rather bourgeois ideology. The same can be said of Women's struggle a few decades prior. Environmental issues are now one of their key recruitment tools. I must add a caveat, that there are many good people in the organisation, and I would much rather they exist than not.

Can we not already move beyond the techno-utopianism that has and will continue to not provide the salvation we continue to hope it will? This is not a neo-Malthusians idea. I am not opposed to immigration. You can be critical of population growth, promote population reduction, and not be racist. In calling for population reduction we need to challenge the political elite and decision makers who first target non-white immigrants. Humanitarian immigration should be the priority. What it comes down to, is people here need to stop breeding — it is not a ‘right’ to bear child. The earth is not ours to do as we please. It is time for the neo-Marxists to smell the roses

------------------------------------------------

Somewhat unrelated, the increasing cross-pollination of the blogosphere in the mainstream press has interesting connotations. It is quite rare for a piece by a card carrying socialist to be published. This begs the question, why was it? Are the Greens being seen as a threat to mainstream politics (Socialist Alliance, who Passant is a member of, could not be considered a blip in electoral politics)? What is the agenda of the SMH? Perhaps time will tell...

on making excuses

avolve — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 06:21:21 +0000

I recently watched The People Speak (2009), and have once again reflected on the amazing and inspirational contribution of Howard Zinn (1922-2010). I was a little taken aback by how frail he seemed when on stage for the documentary. I guess the last footage of his I had seen was in the film based on his autobiography You Can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train (2004). In The People Speak, he summed up what we can all do quite simply:

If we live now as we think human beings should live. In defiance of all that is bad around us, that in itself is a marvellous victory.

We can and should do this everyday, not matter how small. Too often, I have found myself making excuses. I think many of us do. For some of us it is experience that fosters this, it is our consciousness. Our witness. It can be based on the abuses we have seen, the destruction and devastation wrought by our collective lifestyles our on collective selves. It is far too easy to make excuses.

We all need inspiration at times. For me, Howard has been one of many sources.

Whereas it is easy to make excuses, it is just as easy a substantial amount of time to do the little things that are a cornerstone of change. We can be each other’s inspirations.

Name dropping, being too cool for school and relationality

avolve — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:04:28 +0000

Over the last few years, a ‘trend’ has emerged amongst animal activists. It seems that to be considered a ‘real’ activist, the words one uses — even the names one drops — are more important than anything else. Visible are the emergences of aspects of a boys club, a clique, even a cliché in circles of people/activists. Irrespective of whether one acts (and it seems many talking the talk do not), it is how one can express themselves in these terms that is seemingly more important. Activist cred is based on the words used, not the actions and involvement in seeking outcomes for animals.

Sadly, as is present in other movements, activists are relationally positioning themselves. We are seeing people define themselves by what they are not doing as opposed to having a solid and critical reflection on the key issues which would enable them to define what they are doing. For example, deference to ‘bigger cages, longer chains’ to dismiss other perspectives, or the more common, I am an abolitionist, are often very hollow. These terms/phrases are not backed-up with a solid understanding (sometimes very little, if any) of what they are trying to portray — they are merely counterpoised to what are blankety labelled as welfarist.

I do not see this relational approach as affording much positives. If anything, it is tarnishing the sound ideas and engagement that does exist. The emerging cliché-esqueness of such word dropping can negate the potential and influences of nuanced and open discussion and debate. My aim here is not to dismiss or marginalise those new to veganism, outreach and activism. Rather it is to highlight this trend and illustrate the implications of this, and some of the roots. Through exposing roots, differing approaches that do not foster or reinforce this trend, rather providing a solid baseline for discussion, engagement and action can emerge.

Relational positioning, of defining oneself by not being a welfarist, for example, is a huge area that requires substantial reflection and unpacking. It is an issue that has been the focus of substantial reflection in social justice circles (challenging racism and whiteness for example). The roots are very much there to challenge this given the awareness of speciesism amongst vegans — even if this requires much more engagement.

How prominent such relational positioning is is clear in how the term abolitionist is regularly dropped as a means to dismiss other viewpoints —without solid exposition. Being an abolitionist has become ‘cool’, even if (some of) those claiming the title have little real understanding of what it means, how to promote it and what is required. Accompanied with the increasing liberalism (i.e. individualism, self-centredness) and arrogance which is far too common and prevalent in many contemporary movements, this intersection is fostering an holier than thou attitude. This attitude exists on (at least) two levels — one located within the abolitionist movement. Alongside veganism positioned as the more righteous approach (as opposed to vegetarianism for example), the arrogant individualism has a further masculine edge. Veganism is revolutionary, it is even self-seen as militant. Notions of militancy are visible amongst certain groups who promote direct action — some more-so than others. Those who are involved in such actions often see themselves as more righteous (and revolutionary) based on their individual risk. Quite often blasé.

A recent freelance opinion piece, which is doing the rounds in the Australian press this week, prompted me to pen some thoughts. The piece is by Katrina Fox and titled Call meat happy, but it is never humane. It is generally a good piece, notwithstanding derisive comments it has received. Alongside being well written and making solid distinctions between use and treatment, there are moments that fit within the trend. Of name dropping, pushing the right buttons, and use of the ‘right’ words to be considered valid.
The distinction made between use and treatment is very clear and one that needs to be expressed. It is made in particular to address and counter the approaches of animal welfare organisations — those same organisations promoting free range and organic meat. The (re)emergence and active promotion of a movement towards notions of small scale farms that are portrayed as animal friendly (i.e. happy meat) have marked and foster ‘a shift in cultural consciousness from a focus on animal use to that of treatment’. More exposition of this is needed.

Fox’s exposing of key issues like use v. treatment are tempered, however, in what appears to be the inclusion of name dropping and (shallow) key words. You could even consider the permeation of this, of what are quickly becoming almost clichés, to be (increasingly?) panoptic. There is a pressure to confirm, there are sanctions to not conforming. Vegan circles are already small, and challenging what are becoming dominant ideas can leave one ostracised. I know of many examples of people seeking to challenge unquestion assumptions, the lack of reflexivity, amongst the new cool kids on the block. It does not take much for the questioners to become the target of reactionary derision.

Even with veganism being an individual act, it requires a collective shift to foster the changes we seek. The liberalism central to contemporary movements (animal and environmental more broadly) in the ‘west’ is a key root or this. Moving away from the notion of individual acts, of focussing on the individual (both those taking vegan action, and those not) towards the structural — and hence away from being cool, name dropping and the (shallow) subcultural capital of new language — provides an interesting tension. I think it is one that requires more thought.

I may be overly critical (of Fox) here, though the trend visible in her piece is far too widespread, damaging and needs to addressed within, rather than from the outside. Espousals of veganism, and the key issues it addresses, needs to move from being (not only seen as) an at-times cliquey subculture towards what it should be (and at times is): a movement progressive social and ecological for change. More broadly, the individualist liberal notions common in contemporary movements (the exceptionalisms), need to be reflected on given the implications.

Copenhagen, climate change, anthropocentrism & cynicism

avolve — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:37:48 +0000

The cynicism that has to a degree quashed most of the optimism I try to have has many roots. I have been looking for hope, a reason and a means to move beyond hope. This seems a perpetual task. Sometimes it is fruitful, often it is not (perhaps caught up in my recurrent cynicism. I do so good things, though these ‘good’ things often embody some of the same old shit that the ‘bad’ is predicated on. With the Copenhagen talks going to shit — as they should given the stance of the rich (they are not ‘developed‘ — I will explain why), alongside the political shambles surrounding the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in Australia, even those amongst the ‘left’ are so caught up in anthropocentric, (pseudo-)capitalist shite, I do not even see a basis for hope…

I have not heard/read/listened to a single commentary that critiques the anthropocentric focus of Copenhagen and climate change talks more broadly. What is all this shit about saving the planet for the metaphorical ‘our children’. What happened to consideration of how we are fucking the planet up for all species? What about restitutive justice? Forget talking about the impacts on the children some people may have in the future, and their (western) lifestyles. What about the continuing decimation of ecosystems and the increase extinction's and direct threats to the survival of untold species?

Why the fuck are we so caught up in both our lifestyles and self-obsessed with our own species?

Notwithstanding some valid fears about survival that many in the global south have as a direct result of the west’s devastating impacts on the environment — the abject poverty, suffering and deaths it directly causes — when are we going to wake up? Are we going to wake up?

When are those in the left move beyond referring to the west as developed. The term itself implies improvement. That we have improved the environment. Without going into a sustained engagement here, the question that needs to be asked is to what degree have we 'improved' things (see above)?

Extending beyond this, can we expect the ‘left’, progressive folks, to see beyond anthropocentrism? Given the moral schizophrenia so pervasive in the west (and beyond), you might think there would be some concern for cute and fluffy ‘wild’ creatures — I am not even suggesting people stop consuming animals (thought it would be a start). Yet, all this talk about climate change is based on concern for the impacts on the metaphorical potential child...

I have avoided most of the reporting on Copenhagen. It does little to counter my current cynicism. Rather, the current outcomes (for lack of a suitable word) fosters, perpetuates and solidifies it.

In a similar vein, the political shit fight about the proposed ETS in Australia is void of much critical substance. The right is claiming it is a tax, the mainstream political left is claiming it is essential. Anyone not supporting it is portrayed as a climate change sceptic. Whilst I am certain many opposing it are, why is their little coverage of solid critical discussions of the ETS as being little more than business as usual — in the capitalist sense. What about the lack of any significant tangible changes to energy policy (i.e. little ecological benefit)? Where is the support for small-scale decentralised approaches that will have far more positive impacts on mitigating our impacts on the planet as opposed to re-entrenching existing centralised infrastructure? Infrastructure that has extensive untold ecological & social impacts.

Should I see means to move beyond hope in the principled stand of the Australian Greens (in the electoral sphere) and many of the Group of 77 (G77) — which in itself seems far more ‘democratic’ that than the G5/G7/G10?

In a post-Bush west, it seems little has changed beyond the icing on the cake. The substance is still the same. It is the rhetoric that has changed. Some optimists may see it as good people constrained by the system (irrespective of whether they want the system to be changed/removed/overthrown). Other’s may see it as capitalism with a (quasi?) human face. I guess I need to re-listen to Propaghandi’s Supporting Caste, specifically Life at Disconnect:

‘Maybe we truly are just shallow and lame and we’re all just waiting for the end, the spectacle, or some kind of catastrophe to bring us back to earth to stun our ever nodding heads.’

I need to move beyond my cynicism, beyond hope and get back to working for change. My privileged aspiring-to-be middle-class western white male self needs to move beyond the luxury that cynicism affords...

Repeated burstings of the proverbial bubble

avolve — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:00:29 +0000

I have a utopian ideal. I am pretty certain I am not alone in this. Mine is couched, sometimes overridden, sometimes decimated, by my cynicism. I have been referred to as both cynical and jaded. I sometimes describe myself as an optimist with a health dose of cynicism. I wish there was reason to be otherwise — perhaps this is the basis for my utopianism. More times that I would like to recount in recent weeks, any utopian outlooks I have have been quashed.

The current politicking about refugees is beyond description. I literally fled from Australian in the wake of the Tampa situation in 2001. The wikipedia entry on the events surrounding the Tampa describe it as

‘a diplomatic dispute brewed between Australia, Norway, and Indonesia after Tampa had rescued 438 Afghans from a distressed fishing vessel in international waters.’

The Conservative government successfully engaged in and mobilised wedge politics creating a divisive political social and political climate. Australia was a very different place following this issue — a place I no longer wanted to live.

Politicking about refugees has resurfaced and is again. Whilst the approach of the current government differs from that of the previous, it is still rather horrifying and based on many of the same ideological rationalisations (othering, exceptionlaism, racism, xenophobia). Australia (still or once again?) has an air about being somewhere I would rather not be.

Approaches to the climate change ‘debate’ is another issue that has countered my utopianism. Granted a equitable, socially just vegan society is not even close (or fathomable). Not to mention that scientific controversies like climate change often fail to come close to closure irrespective of the amount of evidence (including new evidence). For the second time in as many days (the first explicitly, the second not using these words) I have heard to climate change as being a left-wing conspiracy… Both times it was beyond hypocritical — the holes were large enough for a white elephant to walk through!

I am all for diverse opinions, lively discussion and debate. Is it possible to have some optimism where politicking is what it is? I guess it’s back to the small things, yet how much reflection on whether this is effective enough is too much? How much can the proverbial bubble take?

Rationality's fear of the emotive

avolve — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:05:06 +0000

I have followed reactions to Ruby Roth’s That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals, seeking to both gage and reflect on underlying assumptions and rationales. Some of the more recent responses, the rationales on which they are based, piqued my interest. I think I have come up with an interesting basis on which to reflect.

From the number of written responses, (mis)representations, and attempts at dismissing Ruby Roth’s, there appears a common rationale. This rationale is based on rationality both in the sense that masculine rationality is the dominant western approach to epistemology and ontology — how we construct and understand the world around us — and what appears to be perceived a threat to rationality as legitimate.

Rationality is something learned. It is a mode of rationalisation imposed. Socially constructed. We are taught from early on to prioritise rationality and, conversely, to de-prioritise the emotive. To de-ligitimise the emotive, to respond to the emotive as irrational, subjective, value-laden and not a suitable means to base epistemology and ontology upon.

In response to That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals, it is the threat to rationality's dominance, to its social and epistemological status, that is being perceived as under threat. Complicating this, being a children’s book, there is a fear that children are being not just manipulated — which concerns are largely framed as based on. Children are still learning to de-prioritise the emotive. As a result, coupled with the excessive socialisation of the rest of (western) society, those with concerns do not have the tools and ability to respond to the emotive questions that children who have read the book pose. We apparently do not have the ability to explain, in a rational sense, to those not yet socialised to our modes of rationalisations, that being emotional is an inferior approach to understanding the world. We lack the ability to respond in their context.

To try and put it more clearly, simply, and directly(?), what I see in many of the responses to Ruby Roth’s That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals is a serious concern based on the threat it poses to rationality in the general sense — older people feel unable to respond to and dismiss the probing questions that children ask after reading/being exposed to the content. How do you rationally claim that animals are ours to do with as we please, when those you are responding to do not (yet) accept the assumptions on which such rationalisations are based? The easily digestible understandable content provides a basis for children to challenge the status quo on their terms and in a way that we are not equipped to respond to — at least not in the context of the emotive. If we are (socialised) rationale creatures, children a emotive creatures.

From my (limited) perspective (as in I do not have children), it seems that the vegan question (even the vegetarian question) is perhaps one parents fear most — and hope to not ever face. That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals increases the potential for such a question to be raised. As questioning authority — especially by children— leads to chaos, this book is (apparently) something to be feared...

action and guilt

avolve — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:14:38 +0000

The welfare v abolition debate, an often heated debate that continues to encompass discussion of both strategy and tactics, is one that will likely continue for as long as speciesism dominates. Whereas some welfarists are speciesists, some are opposed to speciesism. Conversely, there is a debate, also controversial, within abolitionist circles regarding the place of welfarist reforms. Gary Francione and many others provide valid criticisms of welfarist approaches, highlighting how they can act to reinforce speciesism as opposed to challenging the anthropocentric exploitation of animals. One criticism of abolitionist positions, perhaps even a shortcoming, is the focus on a bigger picture at the expense of the individual — or to use terminology I have mused about previously, losing sight of the trees for the forest.

How do we ensure in working for long term change, directly challenging speciesism, whilst still not losing sight of the suffering of very much untold numbers of animals every day. How do we actively redress everyday suffering? For me, this is an issue of constant reflection — and one I do not know if I am any closer to having anywhere near an answer. It is too simple, and unfathomable, to accept that animals will suffer everyday — even if this is only a means to make me feel better. Perhaps this is the basis of welfarism: guilt.

Whiteness scholars, specifically those seeking to challenge colonial whiteness, have exposed a number of issues with guilt as a motivator for action. Concern for conditions, whether intentional or not, are rooted in how we feel about the exploitation of non-human animals, how this reflects on us. This contrasts with an interests-based (strictly) abolitionist concern.* The implications of guilt identified by whiteness scholars are directly applicable to welfarism — and likely to many abolitionists as well (to varying degrees). Guilt shifts the debate about the treatment of animals to being one based on our (species) terms, much as guilt about racism often restricts concern to white terms — it is about getting comfortable with the status quo (or a marginally improved one). Good intentions can act to mask the basis of exploitation, becoming self reinforcing.

I may have gone some way here in (partially) answering my own question. What stirred me to pen some thoughts was a sentence in Pattrice Jones Mothers with Monkeywrenches: Feminist imperatives and the ALF in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters:

‘Debates about animal liberation tactics quickly become sterile in the absence of viewpoints of actual animals’

What often seems lacking in abolitionist discussion (which are far too often overly masculine) is a consideration of the everyday suffering of animals. This seems to get lost in the abstract philosophical issues that seemingly predominate in abolitionist discussions — perhaps this is not surprising given the (seemingly at least) male dominated debates. Look at the self appointed (Best, Vlasak) or looked to (Francione) spokespeople. Irrespective of their politics (Fancione has good feminist politics) they are all men...

* Bob Torres’ Making a Killing: the political economy of animal rights (page 12) provides a an indication of why I use interests (in contrast with rights). I have problem with the notion of ‘rights’ in any sense, being a social construction.

Masculinity & Sea Shepherd's approach to direct action

avolve — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:58:05 +0000

Following on from my recent post about strategy and tactics, with a focus on conflations and exceptionalisms, I wanted to pen some critical comments on the approach — not the actions — of Sea Shepherd. I want to emphasise the distinction between approach to and the actual actions as this is an area in which there are issues that can, should and need to changed. I am sure I am not the only one with direct action experience, including running training camps and workshops that has noted some serious issues with Sea Shepherd approach to actions. I am focussing on the actions in the southern ocean that are also presented in the Animal Planet documentary (for lack of a better description) series Whale Wars.

To pre-empt potential criticisms about selective editing in the portrayals of Sea Shepherd actions in Whale Wars, the approach to actions is still very clear. A simplistic example is the repeated use of imagery of one of the ‘small boats’ flipping whilst being lowered. This was captured during the first season, yet is used in the opening sequent of the second season. It has visual value to the marketing of the series, yet the underlying reasons behind this thankfully without harm accident are there irrespective of the coverage. These issues are clear in the pre and post actions and comments of more experienced Sea Shepherd staff and campaigners. The actions are hyper-masculine, hierarchical and very non-sustaining. These are very interlinked and I will try to explain each clearly.

The hyper-masculine basis of the actions can be seen in the very blasé attitude of the more established members of the crew. There are various examples where the newer members of the crew, with limited training, and I use the term very lightly, are expected to be able to carry out all aspect of an action safely and effectively. It is the area of safety that is of serious concern given the location of the actions — life threatening after even small errors in judgment. You may try to excuse the lack of training away based on the urgency of the actions. The source, however, is a blasé masculinist attitude of being able to just do it: she’ll be right. It embodies an ideology that whatever the outcomes of our actions we are ‘tough enough’ to deal with them.

The very limited, inadequate/non-existent training provided to new members of the crew is very non-sustaining. Sustainable activism is essential to all movements — not only do we want people to continue to be active and seek change, we want those who have learned skills to continue utlise them and pass them on to others. This passing on is quite limited in the Sea Shepherd actions, and the implications of this are very clear in the high turnover of new members each year (also directly linked to the hyper-masculinist attitudes and approach that dominate). Consider how much more effective the actions would be if there were a significant number of skilled-up activists each year.

Being non-sustaining reinforces and perpetuates existing hierarchies. It also protects the status of established crew. This is not necessarily intentional. It can also be intentional, if unconscious (irrespective of their attitude). Many of the established crew have worked for years to get Sea Shepherd to where it is, having come through the trials and tribulations that new crew members experience to a far lesser extent. These past efforts expended foster a sense of ownership and the burnout associated with a prevalent absence of the support required for sustaining the self — widespread in most activist circles, and an issue that has received some, if far from enough, movement attention — can reinforce this via a perception that attribution is not fairly ascribed (comes to easy to those who came on board late).

In the last few days, I noted another example of the hyper-masculine. The Sea Shepherd facebook page was updated with recent actions. In the comment section, a response to a critical comment (the context of the original was not very clear) was

‘until your booty is out there doing something and not sitting behind a computer. The only thing you should be doing is giving praise for what these people do.’

Unpacking this comment opens up many issues for discussion (the issue of online v in person action is something I am currently writing about elsewhere). A core theme is if your body is not on the line, the action you take is less valued, perhaps not even worthwhile. This ties back to the boat-flipping footage used in the opening credits of Whale Wars. The actions of those in the boat has cemented them as real activists as they have put their body on the line — irrespective that they were not giving an adequate level of training. They are now hardcore. Such notions have been a common undercurrent in direct action (not universal) for some time. This is often a very uninformed view to hold, aside from the hyper-masculinity inherent.

To finish this up, the notion of putting your body on the line as being more valuable, even real, activism has significant masculinist overtones that we need to critically reflect on. That such ideas underpin a lack of adequate skill-sharing and training, fostered by and fostering (self-reinforcing) a mentality that ‘new’ activists need to earn their stripes (intentional use of cliché) and put up or shut up clearly illustrate this issue. There is a need to appreciate the actions of seasoned activists and what they have gone through, yet we need to create a more supportive atmosphere and sustainable approach for both the new and the more seasoned activists.

conflations and exceptionalisms in strategy debates

avolve — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:20:18 +0000

I have been delving into the debate about strategies and tactics of late — with a focus on animal activists. Rather than focussing on what can be considered the traditional, in the sense of the last ~20 years, welfarist v abolitionist, I have taken to task exploring the debate between abolitionists specifically. What exactly I have been looking at is the debate around tactics, utilising the context of HLS/SHAC/SHAC-7, the AETA and the ALF. I have long supported the rescue of animals, and have openly supported property destruction in the past (though I am reflecting on the effectiveness of the latter). My initial basis for delving into this was to highlight what had I noted as exceptionalisms which I saw as impacting on effectiveness. I have also noted conflations by participants on the debate on both sides.

The depth of my research and engagement is growing, and I hope to have enough material to come up with some grounded results soon. For now, this divide, which I think is a fair term, has indicated that it can be as damaging as the (ongoing) new welfarist v abolitionist debates that emerged in the 1980s. I am an abolitionist and clearly see many aspects of new welfarism that undermine the end goal of abolition. I won’t go into these here as discussions are widespread and quite readily available. What I want to (very) briefly) mention are two examples of how exceptianlisms/conflations made by those with different positions in the debate about tactics are undermining our effectiveness.

I am all for open discussion and debate about tactics — along the lines that we need to get our house in order. It is here that one exceptionalism is located. There are a number of people who have called for not criticising the actions of the SHAC-7. This was more common/profound at the time of their prosecution. I must preface my comments with stating that the AETA is a corporate driven, reactionary attempt to maintain the status quo and re-entrench existing power structures and relations — to the (further) detriment of a fair and just society. That said, I do not agree with or support some of the actions promoted/supported/taken by members of SHAC (notwithstanding, these were not really the basis of the prosecution of the SHAC-7). Some of the calls for not critically commenting on the SHAC tactics echo the your with us or against us Bushism rhetoric and the rampant patriotism that is far too widespread in the USA. Here lies the exceptionalism: many who are critical of the war mongering of the Bush (and Obama) administration and the call to support the President in a ‘time of war’ made the call to support the SHAC-7. What’s good for the goose…

This exceptionalism is related to conflations about tactics. In defending, or at least calling for them not to be criticised, the actions of activists, non-supporting comments are often thrown in the same basket — clearly embodying the same your with us or against us mentality. The flip side of this is the conflation of any tactics different to those promoted as militant. This is the position that Lee Hall takes in Capers in the Churchyard. While there is merit in her reflective criticisms of what she (broadly) labels as militant activists, the most visible conflation is seemingly too simple — yet it speaks volumes that can be seen throughout her engagement. If you look in the index of Capers, there is an entry for terrorism. This entry has no page numbers, rather it redirects you to look the entry for militancy. The entry for militancy included, in brackets, see also Animal Liberation Front. Whilst there are some actions by animal activists that can be labelled terrorist (lets see how this can be misquoted/taken out of context), to make such a generalisation is more than just damaging to the movement.

Internal discussion and debate is inherently valuable. We need to be responsible in how we proceed. I think conflations by both sides, as I have labelled them, are both problematic and damaging.

androcentrism as isolated events and its implications

avolve — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:49 +0000

Over the last week there has been a mainstream uproar after alternate press and women’s groups responded to a radio interview where a young women was pushed into admitting she was raped (unbeknownst to the interviewers). Specific attention has been given to one the radio show’s hosts’ immediate response to the young women’s unexpected revelation. Whilst the radio interview, its approach and the actions of the hosts were very questionably (to say the least), media attention has focused on this as a single isolated event rather than being based in a broader problematic socio-cultural issue. Should we expect more?

The radio show in question, and the downfall of the male host, is receiving headline coverage, including his removal from the air, and from the panel of ‘reality’ show Australian Idol. The situation emerged with a ‘lie detector stunt’. The young women’s mother rang in to get her to answer questions about her experiences with sex and drugs (her mother was aware that she had been raped, which begs another question).

The whole premise of the segment/stunt was clearly tabloid, almost gutter (can I use the word) journalism. However, the reaction of the media to this is more of a problem. The immediate response of the host was very poor (which he has admitted), seeming an attempt to divert attention away from the allegation, and he was clearly stunned, whilst ending the segment. This response acted to trivialise the matter, furthering the connotations of the question and adding to the young women’s trauma, which had been increasing during the interrogation.

In his response to the almost immediate wide-spread coverage of the issue, aware of what he had done (at least to a degree more than I assume many, including myself, would have expected given the radio show), the host attempted to take responsibility for what happened, seeking to highlight the need for the young women’s welfare to be the priority. This does not take away from what had transpired, yet the mainstream press has focussed on what he did rather than seeking to promote the interests of the young women.

Not taking away from the trauma the young women has suffered by the rape itself and then the radio show, the biggest travesty is the how this has been handled as a abhorrent and isolated event. Too many people in society respond to rape in trivialised ways. An incident such as this should be used to foster broader education for cultural change, yet the focus on the radio host is doing little more than leaving such broader responses and perspective unchallenged. They are somewhat being normalised by focusing on this as an isolated, worse, event.

Given the last few years exposure of the culture towards women in rugby league, with numerous rapes, non-consensual group sex, and alcohol abuse that were once looked at in a similar manner (isolated events), I had hoped for more. If it can be finally accepted that there is a very poor attitude towards women in rugby league, and some actions are being taken to address this, why is it not the case with this incident. Perhaps the attempts to isolate the rugby league incidents with specific teams are indicative enough (damage control, not admitting how widespread the issue is). Selective interrogation of such issues and events leaves a lot to be desired.

We buried a member of our family today.

avolve — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:24:19 +0000

Tae, a blue-cattle cross we adopted more than 10 years ago, was put to sleep today, after suffering a ruptured (previously undiagnosed) Hemangiosarcoma. It was the first time I was directly involved in a euthanasia decision and process. The varied emotions, thoughts, hope, catharsis of it all. The apparent peace, the warmth, the softness, the sleep-like state that resulted were all new experiences. The level of compassion of the staff at the veterinary hospital is something I could not have expected. Something almost overwhelming in itself.

In the weeks prior, Tae’s vision and hearing had deteriorated rapidly, after more than a years steady reduction, and we were adjusting to caring for a vision and hearing impaired companion. She was adjusting well, (re)learning to navigate via different means — after a couple misadventures. In monitoring her, we noted some changes in her behaviour, physical stature, energy levels and mobility over the last few days. I had hoped it was an intestinal blockage. On arriving at the veterinary hospital early this morning I became aware rather quickly that it was far more serious.

Given her age and the symptoms resulting from Hemangiosarcoma, the vet outlined the options. Kidney failure (revealed by bloodwork) and cardiac arrhythmias may or may not have been related to the Hemangiosarcoma, though the latter would significantly reduce the chance of her surviving a splenectomy. My concern was for Tae, and it became apparent that euthanasia was the most compassionate option, though this option was not one I was 100% certain on — for reasons I will return to…

It was decided that I could take Tae home for others to have the opportunity to say good-bye to her, to give her a few final hours in which we could express our love. How much this was for us is up to question — and a valid one that does require some reflection.

Whilst she was at home today, I decided on her resting place (adjacent to the other animals we had adopted) and began the preparation. It was somewhat cathartic — as writing this, trying to consider how to broach her condition with others in her life, and trying to (rationalise how to) come to terms with it myself have been.

Why was I not 100% certain about euthanasia? What it comes down to is perhaps a romanticised notion, but also based on speciesism. I have grave concerns about decisions humans make for other animals. Often, euthanasia is the easy option. Looking at the notion of euthanasia for humans exposes some of the issues (comparatively). I also hoped that she would either get better/be found to have a treatable condition without loss in quality of life or any suffering or that she would die without me making the decision.* The latter is perhaps problematic, and shares, somewhat, some of the recurrent themes/issues that debate about human euthanasia. For me (problematic or not), it was about not making decisions for her, wanting it to be on her terms.

To me, it seemed like Tae was deteriorating as the day progressed. She was comfortable, though it was obvious that the internal bleeding, Abdominal distension, inappetance and general weakness were progressing. When we returned to the veterinary hospital, with Tae sitting on my lap, my reaction to her appearance differed to those of who I was with. Tae was starting to drool heavily. I thought this another sign of her deteriorating condition. The member of the family with me viewed it as a sign she was very happy in her final living moments.

The injection and Tae’s passing was very quick. What was to immediately follow has given me a new perspective. I have never witnessed an animal euthanised, and it seemed to be very peaceful. As the injected chemicals passed through her body, Tae had two members of her (adopted) family stroking her with almost benign familiarity. She was in a very comfortable position, one I had seen her sleep in many times. The Veterinarian adjusted her head position, placing her head between her front paws post the process. It was picturesque. I continued to stroke Tae, and the warmth of her body, the softness of her fur. These were far from any thoughts I had about how this would progress.

As mentioned, albeit perhaps lost in the cloudiness of my own emotions and reactions, my main concern was for Tae. The compassion of the veterinary hospital staff certainly made the process easier on us. Their compassion was far from anything I had considered would be provided. It was almost overwhelming. I will be going back to thank them. Their actions has made the process easier, whether it should be a factor or not, for the thoughts that have emerged. Clarity. In the past when a companion had died, the grief was a barrier to adopted another animal in need. I am now able to more clearly recognise that adopting animals is about them, restitutive justice as much as it can be, their quality of life (I have renewed feelings of anger about the world we have constructed, the suffering inflicted on other species for our wants).

Whilst being about them — as it should be, adopting animals does impact on our lives and change us. Tonight as we reflect and each of us deals with Tae’s passing in our own, some very different, ways, this is strongly reinforced. The first emotion/reaction I have had (and I think it is one I have experienced in the past) is the profound emptiness of the yard without Tae there...

---------

These are my immediate thoughts and feelings. I have shared them as is, no to suggest they are free from critical comment or challenge. They may, however, provide some solace to others in similar situations or a starting point for thought.

I will search for a photo of Tae. I considered taking a photo of her lying on the couch at home today, though thought I would rather a picture of her happy, playing. This contrasted with my thoughts on her lying peacefully, picturesque, immediately following the euthanasia…

----------

* My usage of the term hope shares Derrick Jensen’s definition, which I have mused about before...

Iran, western media & selective reporting

avolve — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 07:01:19 +0000

A number of weeks have passed since the election in Iran, and it appears much of the public comments have faded from view. As many people will be aware, there were a lot of online campaigns seeking to raise awareness of concerns with the election result and the crackdown in dissidents/those protesting the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President. Perhaps the largest was the HelpIranElection.com campaign:

“Show support for the people who fight for democracy at Iran, and change your Twitter avatar to have green overlay or green ribbon (green is the official color of the movement).”

I was reluctant, despite mounting ‘pressure’, to add the requisite overlay/ribbon to my avatars, though eventually succumbed. My reluctance was based on my concern with the western media coverage and my lack of knowledge of the what was/had actually transpired. It seems that many were caught up in the moment and others, like myself to some extent, accepted the apparent overwhelming (western) criticism of what happened as evidence of fraud in itself.

John Pilger has provided a good critique of the (simplistic, reductionist, and manipulated) western media coverage of the Iranian election during a recent interview on Democracy Now, contrasting this with different approach to coverage of the coup in Honduras. I do think that many of the reactions to the Iranian election are borne out of exposure to years of western demonising of Iran in significant part based on Iran not towing a line the US would like (it is much more complex than this simple statement) — how many times does something need to be repeated before it seems like the truth.

The crux of Pilger’s comments, which ranged far wider than western media (and political) coverage of the Iranian election protests, provide a good grounding for any of the newly aware people caught up in the green wave of awareness to understand the nuances and manipulations that are going on. For myself, I guess it is a reminder that I should remain critical even when significant numbers of people (even friends or those whose opinions I value) voice a similar perspective or opinion…

change, questioning & uncertainty

avolve — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:33:23 +0000

Change can, and often is, challenging on many levels. Some of the ways we can react to it include acceptance, understanding, adaption and various variants of fear or uncertainty. Change can provide for interesting, exciting and challenging times. Whilst not always positive, I try to embrace and be open to change — often challenging myself specifically in regards to not getting too settled. We often should force ourself to step outside our comfort zones and be open to change, as to not do so can have many negative implications. Perhaps some of the most cogent examples include how unconscious racism (colonialism) & sexism can become so entrenched that attempts to constructively expose/criticise are often met with dismissals or denials. Fiona Nicoll (2004) provides an interesting example, and take on it, in ‘“Are you calling me a racist?”: Teaching critical whiteness theory in indigenous sovereignty’. How (white) people respond and relate to the concept of reconciliation also provides interesting examples: the form of reconciliaiton — to’ or ‘with’ (Nicoll 1993); reconciliation on whose terms? (Gelder 2000) or notions of practical reconciliation (Haggis and Scheech 2004)

In my current predicament(s), I have tried to be aware of the implications of getting comfortable and how this can create a barrier to opportunities and change. There is somewhere I really want to return to and live, though do not currently have the means. As an interim, I would like to live closer to many of my friends — which has twofold implications. The first is economic. It will cost me much more to live near friends as an interim measure, further delaying the possibility of returning to where I really want to live. The second is related to getting comfortable. If I live near my friends, I know I will get more comfortable and grounded. This is far from a negative (rather, having many positives). It does have its implications...

It is when we get settled or comfortable that we become resistant to change, resistant to contemplating change, and often unable to see the potential benefits and opportunities that change can foster and create. With regard to the latter, the change might bring about significant increases in happiness and other pleasures in life, yet the uncomfortableness of change invokes questionings and deferences to the unsettling aspects. In essence, when we are comfortable, we often do not consider change (not necessarily a bad thing).

I have always tried to force myself to be open to change, to embrace the uncertainties. Some might say it leads to numerous opportunities and adventures. In my current predicament, I want to live closer to friends though am concerned about the impacts of getting comfortable again. I know how challenging change can be, having relocated to four different cities in the past without knowing anyone (three of these were international moves). I am little concerned that getting comfortable may lead to barriers (some unconscious, some swept aside so as not to address) to committing to change when the opportunity finally arises. I guess I am worried that I will get comfortable enough the be more resistant to change.

A complicating factor in this is time. Do we become more complacent over time, or does time act to foster uncertainty. Situations, people and places always change over time — as anyone who has travelled and returned ‘home’ will note. Does time further uncomfortableness? Is missing out on experiencing something(s) enough to keep ones plans strong enough to counter time and resistance to change, accepting uncertainty?

We often aspire to get comfortable again. It is not a negative, though it can have negative implications. I guess one of my questions is, can we get too comfortable in that it prevents us from experiencing? How much is our desire for comfortableness a response/reaction to the mediation of our lives that is beyond our control (commodification, exploitation, socialisation)?

Questioning (internal conflict) is good though it is also something that can invoke uncertainty. Can these be cyclic with questioning and uncertainty feeding off of each other. At this point in time, I can see the potential and may be experiencing it.

I guess my current uncertainty is at least a sign that I am questioning…

Gelder, K. 2000. 'The Imaginary Eco-(Pre) Historian: Peter Read's Belonging as a Postcolonial 'Symptom'', Australian Humanities Review. 19. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from <http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-September-2000/gelder.html>

Haggis, J. & Scheech, S. 2004. Thoughts on a politics of whiteness in a (never quite post) colonial country: abolitionism, essentialism and incommensurability, in A. Moreton-Robinson (ed.) Whitening Race: essays in Social and cultural criticism,
Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press: 48-58.

Nicoll, F. 2004. '"Are you calling me a racist?": Teaching critical whiteness theory in indigenous sovereignty', borderlands e-journal. 3(2). Retrieved November 16, 2005, from <http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/nicoll_teaching.htm>

rationalisations, belittlement and fostering change

avolve — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:33:35 +0000

Quite often the argument is made that as people in western society are far removed from certain aspects of society they are able to disassociate themselves, often unconsciously. This is visible in the lack of awareness of the working conditions of people who make many of the clothes those in the west wear — including the exploitation of children in sweatshops. Perhaps the most clear manifestation of this can be seen in the ability, for lack of a more appropriate term, of people to disassociate, for example, the chicken they purchase in the supermarket from the conditions in which the chicken was reared, before finally being slaughtered. There are psychological reasons for this, and this is often a focus of advertising campaigns (i.e. exploited), as much as rationalisations mobilised to justify, support or defend one’s choices. A recent experience prompted reflection on this — an experience often intentionally far-removed from the day-to-day life of westerners.

On a commute I sporadically cross paths with a semi-trailer or two laden with seemingly innocuous stacks of wire boxes, the content of which is not easy to discern. For many, it is the aftermath that exposes them to what the cages hold — if they notice at all. In their wake, which can be seen for some distance and mark the trucks’ trail, feathers line the side of the road, often flailing around in the turbulence of passing traffic.

These trucks emerge from a large broiler farm. The transport the live chickens to an unknown location for slaughter. Irrespective of weather, the chickens are transported without protection — aside from the rows of chickens stacked in cages above them. For those who do note the multitude chickens in the cages, the fear and suffering is pretty in your face.

Like many, I am aware that untold numbers of animals suffer and are slaughtered for the sake, or a direct result, of culinary gratification daily. Given this, why does the visual reminder of this have such an impact? Is it the relative powerlessness of seeking animals suffer at the hands of others? Is it that little will change for a long time, irrespective of one’s actions — that many millions more animals will suffer a similar fate? Is it that once looking into the eyes of one of these chickens, we are permanently affected?

Whenever I am in a store that displays the sanitised remains of animals for purchase, I tend to avoid those isles. As I pass, my eyes are intentionally directed elsewhere, my head turns away. Once one becomes aware of the suffering, the cliché ignorance is bliss shows its true meaning. We look away because we do not want the pain of knowing, at last in that moment. We do not want reinforced what we already know — millions are suffering and there is little we can do about it. That every life is as inherently valuable as our own.

Reflection of this sight of untold numbers of birds being transferred to slaughter, the ending of a life of untold suffering, has a broader purpose. Recently I noted a dialogue (to put it nicely) between someone I have known for some time and others reading his published work. A criticism of his writing was that he often belittles others with differing, less-nuanced or les-informed opinions. His response(s), in some ways, were also belittling — though clearly not noted (or if so, he did not care). This persons is relatively respected proponent of animal advocacy and veganism, and expends substantial effort to these ends. Sadly, their actions and approach to others is not always as beneficial.

What I have noted, sadly in many activist/advocate circles, is a hierarchy where those new to issues are treated differently, and often (not always intentionally and often partly unconsciously) belittled to varying degrees. Developing ones ideas and perspectives take time. What is often forgotten is that those doing the belittling were once in the same position as the recipient. Further, our ideas and awareness continue to develop overtime and there will alway s be someone with a perspective we can learn from. Do we really need to belittle those who have less opportunity than ourselves. Is activism and advocacy not in a large part about education?

The standard (hyper-masculine, often heteronormative) response to attempts at pointing this out is also belittling, often very defensive. Many who have grounded awareness of the relation between means and ends, and see the need for them to be one and the same, similarly respond. Constructive criticism is often dismissed as soft, even hippie-ish (construed in a negative fashion).

Sadly, much of this has manifested in fan club-esque uncritical and unwavering flag waving for created celebrities. It is evident that some who criticise the fandom of others act more like someone wanting to take their place than exposing and undermining the problematic aspects of such fandom. This is not always egoism, though it seems that way in far too many examples.

My point is, that this is a sad indictment on all of those working for change and a more compassionate world. We need to reflect on how we relate to others, be open to nurturing other’s with less experience whilst also being open to constructive criticism and different perspectives.

Many of those engaged in activism and advocacy, most likely a large percentage at one time or another, need to re-think the knee-jerk criticisms of others apparent ignorance’s. On the psychological level, we all try to shield ourselves. Let’s not be overly, more importantly dismissively, critical of those whose (unconscious) attempts at rationalised ignorance are obvious to ourselves...

beta testing upgrade and new theme

avolve — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:56:00 +0000

veganarky has been updated to Drupal 6.10, accompanied by the creation of a new minimalist theme.

Over coming days existing and new features will be tested and implemented, and any bugs rectified.

life as means. hope. existence

avolve — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:08:53 +0000

Is interesting how things change in life — priorities, desires, the way we relate to each other, what we do and our expectations (amongst many other things). Our lives are very structured, sometimes in ways we do not necessarily like and some speak out against and seek to challenge. It seems that when we are young (perhaps I am romanticising) there are more things that we would like to do than the time required to do them. When older, if/when we find we have substantial free time available it seems some (many, most?) of us are at a loss for what to do…

A quick response to this is we are products of our own existences and we live in and under an economic system that is very controlling. When younger we go through the stages of educating ourselves to become active and efficient participants in this system. When older, the majority of our lives are spent as cogs in the machine. Life fits into the fraction of time left. Take out some or a significant part of the time required at work and we can find ourselves at a loss for what to do with this new free time.

Many will say it takes time for us to re-discover our true selves, our desires and wants to effectively use this time to pursue experiences, happiness, love and relationships. Many more will also say that as current circumstances are so structured around consumption and that when only a handful of people are afforded such spare time, it is not that easy and the means for enjoying such experiences are not readily available. Our mindsets become so altered from when we were younger that it is not straightforward or simple to adapt to such changes.

Whilst I agree with sentiments of such ideas, it seems that at times the easy way out is what is pursued. We do not want to do the work required. We put it in the too hard basket. Cynics, and perhaps a number of realists, would counter that the way our existences are structured, attempting to transcend and escape these boundaries is made harder and merely sidestepping yet remaining constrained are positioned as an easy way out. In not denying that, do we or should we really want things to be easy?

On the surface, yes may be an apt and acceptable response. Yet, are things perceived as hard because we focus on distant ends? Do we lose sight, much like the sentiments of some of my recent thoughts, of the trees for the forest? Are we focussed on the notion of the big picture, the end game, the goal. Do we lose sight of life. We (should) live everyday. More than means reflecting the ends, the means are also the ends.

These could all be outcomes of our structured existence. Our seeking to become comfortable, to escape some of the trials and tribulations of existing with many aspects of our lives that are outside of our control. Yet, if we are merely existing hoping for a change later in life, to achieve some semblance or arrangement of perceived comfort or greater control, are we really living at all? Some may counter, do we really have a choice…

My thoughts here are not intended to say someone is right, someone is wrong. Rather, I think we do at times lose sight of what living is. I have seen it more amongst those who are at the (wrong) end of the stick, those more directly exploited by relations of capital. It is also quite prevalent amongst those seeking to challenge injustice who are also disproportionate victims. Sometimes it is hard to see beyond the injustices we face, to get out of the mindset of our own exploitation. The question is, do we become constrained as much as to crete a double bind, a double exploitation that we are partly responsible for?

I sat down to write this without a clear direction, rather a means to put some ideas down whilst also helping myself to understand the non-considered or unconscious reasons behind some decisions I have made and have seen in others of late. Life is full of changes. That is one certainty.

We are often not in control, and this is not always a bad thing. I (try to) accept this, though am also making a concerted effort to live with the means as the ends, as part of the means reflecting the ends. This is not proving easy, and involves many aspects of live beyond my control. To some extent, this is where the notion of hope comes in. I adopt, albeit without some of the negative connotations, the definition and explanation of hope that Derrick Jensen — which I penned some thoughts on back in early 2006: hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency. Whereas Jensen calls for moving Beyond Hope ‘to become a better activist for the environment and social justice’, in life, love and happiness sometimes hope is all we have. Sometimes we need to give up the semblance and notion of being in a position of power — not an easy thing to accept and attempt.

seeking inspiration: feeling loss & being at a loss

avolve — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:30:43 +0000

I have posted previously about bands/music and have given a bit of thought of late to music that has had an influence on me. This is partly due to the million-and-one quizzes abounding on stalkerbook of late, and the release of Supporting Caste by Propaghandi in the last month. I have appreciated their lyrics and tunes for a long time, having the opportunity to see them in Australia in 1996 and in their home town of Winnipeg in 2006 (unfortunately I missed their recent Australian tour as I was in Canada). My anticipation of their new disc was heightened knowing friends were talking to Chris for a number of podcasts (VeganFreak Radio; Animal Voices).

I have given Supporting Caste a few listens through, without the benefit of the liner which is apparently very very good. I need to give Supporting Caste a good going over, though am still at a point where Life at Disconnect, included on Potempkin City Limits, was a life-changing song for me. I am certain it will be hard to surpass. Of course, this is my own perspective and based on my own experiences and contexts. For me, the lyrics of Life at Disconnect struck such a chord at its release. It said so much about what I was seeing in the world at the time, and sadly still to a substantial degree. I can’t get past:

‘Maybe we truly are just shallow and lame and we’re all just waiting for the end, the spectacle, or some kind of catastrophe to bring us back to earth to stun our ever nodding heads.’

It seems that many of us have given up to a degree. Are we too comfortable in our wanna-be middle class existences, have we lost hope in real change, have we given up. Yes we are beaten down, some more than others. Though at the least we can have hope for change. We need to work on making that change. Beyond the notion of the means reflecting the ends, are not the means also the ends?

Recent life experiences have me seeking some inspiration from another tune. I know that was where I was at when Potempkin City Limits was released. I am not sure where it will come from. This is partly linked to my previous post on a serious case of life. I seriously fucked up an amazing thing in my life, and it my be unrecoverable. I succumbed to pressures from the machinations of the state, I was beaten down over many months. I lost site of the trees.

I find myself, now having partly recovered, at a loss as to how I let myself rationalise and convince myself to make a choice that I foresee I will regret for the rest of my life. I have a void, an emptiness, a bag of hurt. I have also inflicted similar on someone so special through succumbing, throwing in the towel. This pains me manifestly more. I feel loss and am at a loss…

Perhaps I am looking for music to help me come to terms. Not to heal as somethings never do, are not meant to. I am looking for something to help me process. I hope I find it soon. I also hope the bag of hurt I have inflicted on this special person is one that can be lightened.

A serious case of life: control and ‘bad’ choices.

avolve — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:05:24 +0000

We all go though life having many experiences that are, to varying degrees, beyond our control. Different political persuasions often have different takes on how we should understand, consider, reflect on and tackle such situations. A lot of rhetoric is thrown around, from many of these perspectives, at contrasting ideas, opinions or ideologies. Radical and leftist perspectives often try to expose and understand the structural basis of the, mostly negative, implications of circumstances that remove ones control over their own lives. Similar can be said of some libertarian perspectives, even some neoconservatives. A question worth reflecting on is how much emphasis should we place on such structural factors, and when can this lead to not being able to see the trees for the forest?

A serious case of life has (painfully) re-opened my thoughts on such matters. I was recently in a situation where control over my, and, directly, some of those dear to my, life was significantly out of my hands. It was a very unpleasant situation that I, whilst not wanting to put myself in for a numbers reasons, largely accepted as it was not really a choice. At best it was a false choice — either accept a loss of control for a certain period of time, or be forced to not be in a position to live life as I really wanted for that, or a longer period of, time, and potentially lose that option. Varying degrees of untenability.

We all go through, with varying degrees of intensity, stages of our lives with such choices. Some are rather trivial, some are choices we willing accept for ethical or moral reasons. Others, like the one I am reflecting on, can be quite challenging, painful and distressing. They can lead to further ramifications, foreseen or not, that can have drastic consequences. Mine has, and coming to terms with it will take a long time...

In my situation, in reflecting, I am concerned that I dwelt on the imposed lack of control — to the point that I wholeheartedly regret my subsequent choice(s). I can see how I made that choice. The influx and combined effects that directly resulted from the initial choice to put myself in such a situation. These snowballed over many months, feeding off and building on each other. After a time, the Forest began to overshadow what mattered most — living and enjoying what I had. The tree’s. I lost sight of the there and now, what was of most importance to me. Why I was willing to put myself in such a position.

With the tree’s being overshadowed/lost in the forest of implications emanating from a lack of control, I and/both took the metaphorical trees for granted and did not provide them with the respect and sustenance they required. Whilst hindsight is valuable tool, should we not be more aware — or at least work on becoming so — of that directly around us. What is most important to us. This brings me back to the question of emphasis and responsibility.

There are ways and means, aspects of society, that act to remove or restrict our control over own lives and selves. Not all of these are bad things — many are very beneficial. Are we caught up in trying to challenge the negative ones, focussing on their impacts and, as result, often losing sight and not affording to necessary attention to more important aspects of our lives. What level of responsibility should we accept is a question that does not have one clear answer, and often used dismissively by some libertarians/neo-cons. Do we sometimes try to deflect responsibility when things are difficult, and defer to notions of restricted control as a straw man or similar?

My specific experience indicates I dwelt too much on the negative, and it had a number of implications that I lost some sight of. Sometimes thinking about the bigger picture is not alway the most fruitful approach. I sincerely hope that what has resulted from my subsequent choices can be overcome and I (again?) have the opportunity to live life as I really wanted. A willingness to try is not always enough...

Australian bushfire and the othering of nature

avolve — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:28:37 +0000

Many reactions to the current fires that are burning through forests, mountains and townships in southeast Australia provide illustration of the persistence of not just anthropocentric attitudes in contemporary society. Sadly, they are also ripe with examples of what some may consider bushism's, the rhetoric of us v them, with them being the environment. Nature positioned as other, an enemy that we must fight against, apparently possesses a pervasive quality that lingers amongst what many hope are changing attitudes—attitudes essential to alter the current path of the often-untold and non-considered impacts of human existence. Today, one of the most conservative journalists in Australia, has launched a scathing attack on ‘greens’ as to blame for the loss of human life — amongst the sensationalist rhetoric, non-human animals do not rate a mention. The title is indicative: Green ideas must take blame for deaths. This tabloid-esque diatribe is full of innuendo and misconstrued facts included to support a premise, rather than actually considering what has actually transpired.

Indicative of the level to which societal attitudes and often non-considered ideologies—normalised over centuries, are the reflections of many of those who were caught up in the fires. One does not have to look far to find descriptions of towns burn-out as reminiscent of 'war-zones'; imagined as what they would look like after being hit by a 'bomb' or the aftermath of a 'nuclear war'. For many, deference to such terms may help them to process their experiences and trauma they feel. Yet the use of such terms is indicative of problematic normalised ideologies and has significant implications.

Broadly, referring to natural events with the same rhetoric and language as being used to describe the atrocities perpetuated by invasions and attacks against people locates nature as a dualistic other. Nature is positioned in opposition to 'us'. This symbolism was pervasive in the days of colonisation and conquest. It is explicit in the perspectives of the white colonists following their landing in Australia some 220 years ago. Much had changed in attitudes since then — Martin Mulligan and Stuart Hill's Ecological Pioneers: A Social history of Australian Ecological Thought and Action [publisher | google books] provides an indicative investigation of this. Attitudes had changed at an increasing rate in recent times with an increase in awareness of the inter-connectedness of life, yet the separation and positioning of nature as other has resurfaced.

It would be too easy to explain away the deference to othering as a means for many to be able to cope with the loss of life that these fires have facilitated. Such rhetorical devices have been further enabled and re-entrenched to a degree by the actions of the last decade or so of demonising different cultures and positioning them as other. They are grounded in exceptionalism. Perhaps the most clearest example of this is the USA attitude that it can possess nuclear weapons, though any other country that seeks to is a threat to (inter)national security.

It is the position of Iraqi's, for example, as an other — a culture that is different, nee inferior, to white western (christian) society — that enables many to simply non-consider the suffering being perpetrated their everyday. In much the same way, it is much easier to other nature rather than accept our place, as a species, in the natural world. It is here that we can locate two aspects of Miranda Devine’s diatribe. Firstly, she positions nature in opposition to our existence. Nature's existence in its own natural state, in a 'state of nature' — and remember this term has been used for hundreds of years to place other cultures as inferior to whites — is positioned as a threat to our very survival. The explicit and implicit arguments made are that we need to continue to fight nature, nature is our enemy. I am not sure if she, or anyone else who will draw some (uncritical) insight from her rhetoric, is aware of the implications...

Having positioned nature as the enemy, a threat to not just our way of life (as critics of lifestyle change in the west often infer, denying the unsustainability of western attitudes and existence), Miranda Devine has othered 'greens' as complicit in these 'attacks' on civilised human society. In rendering the greens as closer to nature, she has created another false dualism that further entrenches nature as the enemy. Added to this, and where the bushism analogy really emerges is the implicit message that those with a green persuasion or leaning (i.e. Nature sympathisers') need to make a choice: they are either with us or against us!

“A crisis which is at once institutional, intellectual and ideological”

avolve — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:41:11 +0000

In an interesting piece, though one still constrained in critical reflection by aspects of the ideological crisis it seeks to (partly) challenge, the current Australian Prime Minister has commented on contemporary politics and economics. The piece, which is published in the forthcoming issue of The Monthly, titled “The Global Financial Crisis” (a first-1500-word preview is available online), and commented on in a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Time for a new world order: PM” does raise some questions yet fails to see beyond terms most familiar. Much like the National apology Rudd made regarding the atrocities and injustices of Australia’s treatment of its First Peoples—which continue to have implications for contemporary Australia (which it is rumored was written by the PM himself), there is some critical engagement and awareness of issues. Perhaps prophetic, and I am certain some could see a connectedness of events, an invisible hand assisting in a convenient timing, the piece is interesting given the author. For me, that such arguments are being presented in the mainstream press, and certain to get some further coverage as they are being made by the PM, locate my interest. Much like Rudd’s, and more recently, Obama’s, election, some will attribute hope/potential for hope of a change. I hope the rhetoric in the air leads to more than just the rearranging of deck chairs.

The opening quote, in bold, sets a prophetic tone:

From time to time in human history there occur events of a truly seismic significance, events that mark a turning point between one epoch and the next, when one orthodoxy is overthrown and another takes its place. The significance of these events is rarely apparent as they unfold: it becomes clear only in retrospect, when observed from the commanding heights of history. By such time it is often too late to act to shape the course of such events and their effects on the day-to-day working lives of men and women and the families they support.

One could ask whether it is arrogance shaping such a perspective, or if actual events substantiate such a reflection. Rudd, much like Obama, though perhaps not as much, comes across as humble. That, and hope for an end to the injustice of contemporary societal politics, shapes my view that arrogance is not basis for such prophesizing, though if this is the end of the epoch as described, I am sure credit will be given, in retrospect, for this piece. From the outset, it needs to be noted that Rudd is a capitalist. A look at his wife’s occupation and income provides a clear indication. It is also implicit in the argument and explicit in many of the ‘sound bit’ statements. For example,

...neo-liberalism - that particular brand of free-market fundamentalism, extreme capitalism and excessive greed which became the economic orthodoxy of our time.

Is soon followed by

Not for the first time in history, the international challenge for social democrats is to save capitalism from itself: to recognise the great strengths of open, competitive markets while rejecting the extreme capitalism and unrestrained greed that have perverted so much of the global financial system in recent times.

This can be read as an I told you so to neo-liberals, with reference to a need for “properly regulated competitive markets”. Rudd’s is very clear:

The second challenge for social democrats is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As the global financial crisis unfolds and the hard impact on jobs is felt by families across the world, the pressure will be great to retreat to some model of an all-providing state and to abandon altogether the cause of open, competitive markets both at home and abroad

Perhaps prophetic in itself (i.e. the recent Obama plan to use US steel in reconstruction projects), he also goes on the argue against what is termed by capitalists as protectionism—often seen in placing tariffs on imports. I would demur, however, labeling the approach to banning tariffs as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, how can products priced based on socially just wages compete with those produced in sweatshops? An extension of this, and what I consider a sound basis for the restriction of international trade (referred to, often incorrectly, as protectionism) are environmental implications. I do not see how, for example, it can be defended that crops that can be grown locally are shipped form other parts of the world. I see tariffs placed on such items as essential to reducing our species’ impact on the planet.

Some may argue that to place such restrictions on trade would be at the detriment to ‘developing’ countries. Whilst there is, at times, some merit in such arguments, they do not address that an economy should be based on local trade, not reliant on the foreign. The idea of bioregionalism, coined by Environmental activists in the 1970s (not-coincidentally the same time that neo-liberalism was gaining ground), goes some way to addressing this. A world espousing mutual respect and recognition, not embroiled in bullshit notions as the market, would provide the support necessary to overcome challenges some countries/regions would face—a vast change from what we see today.

To address what I see as potentially the most important aspect of Rudd’s piece is the statement “We therefore need a frank analysis of the central role of neo-liberalism in the underlying causes of the current economic crisis.” Given how neo-liberalism was masked and imposed largely by stealth and via measures to create vested interests (making everyday people shareholders, initially through superannuation schemes/pension programs, etc), I am certain I am not the only one who wants such a discussion to be in the public realm, and covered by the mainstream press. If this does eventuate, I do foresee potential for an end to the epoch of the current variant of contemporary capitalism. What will follow can be more just. How much more? The notion of excessive greed as the source of the current financial crisis does not inspire great hope.

As Rudd outlined in his opening paragraph (albeit different from his intent), and many commentators have expressed since the inauguration of Obama, we need to make the change happen, to force governments to do our bidding. We can’t sit back in the headlights of a post neo-liberal ‘leaders’ hope/euphoria. Perhaps a groundswell of people can foster/force the required/wanted changes to shift towards a genuinely just society...

turning corners?

avolve — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:04:51 +0000

Whilst having been too caught up in other things to express my thoughts here, there have been many issues that have occupied my grey matter. In recent times (days, weeks), there have been a number of reports in the press on two that give me some hope: the Israel-Palestine issue and that of the situation in Australia regarding the lack of respect and recognition afforded First Peoples, particularly in regard to the 'National Holiday' on January 26 known as Australia Day. Coverage of the former will most certainly continue, more-so given the change in the US stance on the issue post-Obama's inauguration. I really hope coverage will continue and increase on the latter until respect and recognition fosters enough political will to change the date.

For me, mainstream press coverage of the Israel-Palestine issue has turned a corner, embodying more critical reflection on the actions of the Israeli military and more consideration to the suffering of the Palestinian populace. Whilst not explicitly addressing that, under International law, Palestine has the right to defend itself from an invader (i.e. Israel), there is recognition that Israel is an aggressor to a significant degree. There has also been some attention to illegal Israeli settlements and reference to Israel’s non-compliance with the 1947 UN Plan (something most people are not aware of). Whilst the coverage could be much better, that such issues are being discussed assists in increasing awareness of the issue. It already appears that there is a shift in public sentiment, with more compassion being shown to Palestinian casualties of Israeli aggression. A question that is always asked is whether the media precedes (i.e. shapes) or follows such sentiments, generally. It will be interesting to see, given Obama's recent comments about the dispute—specifically in regard to the humanitarian crisis in Palestine—how the US media responds. The reactions of Fox and other conservative outlets will be noteworthy.

In Australia, January 26 has passed again, with a large number of people enjoying a day off work under the banner of Australia Day. Since the bicentenary of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1988, First Peoples' voices about the inappropriateness of a national holiday that commemorates the invasion of Australia have increased in frequency and recognition. The decision in the Mabo case, whilst still problematic, further fostered such dissent and added more 'legitimacy'. It was, however, the awarding of Australian of the Year for 2009 to Mick Dodson. In making his acceptance speech, he specifically called for the date of the National holiday to be changed. Whilst the initial mainstream backlash was predictable, and I am certain right-wing shock jocks will continue to play the nationalist-racist card, for many in Australia this would have been the first time they were exposed to the reasons why First Peoples have protested. What Mick Dodson has done has started the essential conversation—something whites should have already done on their own...

How long it will take for public opinion to shape political change—on both fronts—I am unsure of. That the conversation has begun in the wider public arena is where I find hope. I hope my optimism if somewhat founded?

actual 'journalism' on Japanese Whaling

avolve — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:15:58 +0000

It is rare that I find a piece in a newspaper written by a journalist that is well researched and illustrates a sound and critical analysis of the issue being addressed. Opinion pieces and guest editorials (usually by academics, some activists and some pundits—as they are called in North America) often provide this. In recent days i found such a piece by Peter Hartcher, the 'political editor' for Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, titled Japan's fading appetite for a fight.

Hartcher presented a well rounded piece that illustrated a sound awareness of the politics of the issue from both sides. It was actually refreshing. Rather than spiel this out myself, provided below is the piece in full which i think is written well enough that it illustrates it itself.

Japan's fading appetite for a fight
Peter Hartcher
November 21, 2008

Tomohiko Taniguchi was the official voice of Japan for the last three years. The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo fronted the international media every day to answer, avoid and argue questions. Of the hundreds of matters he dealt with, the one he dreaded most was defending Japan's whaling program. It was part of his job to defend official policy.

"I was being summoned by CNN, BBC and ABC on this issue far more than any other issue," Taniguchi says. "I hated this issue because there's no point in Japan sticking to its position," he tells the Herald in flawless English.

No point? Today Taniguchi is an adviser to Japan's Minister for Foreign Affairs. But, since July, he is no longer an employed official, so he is free to speak his mind. And he does.

"The Japanese whaling industry generates revenues of 7.5 billion yen a year, which is $120 million at the current exchange rate. It's tiny."

Japan's economy, the world' second biggest, has an annual output of 515 trillion yen or $8.2 trillion. So whaling accounts for 0.0014 per cent of the national economy. Or less than one-tenth the value of the country's annual market for toothbrushes.

And the total number of people who derive a living from whaling, including dependents, is between one and several thousands in a country of 130 million.

"Japan has nil national interest in the whaling industry," Taniguchi continues. "The stake for Japan is near zero. If Australians criticise the Japanese auto industry, Japan must do everything possible to protect the auto industry. This is not the auto industry."

He is writing a long piece for a Japanese magazine, Wedge, to ask Japanese to consider the balance sheet of national interests. On the other side of the ledger, he contends, "this issue is doing substantial damage to Japan's image in Australia, the US, Canada, the UK, New Zealand", the entire English-speaking world.

The Japanese whaling fleet set sail this week for the annual Southern Ocean catch, unannounced except by Greenpeace. The bad publicity has already started. Taniguchi says Japan has some legitimate arguments supporting its whaling program, conducted in the name of scientific research. He cites the point non-baleen whales eat vast quantities of fish "and though it's difficult to prove, this could endanger fish stocks".

But he argues there is no purpose in making the case. "Though it's legitimate, you are the only one saying it among the 190 countries of the world. You may have a good product to sell, but when there's no consumers for your product, then there's no market."

Japan's officials were startled last year when the Rudd Government, in line with its campaign rhetoric, took an aggressive new line on Japan's whaling, sending a Customs vessel to monitor the Japanese fleet. The fleet, in turn, carried its own Customs officials, implying the protection and sanction of the Japanese Government.

The foreign ministries of both countries feared the noisy escalation of the issue could endanger the big national interests that each country has at stake with the other - one of the biggest two-way trade flows in the world, and close strategic alignment as democratic US allies in the Asia-Pacific.

Even with its current economic anaemia, Japan remains Australia's biggest single export market. In recent weeks it has re-emerged as one of the biggest foreign investors, too, with some of its stronger companies pitching to spend about $10 billion in Australia.

This is useful in its own right. But the big Japanese involvement in Australia's economy is also an important counterweight to the growing mass of Chinese trade and investment.

Australia, by virtue of its current account deficit, needs foreign investment. By adding new investment of its own and by helping to balance the Chinese influence, Japan helps make Australia's overall foreign investment much more manageable. This is a real consideration that weighs on the minds of Australian ministers and officials.

And, on the other side of the equation, Australia is a vital source of energy and food to a Japan that increasingly frets about being crowded out of world markets by a rising and voracious China.

For a moment this year Australia hoped the whaling problem would disappear. In May Taro Aso, then secretary-general of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said if Australia's feelings towards Japan were hurt unnecessarily "only in order to sustain such a small industry", then Japan should "address this issue as quickly as possible", according to an official record of his remarks. Aso made fun of the whaling industry's pretensions to scientific legitimacy.

"Has anyone heard of any scientific results coming from Japan's whaling program?" he posed rhetorically.

When he became Prime Minister, it raised hopes that he would dispense with the 500 million yen government subsidy that sustains the industry. But the whaling fleet is again on the high seas, and Aso's prime ministership is in difficulty.

Taniguchi hopes the whaling industry will fade away. Whale meat is not a big seller, an uneconomic activity. About 80 Japanese parliamentarians support whaling, but it is a core issue for only six to eight. With the Government's deficit worsening, the annual subsidy becomes harder to defend. But Taniguchi advises Australia, and others, not to press too hard, lest this only entrench Japanese political support for whaling.

The Rudd Government is heeding this advice, and both countries are seeking to cool the issue. Japan is not sending Customs officials with this year's fleet, and Australia is not sending a Customs vessel in pursuit. Peter Garret's announcement that Australia would instead put up $6 million for non-lethal research into whales, inviting Japan and others to join the effort, is a creative alternative to confrontation.

Many countries have an ugly blemish that mars the total image and makes other peoples recoil in distaste. China has Tibet, the US has Guantanamo Bay, Turkey has Armenian genocide, and Japan has whaling. Uneconomic and increasingly costly to Japan's image, Taniguchi expects it will disappear in a few years. But in the meantime, he fears that escalation could damage the interests of Australia as well as Japan. "Japanese children would be horrified to learn that Australians routinely kill and even eat kangaroos, which they think are much cuter than whales."

‘Post racial’ Amerika

avolve — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:06:15 +0000

The term 'post race' has been increasingly bandied about in the lead up to today's Presidential election in the USA—a google search currently produces 126k hits. Much of the commentary refers to Obama as post race and thus someone white Americans are not afraid of—they are reassured by him as a non-angry black man. For me, whilst a number of the pieces reflect on the challenges of growing up black in America and express a level of awareness, much of it seems more like a means for getting white America settled and comfortable with racism... One piece refers to Francis Fukuyama—someone I would not consider as a source I would agree with on most things (i.e. pretty much everything): "Obama's been very careful to distance himself from the traditional Jesse Jackson agenda and the Jesse Jackson persona. A lot of people are worried about voting for him because they think once he's elected the mask will fall off and there'll be an angry Jesse Jackson underneath." What is referred to is the 'angry black man' persona—one that makes white people uncomfortable because it forces redress for past injustices AND is a clear example of the ongoing structural violence of America’s colonial history (let alone overt racism in current day America). With being reassured, being comfortable, there is less focus (i.e. none) on what makes a white person uncomfortable. In the context of Australia, Ken Gelder has described this as 'postcolonialsim-as-fulfillment', as reconciliation on white terms. Jane Haggis has similarly reflected on the notion of post white, which is directly analogous to much of the discussion about white reactions to Obama: it is about getting white American's comfortable in and with racism, rather than embracing the imposed uncomfortableness of an angry black (wo)men. It is the latter that will foster and encourage actual self reflection and change, the former more closely normalises to status quo. I may come back to expand on this after looking for any transformative impacts that a shift in direction (to what degree?) a post-Bush America has on race relations. With the shift from a overtly racist and conservative government in Australia to one more moderate there has been hope amongst some for change. The national apology to Australia's First Peoples has provided a symbolic step. I hope that there may be a step (at least small one) in a similar direction in Amerika. I guess, the waiting game begins as anticipation of the result of the election increases throughout the day. Who knows, maybe the riot-gear clad police in Ohio will take out a few voters?

For those interested, the academic papers referred to: Gelder, K. (2000) "The Imaginary Eco-(Pre) Historian: Peter Read's Belonging as a Postcolonial 'Symptom'". Australian Humanities Review 19. Haggis, J. (2004). "Beyond race and whiteness? Reflections on the new abolitionists and an Australian critical whiteness studies". borderlands e journal. 3(2)

sense of place

avolve — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:52:59 +0000

For the last several years I have researched the transformative impacts of First Peoples expressions of significance of place on white supporters. My research loosely falls under many categories including action-research and participant-observation. What it enabled me to do was to live amongst a different community and immerse myself in learning about their lived experiences and struggles—as expressed through their actions. The notion of sense of place is something I was first exposed to by a friend over 10 years ago who was studying in a Social Ecology program, and something I have come to reflect on many times. Having recently moved back to Canada, where I undertook some of this research a couple years ago though in a different province, sense of place has occupied my thoughts a number of times.

Prior to traveling/living overseas, most of my life was lived in 2 locations: one with a forest at the end of the street I lived in, the other (I lived in many places) adjacent to the ocean and a forested escarpment. I developed a sense of place at both locations, though increasingly came to appreciate both oceans and mountains—and being able to surf all year round. A winter in the coast mountains of BC further developed my affinity for mountains. On traveling to Canada for a what was planned to be a short research stint, I lived adjacent to the Niagara escarpment and Lake Ontario. Many who heard of where I was living provided derogatory comments about the area, though it took some time for me to determine why. I immersed myself in the history of the area and its environment developing a deep sense of place. I extended my stay twice, ending up staying there for close to 2 years. I found it difficult to leave, and still ponder returning—despite it being far removed from the ocean back (and surfable winters) in Australia. It was something I also struggled with on returning to Australia—as most people who have traveled for extending periods will be able to relate to when returning ‘home’.

For a coming book chapter, I have again delved into my research on the history of this region in Ontario and find myself ‘missing’ the area. I have a few good friends there whom I do miss and would like to be able to see often. My level of attachment to this place is something I do not think I expected, nor how it has lingered. I was a little surprised by my recent emergence of these feelings, the intensity of this sense of place. What I am drawing from this is that if I immerse myself in learning about where in Canada I am now—more than the superficial constructions of work-consumer life, I will develop a similar sense of place. It is something I will most certainly reflect on more for some time. My reflections on attachments to ‘home’ in Australia are often mixed with a desire to return and an awareness of reasons why I left. These do not exist for my Ontario sojourn. Perhaps this is why I feel attached as such, lacking any substantive negative experiences.

I reflect on this as very positive. I am lucky to have had such experiences. I do hope to have many more...

Embracing uncertainty

avolve — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:04:16 +0000

Of late, I have pondered some seemingly diverse issues and common threads have struck a chord. Awareness of this arose whilst seeking inspiration, which I found in a film I had not seen for some years: Pump up the Volume (1990) [wikipedia, imdb]. Many of the issues I have pondered were explored in the film, though share commonality with recent experiences and academic texts I have engaged with. These musings are somewhat of a mash-up…

I sporadically find myself seeking an outlet—usually something creative and/or physical. When I get to the point of seeking/needing to seek I often find myself pondering some of the questions raised in Pump Up the Volume. Having relocated (returned) to a city and country far from ‘home’, I am in an environment without my familiar social networks, a developed knowledge, or sense, of place. The process of gaining these, much like other scenarios, can be an exciting, unnerving and challenging experience—embracing the uncomfortableness in which one is situated, alongside a sense of powerlessness. Their are commonalities with the focus of an academic text I have been reading of late: Ien Ang's (2001) On not speaking Chinese: living between Asia and the West. [Routledge]

Ien Ang's work is about the notion of identity in a multicultural society—somewhat autobiographical and academic. My interest is not with the notion of multiculturalism per se, rather the relations embedded with in and the reactions to such notions (for example, multiculturalism has been used as a 'discursive strategy' in Australia, seeking to challenge enmeshed, old, ideals predicated on a fear of penetration, destablisation and dislodgement of white Australia from its majoritarian and hegemonic position). My interest lies in how white people themselves have experienced the uncomfortableness, have become unsettled (an interesting double entendre) when they have sought/worked towards change. What I am referring to as change is actions seeking a more socially just society, actions supporting Aboriginal peoples in their struggles for respect and recognition. This uncomfortableness seems to emerge when those involved in such actions find their own outlooks somewhat problematic—a little similar to cognitive dissonance. Not only are they implicated in what they are seeking to redress (often actively, if unintentionally, perpetuating it), but the action required of them in seeking to transcend this puts them in a very uncomfortable situation.

This may not be that clear... Ien Ang uses the example of the rise of Pauline Hanson's [wikipedia] 'populist' comments about Australia being 'swamped by Asians' and white Australia feeling they should have a right to decide who is allowed 'in' to Australia. These ideas are predicated on protecting/preserving the society they have constructed as 'their' own—somewhat ironic as these 'rights' they ascribe to themselves are explicitly denied Aboriginal peoples. Ang locates the source of this as an uncomfortableness, of trying to define boundaries based on the past—what one is comfortable with. This is often a romanticised and essentialised construction: one that forgets the negatives. It is this uncomfortableness that locates the common ground between Ang's example and what I was attempting to articulate. Tied to seeking a shift towards a fair and just society—one that embraces plurality and moves away from the established hegemony—requires a giving up of 'power over' (in a Foucaldian sense), being open to a loss of control.

This was the commonality I drew from watching Pump Up the Volume—not necessarily the inspiration I was seeking, yet it has proven fruitful. The uncertainty; the uncomfortableness of the students at Hubert Humphrey High; the resistance of the adults/authority figures to any challenge to the status quo; how the students come to embrace this uncertainty. This is a message I have seen in many academic (and activist) engagements and reflections on seeking to transcend/challenge the ongoing impacts of imperialism/colonialism.

Uncertainty was also something I saw in the faces of students when I visited a University campus during the first week of the new academic year. It was an uncertainty enmeshed with an excitement—a willingness to explore the unknown, to let oneself go and embrace it. I found this somewhat exciting and a part of the appeal of being on a campus.

To try to tie this together, I am trying to embrace my own uncomfortableness with my current situation, my own feeling of powerlessness. I hope that I will always be able to embrace a level of uncomfortableness, to push my boundaries and step out of my comfort zone. A phrase (a cliché?) I reflect on every once in a while—often through seeing it in activists, academics, others—is 'today's revolutionaries, tomorrows reformists'. When we get comfortable, we often become (to varying levels) oblivious to issues that matter. Being exposed to them makes us uncomfortable and we shut them out or close ourselves off to them. Preventing ourselves from shutting off, even though a challenge and often resulting in an exposing of ourselves to the challenges of uncomfortableness… It is this dualistic notion (embracing uncomfortableness) that I have drawn from my experiences of late—even when it is not necessarily enjoyable. I hope those who read this can think of at least one example—common to all of us—when we embrace (somewhat forced to?) uncomfortableness and look back at the time(s) with fond memories… a four letter word...

pondering the notion of sovereignty

avolve — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:42:07 +0000

Whilst my brain had some free time recently, I was pondering the concept of sovereignty. My thoughts rotated around why it exists as a notion—more-so that it is not a concept that I consider needed nor one that has a place in a fair and just society. This brings me to two clarifications: 1). These are ideas still a work in progress; 2). Given the lack of a fair and just society in (never quite) post-colonial countries (and many others), the concept has some usefulness. I will come back to the latter.

Unrelated to my ponderings, it recently came to pass that an eminent scholar in Australia recommended I should look at Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s (2006) “Towards a new research agenda?: Foucault, Whiteness and Indigenous Sovereignty” in Journal of Sociology, 42: 383-95. The second paragraph of this paper starts:

'This article is also influenced by the work of Indigenous scholars such as Irene Watson (2002) and Taiaiake Alfred (2001), who advocate abandoning the concept of Indigenous sovereignty, as it is configured in debates about Indigenous rights.'

Irene Watson's "Aboriginal and the Sovereignty of Terra Nullius", in Borderlands Vol. 1, No. 2 (published in 2002 and available online — the paper referred to by Aileen Moreton-Robinson — reflects on the current paradigm of discussions relating to the concept of sovereignty directly:

'Many will suggest that’s the political, economic globalised reality. And yes. But it is one, which kills indigenous peoples. So yes we need to put in place different realities. Different ways of knowing from the ways of the west'.

Though it is addressed a little differently to how I conceive a need to move away from/reject the notion of sovereignty for purposes here, there is common ground:

'Aboriginal Law holds the position of the European idea of sovereignty. But is different in that it is not imposed by force of arms and is not exclusive in its embrace…. The experience lived before the time of Cook was more than the idea of sovereignty'.

Links can be seen to what is perhaps a need for the notion of sovereignty in the current colonial paradigm—which, as mentioned, I will return to. The western notion (i.e. capitlist/imperialist) of sovereignty is largely predicated on land as a commodity, something that can be owned. Without romanticising indigenous peoples ideas, many cultures that exist separate to the west do not have the ownership or indivdualist/competitive foundation—rather are based on aspects of collective or communitarian ideals. These can be seen to fit within a more ecological as opposed to a subjugation of nature hierarchical positioning of our species. This recognition of an ecological existence, of being a part of as opposed to construction and positioning out species as superior/separate to nature, is a core basis for my recent ponderings.

Irene Watson has also illustrated how attempting to fit within western notions of sovereignty have further exploited different peoples. For example, ‘In declaring the ‘death’ of terra nullius in relation to the property law of Australia, the High Court created an illusion of doing justice’. The gaps in exploitation created were filled with pragmatism, a pragmatism that has imposed further by force the notion of extinguishment (in the context of rights and sovereignty)—a renewal of colonialism whilst framed as a (partial) rebuttal. Put another way:

'The recognition of native title has provided the state with an administrative means for managing extinguishment and genocide, while looking benevolent in the process'

For those not from Australia, the doctrine of terra nullius — a concept upon which Australia was colonised (to what degree is still debated) — was overturned. The outcome has not yet proven beneficial in any real sense to Aboriginal peoples in Australia. It has paved the way for extinguishment of 'land rights', or some appeasement—both on white terms. This is the renewal of colonialism that has filled the gaps in exploitation that Irene Watson refers to. Colonisation is legitimised with the coloniser as arbitrator. All that is surrendered by the colonisers are the crumbs from the table. Sadly, this is often the case, and can be seen in many other concessions and even areas perceived as progressive/seeking to provide assistance to first peoples. This can be the result of genuine attempts, with the implications unmarked to those seeking such change, or can more explicit, as another example given by Irene Watson illustrates:

'There is a pattern in the history of dispossession of Nunga peoples. For it appears to be in the interest of the state to protect some 'indigenous places', for it is appealing to the tourist, the seeker of the naturale and the exotic, the beauty and wisdom of the Aborigine.'

To return to the notion of sovereignty, at the roots of why it can be considered as an imperial concept (beyond the obvious) is that it is predicated on many assumptions and constructions central to contemporary western society—and then imposed on others. Discussion and debate about 'Indigenous sovereignty' is then constrained to, and framed with, such notions—on white terms. To draw from Canadian scholar James Tully, the language and terms of debate are a crucial feature of a fair and just inquiry. Irene Watson, without explicitly stating this, provides ample illustration in “Aboriginal and the Sovereignty of Terra Nullius”. In the sense that Aileen Moreton-Robinson refers to Irene Watson and Taiaiake Aldred, the configuration of the concept of sovereignty central to current debates is not fair and just.

Aileen Moreton-Robinson, in “Towards a new research agenda?: Foucault, Whiteness and Indigenous Sovereignty”, focusses on the sociological imagination and how the work of Michel Foucault can be used to unpack and expose such configurations:

'White possession, as a mode of rationality, functions within disciplinary knowledges and regulatory mechanisms, defining and circumscribing Indigenous sovereignty in particular ways'.

The hegemony of white ways of knowing and seeing has received attention form many scholars, as has the privileging of what are positioned as 'rational', masculine and, more generally, western knowledges. These are themes that have come up in my writings before, and will again.

With much discussion and debate limited to and/or championing the social constructions of rights (as problematic as for other species and why I do not use the term ‘animal rights’ per se), and the notion of sovereignty, roots issues are often left unpacked or not exposed. Such a limitation ‘does not reorient our conceptualization of power outside of a law, right and sovereignty paradigm to think about Indigenous sovereignty and power in different ways’. This is what both Irene Watson and Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s reflections (to some degree) are making a case for. Again, this parallels James Tully’s comments about fair and just terms. Without going to far into Foucault’s ideas here, Aileen Moreton-Robinson has provided a good basis for further engagement:

'What would be useful is to consider the representation of power within the law, rights, sovereignty paradigm by approaching the relationship between Indigenous sovereignty and state sovereignty as relations of force located within a matrix of biopower'.

This emanates from a reconfiguration of understanding of 'war' with politics being seen as a form of war ('politics is war by other means'): 'war continues in modernity in different forms while sovereignty shifts from a concern with society defending itself from external attacks to focus on its internal enemies.

Rather it is to propose that we need to investigate how White possession functions through a discourse of rights within the disciplines of law, political science, history and anthropology on which Australian studies and Indigenous studies have relied since their formation, and examine how White possession manifests in regulatory mechanisms including legal decisions, government policy and legislation. Critical analysis of the role of these disciplines and regulatory mechanisms in reinforcing the prerogatives of White possession should provide a significant new perspective on the politics of sovereignty in Australia'.

This is a pretty heavy quote to leave somewhat unpacked, yet really sums up many of the issues quite well. I have delved into the violence and injustice of western disciplines that seek to evaluating other cultures—the implications not requiring intent—for some years now. Much like the structural violence of capital, white ways of knowing and seeing embody many levels of violence (structural, epistemic, hegemonic) perpetrated on other cultures via western disciplines, discourse and mechanisms that are currently central to our existence. Often making changes around the edges, with an intent of pragmatic reform or real change, has little more effect than token changes that too often reinforce the epistemic and cognitive authority of the roots caused of the problems. Debates about the sovereignty as the notion is currently understood and mobilised provides a clear example. It is one I would like to see people openly discussing the implications of. In engaging in discussion and debate about the notion of sovereignty, what is required for a fair and just society can be explored—exposing the limitations imposed by such notions. The roots of structural, epistemic and hegemonic violence cane be uncovered:

'Understanding the complexity of power as both productive and repressive involves not only exploring disciplinary knowledges but also their regulative mechanisms and techniques of subjugation.'

population, vat grown meat and techno utopianism

avolve — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:47:47 +0000

In the last couple of weeks I have come across, not for the first time, discussions about two apparently distinct issues, yet ones that have common themes. What I have found of note is not the commonality, rather that this common issue itself is left unconsidered. This unconsidered issue is the role of technology in the human universe, and the two discussions relate to concerns about human population and the production of ‘vat grown meat’. I have commented on the latter some 2 years ago—on this blog and more widespread.

In itself, non-consideration of 'technology' is an indicator of its pervasiveness—alongside how blatantly and blindly anthropocentric ours species is. Before I expand on this, I will first outline some of the key issues I see put forward in discussions about human population. Such discussions are often heated debate and typified by passionate and heated exchange. To out myself, if not clear, I hold the position that there are far too many people on the planet and we need to resolve the issue very very soon.

The resurgence I have noted in the debate about human population is linked to the current 'food crisis'. This specific aspect aside, for the moment, it is worth reflecting on the oft-touted and simplistic response to the population issue: birth control. What form this takes is often a source of heated exchange. In imposing on people (whether literally or morally/hegemonically) a restriction on procreation, the issue of equity is often raised. Race (as in white hegemony and western values) is the most prominent influence (marked or otherwise, frequently the latter) in the 'control' position. The racially based assumptions pervasive in western societies are linked to Enlightenment ideas about 'other' cultures and their perceived inferiority. Sadly, this continues to be widespread and entrenched in western societies.

Whilst I am a proponent of population decrease, I clearly distance myself from naïve and (unmarked) racist assumptions often tied to the birth control position. That said, whilst the 'population control targets women's fertility and restricts reproductive rights' argument does expose some of this tripe, it is also somewhat naïve. Discussion can be had about population and/or birth control and have a developed awareness of 'complex circumstances', class and race issues, and exploitative power relations in society. Sadly, many discussions do not—and they often involve men (arguing for control without detailed consideration of the issues).

Moving on, the issue of consumption disparity is often used as a basis to challenge concerns about human population. Again, often well founded given racist scapegoating and naive western perspectives. Whilst people in western societies consume far-in-excess of all others, this is not a basis to dismiss concerns about population. If everyone lived in a similar manner to cultures with a significantly smaller ecological footprint to westerners, there is no doubt that the human impact on the planet would be reduced. This, however leaves one issue aside. Before I come to that, a figure often referred to to challenge concerns about population is one produced by the United Nations (UN). The UN predicts that the world population will eventually start in another 70-odd years at around 9 billion. Whilst some may found comfort in that, there are still close to 9 billion people too many.

To return to the crux of the issue, and the basis for this post, requires a brief comment on recent thoughts I have heard about the idea of 'vat grown meat'. There are some who support the production of such a 'foodstuff', often citing environmental or animal welfare concerns. Some animal activists have called for its implementation, with PETA even announcing a $1-million reward for its commercial production—covered widely, including the NY Times (23 April 2008). Whilst I have issues with these positions, in focussing on another, I can focus on the underlying non-considered techno-utopianism at the root of both the 'vat grown meat' and population debates.

Some recent comments about vat grown meat, in light of the PETA announcement, have outlined an argument why 'ethical vegans' would not eat this. Much like responses to concern about the population issue from progressive activists, the response (aside from making some sound arguments about carnism and speciesism, and some not-so) perpetuates an unabashed faith in technology that French theorist Jacques Ellul would label a soteriology. At the centre of the population is not the issue, consumption is the issue style of argument and the it's better than eat vat-grown meat than consume 'actual' animals rationalisation are western notions, rooted in Enlightenment thought that technology will inevitably come up with a solution to all out 'our problems'. The latter of the two rationales is linked with the notion that it's better to not harm the animals. Whilst a strong argument, it is playing off one issue against another—the issue is more than the exploitation of animals in the direct sense inferred.

The pervasiveness of this unabashed, hegemonic and non-considered western faith in technology to save us is a serious issue—and sadly one that, by its nature, is left widely unconsidered. I (not very) patiently await the day when environmentally aware and progressive folk will shun this naïve and misconceived faith in science and technology as the source of human salvation. As a species we must overcome this, lest we continue to subject all other species to the genocidal implications our whims.

To tie this all together, at the core of supportive comments about 'vat grown meat' is a faith in technology. This is similarly central to the deference that the human population will stabilise, and the mobililsation of this prediction is an attempt to destabilise and delegitimise concerns. For every person on this planet, for every seed sown, every action taken, we take away from the ability of animals to simply live. Finding a balance is a moral conundrum that has no sound resolution. Yet to base a defence of the human population on a predicted stabilisation in some 70-odd years misses the point entirely.

I look forward to the day when there can be an informed discussion about population, yet one that does not have naïve deference to racists stereotypes on one side or the notion of ‘reproductive rights’ on the other (yet another ‘rights’ argument). We need to move beyond a non-consideration of the pervasive and unabashed faith in science and technology deeply embedded in western society. Until we do so...

The imposition of views 'Across the Universe'

avolve — Sun, 25 May 2008 12:10:23 +0000

I was recently given a copy of the Julie Taymor’s film Across the Universe, having no knowledge of the plot, genre or any reviews. After starting slow this film has became one of the most memorable I have seen in some time—more striking as I am not a fan of any type of musical film at all. This has proven the be the exception.

I do not know where to start in describing this film. I found it enjoyable to watch (after the slow start) based on numerous features. It is a film I will need to watch many times to pick up even some of the nuances, references to pop culture and society in general. It is perhaps the varied allusions to events and actions in the 60's (i.e. during and post the US-led incursion in Vietnam) and the very subtle (critical) commentary on these actions that was most appealing to me.

In essence the film is a love story, though one who thinks about film beyond a means of simple entertainment cannot miss the social commentary. The film tells a story and in exposing contrasts and apparent dualism's constructed in society, it provides subtle reference to the hypocrisy of politicians, the naivety of society generally, and contrasts this with the often blinkered drive of those seeking to change the world. Across the Universe has done this well and very powerfully. I think its success lies in how it achieves this whilst not imposing on the viewer. A task often very difficult to achieve.

The timing of watching this film for me was interesting. Prior to watching it I was reading a post on a invisible voices: the blog of a friend whom I respect. References were made to recent discussions of a direction for 'the movement', of how activists can support each other. What I got out of Deb's recent post, specifically, was the ever present issue of imposing or forcing views onto others, often seeking to guilt people into doing what one thinks is right as opposed to attempting to plant seeds and hope they will come to such a perspective/desire on their own. This is not a utopian ideal, as some may immediately respond. Rather it is consistent with an approach to social change in which the means reflect the ends—something often lost on 'movements', often a result of an heightened awareness of the implications of existing social and economic systems. This is an issue I often think on, and it is one hinted at in the Across the Universe. Activists/agents of social change often are blinkered in their drive to foster and seek social change, losing sight of others issues. I am not intending to imply I have a solution or know of an answer at all. It is something I still struggle with and I see it in many others.

Awareness of this has, at times, emerged in movements and was typified in the Reclaim the Streets (RTS) movement and actions in the mid-late 90’s. These events were not without their own issues, indicated by their losing any real cohesion and direction, then effectively disappearing. A aim of those participating in and supporting RTS was to live whilst seeking to foster change. To live the change in a sense often not considered as many reject such ideas as a naive Ghandian relic. It extends far beyond this, however, and has parallels with the view of many. One not need to look far to find many references to the the notion that a revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having (an Emma Goldman reference recently popularised in V for Vendetta*). Urgency will always exists—at least into the future further than I can see. I say this not to stifle one's drive, rather to highlight the importance of sustaining the self. Many active people are know have experienced burn-out. For its duration (short, long, unresolved) you are less effective...

To get back to the intent of this post (which has taken away from others I am working on), it was intended to be little more than a recommendation of a film. It is a film I will be watching again soon. I hope I will enjoy it at least as much, maybe more as I note references missed in my first viewing.

* I recently came across an old blog post about V for Vendetta (graphic novel, film) which i found interesting. I similarly blogged about the GN and film back in July '06

It isn’t finished until you hate it

avolve — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:43:46 +0000

These words were uttered to me recently. I think they can be quite apt a description. They were made in regards to writing a PhD thesis (something I had been trying to complete for the last 12 months). Many people I have spoken to share similar sentiments. Advisers are patently aware of this and push you to improve your work only to the point just before it breaks you. I literally reached that point a number of times in the last year…

Out of all of this, what I have come to gain was a perspective of something I had noted in friends and others who had embarked on such a journey in years past. Completing (even attempting to complete—as some choose not to subject themselves further) a PhD changes you as a person. This has mixed implications. Most certainly, you gain an enormous amount of knowledge. Most certainly you ‘grow’—in as many ambiguous senses as you can imagine. Most certainly you produce valuable insights in your field (a requirement of the award). Some of the more not-so-positive implications are what have concerned me in the past (seeing them in others), and I have reflected on noting aspects emerge in myself. What are included here are many not-unjumbled thoughts and reflections.

Some of the implications are an outcome of the process itself. You are forced to lock yourself away and effectively do nothing else—often for 70+ hours a week. Opportunities to interact with friends, to have a ‘life’, are subjugated to the goal of completing the monster. With each revision, you find yourself locked away for more extended periods of time. I had wondered where many friends had disappeared to in recent years to now have an appreciation. This brings me to a term that is indicative—colleague. This term is used to refer to fellow researchers and academic staff. Unpack it a little and some of the more insidious aspects become visible. A colleague is someone you work with, and that is what you are doing when completing a PhD thesis. You adopt (to what level is it imposed, to what level if it hegemonic acceptance) what are effectively capitalist relations of work. You begin to adhere to capitalist ideals like efficiency in how you undertake your work. What had started out (for some) as a means to express yourself and undertake socially beneficial research for the right reasons become subsumed in a changed end—the thesis itself.

The imposition of the 70+ hour week and the dictates of many aspects of institutionalised education (degree factories) consumes you. The 70+ hour weeks foster this metaphorical (is it only?) hatred and the need to meet institutional requirements imposes a significantly rigid frame on your work. There are many levels of this, some more insidious than others. For me, one of the worst is the hegemony of the status quo in one’s field. You can undertake innovative research, challenge dominant paradigms and the academy itself, yet you still need to meet the frameworks of the academy. The fostered hatred and a need to finish work hand-in-hand to panoptically bring your academically confronting and innovative ideas/approach back towards the status quo. After all, who will assess your work. I am not suggesting academic freedom does not exist—the question is what degree.

Another insidious implication I have noted—sometimes visible in the most progressive of people—is an offshoot of the separation, locking oneself away, that is necessary to complete. This is coupled with the frustration that emerges from hearing people argue a point you know is false, yet they do it with such vigour (and by arrogant corollary, similar sensations irrespective if you might be wrong). An attitude emerges of not wanting to deal with the masses. This can be witnessed in people not listening to another’s point of view (not just limited to PhD students/graduates), not wanting to deal with the issues of the ‘real’ world (i.e. the day-to-day issues face by the working poor—nor a real understanding of them even if from such a background), and wanting to shelter oneself in the academy—even given the horrors of PhD world. It is, arguably, a level of arrogance. To what degree does it emerge from needing to escape, get away from the stress imposed by the 70+ hour week immersion, the stress of the academic paradigms mentioned above?

On a more easily seen as tangible level, the imposition of directed changes to ones research proposal and approach are often left unquestioned. This is part hegemonic, part panoptic. The outcome can be research that does not meet the initial aims, rather being something that will sit on a shelf in a library gathering dust (or a pdf file left unread). Irrespective of the driving forces—sometimes necessary ones—the process itself requires engagement.

I am not implying judgment here. Early on I found my research being moulded and I sought ways to re-mould it to suit my ends—though without pushing the bounds of the imposed moulding too far. I do not really have a conclusion. I am concerned with the process and the implications—both broad and specific….

Colonialism and ‘food’ criticism.

avolve — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:20:36 +0000

It has quietened down of late, though the controversy surrounding Japanese whaling in the Pacific emerged again a few months ago. Public debate was bolstered by both the renewed action of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace (particularly Sea Shepherd volunteers boarding the Yushin Maru No.2 and subsequently being ‘kidnapped’ in January) and the Australian Governments talk of undertaking surveillance of the Japanese Fleet (Air and Sea). Criticism of Japanese whaling largely stems from opposition to eating whales based on whales being majestic creatures, bundled in with the myth of a scientific basis for Japanese whaling and the protection of endangered species. Similar arguments to the former are made against the killing of Dolphins for human consumption.

A recent podcast I sporadically listen to, unrelated to this issue, fostered some further thinking on many of the non-considered assumptions shaping opposition. The response of the podcast host’s to a listener email, including the content of the email, provide a clear example of the hegemony of western ideals—the pervasiveness of this hegemony indicative given the progressive ideals of the hosts. Given a recent decision by the Seoul City Government to seek reclassification of dogs as ‘livestock’ [Seoul Times], I though it worth exploring this a bit further.

The aforementioned email to the podcast referred to an American TV commentary on the Asian ‘delicacy’ balut:

a fertilized duck (or chicken) egg with a nearly-developed embryo inside that is boiled and eaten in the shell.[wikipedia]

The hosts were critical and referred to the exoticising fetish and masculinity embodied in the representation of this ‘food’ by western males. I agree with their assertions on this, yet noted that they also referred to the consumption of the embryo as ‘disgusting’. I agree that it is disgusting, yet the hosts did not challenge the dichotomous relation in which what people in Asian Countries consume is constructed as oppositional to what is considered acceptable in Western Countries (a good/bad dualism). In leaving the western construction of acceptable ‘food’ unchallenged, the hegemony of western notions are left unchallenged.

The constructed and imperial notion of acceptable ‘food’ underlies much of the opposition to whaling and has been rightly pointed out by the Japanese Governent, though very much ignored by westerners. How different is eating whales to eating cows or any other species considered ‘food’ in the west? Arguments about humane slaughter do not add up, nor do arguments about being reared for human consumption—the rearing of animals in the West routinely face such criticisms.

Arguments against eating dogs is similarly based on how they are perceived by people in the west—cute, cuddly and ‘man’s best friend’ [SMH]. It might be effective to expose people in the West to such practices, yet we need to be very specific in how it is done, otherwise in exposing the ‘horrors’ we see in other cultures, we inadvertently locate our own as superior and perpetuate imperial and colonialist rationales.

To perhaps put it in specific terms, in focussing on select aspects of carnism without challenging carnism as a whole, we can inadvertently and unintentionally construct a good/bad dualism. In exposing select aspects of carnism as disgusting, specifically those considered unpalatable in the West, they can be dismissed as aberrations as well as perpetuating racism and imperialism. The West is good, the East bad. The outcome is not a challenge to carnism, rather can be seen as analogous to boundary work as outlined by Gieryn. [wikipedia]

Private armies - science fiction, conspiracy theory, coming soon?

avolve — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:51:28 +0000

Something I have been thinking about for a long time is the economic rationalist project of privatisation. Many (even a majority) do not oppose privatisation on principle, yet it has faced significant challenges numerous times when services deemed of too much importance are targeted. The privatisation of health care, for example, is often subject of debate, whereas there continues to be significant controversy about the privatisation of water supplies. This can be seen stretching back to (and beyond) the emergence of the inaccurately labeled Global Agreement in Trades and Services (GATS) and its intended impacts on imperialistically referred to developing countries. Perhaps the most well-known dispute emerged from Cochambamba in Bolivia following a World Bank directive tying financial aid to privatisation of the water supply.

The issue of privatisation and its ideological imposition via conditions on foreign aid (often referred to Structural Adjustment Programs - SAPs) will most certainly receive some renewed attention given the recent release of Naomi Klein's latest polemic The Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism. Whilst SAPs are not the focus of this new work, the means through which economic rationalist ideologies are imposed on peoples and countries - in taking advantage of natural disasters/war/etc - are directly linked. I have not yet made my way through this new work, and I am not what I would consider a fan of Naomi Klein per se. I think her work No Logo [http://www.naomiklein.org/no-logo] provides some valuable analysis, though find that her analysis can be a little soft at times. I do hope she has improved on this, though am skeptical…

Why I am skeptical is linked again to her recent work. Whilst I think her work details important issues, it is not ground-breaking in itself. If she had predicted, rather than described, what is happening with the occupation of Iraq, in New Orleans and many other locales this would be different. Im am not trying to take away from her work, rather indicate its limitations and short comings as I currently see them. She does provide some predictions, albeit not something unforeseen by others. The demonisation of Iran, in creating a basis for a forthcoming military attack, is a clear example.

Given these perceived shortcomings, do I have something to offer?

There is one shortcoming of The Shock Doctrine that I think is obvious. Significant attention has been afforded the role of private contractors in Iraq (and elsewhere) by many analysts and commentators. Much of this, especially given current outrages against Blackwater’s atrocities, centre around private security firms. With the ‘outsourcing of everything’ and this being clear with the USA operations in Iraq, why has the next logical step (if it can be considered as next, as the basis is now already in place) from a neo-con perspective not been considered??

What is this next step I am referring to?

Despite some conservative attempts to dismiss such descriptions, the private security forces in Iraq are very much mercenaries. They are being used on a scale not previously seen. Following an economic rationalist ideology, the use of private forces is ideal. As is an increase in there adoption and mobilisation. Amongst a boon of things, this promotes free enterprise and reduces the role of government. This directly parallels the basis for private contractors generally - not controversial I think.

The current use of private contractors to provide security forces provides the groundwork for its expansion. Once debate about the costs subside (most likely in response to the shock as Naomi Klein details), their usage will become accepted, even common sense. Once the constructed (i.e. ideological) validity of these becomes normalised it will not be long before this becomes unquestioned and considered an everyday part of ‘modern’ society. What we are seeing now with the use of contractors generally is only the tip of the iceberg. The already extensive reach of privatised services will extend further into the public sphere. Is it too far fetched to foresee small private armies protecting corporate property… oops, I forgot, we already have that. The question is, when will be seen seen as going too far, when will people stand up and say enough!

Aside from reactions to the often self-described actions of these private security forces in Iraq as cowboyish, gun ho and boys with toys, is there any real opposition. Will it take a further entrenchment of the already existing private forces within countries like the USA? When they target minority groups (as they will do first), who will speak out?

The othering of violence

avolve — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:05:55 +0000

I have again been thinking on the eternal debate about tactics amongst activists. Anyone who has taken some time out to reflect will be aware of many things - notwithstanding my critique that many who criticise nonviolence do so from a position of not having actually read much of the theory (explored in many other posts). I have again been involved in discussion and debate regarding nonviolence v violence in social justice movements. This is something that I think will continue for some time - and should. I find problems with numerous views on nonviolence and violence. These include many pacifists (nonviolence and pacifism are not the same, despite people conflating as such), proponents of principled nonviolence, proponents on pragmatic nonviolence (which I have heard referred to as negative nonviolence, as analogous to negative peace) and proponents of various forms of violence through to political assassination. The issues, ideas and debates that have and will continue to emerge, I am sure, will find their way into many more posts here. For now, there is something I have been thinking about of late that I want to put onto paper - I will try to spell this out as I have thought through it.

From cultural studies theorists through to activists challenging racism, the concept of othering is widely considered a central (and essential) part of racism. This is also the case for many other forms of oppression including those based on gender and sexuality. We tend to other someone, a culture, etc., to separate them from us. Once we have created this separation, it makes it easier for us to perpetrate actions we would otherwise not fathom. It also removes the negative connotations of associating these perceived/imposed traits with ourselves. A well-used example is where you have a neighbour, work colleague, etc., who does things we do not like. If they are of a different culture, we take their actions as representative of their culture (much like vegans/radicals/etc are lumped in the same basket) . Whereas, if they are of the same culture as us, we do not consider them representative of us/our culture. Rather, we have issues with them/their actions as individuals. To generalise, progressive folk I discuss ideas with seem not to have an issue with this concept.

From discussion I have had with activists, it seems people do not see this in considering violent actions. For us to perpetuate violence against another requires othering. This need not be race or culturally based. We see it in the actions of those who, for example, make threats against the well being of those who work for companies that inflict untold pain and suffering directly (vivisectors) or indirectly (corporate whores). This othering is clear in how animals are treated in society, and Carol Adams (amongst many others) has shown how women are dehumanised to enable their subjugation.

To call on a base value of anarchism, there is a means/end equivalency - the means reflect the ends. This is at the core of the differences between anarchists and state (amongst other) socialists. It may be obvious where I am going with this. To other someone, whether they be a vivisector or a relative tearing into the flesh on their plate, is a form of dehumanisation. If we are opposed to the dehumanisation of animals, women, other cultures, races, sexualities and more how can we perpetuate violence on others. This is not some hippy attempt at moralising, and I agree with many of Ward Churchill's criticisms of moral adherents to nonviolence in this regard. I will leave this there for now as it is something I need to think more on. I want to explore this much further and refine. It is something I think requires much more thought and expansion/clarification…

I will come back to this, as well as the many other things I have left open (as indicated in previous posts)

APEC and police/state PR…

avolve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:24:38 +0000

Adding to the very specific and targeted media campaign to detail new laws, weapons and technologies to be used by police, as agents of the state, at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit in Sydney, recent news coverage included details about how 200 people who are under periodic detention order will be given that weekend off – as in they can stay home [link]. The way this is being framed is that it will make facilities available (i.e. gaol cells) for the ‘mass arrest’ of ‘up to 500’ critical of the summit and its economic-rationalist agenda. The major aim of this detailed and long-planned public relations campaign is largely two fold – and it appears to be working. One aim is to further demonise those who are willing to stand up and so no, not any more, not in our name. This is clearly having some impact. Another is to create a culture of fear in the sense that people who may have been willing to join in on the spectacle of a peaceful march are very concerned that their attendance will place them in one of many threats to their liberties or personal safety. What these threats are requires a brief outline.

Over past weeks, stretching back over several months, in a sustained effort at reinforcing the intended ‘heavy-handed’ police ‘interventions’, a variety of new laws alongside a number of new technologies have been paraded before the press and subsequently filled homes via the nightly news programs. The approaches to both of these have been distinct for specific reasons, yet at times quite similar. For the most part, the addition of new laws have been portrayed as in the interest of protection – the populace, public order and participants at the summit. Whereas the new technologies of repression have at times been portrayed as tools necessary to quash the actions of violent dissidents – the typical broad brush. The flagrant and direct demonising appears far more overt (orders of magnitude) than has been seen before in Australia.

To start the new laws, the most efficacious of these is the touted ability to detain people for the entire duration of the summit without charge based solely on suspicion. Added to this, those detained will be denied the ‘presumption of bail’. Whilst some have supported this on the notion that suspicion is enough (i.e. the Dr Haneef scenario – some people still attempt to defend his incarceration and subsequent political intervention in the legal-judicial process), the full details of the changes are important. At the end of this summit, those detained can/will be released without charge or conviction – albeit with their details most-certainly added to a little black book… Corresponding with these changes, a fleet of new white ‘buses’ specifically designed as cells on wheels were paraded in front of the press several weeks back. This is linked with the recent announcements about freeing up gaol space. To give you an indication of the status of electoral politics, shadow attorney-general Greg Smit countered that there are numerous sport grounds that could be used to detain people over this period. Aside from not really being any form of opposition, perhaps a softer approach, it indicates how ridiculous the changes to the law are. Those proposed to be detained are such a threat that they can be kept at a sporting stadium…

Along similar lines to the softer approach of a sports stadium was another public statement that is somewhat novel. Before I introduce this, it is worth mentioning that Ward Churchill has referred to this concept many times: public protest props up democracy. What needs to be noted is that this is protest that is approved by police/other state apparatus. In this specific instance, the leader of the state opposition party (conservative) Barry O'Farrell, called for the creation of an ‘additional protest zone’. Whilst normally critical of any form of protest, part explanation can be attributed to real politik. It can also (more based on the actions of the police) be seen as partof a strategy to further denigrate participants in the actions. To illustrate, O'Farrell called for the Domain (an open air park/amphitheatre in the city) to be designated as an official protest zone during the summit. Extending from this (whilst also independent), the Deputy Police Commissioner in NSW stated that if ‘protest organisers’ do not agree to changing their plans to what the police want – in what is perhaps a sign of things to come – they will take action in the Supreme Court.

To give you an idea of what has already planned, a 5km long 2.8m high ‘security barrier’ was announced months ago, and stated it would be in place from September 2-9. This will be extended even further from September 6. Not to rest on the laurels, as of today, barriers were being erected today. The exclusion zones created already restrict public access, with the aforementioned police actions regarding ‘official’ zones for protest further attempting to restrict this. Such proposals could also be more sinister. With broad public opposition emanating from the perceived disruption the summit will cause, it appears this action affords the opportunity for any further disruptions to be blamed on those refusing to agree to police terms for acceptable protesting. The NSW Police Association is also critical, given that 20% of the states police being in the Sydney CBD…

Shifting in focus, the most recent technology paraded is a new high-pressure water-cannon – far more powerful than those already used by the police, acquired at a cost of $600,000. Media coverage specifically resulting from the public relations campaign does two things worth noting, one being a further attempt to exacerbate fear. The other implying that it is those critical of the APEC summit are the reason why such repressive anti-people technologies are needed. It does not address any of the reasons why such a large number of people have serious concerns about the summit and the broader direct impacts of the policies of the entity.

There is much more I can go into here, though will leave that for another time. Aside from my ongoing outrage (I have not had dismay with government for a long time) at what is transpiring, a brief conversation this morning – if it could be considered as such – inspired me to write. This extends from discussing similar issues with other people over recent weeks, with there being direct linkages between the APEC summit and the Dr Haneef situation. Concerns about my intended participation in criticising the APEC summit and my non-consent for what is transpiring have been raised. A significant basis for these concerns is a fear for my personal safety at the hands of the police. Somewhat contrasted though indicative, was framing such concerns alongside supporting the police intentions – delegates to the summit ‘need to be protected’. Without denigrating this person, a number of things are left unconsidered. Whilst they do not necessarily agree with the extent of the pending police interventions, they have uncritically bought into staying away partly based on a fear of the implications (injury, detainment, etc) – not that they would participate anyway (which I will come back to). By not being critical, we provide tangible (at the least) support for what will transpire. This is implied consent. As we have seen very clearly and starkly very recently, actions that do not directly challenge the status quo, irrespective of how many participants, have little impact. The demonstrations calling for non-involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq by/supported by a handful of countries – despite being arguably the largest every in the history of Australia – achieved very little (notwithstanding the benefits to those who participated).

What is ‘a diversity of tactics’?

avolve — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:58:18 +0000

For some time now, and dramatically on the increase, calls for ‘a diversity of tactics’ have been made by many within progressive activist circles. It is of significant importance for a number of reasons. These most notable reasons, for me, are twofold. The first relates to where its use emerged from/who is adopting its use and promotion, and the implications of its use and how it is used. The first is easier to note, and the second has significant implications as defined by Antonio Gramci’s deconstruction of ‘common sense’. As such, I will look at them in the order introduced.

A diversity of tactics has effectively replaced (not yet 100%) the use of ‘all tools in the tool box’ as a one-line argument for the use of tactics that do not fit into the rubric of nonviolence. This requires some explanation. What actually constitutes nonviolence is and will always be a debated subject. Some incorrectly conflate nonviolence with pacifism (for me this being very far from the mark is a given) whereas the more significant aspect here is whether property damage is nonviolent. For example, the Ploughshares uses (symbolic) property damage as an aspect of their nonviolent actions. A number of activists argue that property damage is nonviolent in that violence can only be perpetuated against living things (a broad generalisation, though one that works here), whereas others argue that it is violent and that the construction of arbitrary boundaries do little to further social change. Discussions about this can be found in many other locations.

Often fitting within the last of the above described categories are those that argue for the use (or perhaps more accurately, availability) of all tools in the toolbox. In reference to my previous post, Peter Gelderoos fits in here. It is often argued that to limit the tactical options available weakens a movements’ options and potentially negates any chance of success. There are many problems with such positions that I have yet to come across (and yes I have been research this subject for several years). The first of these clearly contrasts with the notion that the means reflects the ends (some proponents of the toolbox might argue that the ends justify the means. What does all tools in the toolbox actually mean??

I often find that those who claim to be an all tools in the toolbox person do not have an appreciation of what is in the toolbox. The term all appears to be lost on them. Whilst I could delve here, there is a specific aspect I repeatedly note is unquestioned. If it is OK for progressives like ourselves to use any and all tools available, why is it not OK for others? An argument stridently made (whether accurate or not) against activists who adopt nonviolent principles is that they consider themselves to be morally superior. If the all tools in the toolbox proponents were/are to be free from such criticisms themselves (they are often the ones making such an argument) they would need to accept that anyone can use such tactics. To draw one simple analogy, why is it then not acceptable for people opposed to women’s reproductive freedom to kill doctors who perform abortions (or the support staff) – or destroy clinics where such procedures are performed? To be consistent this needs to be supported does it not?

My point here is that whatever tactics one adopts, endorses or promotes it needs to be one that is available for others to use – irrespective of their differing values or beliefs. That is, unless we consider them to be deficient in some way. We can argue certainly against their ideas, yet can we deny them the same tactics we use? I think we need to be vary wary of the concept of all tools in the toolbox given this (and other issues I have not gone into).

To return to a diversity of tactics, this is effectively the same concept as all tools in the toolbox and it leads into the second of what I consider notable implications of its use. What has specifically spurred me to write about this now is the upcoming APEC summit in Australia and actions being discussed to disrupt this. In response to calls for not limiting available options, as in calls for ‘a diversity of tactics’, the term ‘peaceful protest’ has been removed from promotional materials. This received mainstream news coverage in the Sydney press and was reproduced more widely (see mostly water).

More obtuse and catch-phrasey that all tools in the toolbox, the notion of a diversity of tactics seems very appealing. Yet how many people actually think beyond the post-modern unquestionings of the term diversity. Given our (apparent) multicultural period, isn’t diversity a good thing (I have written elsewhere about the implications of postmodernsim on contemporary activism)? What the phrase a diversity of tactics achieves – whether intentional or not – is what amounts to Gramscian deconstruction of common sense. What I refer to here is that the term seems to be common sense, as diversity is widely accepted as a good thing. Extending from this, such a notion becomes accepted without any (critical) reflection as to what it means. How many people, for example, who think that it is a good idea to have diversity would note that supporting this would necessarily imply they were also supporting the use of all tools? This is a significant issue and one as yet left un-questioned.

What is perhaps more problematic and one I foresee as emerging for quite some time before it is transcended are the direct implications of something seen as common sense. With a diversity of tactics as a catch-all effectively being viewed as such, it will come to mimic others politically mobilised (again intentionally or not). For example, the term political correctness has received widespread adoption in Australia by the political right. It is used as a criticism of social programs and other progressive ideas and has become so effective as a dismissive that it renders any response as invalid even before it is made (as it does with the initial idea criticised). No actual thought on responses are given – there is no need as the initial criticism is perceived as common sense.

As a diversity of tactics is increasingly used, I can easily see – based on the common sense of diversity – the rendering of any criticism as ideological and closed-minded. This is irrespective of the merits of such criticisms, even those I have briefly outlined above. Aside from the issues within progressive circles, if the political right and reactionary circles work on highlighting these implications in the mainstream press, the impacts will be substantial. An ability to garner broader support for issues (essential for an effective movement, (mostly) irrespective of your views – something I will return to in part 2 of my thoughts on How nonviolence protects the state) will be undermined via a large-scale corporate public relations campaign.

That we are the target of such campaigns is not the basis for my criticism – we are now and will continue to be. What is the issue is that if we endorse all tools, current attempts to label us as (domestic) terrorists as central to the current green scare/green is the new red, will be all the more easier. This does require some explanation – something I am certain to not do adequately here. To make a simple point via perhaps one of the most extreme examples: assassination. It is a tactic that has (and continues) to be used in intra- and inter-national conflicts – quite often state sponsored. I am not arguing for this, however does this not fall into all tools. What about the Okalahoma bombing, others? Can adopting such tactics (including some recently promoted by animal activists) actually promote and lead to change? Or do such actions merely shift the focus onto individuals rather than the structural basis of exploitation? To conflate, will killing the head of the chief exploiter of a vivisection company lead to necessary changes in attitudes for animal testing to be banned?

I think some (enough?) of us realise that the use of promotion of fear will not lead to real and lasting change? Can it lead to short-term change and associated reduction in suffering, exploitation and/or murder of a small number of animals? I cannot deny that this is possible. And I guess this affords the basis for some arguments put forward for a diversity of tactics. It does not, however, significantly alter what I have explored here – if you feel otherwise, please let me know…

To get back to the main impetus for my writing, we need to reflect on this now, before it can become an effective tool of the political right. This is something I will certainly come back to and explore…

[this was written on June 21, though not posted until now - with minor edit]

Reflections on 'How nonviolence protects the state' - part one

avolve — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:26:49 +0000

I have been working through Peter Gelderloos’ How nonviolence protects the state for the last few weeks. During that time I have had the opportunity to discuss many of the challenges he puts forward as well as some underlying assumptions and non-stated premises. Whilst I think significant amounts of what he has produced provide valuable points for discussion, I also have a number of issues with it. As my comments and reflections on this will be substantial, this will be my first installment, in engaging with this work.

My aim here is not to summarise the arguments he has put forward – you can look elsewhere for such commentary. My intent is to critically engage with some of the underlying assumptions and non-stated premises I have noted. It should be noted that there are others I do not engage with here, and I may revisit these at a later time. That said, there is enough substance to the How nonviolence protects the state for me to dwell on many of the arguments for some time. Even considering differences of opinion, I do value this work.

What I have found most troublesome with Peter Gelderloos’ writing are a number of repeated themes (for lack of a better descriptor). The first of these is a conflation of pacifism with nonviolence. In drawing on those who challenge principled pacifism, he draws from Ward Churchill. He is not the first to attempt to use the words and writings of Ward Churchill to justify the use of violent tactics, and will not be the last. The problem is the common misconstrual of his ideas. Whilst Ward Churchill does argue quite strongly and effectively for not disclosing tactical options that include violence, he is not the champion of violence that he is often portrayed as being. Anyone who has really looked at his works will easily note this. Whilst I expect such inaccurate conflations from people who have not really looked at Ward Churchill’s works and those who have not actually read nonviolence theory, I expected more from Peter Gelderloos. For me, this provides another indication that a variant of American exceptionalism is in fact prominent in activist movements, leading to and emanating from a naïve libertarianism. To get back to my initial point, Ward Churchill is very clear that pacifism and nonviolence are not one and the same. Whilst there have been some changes in pacifist understandings and approached over recent years, such a conflation is very much off the mark.

In setting the scene for his critical attack – and it is a fervent one, Peter Gerlderloos reflects on a number of actions/historical case studies that are often used by nonviolence advocates as examples of its efficacy. His approach to challenging these is somewhat puzzling. For example, he refers to such actions as not being victorious given ongoing issues counter to the aims of those working for change. Some credence is easily garnered there, albeit this contrasts with his reflections on challenging patriarchy and pragmatism in later chapters. What is immediately notable is that whilst describing such actions as not achieving what they set out to do (i.e. not being victorious) he makes a strange addendum. Firstly he outlines – and often correctly – that some of the campaigns did in fact involve a diversity of tactics (his at times inaccurate pseudonym for the very dangerous ‘all tools in the toolbox’ argument). This is not problematic per se. After referring to these actions as nonviolent, ineffective and the reason for the described failures, followed by outlining that a diversity of tactics were used, all of a sudden these were in fact successful! An interesting circular logic…

In challenging essentialism and what he refers to as the patriarchy of nonviolence, there are a couple other striking issues. One of these is that he, seemingly un-noted, makes essentialist claims himself. Whilst this is problematic and an issue I have noted with many proponents of the any means necessary position, what I found to be a far more significant issue is his complete obfuscation of the work of bell hooks. To summarise, he uses the flow on implications of patriarchal domestic violence against women (i.e. taken out on their children) to suggest that women are in fact violent. Whilst he is trying to counterpoise with essentialist claims that women are nurturing and inherently passive, this is very much problematic. Aside from the variant of essentialism needed to justify such an argument, describing it as a stretch of bell hooks’ own writings would be to do a disservice to bell hooks herself and do little to challenge this clearly misconstrued construction. I found this attempted analogy to be unsupportable.

to be continued…

exceptionalism, narcissism and postmodernity

avolve — Sat, 19 May 2007 00:36:59 +0000

I presented a paper at a conference at Brock University in March – "Thinking About Animals: Domination, Captivity, Liberation". Whilst my paper was directed at animal activists, it had a broader undercurrent. Much of what I was raising I have seen widespread in activist circles.

My paper was titled Animal Liberation: symbolic action, un/civil disobedience & the use of fear. In this paper I was commenting on tactics adopted actions across the board – as I think the title indicates. The immediate context of this was the publishing if Lee Hall’s Capers in the Churchyard – animal rights advocacy in the age of terror (Nectar bat Press) and radio interview with Steve Best on Animal Voices in September 2006. I made my views about the interview known with these later posted on the Animal Voices website. In the paper, I made significant reference to the edited volume Terrorists or freedom fighters – reflections on the liberation of animals (Lantern Press).

The crux of my paper (which I hope to have published soon, including an audio recording - details will be added) was very critical of progressive activists, specifically those of what might be considered the ‘Seattle’ generation – in reference to the WTO demonstrations (N30) 1999. What I have noted, and I was drawing from activism well beyond N30 and in different locations, is that a relational narcissism is present and persistent in grass-roots activism today. This relational narcissism is a result and embodiment of American Exceptionalism – somewhat ironic given that which we profess to be trying to achieve.

All of this is, however, not the focus of this post. The conference afforded great opportunities to network and meet others with similar interests. It was the paper given by John Sambonmatsu (a late addition keynote speaker) that I drew much from. Both his ability to articulate academic theory (and praxis) in an absorbable manner and the content of what he presented were more than refreshing.

The basis of my critiques gelled with much of what John presented and I was pleased that John was able to come to my session and question some of my positions. With John’s closing keynote address immediately after that session, we arranged to go out for a refreshing beverage and some food.

At the conference John had made copies of his 2004 book The Postmodern Prince – critical theory, left strategy and the making of a new political subject (Monthly Review Press). I was on hand to pick-up the last copy, though offered it to someone else who was after it. My intent was to pick up a copy off John directly or later. John had no other copies with him and I finally picked up a copy this week.*

I am only two chapters into this book and finding much of what he presents very challenging, though with a sound basis. I am pretty certain I will need to re-read the entire book at least once through after this read. He is very critical of the New Left (what emerged from 60s radicalism) and the postmodern turn in academia (when he derided postmodernism at the Brock conference I could not help but let out a chuckle and some applause).

Whilst challenging, I am enjoying reading this book. It differs from much of what I have read over the last 6 months. Whilst I want to be challenged, I hope that John’s critique of Foucault (Chapter five) does not derail the work in my dissertation that I hope to submit very soon…

That said, I think it offers much to think about for progressive activist-thinkers. I think it would be valuable reading for activists more broadly, though the terminology and assumed knowledge is substantial making it less approachable for non-academics. Upon finishing, I hope to be able to write a concise account in an approachable manner.

-------------
* I also picked up a copy of something I have wanted to read for a little while – Peter Gelderloos’ How non-violence protects the state (South End Press). I have heard numerous criticisms of this work, though thought it worth a look at.

site back online... finally!!

avolve — Fri, 18 May 2007 23:13:20 +0000

After many, many months i was able come up with a concept design for this site i was happy with. A new design was needed given the upgrade from drupal 4.6 to 5.1.

Turning the the concept into a working design required the better part of a week of testing, tweaking and adding... and here it is!

During that time there were many things i was thinking about and constructing in my mind. I hope to be able to put these down in a form suitable for here soon. I read a lot and wrote a lot during that time and have some ideas i want to put forth - hopefully these will stimulate some debate as it has in the past.

In response to the spam attacks this site received in the past, i have implemented some new methods of prevention including a captcha test on submission of comments. i hope this resolves the problem.

Given the narrow-ness of this design, i have also implemented a printer-friendly feature. If you find the page too small, you can use the link at the bottom of a posts page to read it on your screen as well.

I will be activating a search feature soon and possibly some other usability features... enough rambling on this for me!

Some new posts will follow in coming days...

Anyone else opposed to Saddam’s execution?

avolve — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:44:02 +0000

The front page of the local press today was covered with a large photographic depiction of Saddam Hussein and emblazoned with Saddam executed. For me, the question is are they are others out there who are, whilst not ‘surprised’ – for lack of a better word – at the somewhat common fetishising of murder in the name of justice, basing their opposition to this state sanctioned murder on a considered reasoning? I feel, perhaps panoptically, a need to contextualise. I am not a denier or conspiracy theorist. He was a horrible person who committed many many atrocities. The charge of ‘crimes against humanity’ that much of the press has recounted is perhaps quite apt. I will also state that I am not going to critically engage with the US’s financial support for his rule for many long and brutal years… any surprises there? That all said, I hope – perhaps very foolishly – that the seeds of cognitive dissonance are either being planted or starting to sprout for many in the ‘west’. The basis for this will become clear. First I will outline why I am strongly opposed to this state sanctioned murder – along with all political executions. I use the term political in a broad sense here to explain I recall a line from an early-mid 90s Australian politico-industrial band Insurge: I see no prisoners, I see performing political prisoners… Saddam Hussein was hung for his ‘crimes’, as are many others. Others still are incarcerated, manipulated be hegemonic ‘norms’ or otherwise punished via varying degrees of explicit and overt means. The notion of punishment is the societal response to someone doing something considered wrong. As such, we should not do something considered wrong because we will be punished. So we do not do things out of a fear of punishment – a culture of fear. The notion of being just, considerate and responsible people in our everyday interpersonal relations has become very very lost in our fear-based societies. I am not moralising religiously here. The church (many many variants) are also responsible for such fear based self regulation and impositions – I was however pleased that the pope publicly opposed Saddam’s execution (I am not aware of the exact articulated basis for this). A fear of going to hell if immoral, a fear of going to gaol/jail if one breaks ‘societies’ (i.e. largely white upper class male deduced, written and imposed) laws, a fear of what others will think of our actions. All these are interlinked via this basis of fear that so explicitly, hegemonically and panoptically shape the everyday experiences of so many. Where am I going with this? I am opposed to Saddam’s execution – outside of all my criticisms of the ‘law’, socio-political events and to notion of the law per se. Executing someone can only lead to people not doing something out of fear. For me, if we really want to move in a positive, affirmative and foundationally sound society we cannot continue to function within such a dualistic paradigm. The imposed hierarchy of such an approach, alongside the implicit competition and penis-size battles that very often result, cannot aid in leading to such a basis – unless the potential for cognitive dissonance is highly valued. Imagine a society where people do things, to recall Aristotle from memory, based on a notion of the common good and justicia - where what we think of our individual actions matter. Some might react to thinking this a s dangerous. It can be. We need fundamental and sweeping change away from the current hyper masculine, patriarchal and hierarchical paradigms fostered by the consumer capital and religious indoctrinations so deeply engrained in many current societies. If we lived in a society where people valued each other, mutual cooperation and a sense of fairness (very broad, simplistic, though makes the point) our individual basis for actions and judgment would fundamentally change. I do not want to go into this more here – I was more writing to express my views and provide an alternative to the mainstream press’ deference’s to a notion ‘justice’ having been done… I can add a link to a someone else’s writings I often read (they do not know this yet) and their recent thoughts on 'Red Emma and why the masses are dumb'. Quoting Emma Goldman: “It requires less mental effort to condemn than to think… Rather than to go to the bottom of any given idea, to examine into its origin and meaning, most people will either condemn it altogether, or rely on some superficial or prejudicial definition of non-essentials” I could add more, though you could get this by reading it… To surmise, we live in a society based on fear. As such, is it any wonder that people react with fear to such events as the imposed wake up call of the deaths in the WTC and the resulting realisations and eye openings of the blinkered US (and other western) citizenries? The common, yet apt, bastardised cliché from Mohandis K. Gandhi – an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Fear and the notion of retribution go hand in hand – what peeves me more is when those who proclaim to be aware or progressive to a degree embody such notions… that is another story for another time. For now I will sit back, read the mainstream press and rant to myself about it all.

people make the place....

avolve — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:56:09 +0000

Whilst it may be a clichéd title, it accurately reflects my experiences of the last 9 months. Early this year I traveled to a city on the other side of the planet, somewhere I have never visited, to research how the local community took a stand for social justice and environmental protection. I came to this city knowing not a single person, and with most references to the area (from people not from here) being largely negative. As I leave this place, I have formed my own view: it is one that differs from these negative references and reflective of the views of many of those working for positive change.

The city is Hamilton, Ontario (Canada), referred to as Hamilton’s steel city. My first entrance to the city was via the northwest entrance from Toronto. The first sight entering the city from here is of what is known as Cootes paradise. It is a very wondrous sight for an industrial city: a large expanse of forested green space surrounding a wetland/river system as far as can be seen from the highway. Given this I was unsure as to the negative references. It was not long, however, before I was to cross the Skyway Bridge that forms the northeast entrance. The view is of the industrial quagmire of the steel works, rampant pollution and the largely accurate basis for the negative references I had heard many times.

Given these two very contrasting entrances, the basis for the struggle I was hear to gain a sense of and consider was abundantly clear. People here had a sense of place, and they wanted to protect what green-space remained. It was a green corridor stretching form the Niagara Escarpment to Lake Ontario in the city’s (blue collar) east end that was the centre of the dispute – the Red Hill Valley. The dispute is of immense significance for environmental factors, the community struggle, and local and provincial politics. It was, up until the emergence of the linked dispute over nearby Caledonia and the Six Nations reclamation, the first direct and explicit white support for Six Nations in the struggle for justice over land.

It was through my exposure to the struggles, still ongoing at Caledonia, meeting those involved and learning from them that I, too, gained a sense of place for this area. Geographically it has many striking similarities to where I am from. Socially, it embodies much of the social-economic issues as well. The actions of communities in these two far removed locations – the fervent struggle for environmental protection and social justice in support of first peoples – is something that I have drawn immense inspiration from.

Like most places I have visited, it required a good six months before connecting with people on a deep level. As such, leaving becomes a challenge. Without going into detail – these reflections were/are not intended to be a personal account, rather a social analysis – this experience has once again illustrated to me that community is what makes a place. The strident struggle over places by those who know them – usually faced against impositions from those who don’t (corporate entities, governments, property speculators, etc) – is what makes a place. The people really do make the place…

There is a lasting legacy of the actions taken to protect the Red Hill Valley, and embodied in the support for the Caledonia land reclamation. It is something I foresee with continue to grow: people and the city will benefit and grow with and as a result of this. I hope to come back here, in a number of years to see the positive change.

To invoke a number of other clichés, the value of which, however, can be drawn form this: Local people taking local action; Struggle from the grass roots, community is local…
I leave this place inspired and knowing it is those who often struggle in their daily lives that really care about others.

Perpetuating the exploitations we seek to transcend…

avolve — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:07:48 +0000

I remember first coming across Propagandhi’s How to Clean Everything around mid-late 1994. I was becoming more aware of how fucked up many things were in the world – yet not fully able to grasp or comprehend what was actually going on and why. Recently prior to this, I had an epiphany – one that I could not fully explain: it was wrong to hurt animals which led to my becaming a vegetarian. Hearing nailing Descartes to the wall / (liquid) meat is still murder really helped me clarify some things and began the process, for me, of opening my eyes to deeper issues. It was the line ‘I have recognized one form of oppression, now I recognize the rest’ that made it possible for me to verbalise that which I had become aware of, yet could not grasp.

I often reflect on this simple one-line lyric and how far we are from actually giving it credence. I use ‘we’ to refer to not just the broad ‘animal movement’, rather those who clearly state, or imply that they are anti-oppression vegans. Many of these people, including myself, believe that oppression is antithetical to veganism. What is troubling for me, and has come back to squarely kick me in the face once again, is how actions of a number of people I have discussions with – people who ascribe to this notion – do not reflect this belief as praxis.

I am not saying that I am free from doing this – and I would ask anyone who notes me doing this to point it out to me. To refer back to How to Clean Everything – it did have a profound impact on me – and again draw on some lyrics, this time from apparently, I'm a "PC fascist" (because I care about both human and non-human animals) … I ascribe to this line: ’Tell you what- I'll call you on your shit, PLEASE CALL ME ON MINE. Then we can grow together and make this shit-hole planet better in time’. That said…

There exists – as some people would argue – the stereotype that vegans are sanctimonious arrogant fuctkards. I have met many vegans who are. They are not who I am reflecting on here. I am reflecting on those working towards social change rather than dime-store politics and the politics of individualism. I am seeing amongst a number of people I know the construction of such a persona. I have tried to point this out, yet received not only the expected reactionary response. Sanctimonious arrogance was entrenched and reified in the defensiveness of the response. I am not referring to one event, rather a series of many. A recent exchange has brought this bubbling to the surface. To be harsh, the basis of the reactionary actions – and the actions leading up to my constructively critical comments – mirror approaches typified by electoral politics, albeit without attempts to pacify/sugar coat language.

I am all for open and vibrant discussion, yet when one line dismissals become the norm (i.e. ‘fuck you’, ‘who do you think you are’ or pertaining to ‘how long have you been a vegan / activist’) and the associated rear guard action of constructing an old boys club there is clearly a problem. I do not like the word tolerance when used regarding issues of race and culture, yet it is appropriate here. Whilst some of us may have become vegan overnight (and sometimes self-righteously so), we were not instantly aware of all oppression, clearly able to verbalise it, or as ‘perfect’ as we would like to believe we are at times. The path to removing oppressive practices from our every day existence is a long and possibly endless one. We all started form somewhere – yet appear to either not afford the same opportunities to others, or perpetuate the disdain levelled at us by sanctimonious fucktards…

What I am seeing, and I have seen it repeated over more than a decade in different circles, is this lack of tolerance for someone who has started walking the path based on either, or in part both, a holier than thou attitude or a frustration with the fucked up status of the world and the never ending struggle to change things that we take offence at the needed repeated (from privileged position) restatements of this out on them.

I could go into detail and be here writing for a week about the implications and still not touch on more than a fraction. What troubles me to no end, reflected in the title of my ramblings, is that when we do this we perpetuate many of the exploitations we seek to transcend. For a society free from cruelty and exploitation, the means must reflect the ends. We cannot work towards such a society through the use of previously referred to electoral political tactics of dismissal nor can we achieve such ends through reactionary intolerance filled with contempt, demeaning, divisive language and the dismissal of those less holy than thou.

Until we cease perpetuating the exploitations we seek to transcend – those we think we are aware of – are ‘we’ really anything more than sanctimonious arrogant fuctkards???

Essentialisms and ideological naturalising of masculinity – reflections on Steve Best

avolve — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:48:05 +0000

I have recently read Lee Hall’s (2006) Capers in the churchyard: animal rights advocacy in the age of terror and revisited the edited volume Terrorist’s or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals (2004). I found Lee Hall’s book to be one published at a very necessary time and it was quite scathing of welfarist and ‘militant’ approaches (albeit not un-problematically), the latter being promoted and supported in Terrorist’s or Freedom Fighters. I am working my way through producing a review of Capers in the churchyard, yet felt the need to comment following a recent interview with Steve Best on CUIT’s Animal Voices (Toronto). Steve Best is one of the editors of Terrorist’s or Freedom Fighters? and a vocal supporter of militancy. The sweeping generalisations, clear lack of knowledge, awareness and understandings of that which he authoritatively comments on, and the lack of critical reflexive awareness are very surprising – at least to me – from a tenured academic, especially one in the humanities. It is this interview that I reflect on…

The interview coincides with the release of Igniting a revolution: voices in defense of the earth (2006), which he is one of the editors of. I am yet to read this volume, yet the themes Steve Best raises in the interview are those he already holds and external to the content of the volume. He premises his comments with stating that actions labeled as militant now are moderate in comparison to what is needed. This is extended in that ‘any and all tactics are on the table, any and all tactics are necessary in these times of corporate facism’. What we should be focussing on, he argues, is what is effective. This is contextualised in the notion that we are apparently at war, and in conditions of war such tactics are appropriate. He does not address the very problematic pragmatisms underlying such notions. In conditions of war, non-violence, at least Steve Best’s bastardised and clearly misrepresentative populist version, are effectively tools for the state, if not of the state (i.e. ‘oppressors’). His generalised equating non-violence with legalist tactics is dumb-founding.

That he professes that violent tactics are the only possible means of ‘winning this war’ and many others, shows a complete lack of awareness of the history of non-violence. His rhetorical question asking someone to show him how non-violence has overcome oppression further exemplifies this. It also indicates, though he is clearly unaware of this, the ideologically naturalised tendency towards violence that is central to contemporary western society. As such, his labelling of non-violence as western centric (which I will come back to) is considerably ironic. For something one who is aware of institutionalised exploitation of people and animals as inherently linked, the links are clearly not made…

His misaligned engagement with violence was further exemplified in his response to descriptions of violence as hyper-masculine. In attempting to counter this, he outlines what is perhaps the most naïve notion I have seen espoused from a ‘progressive’ academic. Essentialism apparently rules the day: some women support violence, therefore violence cannot be masculine… Steve Best is surprisingly unaware of the implications and means of perpetuating itself that patriarchy imposes and draws from in western society? His attempt to draw from actions of (what he fails to see as patriarchal) feminists does little more than construct a circular reference. This further leaves him, albeit unknowingly, floundering in attempt to deny the patriarchal masculinity of violence.

It is refreshing, and I would consider essential for all of us, that Steve Best puts forward the notion that we need to have careful analysis and open debate about what tactics are help and necessary. In addressing the need for what he refers to as total liberation, Steve Best shows that he can be critical and aware of class issues. The question remains as to why he is not aware of anything more than a bastardised and essentialist understanding of both masculinity and nonviolence. To label nonviolence as western-centric represents, for me, his clear lack of historical analysis of resistance to patriarchy. It clear illustrates the impacts of patriarchal societal relations on his analysis in that he infers awareness of masculinity, yet does not attempt to move beyond its ideologically naturalised embodiment in socio-historical papers, published histories and live experiences.

Animal Instinct reviewed...

avolve — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:52:53 +0000

I recently reviewed Dorothy Hayes' Animal Instinct for the Vegan Freak Radio podcast.

In recent days i was contacted - out of the blue - by Dorothy with very positive comments on this review (Bob and Jenna were also very generous in theirs). The email included the following:

'Thanks for the most in-depth review thus far of Animal Instinct. You understood my efforts on several levels, for which I am eternally grateful! .... This one gets a frame!' and 'I've sent it to several magazines and will keep you posted on developments. When I exhibit my novel in LA this October at Tom Regans conference, it'll be a handout and framed sitting on top of the table.'

Here is the review itself:

Animal Instinct by Dorothy H. Hayes.

Animal Instinct is a page-turner. I progressed through the 232 pages in less than two days leaving me searching for another easy-to-read yet socially aware novel. It includes good social commentary, at times detracting from the story itself, that is worthy of reflection and consideration for all involved in animal protectionist movements.

The crossover between hinted details of campaigns and, at times purposively distorted representations that fit well within the story, provide somewhat of a primer to those in the abolitionist movement and the challenges on many levels socially as well as with welfarism based approaches. Animal Instinct also goes much further through highlighting many of the broader social/inter-personal challenges that permeate into animal organizations. These range from subtle comments on individual actions (implications to strict vegetarianism as opposed to veganism) through to direct illustrations of exploitative practices of many in the constructed hierarchies of the animal protectionist movements.
Alongside these references to what those involved in some level of animal protection will be aware, Animal Instinct includes detail – including facts and figures – of animal abuse for those who are newer to the issues. The impetus for inclusion of these is clear and at times this works well, yet at others it detracts from the story. This is perhaps the weakest aspect of the novel. I also found the conclusion a little fast in coming and short on detail… These are minor issues on the scale of things. Readability is very high.

Much of the inferences to the workings of animal protectionist organizations, whilst names are changed – with several real-life people melded together into specific individual characters and the timelines a little distorted – indicate many lessons we can draw from reading this novel. Those with more detailed inside knowledge of past campaigns will be able to decipher many of these multiple personalities, and also locate specific references to well-known (or less) individual traits.

Deborah Hayes’ experiences and knowledge gained through working both as a journalist and for the organization Friends of Animals are clear – as indicated in her multiple real-life persona characters and many of the events in the book. This does not, however, afford reference to Animal Instinct as autobiographical – as some reviews provide – any substantive basis. Further, some reviews do little to fully consider the exposed exploitative nature of people within the animal protectionist movements to the point of both falsely stating them and clearly misrepresenting them. For me, this clearly highlights the painful lack of awareness of broader social issues and ills by many engaged in animal protection – something Animal Instinct touches on.

The direct (and often not-so-direct) references in Animal Instinct to real-world situations (if skewed a little time-wise) include the impacts of seminal works like Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, Tom Reagan’s The Case for Animal Rights and Gary Francione’s Rain Without Thunder in the context of the direct influences they have. This provides a means for everyone concerned with animal protection – whether long or short term – to learn and draw from.

To finish with, and indicative of another strength of Animal Instinct, Dorothy Hayes does attempt to place the exploitative practices of some in the animal protection movement within specific contexts. This does not appear to be as providing a means for justification of such actions, rather to understand – clearly indicating one of the many challenges we continually face in working towards holistic social change. Such change is necessary and essential for the liberation of all species. This is one aspect of the Animal Instinct – even if not fully realised by Dorothy Hayes herself – that is of immense value.

are we, somewhat unknowingly, replicating relations of capital?

avolve — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:34:18 +0000

On Friday, I randomly stumbled a cross a community notice for the local monthly Critical Mass bike ride – about an hour before it was due to start. My first reaction was to get my bike ready. My second was should I bother. I have tried to give some thought to why I had the second reaction, with it obviously being more than the simple implications it embodies.

I rationalised that I should attend to support alternate transportation, the provision of safer and dedicated bike routes and that, as I am on the other side of the world to where I am from – very much out of my comfort zone – I might meet some more people. On arriving, the turnout was low (ominous looking weather, and unseasonably cold). There was a local media photographer around: the day before, a 12-year-old boy was struck and killed by a car whilst riding his bike (yet to hit the media, a another young boy, in a neighbouring town was in critical condition after being hit by a car that afternoon). A tragedy makes good news as always…

Given this, I still had feelings along the lines of why bother. They emanated from current ponderings I am having as to whether actions/events like Critical Mass actually achieve anything. I have read a number of books of late, with a few more to follow, touching on this to varying degrees – both theoretical and praxis based (i.e. community/grass-roots action) looking at power relations, prefigurativity, and social change. I have also given a lot of thought (for more than a year now – I think too much some times) on the notion of civil disobedience in this regard.

A bike lift was staged for the journalist at what is pretty much the main intersection in the city, and this made my thoughts on why are we doing this/does it really achieve anything more profound. Being in Canada where people are more receptive to such things and more open as opposed to individualistic and self-centred, as my experiences in many other places have shown, many asked what we were doing and why – they were genuine. On this level I can see such events as having some type of impact, given the reception.

Where my feelings are coming from is at a deeper level. I think I can draw from the peace rally in Sydney, Australia that coinciding with demonstrations around the world, to indicate the roots of them (the theme is ever present in them all, to varying degrees). At that event, there was somewhere of the order of 20% of the population present. Such a percentage of participants is effectively unheard of at any public event/demonstration. Two things happened. Those involved went home as if they had done their civic duty via demonstrating, and that was all they needed to do. Secondly, the government didn’t care/did nothing. They are both interlinked an many levels, yet where my sense of disaffection emanates from may not be clear…

This relates to the notion of protesting being seen as a civic duty, participating in democracy. I have heard some perspectives that civil disobedience such as this peace rally was based on do little but prop up electoral politics the notion of democracy it embodies. I am coming to support such a notion. This extends well beyond my personal rejection of the state and wishes for its demise. Such demonstrations create a façade of democracy in the sense that we have a say. That it has come to the point that people feel that speaking out is all their civic duty requires really emphasises it for me. Are we at a crossroads? What are we to do? How can we achieve effective social change based on prefiguration as opposed to propping up the state and doing our civic duty as it appears to be all that we are achieving?

For me, and many others I have heard professing an opinion – learned or other – such actions are compartmentalised and do not challenge structural relations in any way. As such no change is forthcoming. They merely create a façade of democracy as mentioned. Whilst waling around Toronto today, I gained an insight from, effectively, people watching.

Is it the self-aggrandising and rampant individualism that is increasingly visible in many levels of our relations – for me a clear product not of capital, rather the outcome of post-modernity, specifically uncritical deference’s to pluralism – that is the cause of this? I think it might be (at least in part). Compartmentalisation is certainly a part of this – both an outcome of capital and post-modernist musings. So we have two different locales ideologising (whether visible as such of not) individualist, compartmentalised, self-centred and inward looking ways of relating in society – one conservative, one apparently apolitical (or progressive depending on who you ask).

So this was my mindset with regards to critical mass. Is it just a means for like-minded people to come together and wallow in our ineffectiveness? I know this sounds very pessimistic… Having people we can relate to it crucial to enjoying life and working towards sustainable and prefigurative social change. Yet does it achieve anything outside of this? Are we actively constructing, or at least perpetuating structured compartmentalisations and thus removing our ability to relate beyond the individual? Can we see beyond these small, if yet important, aspects of why we do things? If not, is there a broader social impact?

I have at times also thought that we have become caught up in waiting for the structural relations and the system to devour itself. The power of capital and its relations lie in its dynamism and flexibility – as we can see in looking at the last few years, and many periods historically. Clearly the system is shifting to the misplaced individualism of post-modernist musings, which at best are misinterpreted. If we are just waiting, the dynamism will shift to a point where our waiting will lead to us being nowhere again. Antonio Negri writes of multitude locales of a third position that is outside such relations. Whilst, following Michel Foucault, he eschews prescription – as I think we all should – such multitudes of this third position appear to reinforce the do nothing mindset… How can we actively contribute to a better society beyond compartmentalised actions? These are essential for social change, yet it seems that we are not linking them to bigger issues/broader change – we cannot see past the compartments we are structuring ourselves

How can we address the bigger picture with regards to systematic and structural relations at the same time?

These are questions I do ponder, yet am finding myself caught up, in the post-modern sense of being stuck in pondering them. ‘dime store’ ideological perspectives do little to address these, as do many of the established and well-though out ones. Whilst I can see foresight in Antonio Negri’s multitudes, how can actual change, rather than multitudes of resistance that do little to challenge structural and systematic equality, be actively sought out of our everyday increasingly compartmentalised actions?

To return back to critical mass, is it that I am expecting too much? The why bother I was feeling is the manifestation of long-held conflicting feelings in many regards and multitude locations. Am I getting too caught up in the bigger picture? I often have serious concerns that such thoughts are very weak and themselves shallow post-modern musings of uncritical pluralism and self-indulgence.

In reflecting on this, I attempt to live as prefiguratively as possible and can draw from this – to overcome the sense of pessimism it fosters. More-so, I know many people who live everyday small-scale positivity and are very grounded in their actions. Some of them continue to help me with my meta-thoughts and inspire me with their actions. Others just outright inspire me with their approaches to living the change in everything they do. I draw both inspiration and guidance. I benefit immensely from knowing them and always try to embody the small within my meta thoughts.

To try and draw this rambling to some form of coherency, do events like critical mass achieve anything. My experience at this recent one was yes – it all comes down to the attitudes of those involved. Do they undermine structural and systematic oppression – I doubt it. They are, however, part of the boarder social change necessary before we can truly foster revolutionary shifts in mindsets to overcome these oppressions. The challenge is to remove the compartmentalisation…

To ironically tie things together somewhat, we need a non-compartmentalised critical mass… The question still remains, what is such a critical mass???

David Horowitz and circular arguments...

avolve — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:37:06 +0000

Today I listened to an interview with the outspoken US commentator David Horrowittz. He is a self described moderate conservative – I am not sure what the moderate refers to. He considers his very vocal and forceful critic of the ‘left’, which encompasses, it seems, everyone espousing a semblance of progressive ideas, to be based on passion. The left is mistaken and he adopts the tactics of the radical left in attacking them. The left is ‘a religion and delusional’…

He was a member of the radical left in his youth, later converting to conservatism, apparently in response to political assassinations amongst other things. He has been described as potentially so despised (by the left) because he may be right. As such I listened to the interview to consider his perspectives and see what I could draw from them. I have drawn a number of ‘insights’…

The first thing I would comment on – and this charge should equally be labeled to many vocal on the ‘left’ – is that he very much undermines many of his arguments of implied objectivity through his non-reflexive criticism of his critics and targets of his opposition. He makes an interesting – for lack of a better word – claim that the left forcing troop withdrawal from Vietnam led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people in Cambodia. This type of argument typifies his skewed, generalised and very inadequately supported claims and criticisms.

Perhaps what was most indicative for me was that he blames people for effectively all the problems in the world. Apparently structural factors have no implications. For example, he claims the civil rights movement was about making the government colour blind – after that equality would eventuate… socio-economic systems reflect human nature. Is there some form of stasis in society? Perhaps he is arguing that the left is oppressing conservative folk – is it a majority or minority? Are they silent?

His attack on academia – and I was not surprised the hear Peace Studies as included in his list of departments – is both typical of conservative attacks and clearly highlights his very large blinkers, reactionism, bias and perhaps his only means to available to his fluff up his patriarchal conservative-Enlightenment zeal and make him feel better about himself and the lack of vocal support for his repressed majority views (apologies for the long sentence!).

I was a little surprised by his unsubstantiated claim that Women’s Studies is not an academic field, rather it is a political recruiting ground. A very clear – albeit not apparently to himself – indication of his lack of reflexivity, was that he claims much academia is inherently political (and of course leftist): politics has no place in the class room! To refer back to his critique of Peace Studies, he argued that war scientist accounts should be included in the course. I will not argue that Peace Studies is not partisan – it is unashamedly. What he clearly does not admit is that War Studies is also inherently political and to an extend partisan. Perhaps he would respond by saying that, given his espousal of human nature, the basis for war is self-apparent/evident (i.e. hegemonic/normative) and as such not political? Or is he unable to admit to himself that his views are inherently political? That the personal is political may have too much leftist stench to it for him? Or are only progressive views political as they diverge from the implied (i.e. conservative) status quo?

Corollary to his calls for war scientist accounts to be included in Peace Studies curriculum, he was described as attacking of groups that would not permit him to be invited to or included in discussions/forums (i.e. at leftist events). This directly ties to his belief that structural factors have no bearing in society. To deny him to be able to present his views in such forums is described as censorship, anti-free speech and anti-constitutional. He does not address that Fox and CNN are owned by conservatives, dominate the dissemination of information and that they provide only superficial attempts, if at all, to report on progressive ideas. With conservative ideas so prevalent and structurally favoured – they are the status quo – why should his views be actively sought out? Perhaps he would argue that this, again, reflects human nature and people have the choice to seek out perspectives other than that on Fox or CNN? Need I go into choice being a very much privileged and middle class (generally white) argument?

For the sake of argument, differing views could be included in such forums – yet if this was to take place why would a patriarchal, non-reflexive and aggressive to the extent of not affording equal opportunity to others (i.e. shouting over people) person be provided such an opportunity? His lack of reflexivity, very far from critical reflexivity, very much undermine his own arguments…

To return to the critique of the academy – which is insular, patriarchal and not free of multitude problems in itself (partly based on structural relations) – he made the claim that politics did not enter/shape the classroom in the 1950s. Such a claim is so skewed as almost not worthy of consideration. With this emanating from someone politically active and (seemingly) educated, cannot be considered as naïve. To claim that teaching is in no way political gets to the core of indicating his complete, overt, and broadly non-stated political aims. He supports the status quo. To expand on this requires reference back to his critique of the left as delusional and a religion.

As mentioned, he argues that structural factors have no bearing on society. Rather he lays sole blame for inequality, racism, oppression, war and hierarchy on human nature. He strongly supports the status quo in the sense that nothing will ever change. People will continue to kill people, wars will continue, relations of capital are merely extensions of this human nature. Does this not completely undermine all his arguments? If nothing will change, why does he feel the need to attack the ‘left’?

One last point I would like to address. It relates to his views on the status quo and the left as a religion. He refers to the left as without a belief in an afterlife (eg: Heaven) that is free of oppression and inequality in society. As such, he argues, its proponents cling to progressive ideals in the vein hope that an equal society can be achieved despite the persistence of human nature. We should all accept hierarchy and oppression and stop deluded ourselves – they are inevitable. Further, capitalism, individualism, hierarchy and oppression are the pinnacle of society. We should accept our fate and position within society – no matter how fucked up things are…

In all – and I could continue to highlight the unsound, uncritical and non-reflexive underpinnings of his views – there are so many holes and circular arguments upon which all he expresses are based. If he wants to be a champion of the status quo – which clearly is patriarchal… I must stop there, as patriarchy does not exist (apparently), or at least is worth respecting as central to human nature… To start again, if he wants to be a champion of the status quo it would be beneficial for him to have a sound and coherent base for his perspectives and one free of circular arguments. That said, as he represents the status quo and nothing will change – irrespective of the left as he argues – why does he continue as such??? His arguments lead to more questions, not any semblance of an answer despite his circular arguments…

To take a leaf out if David Horowitz status quo, why should I bother to argue?

Living in compartmentalised bubbles…

avolve — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:34:50 +0000

This weekend moved into a new place, I relocated from staying with friends in what amounts to an affluent/aspiring affluent/student neighbourhood to an area bordering on one of the very much less-than-affluent areas of the city I am currently in. This city also has the lowest average income and highest unemployment rate (so I am told) in Canada.

I am finding this to be a huge culture shock. Staying with friends for a couple months, all I did was walk to school/work through this secluded/sheltered bubble, negating seeing the devastating impacts of the exploitative economic system we are effectively forced to survive within. I am not solely blaming the economic system for the differences n people I am now awakened again too. There will always be difference in relations/peoples preferred choices of how they interact with society – as many sociological studies have described. This, however, is little more than a drop in the bucket...

What is the problem is that relations of capital create these areas in which economically (and socially) marginalised are lumped together – the apparent aim is to keep them out of sight/out of mind for those more affluent people. Having recently experienced living in such a bubble, I can relate to the desires of those who live as such to keep living that way. These consolidated areas of marginalised people provide a not very positive and appealing image of a place to live.

Alongside the direct creation of these areas via relations of capital – which I will return to – it is the individualisation that I have also found myself drawing on that is very problematic at the least. It is socially destructive, reifies and perpetuates such divisions, and does little to challenge the constructed hierarchies and marginalisations capital fosters. On of the major implications of relations of capital are competition-constructed (false) hierarchies that lead to individualisms over communitarian approaches to social relations, arrangements and dynamics. We put ourselves above the common good, even becoming willing to objectify/ belittle, demean and oppress others to ‘get ahead’ – with ‘getting ahead’ being largely a capitalist construction: bigger house, ‘nicer’/more expensive/grandiose car, more expensive furniture (and then we brag/complain about the cost)…

I have found myself horrified, yet clearly and reflexively aware of the why, of my wanting to turn away, not see the implications of my capitalist mediated existence which – whilst I am still a student on a relatively low income – is increasingly middle class. I have become comfortable given the benefits said constructed hierarchies afford me – at the expense of others. The awareness of this, and the disgust at myself, mirrors my forced awareness of my unmarked racisms through the cultural shifts from Australia to Canada. I am very much shocked with the level of racism in Australia – which I was critically commenting on and challenging there for some time, yet not aware of how deeply engrained it is and the level to which it is present. That it is increasing (under the influence of ten years of conservatives in government) really horrifies me. For some time I have not been able to say I am proud to be an Australian.

To return to relations of capital, the problem is that these relations force this lumping of people together (for example, rent driven down in some areas, higher in others based on social perceptions of those who live there). This leads to a condensation of inequalities that exacerbate social perceptions. It also leads to the creation of other in the sense that, to refer back to differences in relations/peoples preferred choices, are no longer distributed through society, rather forced together. We become separated from them. It is analogous to, and indicative of, our apparent (generalised) inability to comfortably relate to people of differing abilities (physical and mental) due to them being effectively excluded from our normal lives.

With marginalised people being removed from our everyday experiences we lose the skills needed to relate with them, becoming normatised to the homogenised status quo. This is the root of the problem, and something I am going to struggle with for some time.

Possible solutions to such marginalisations are not easy, rather being a huge challenge. We cannot just hide in our affluent individualised and compartmentalised bubbles. Those of us privileged enough to ‘bite the hand that feeds, she feel obliged to whine and kick and scream, until everyone has everything they needs’.

This is a challenge for all of us, and one I will be – given this opportunity – hopefully attempting to address in my day-to-day activities…

V for Vendetta

avolve — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:04:15 +0000

I have wanted to write about the film V for Vendetta for some time now. I have held back to give myself some time to critically think on it and watch it a few more times. In one line, I guess I can describe it as the best mainstream film dealing with issues of anarchism, nonviolence and our complicity/consent in perpetuating inequality – by far. It may come to be one of my favourite films of all time!

With each time I watch it, I pick up more and more subtle inclusions that further increase my appreciation of the Wachowski brothers efforts in putting it together. I had read the comic before the film, and I can understand the changes made to the script to strengthen it as a film. As a mainstream film – like many – it has potential to open peoples eyes. What is the issue is whether they are ready for it, as is depicted in, and an underlying theme of the flim: wake up and recognise both your complicity and that without your consent governance/government will fall apart. This could not be clearer in the panning of homes, the bar and retirement home (previously full of people at the time V’s recording was played from the BTN tower) when Chancellor Adam Sutler makes his public statement.

There is so much I could raise/comment on. I will probably right on this film some more – it will definitely received mention in other writings. For now…

One of the most profound points made clear in the film is the reflexive nature of V. Aside from his use of violence for his vendetta/vengence he is so profoundly non-violent in his inter-personal relations. His meetings with Evey from the outset clearly illustrate this. For example, in the alley after saving Evey from the Fingermen:

V: …I am not questioning your powers of observation, I am merely remarking on the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.
And again, shortly afterwards, with the same theme (prior to the Old Bailey fanfare)
Evey: I don’t see any instruments
V: your powers of observation continue to serve you well

These are two examples of how there is no sarcasm or goading in his words, tone, or approach. This is something sorely lacking amongst even the most progressive in our society (I am not immune to such criticisms).

The reflexiveness I referred to was explicitly clear in V’s words to Evey on the night of the 4th one year on. It is both reflexivity and more. Alongside continually questioning himself which – not necessarily clear in the film – is the basis for his non-violent inter-personal relations, is his willingness to consider challenging and scathing criticism without knee-jerk reactions. In ‘giving’ Evey the train:

Evey: These tracks lead to parliament…
V: Yes.
Evey: Then it’s really going to happen isn’t it?
V: It will if you want it to.
Evey: What?
V: This is my gift to you Evey. Everything that I have – my home, my books, the gallery, this train – I’m leaving to you to do with what you will.
Evey: Is this another trick V!
V: No. No more tricks. No more lies. Only truth. And the truth is you made me understand that I was wrong. That the choice to pull this lever is not mine to make.
Evey: Why?
V: Because this world, the world that I am a part, that I helped shape, will end tonight. And tomorrow a different world will begin that different people will shape and this choice belongs to them…

What follows, specifically V’s admitting that Evey was right to call him a monster and his selfless and principled decision, is self-sacrifice at its greatest for far beyond any semblance of mutuality. That he does not change (i.e. in character) and reject patriarchal violence as central to his vendetta, for me, really strengthens the film in both praxis and theory.

I guess I will leave it there for now… that there are so many parallels with, and direct quotes from subcommandate Marcos of the EZLN alongside the really critical (tacit) comments on the promotion/creating of fear to subdue dissent – and consent theories of power… So much addressed/touched on and done coherently. I will be returning to this!

A ‘middle class white’ argument – what does this mean…?

avolve — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:27:24 +0000

In talking/discussing/debating with a number of people for some time now, I have noted that some of them seem offended/angered and/or defensive when the term middle class white is used to describe a certain perspective. This is problematic for a number of reasons. One being that these people rarely question why it is that they find it offensive, another that it should not be offensive, and a third being that the increasing number of people who identify as middle class indicates the success of the conservative spectrum of mainstream politics (and also the ‘failure’ or succumbing of the left to this rhetoric) to blur class lines to its own ends.

I want to explore the second of these reasons – I will return to/expand on this and the other ‘reasons’ another time.

One reaction I have noticed, often used in a defensive manner, is that people are offended as they were born white/with money and therefore did not choose this. Clearly this is not something we have agency over – just like some people are born into abject poverty or a racial group marginalised by structural relations of society. The term middle class white is not used in a personal manner, rather is the category that one lives in – irrespective of ‘choice’. What it is used to refer to is the perspectives that emanate from such a lived position – often based on the unconscious permeations our mediated existences have on our experiences and outlooks.

We live in a world where to be born white imbues structural advantage. For example, in countries like Australia/Canada/USA with white histories founded as colonist projects our privileged positions emanate from the denial of sovereignty and/or oppression of prior inhabitants. All privilege emanates from this at the base level. Settlement was based on racist notions and these continue to exist today – not just direct and overt racism, it exists at the unconscious level even in the minds of progressive and activist people. Many such societies were founded on explicit paternalism – i.e. missionaries. I would argue that paternalism still dictates how we relate to Aboriginal peoples (in its broadest sense) today. We see them as inferior, backward, primitive – at the least on a subconscious level. This is essential for paternalism. Like children, we feel no only that we can make decisions for them rather we need to make decisions for them.

This is white the term whiteness refers to. It is not an actual indicator of skin colour – people often find it offensive to be ‘stereotyped’ as white, yet do so to a racialised other every day... Further, indicating is malleability and power over, who falls into the ‘category’ white has shifted and changed over time. For example, the Irish in the USA became white, as did the Italians.*

The reference to ‘middle class’ emanates from those who are in a position that they have never experienced living dollar-to-dollar, day-to-day. To have not lived under such conditions – as our self-ascribed leaders have, alongside many of us – is to not be able to understand what it is like. Many academics who write about class also cannot fully understand this, irrespective about how much theory they have read. As an analogy, men cannot know the systematic and day-to-day oppression women face and live with every day as we do not experience it…

What it all boils down to, and more-so for people working towards social change, wanting to live prefiguratively and attempting to challenge oppression, is that we need to continue to work towards becoming aware of the unmarked privilege we not only benefit from but perpetuate in our everyday actions. Intent nor explicit consciousness is not required. That we are a part of it is the problem and something we should want to address. We also need to be clear as to why we are attempting to overcome/address this. In 1992 an Aboriginal activist in Australia issued a challenge. At first it can seem offensive – and I would suggest based on defensiveness:

If you have come to help me you are wasting your time, but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, lets work together

Other than saying guilt as a basis for addressing is implicitly tied to whiteness, and can be deeply bound to paternalism, I will leave reflection on this open to thought… and hopefully constructive comment/criticism.

To return back to the focus of why people are offended by the term ‘middle class white’ we need to remember/note that we do not choose to be born as such. The main point here is that we do have agency in how we live and thus we can be ‘middle class’ and white yet attempt everyday not to reinforce and perpetuate the impacts of whiteness on society at large. For me, alongside speciesism, this is one the of the biggest – perhaps more daunting and an even more deeply and structurally engrained challenge those of us who are trying to embody prefiguration face – both at the personal and inter-person levels??

To briefly address the first reason mentioned at the outset, rather than people rarely questioning why it is that they find it offensive to be labelled as middle class and white: this is a good thing. If something offends us, there is a reason for it. The challenge is to ascertain why. This is often tied to the process of self-change. If it did not get to the core of something we do, nor was something we had a problem with, it would not offend us (I know this is somewhat of a generalisation…). We need to question why it offends us. Then work on resolving this!

I hope this is somewhat clear and provides stimulus for thinking and critical reflection… as always please leave comments and/or send feedback.

These two texts go into detail regarding the Irish and Italian’s became white in The USA::

Gugliemo, T. A. (2004). White on Arrival: Italian's, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago 1890-1945, Oxford University Press.

Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish Became White. New York, Routledge.

A personal turn…

avolve — Wed, 31 May 2006 01:40:25 +0000

Over the weekend – well it stretched out a bit longer – I went on my longest bike ride/cycle tour – and my first fully loaded. A friend was leaving family, hometown and all associated to ride across the country – I joined her for the first two days of the ride (330km) and then rode back (via a different route, 315km). It gave me some to think and dwell on a number of things – more of a personal nature than my usual random ramblings in the context of current events… I am certain these will permeate through the next few posts here as there are a lot of things I want to share, as well as topics I already wanted to write on.

Two things stood out – my sense of time, and also my approach to food. Some days I spent upwards of 9 hours on my bike yet ate maybe less than half of what I normally consume. I was not hungry at all (I did consume a lot more water) and had so much energy. My metabolism is still high and I have a lot of energy…

What struck me, and I thought I would share my thoughts on, is the impact that my friend getting on the boat had on me. Writing about it today I realized we had only met a month ago… After we had a rushed good-bye (which I had not pondered before it happened at all) and I waited for her to come out on the deck so I could take a pic, I could feel tears welling in my eyes… That we may never see each other again…

I new this was the case, and I have met other people whilst travelling and this is the way things go. I also have had many discussions with friends back home regarding friendships/ lovers when one moves away and that it is not a bad things, rather we should embrace the moments/enjoy what was had – recognising the for how special they are/were. I tend to embrace this, yet still felt a little choked. Maybe it was a self-ish reaction? We had connected on many levels and I will miss that – more-so I think than anyone else I had met so far on my travels…

I do not really know what I am trying to say… I felt the urge to write about it, and also make this a message for them(?). I guess to thank them for the experiences, letting me share them, and also to wish them all the best for their amazing trans-Canada adventure??

The ride together was an amazing experience in itself. We slept in community areas/public spaces that in essence is ‘illegal’. The first night (and the second) I was restless thinking on the ‘naughtiness’ of it all. I often felt that I was ‘cheating’ somebody out of something, that what I was doing was wrong. This all emanates from the mediating of my life via capital and the notion of property. I can now more-clearly see the unmarked demarcation of private property, the associated reduction and non-use of public space, and the panoptic shift in attitudes towards what constitutes public space and acceptable use.

I even found myself trying to make arguments to justify, on economic grounds, why it was ok for me to be camping out in public space, that somehow I needed to justify it in terms of capital (i.e. bringing money into thee town). This is what our lives have become, reduced to dollars and cents, dimes and quarters… Not about the actually experiences and enjoyments we can have, meeting people, live, community, mutuality…

Seeing so many non-city folk and talking with them helped to remind me that these things do exists and panoptic/hegemonic implications of the exercise of power over (i.e. capital) is not so pervasive that it is all encompassing. These people create their own subjectivities on the periphery of capitals implications… it might be generally white and middle class in these small towns, yet these cannot be ignored. The same can be said for small towns of lower economic status…

To return to the personal, I guess it is in a world so lacking of ‘community’ that is imposed on us – whether hegemonically/ economically/ panoptically – that I am trying to hold on to things so it might be very much largely selfish. To relocate to the other side of the world and meet someone special and the fear of not finding other friends as such… again I am not really sure what my feelings are/what I am trying to say?? I am sure I will come back to this…

Gwen, I wish you all the best in her trans-Canada journey… I really enjoyed the experiences we had and thank you for them. Much love and thank you.

Drawing inspiration from Indigenous struggles…

avolve — Sun, 21 May 2006 00:05:21 +0000

For some time now I have been critically analysing white accounts of a walk-off of Aboriginal workers and their families from Wave Hill station in Australia’s Northern Territory in August 1966 – with the participants eventually receiving inalienable freehold title to (part of) their ancestral lands at Daguragu. This event received national prominence and forced the hand of the government – and people more broadly – to address the situation in which Aboriginal peoples lived under and colonialist assumptions that mediate and shape perceptions of them (at east to some degree). The more I dig, the more inspiration I draw from the actions surrounding the walk-off – alongside a growing awareness of how inappropriate and clearly (yet unmarked) racist white interpretations were (and continue to be), even those penned by progressive thinkers and activists. The aim of my research is to help with current campaigns I am involved with – and others I am not – in support of Aboriginal peoples. The major question I am asking/looking for answers to is how can we improve the appropriateness of our actions in supporting such struggles?

In looking at the actions at Wave Hill, and the actions at other places today (including Sandon Point in Australia, the Red Hill Valley and Caledonia in Canada), I see many of the same inspirational actions. These are inspirational on many levels, not withstanding that they are direct challenges to capital and show how we can exist outside the system rather than being reactionary to it. In rejecting the relations of capital – unlike the actions of white supporters – these actions are consistent with their aims and end goals: the means reflect the ends.

Such actions, in drawing from Antonio Negri, create their own subjectivities (for example, and drawing from Aboriginal Australian scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson, a rejection of patriarchal white sovereignty) and in doing so directly challenge capital and its colonialist base. I only wish the same can be said for the actions of the white support. I think this, in part, can be reflected on based on the power relations of the two ‘groups’. We have discourse of capital that white people benefit from, reify and perpetuate every day (to a large degree unconsciously) – and thus have a vested interest in; and we have Aboriginal peoples whose culture, in essence, exists outside – even though their lives are mediated via them – such relations. In creating their own subjectivities, they do not need to give up power as they are already located on the margins in the relations of capital – they do not have what many white people have to lose. Perhaps this is why compromise is often found in the actions of the white supporters. Choosing not to give up power in itself perpetuates the relations of capital.

We as white people, consent to the relations of capital, whereas aboriginal peoples do not. We need to take stock of the positions we have within the relations of power: be willing to step outside our comfort zone, to sacrifice our white privilege that we have gained from the exploitation of Aboriginal peoples. We can create our own subjectivities outside the relations of capital and thus reject them. Living a vegan lifestyle is one such example. It challenges speciesism, which is so engrained within capital and also undermines the notion of property (to some extent).

To refocus, the inspiration to write this came from two sources external to my analysis of white interpretations of the actions at Wave Hill. Firstly credit must be given to CK for sharing her thoughts on the survival of Indigenous languages and her goal to do what she can to support and promote this. There is hope that many languages will survive, and that their survival is outside of relations of capital and they are creating their own subjectivities – whilst at the same time rejecting relations of capital: an essential aspect of the multitude actions that will lead to social change and transformation beyond capital.

The perspectives CK shared provide myself with another angle to reconsider the actions at Wave Hill, and my mind was further blown away after hearing of a new film to debut very soon: Ten Canoes. This is ‘the first Australian feature shot entirely in an indigenous language’. In itself this indicates the difference of such a film. Hopefully it will be as groundbreaking as Jedda (released in 1955) - the first colour film shot in Australia and also centring on Aboriginal culture. That David Gulpilil Ridjimiraril Dalaithngu (other films include Walkabout, Crocodile Dundee, The Tracker and Rabbit-Proof Fence) narrates the film in English is also exciting!

The film, shot in Australia’s Arnhem Land, was produced at the request of the Aboriginal peoples it depicts, further indicates many differences. That it does deal with any of the implications of colonialism, rather presenting culture and language in themselves – it creates its own subjectivities outside the relations of capital.

Actions like this, and CK’s goals to help support and promote the survival of indigenous language, for me are essential and effective ways that we, as white people, can challenge the hegemony and relations of capital via creating subjectivities outside of its relations. I owe my credit for my feelings of inspiration to all of the Gurindji people who took a stand at Wave Hill in 1966, other struggles, those involved in the making of Ten Canoes and CK for helping me draw the threads together in my had – thankyou…

More details about Ten Canoes can be found on the production companies website.

Fishing – a ‘pastime’ mediated via capital… like all of our existences

avolve — Wed, 17 May 2006 22:06:17 +0000

I have been involved in discussions on the Vegan Freak forums with a number of people about the links between speciesism and capitalism, and have had a number of sticky questions raised that I have dwelt on for tangible examples for some time. Whilst testing by bike trailer set-up along the waterfront trail in the city I am currently in, I crossed paths with several people enjoying being outside, the ambiance of the waterside and being (at least partly) away from the machinations if industrial capital/urban sprawl and the relations of capital more broadly

Some of these people were walking with friends, lovers, animals or riding bikes, etc. Others still were sitting by the shores of the harbour dangling a line in the water. This site made me reflect on thoughts I had dwelt on in the past and a number of recollections emerged. I must state that my thoughts relate to the concept of fishing> specifically as a ‘pastime’ and not a ‘sport’ – although there is a significant cross-over in what I am thinking (I may come back at another time to the ‘sport’ angle).

I often recall a story – its origins I can’t pinpoint, and one I have heard many versions of from many different people – about someone who is found sitting by a river kitted up with all the regalia one who goes fishing generally takes with them. They are sitting there, yet the line is not out. What are they doing?

Before I get to that question, the same seems also true for fathers who take their sons (it is generally portrayed as a gendered role) on such outings. The bonding that being together facilitates is had irrespective if any animal is caught and/or killed. This is especially true if nothing is caught. I have also heard stories as to their being no hooks on the ends of lines. This can ward off any potential questions/comments that may arise (with the explanation this will become clearer).

For me both the source of such questions/comments gets to the crux of (one aspect of) the mediation of our lives via capital – and it is so pervasive and hegemonic that we are not even aware of it. Why did this person/these father-son events need said gear with them? My interpretation is that to be sitting at a river-bank without being productive is unquestioningly seen a waste of time. The boundaries between work and leisure are so eroded in a society mediated by capital as is ours that work is life and life is work. We cannot be seen to be sitting quietly enjoying nature - we need to be doing something. This is encompassed on that we also feel that we need to be doing something that further reinforces, panoptically, a perceived need to have the gear with us (to draw a broad analogy/paint with a broad brush).

Our lives are mediated via capital…

There is, however, a positive to this. The crossover and/or blurring of the boundaries between life and work also has at its root a fundamental loci for fighting the machinations of capital. Antonio Negri implies/refers to this as part of his socialised worker. As life is mediated via capital, capital is mediated via life. Our workspaces and time are shifted to be more accommodating of our own individualities and resistances to the homogenising of capital. This is something that I can only foresee as at its initial stages – with the effects of capital in mediating what our individualities are (and the adaptability of capital being a locus of its ability to exercise power over) still having a strong foothold. As with all things, it is up to us to seek the necessary self-empowerment, to see the prison within which we live everyday, and to work towards freedom for all outside of these shackles.

First you must discover whose face lies behind this mask, but you must never know my face...

The above quote is purposely taken out of context, and for its applicable, however different, meanings for capital. If we were to see its face, would we see much more than our mediated selves…?

To return to the issue of fishing, this is one example of how our inter- and intra-personal relations are mediated by capital in such an unmarked manner. Consider the term ‘partner’ as used to describe a lover. I myself am guilty of this (though never again I hope). It was adopted and is still used by many attempting to escape the rigidity and homogenisation of relations as dictated by capital. Whilst it can mean equality, it is both a term and an expression of the relations of capital unmarkedly entering and mediating our lives apparently outside of capital relations. Before things can change, or even be expected to change, it is these small issues that need to be seriously addressed at least at the same time as working towards the bigger aspects of change also essential.

If you have not yet worked out where the above excerpt originates, perhaps the following will help:

Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires, make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can build a better world… you never told me what I am supposed to do

As the excerpts from the original, written V for Vendetta indicates, there is no prescription: to do so is not merely futile, it is oppressive. We need to work things out for ourselves and reject such homogenising for what it is. Seeing the mediation of our lives via capital on all levels and working to redress them is a big step. How can we fully criticise others for letting capital mediate their everyday attempts to escape it (i.e. fishing) whilst we still allow it to mediate ours (i.e. partner)?

a national Australian flag…?

avolve — Wed, 03 May 2006 21:46:41 +0000

The issue of the national flag in Australia is something that receives sporadic media attention. I have certain perspectives on it, and I have given it some thought recently after hearing on an Australian (non-mainstream) current-affairs style podcast talk of a rise in the number of people having the southern cross (crux australis) tattooed somewhere on their body. Currently travelling/researching in Canada, I have again pondered the situation here – specifically that there is no union jack on the flag and the status afforded First Nations, Metis, Inuit and other peoples here before European’s. My lack of cultural awareness may be visible as I am not fully aware of the dynamics of the terms used to describe Aboriginal peoples (itself a problematic term) in Canada – and I can’t bring myself to use the term native given its colonialist underpinnings as embodied in Australian usage.

There are a number of people who express that the Aboriginal flag should be/is the only real Australian flag and this perspective is one I randomly come across when a live recording of Xavier Rudd in Colorado (September 17 2004) reaches the top of the shuffle list on my mp3 player. In talking to those there to see him play, Xavier referred to an Aboriginal flag that he had on stage as our national flag. Randomly hearing this over a number of months has afforded some time to dwell on this. I am not 100% certain where I stand on this. Before I comment on why, I need to address some of the defences for the current colonialist flag.

The current flag displayed and promoted as Australia’s national flag has the union jack in the top left corner. For me, the presence of the union jack, in any way and/or representation, in Australia is offensive, racist and inappropriate (to put it mildly). This parallels and is deeply tied to the notion of the national holiday: Australia Day. This day, January 26, commemorates the planting of the union flag (the predecessor to the union jack) in the soil on the east coast of the continent. It was the precursor to systematic murder, still-ongoing attempts at cultural genocide, overt and unmarked racisms, forced dispossession, and a host of other implications of colonialism and Enlightenment notions of progress. That people cannot see the offensiveness of such celebrations is bewildering. Aboriginal, Torres Strait and South Sea Islander peoples in Australia increasingly refer to this as Survival Day in recognition that their cultures are alive and well. In my academic work I recently came across what is perhaps the best academic-speak I have seen to refer to Australia: we live in a (never quite post) colonial society. The colonialist project did not succeed (i.e. firstly in killing them off, secondly attempting breeding them out, and thirdly trying to assimilate Aboriginal peoples) yet is a still ongoing if not as explicit white project.

This contrasts with oft-used defences for the colonialist flag. Statements like men fought and died for/under this flag are often touted. This claim is patently misleading, if not false – yet this is broadly unknown to people in Australia. The current flag was only adopted in 1953 and any nationalist, sentimental or other attachments to it can only be based on the presence of the union jack and are thus predicated on the colonial project – implications of which I have already mentioned. The basis for this and essentially all other arguments put forward for this flag remaining emanate from nationalistic/patriotic notions. It is here (in part) that I also have concerns with adopting the Aboriginal Flag as a national flag.

The broader concern relates to nationalism. My whitee mediated experiences see (hopes?) nationalism as not inherently negative. I do not love my country per se: it has and will always have a special place in me. I am born of it and much of my life, love and happiness emanates from experiences there. I repeatedly have visions of, and compare what I see day to day when I am in another country, the beautiful places I have seen and experienced. Yet can we have a national flag? Can something encompass what we see and experience as Australia. This draws me back to the reference to Canada and the southern cross. The Canadian flag, for me, more-closely represents something Canadian as it draws from something specifically recognisable and emanating from the land (I am open to criticism on this due to my lack of knowledge on the issue). Similarly, the southern cross can do likewise for Australia. To get to my point, I guess, would be that if there is a need for a national flag for Australia it should be the southern cross – with clarification to come.

There are still two significant issues to do with this, the first is based in part on nationalism. Can we be nationalist? Before anything with reference to Australia as a nation, we need to address the ongoing legacies of the continuing colonialist project. We need to recognise the existence of Aboriginal Nations and give up power to allow for self-determination – with all the necessary support provided – no matter how uncomfortable it makes us (and it will). Based on such recognition we can then start to work together for mutual benefit on (increasingly, but never quite?) equal grounds. In line with this (again in part) I do not think that post-invasion Australians can fall under the Aboriginal flag as we have not faced the systematic oppressions that Aboriginal peoples in Australia have – analogous to men never being able to fully understand the systematic oppression of women in society.

The other issue, which ties back to why I am again thinking about the issue of an Australia flag relates to the increasing prevalence of the southern cross as a tattoo request. From the podcast, those questioned were doing it more for the positive-nationalist reasons outlined above (even if not articulated very well). Reference was made to the events at Cronulla and potential racism-based reasons for this. Many of those interviewed rejected this, and I hope that the personal desire behind the tattoo choice mirror that of the positive rejection of racist violence that was the immediate aftermath of the Cronulla events.

So if we are to have national flags we should have at least two – with this being predicated on the recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty. The Aboriginal flag does come out of the land, as the southern cross is representative of it. Removal of the union jack and it embodies is essential, if only symbolic, before positive steps can be made.

advantageous electoralist posturing… the other (in)side is unmasked?

avolve — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:27:52 +0000

I recently commented on what amounts to the first governmental critique of uranium mining for many many years in Australia – unclear as to whether it was refreshing electoral politico-speak or merely advantageous posturing?. That such critical (if not going far enough) comments were both in the mainstream press and emanated from a font-bench minister are big issues in themself. It was refreshing to hear a hint of such talk as a contrast with the uber-conservative shite that has dominated in Australia for far too long. That it appeared that the Labor Party (ALP) might actually have a spine and not just regurgitate the governments diatribe was something of note as well. The status quo appears to be returning however… [begin rant] Kim Beazley, the ‘leader’ of the ALP has come out in support of expanding uranium mining in Australia – in direct contrast to Anthony Albanese’s comments made last week. "The problem is not where the uranium is dug out, the problem is the exports and making sure there are tougher safeguards," Mr Beazley told the Herald. [source] What a weak and pandering remark that does little more than imply uranium extraction is both benign and separate to the nucelar industry – what a fucking crock of shit! I will come back to how the conservatives use such perspectives to justify nuclear energy – clearly an indication of how such a pandering perspective does little to contrast with the essentially open slather approach of the conservatives. Kim Beazley’s essentially baseless attack on the conservatives’ ‘watering down Australia's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty’ cannot hide his own complicity. That the mainstream press is describing his recent comments as risking a party split shows how little fucking idea he has. Whilst I abhor electoralism, I had thought in the past that tweedledum was better than tweedledubmer and that as tweedledum, he might not do too terrible a job! I am starting to see why his support as a potential PM is not only dropping publicly it is within the ALP. How fucking naïve was I! A first year political science (or any other critically aware student) let alone an apparently astute (and very well paid) political advisor could not fail to see how fucking stupid the timing of such comments are – unless you want to placate corporate whores in the light of majority supported pro-environment and community comments like those of Anthony Albanese (again even though they are still too weak). The handling of the repatriation of Jacob Kovco’s body (the first Australian to die in Iraq) that had the conservatives floundering in the most strident and significant attacks in a very very long time had placed the ALP in a very strong position… How fucking stupid is Kim Beazley – he apparently doesn’t even know how to play the electoral politics game – no wonder he can’t ‘win’ an election! How many years is it now Kim – how long have you been a part of the charade of electoral democracy? Wake up! To get back to the issue, the vast majority of Australian’s have for at least 30 years, opposed uranium mining and the nuclear cycle. Public outrage even stopped the construction of nuclear reactor after it was well advanced. The mid-late 1990s saw the largest national environmental campaign for some time, with repeated coach-loads of people heading to Kakadu National Park (a three-four day trip) to blockade the construction of the Jabiluka Mine and support to Mirrar Gundjehmi people. Just because Australia has the largest uranium reserves does not mean we should mine it… How stupid can he be – the arguments he uses all draw on conservative diatribe. They do little more than make his perspectives seem like a weak version of the economic rationalist and assertive conservatives. Grow a fucking backbone. Better yet why not publicly state why your views are so weak: that electoralism is all pragmatism, pandering to corporate whores, and full of spin – that you will say whatever they want you to! As you, and your advisors, are so seemingly inept at things, I will spell it out for you: 1. when the conservatives are digging their won graves, do not give the media a reason to divert public attention away from this. 2. economic arguments for mining do little but pander to the open-slather conservative approach as clearly illustrated by the current government: Mr Howard has not ruled out changing the policy of restricting exports of uranium to countries which are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He also has not ruled out Australia developing a nuclear energy industry. The Treasurer, Peter Costello, went further yesterday, saying it was illogical not to generate nuclear energy if it made sense commercially. "Look, we mine uranium and we sell it to people to build nuclear power stations," Mr Costello told Channel Ten's Meet the Press. "What would be the logic in saying nuclear power stations are acceptable in every other country except the one where the uranium is mined … if it does become commercial, I believe we ought to do it." Can’t you see? Do I need to spell it out any clearer? Your lack of intelligence does little to counteract the basis of conservative calls to privatise education – if you are the role model of publicly funded education who would want it! Thank you KB, yet again you have provided arguments for the conservative government to push ahead with nuclear proliferation. Next time I am in a gaol cell, being molested by the police service – watching people of all ages being punched and kicked by the so-called ‘public protectors’ (and seeing flickers of recognition in their eyes of the violence imbued with capital) – for trying to prevent such proliferation, will you post bail? Next time someone else is harmed via the direct effects of the nuclear cycle will you change your spineless ways? Your political posturing and rhetoric does little but reify and perpetuate the nuclear cycle. Can you not see that? Take a fucking stand you spineless prick – and if you are going to play the electoralism game, realise you are fucking with peoples lives! [end rant]

change only from the margins or from the hypocrisy of capital in itself?

avolve — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:49:21 +0000

It is widely repeated that change emanates from the margins. I agree with this and see this as the basis for social change. There are instances where the hypocrisy of capital can force change on itself not from the margins, but from what is effectively it’s centre – its bread and (earth balance) margarine… One such instance is making the conservative government in Australia squirm, and the PM can (seemingly) no longer just rely on his (until recently) stupendous spin machine to get him by. The (hopefully) nail in the coffin is the death in Iraq of the first Australian soldier – Jacob Kovco. War is perhaps to most effective tool for political spin/quelling dissent/consolidating patrioticism to build party support when deemed necessary. Whilst there are multitude controversies surrounding his death – including the repeated bungled and constantly changing stories about how he died (i.e. his pistol went without anyone touching it and it shot him in the head…) from the defense minister – the issue of the repatriation of his body is the big one. I have not seen such a concerted attack on this government in the mainstream press, nor the public disgust at its handling of the situation. Context is crucial of course, including the oil for food scandal with the Australian Wheat Board in Iraq, and that most Australian’s think the government lied – perhaps the tip in the iceberg of increasing discontent with regressive policies…. To outline what happened, the repatriation was contracted out to a private US firm (of course one linked to GWBush AND the lawyer D.Rusmfeld shot – see SMH piece). The ‘terrible, unspeakable mistake’ that was made involved the wrong body being shipped to Australia! A friend emailed yesterday: "We talk about a values debate in Australia? F--- me dead! A billionaire media mogul like Kerry Packer, who celebrated his tax minimisation, gets a publicly funded state memorial service, and a Private Kovco, who offered his life for his country and paid the ultimate price, gets treated like a piece of meat." His bitterness only reflects national outrage. How can this be? [source] The focus of criticism lays in the basis for contracting out this ‘service’: efficiency. I won’t go into any more detail about the specifics – the linked article (an opinion piece) provides noteworthy critical detail. I want to comment on the impacts it is having publicly. With war being considered an affective tool of government as outlined above, the efficiency-based approach to repatriation – itself at the core of capitalist ways of operating – is causing outright disgust in Australia. This is widespread. Is it possible that people are seeing the true face of capital? What is the potential for such subjectivities (to draw on Antonio Negri) to foster change amongst the socialised worker. Is the margins the only place for such change? To me it seems that the hypocrisy of capital often shines so bright that not only those at the margins can see it. It is the non-critical, non-marginalised, blue ribbon, choice loving citizen that is plainly aware and disgusted by this specific issue. It seem the multitude subjectivities of Antonio Negri’s socialised worker have immense potential for social change – I guess the question is, when will the multitude be both large and diverse enough to facilitate the spontaneous rejection of capital and the bourgeoning of a fundamental shift towards an egalitarian ecological community based on mutual respect and cooperation. That the masses are oft looked down upon by those working at the margins may need some rethinking. Perhaps there is hope, a hope that could be realised sooner rather than later. At the lease it appears that people are seeing ‘John Howard’s Australia’ for what it is and rejecting it outright…

the odd logic of welfarism - guest wurdz

avolve — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:10:35 +0000

Below are words written by someone whom i respect - on a number of levels. It covers a topic i have wanted to put some words together about for some time and is reproduced here in the interest of promoting critical discussion and reflection... i hope you enjoy, are challenged by it, and give it due consideration (thanks vf).

a|v

----------------

If a man abuses his wife, do we ask him to stop, or do we throw our hands up in exasperation, saying that if he’s going to do it, he should at least not hit so damn hard?

Similarly, if a person is going to eat meat, do we ask him to stop, or do we throw our hands up in exasperation, saying that if you’re going to eat meat, at least eat free range?

My comparison will probably offends and anger some of you, but I assure you, that’s not my intent. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking seriously about the question of animal welfare activism versus a more abolitionist activism, and I’ve been torn. Just recently, I helped a few students at my school with the HSUS campaign to switch dining services to battery-cage free eggs. I was secretly torn from the start, but I helped despite my reservations. The real moment of cognitive dissonance for me came when I was actually in the position of relaying information about egg producers to the school, talking about extended shelf life and shipping time.

As I sent an email to one of the people in charge of dining services at my school with some of this information, I had a sinking feeling: here I was, actually facilitating the exploitation of hens by encouraging egg consumption. It made me think: I’ve committed myself to the abolition of animal exploitation and to veganism, and I was actually in the position of helping facilitate the consumption of eggs. I assuaged my conscience by telling myself that this was better for the hens, and that perhaps this was a step in the right direction of animal consciousness for people at our school. I also thought it important to back the students at my school who were taking tentative steps into activism. As I gave it more thought, though, I realized that this was exactly the wrong tactic, and that I wasn’t being true to what I believed.

Welfarism is accepting defeat before we’ve even begun the battle.

To me, welfarism accepts as a premise that our other activism and outreach—genuine vegan and abolitionist outreach—can’t be effective enough, and so trades this for measures which (though they may decrease suffering) actually reify the condition of animals as beings that we can exploit. In a twisted sense, then, welfarism encourages the consumption of animal products. It does nothing to challenge the notion that animals are ours to do with as we please, and it makes for odd bedfellows. We end up with groups that have stated abolitionist ideological positions teaming up with companies, firms, and producers who are in the business of exploitation. It makes us as a movement look contradictory when we’re calling for the abolition of animal exploitation and at the same time, encouraging the exploitation of animals. It is justifying slavery by asking for longer chains; it is asking the abuser to abuse more gently; it is not true to what we profess to believe.

Critics, of course, will accuse me of the comfort of putting my ideological purity ahead of the near-term interests of animals to be free of suffering. This, however, isn’t the case. If we’re to have a movement that means anything at all, we need to make the movement look like the end that we hope to achieve. We can’t simultaneously be anti-racist and hope to end racism by telling slightly less offensive racist jokes, just like we can’t hope to be effective anti-speciesists by simultaneously promoting nicer speciesism. The means to the end of abolition matter. If our means don’t look like our ends, we’re only helping to incrementally re-create a world that’s speciesist.

I know that the world won’t go vegan tomorrow, and I know that the welfare argument depends on incrementalism: for example, that we need to take small steps towards helping people see that animals shouldn’t be exploited. Incrementalism is a natural response to the overwhelming speciesism in our world now, and I understand it. But our incrementalism should be that of reduction of meat, eggs, dairy, honey, and other products of animal exploitation from our diets. Effective vegan activism could potentially mean more lives saved and greater strides for animals than measures which confine animals to slightly bigger cages, or more airy barns. Welfarism stalls incremental movement towards veganism, however. How many of us have met people that respond to our veganism with the hollow “Well, I eat free range…” argument? How many people actually get stuck there? And can we assume that welfarism actually works to limit the consumption and exploitation of animals? The evidence would seem to indicate that it doesn’t. Welfarism has formed the backbone of animal advocacy for at least the last two decades in the US, yet we’ve seen the numbers of animals consumed in that time rise by billions. If welfarism worked as promised to limit consumption of animals and spurn people into awareness, wouldn’t we see that number actually go down? If free-range and cage-free and all the other welfarist measures actually decreased the consumption of animal products, why would markets like Whole Foods base so much of their business on these lucrative niche markets?

In one of those odd moments of synchronicity, I also found myself this week preparing a book proposal and reading a variety of sources for that proposal. In reading the book Speciesism, I came across an argument that hits at the very heart of what I’m discussing here, and it helped me to clarify my thinking on this topic tremendously (I also spent an afternoon re-reading Gary Francione’s Rain Without Thunder which does an incredible job of examining the same dynamics). This quote caught my attention in the chapter about “old speciesist advocacy”:

“Some activists who consider themselves advocates of veganism condone eating honey or applaud people for limiting their egg consumption to “free-range eggs” and their cow-flesh consumption to “grass-fed beef.” Eating honey, eggs, or cow flesh isn’t vegan, so endorsing their consumption isn’t veganism advocacy. Veganism advocates urge people not to eat any honey, eggs, or flesh. Nonvegans need to phase out or immediately eliminate animal-derived foods, not substitute some for others. It’s easy to avoid eating honey, eggs, and flesh, including as ingredients. Suggesting otherwise impedes, rather than advances, veganism.”

She continues on to talk about how only one group—Friends of Animals—urged Whole Foods to phase out or end its sale of animal products after the CEO John Mackey announced that he became vegan. She wondered whether other groups thought the request too unlikely to succeed, or if others weren’t willing to speak against the welfarist standards instituted by Whole Foods and its suppliers. Dunayer emphasizes that “Such standards don’t advance veganism or nonhuman emancipation. They legitimize enslavement and slaughter. Only veganism respects nonhuman rights and rejects nonhuman enslavement.” (emphasis mine)

It is that last point that I agree with most heartily—veganism is the way to live abolition in your daily life. Veganism is a political act illustrating how the consumption and abuse of animals is not acceptable. Unlike welfarist measures, veganism is not at conflict with the ends of our movement: it is living what we want our world to be. On the flip side, welfarism turns us into advocates for people who would abuse and torture animals for profit, with the exception that these particular abusers are a bit nicer. Nice enslavement is still enslavement, and for all that welfarism has promised, we have little to show but more and more animals being consumed.

It seems time that we reconsider the odd logic of welfarism.

posted Apr 23, 12:50 PM by Veganfreak http://www.veganfreaks.org/index.php?id=131

refreshing electoral politico-speak or merely advantageous posturing?

avolve — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:43:04 +0000

Even though I am on the other side of the planet I try to keep abreast of what transpires back home. The impacts of the draconian industrial relations legislation the conservative governmment has imposed on everyone, and the hoped-for demise of said conservative fucks (I toned done what I really think) are two of the multitude issues I am interested in. Today, however, in reference to the 20th Anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, provided something I had not expected – it is something I am very happy to see yet I my cynicism leaves me critically questioning its basis and quite sceptical.

The mainstream press in Australia ran an opinion piece written by (on of the staffers of?) Anthony Albanese: the Federal opposition environment spokesperson. I was surprised when he was appointed this position some months ago given my knowledge of him as a politic hack and not having noticed any environmental concerns expressed by him throughout my (ongoing) involvement in activism (grass-roots through to the inter/national level, including on national bodies) that stretches back more than 20 years. This surprise however, is significantly outweighed by the article/opinion piece published in today’s Sydney Morning Herald (I have attached a pdf of the piece).

The critical attention given the issue of the entire nuclear cycle (there is a lack of critical comment on mining – I will come back to that) is something I am very pleased to see in the mainstream press. For me this is the most significant aspect of the piece and perhaps may lead to my affording Anthony Albanese some respect (and more critical comments) should he become the minister post the next Federal election – the aim of course being to add to public debate not participate in electoralism per se. As mentioned in the piece

The Treasurer, the Defence Minister, the Industry Minister and the Environment Minister have all said Australia should consider establishing a nuclear power industry.

This direct context of this being a quote from the conservative PM from less than 3-weeks ago:

My philosophy is that if it became economically attractive, I would not oppose [nuclear power] any more than I oppose the export of uranium.

Whilst the attack on such a position is framed economically, that it is being attacked at all in the mainstream press and by a member of parliament in a position of potential sway provides the significance. For someone like myself who rejects economics, I consider the figures cited significant enough to influence public opinion! The attacks go further still. The new defense Minister Brendan Nelson – former education minister and the fucker who drafted recently adopted legislation that is explicitly an ideological attack on student associations directly aimed at destroying them – gets a noteworthy serve. In attempting to deflect the issue of ‘radioactive waste’ as being a matter for future governments, Anthony Albanese hits pretty hard, albeit it politico-speak:

What an abrogation of responsibility

The issue of mining, however, receives little attention. The Labor Party (ALP) made history in 1983 in winning the Federal election based on an environmental issue: promising to save and protect the Franklin River in Tasmania from a hydro-electro scheme. At this time it also proposed a ‘three mine policy’ as in the three uranium mines in Australia that currently existed would be the only ones allowed to operate (or be replaced). Whilst this was not what was wanted at the time, it was a far cry from the open slather approach of the conservatives. The ALP stance has weakened significantly to a ‘no new mines’ policy: perhaps the attack that this opinion piece is centred around indicates that this may be positively reconsidered? With the increasing expansion of uranium sales and potentially a revisit to the issue of the Jabiluka mine which became an international issue and focus of significant actions including a blockade in 1997, it could again force the hand of the ALP.

Part of my cynicism makes it hard to believe this. It also begs the question – is this attack a means to criticise the PM with the context of the Chernobyl disaster and that recent polls indicate a significant majority of people think he is lying on issues including the kickbacks regarding the food for oil program in Iraq – just another in a long history of the government being exposed for mistruths… the significance this time being that people are finally prepared to do something about it (I just wish it was more than at the ballot box).

Whilst terrorism and fear are used to criticise the focus on nuclear technologies, the close of the piece focusing on a shift away from environmentally destructive approaches to energy production and laying the foundations now for the future is a shift in political approach not seen for some time from either tweedledum or tweedledumber.

Attachment	Size
Anthony Albanese - Twenty years on.pdf	49.05 KB
franklin river.jpg	119.48 KB

spike lee and inside man…

avolve — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:49:46 +0000

I watched my first film at the movies in some time the other day – a mainstream film to boot. It was Inside man directed by Spike Lee. Not being a film guru, rather looking for the means through which to pose questions/contrast things in society without overtly doing so (as a number of my blogs relate to), I found two events in this film to be very well done.

I came across the trailer for this film whilst putting together a list of mainstream films for students to watch and write a commentary on about the presence of unmarked structural violence in society. It seemed to be focussed on making you think – which I like in films – so I decided to take a break from writing as it was playing at the local old school cinema. It had nothing to do with Spike Lees involvement. I have heard a lot about his movies, though off hand do not really have any knowledge about them. I think this will change after watching inside man though.

The story of the film, in itself, is irrelevant; it is based around ‘the perfect bank robbery’, the aim of which is to expose a Fortune 500 who got rich of the nazi’s. The morals of the main character – the lead bank robber – are presented throughout as sound despite the contrast with the robbery (and not to mention to violence implicit in robbery – wait for the twist though). It is the actions of society and the police, and what this says about society that, for me, is both the basis for the film and its most profound commentary.

During the film, hostages are released on a number of occasions and it is in this context that the societal comments are located. Both are equally profound. The first involves a bank employee who is released (hands tied, hooded) with demands. As he is released onto the street and the throngs or riot police, armed to the teeth, converge on him, they become aware that the employee is not a whitey, rather I Sikh. The first comment is something along the lines of ‘holy shit, he’s an arab’. Instantly he is accused of having a bomb, people, is violently assaulted, etc. Need I say more?

The normativity of racism in this film is not portrayed as simplistic as this may imply. Its pervasiveness and hegemony is implied very well during the film through actions of the police. Perhaps the question, we as whitey’s should ask, is why does the (only?) direct challenge to this in the film come from Denzel Washington (i.e. not from a whitey).

The second event that I think was both well portrayed based on the representations of the US I see in the mainstream and alternate press – generally without questioning or reflection on it as problematic, at least in the mainstream press. It is the actions of the police in the eventual ‘release’ of the hostages. You will need to watch the film for context, however, as the implicit violence embedded in US culture is grounded via numerous comments during the film. I will not go into these here…

As the hostages spill out of the front doors of the bank, panic-stricken, the police open fire on them. Whilst they may be using rubber bullets, the base assumptions and the culture of fear illustrated that is so critically visible. My first reaction was ‘what the fuck’. This is the most overt illustration of how fucked up such assumptions are and how they are so deeply entrenched in the police state (and we all generally live in police states, I am not just having a go at you patriots, despite how fucked patriotism is). Nothing like surviving a violent situation to be rescued by the machinations of the benevolent dictatorship and shot by those apparently existing to protect you!

Whilst this is an overt illustration, the entrenchment of this systematic violence as permeating through society and its tools of the state is present throughout this film. And it is perpetuated by Denzel Washington’s character – thus illustrating that class can transcend (to a level) radicalised/institutionalised norms…

Writing this has led me to think a lot more on this film, and now I want to view it again. For me, it very successfully criticises many aspects of society we need to change, and things present most of the people watching the film were horrified to witness. I viewed this in Canada, and thus the questions that emerge are: will people actually think on this beyond the initial reaction against the systematic and structuralised violence? Will mainstream US audiences note this, or will their self-absorbed ignorance and arrogance – that those of us in the rest of the world not on a day-to-day basis – lead to this being un-noted and thus unquestioned.

This second question can be impacted upon significantly is there are more films that implicitly include such critical comments on society. This is the where the strength of mainstream flim lies…

action post-Foucault – directionless or inspirational & challenging?

avolve — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:46:24 +0000

The writings or, or reference to them, of Michel Foucault have occupied much of my mental space for several months now. I increasingly have tried to grapple with a shift in perceptions and understandings of power relations from a Marxist towards a less monolithic (a view I always held even when benefiting from the teachings of/discussions with dogmatic Marxists) view encompassing agency and structuralist underpinnings. This shift towards such a perspective, and away from a prescriptive Marxist model of revolution has been – and still continues to be quite challenging.

The opportunity to rub shoulders with Judith Revel and Antonio Negri this week. At the first event, in which Judith presented some of her research, Biopolitics and the crisis of modernity I managed to spark a disagreement between her and Antonio regarding the recent uprisings in France and its provisional (according to Judith) existence as challenging state/capital from ‘outside’ relations as opposed to reflecting, reifying and perpetuating/legitimating the oppressive basis embodied in it. The second event about Foucault’s biopolitics and multitude, whilst very heavy and abstract, tied things together well. The question and answer session really consolidated things for me: my (non prescriptive) views on how we can achieve positive change.

With Foucault being non prescriptive and oft labelled as not a good/anti revolutionary – which I would agree with to an extent, albeit with a differing interpretation (a positive one) – and his ‘anti disciplinary politics’ as ‘merely rhetoric and posturing’, a transition from a Marxist perspective can leave one asking many questions. And this is a good thing – it is the lack of perceived direction that is the challenge. The notion of needing, and being able to, attain knowledge (i.e. truth) is at the core of western society and emanates from the Enlightenment project (and religion prior to this). Based on this and the loss of a prescribed direction in this shift from a Marxist to a Foucauldian understanding of power relations, having a prefigurative approach with hope – and here I refer to hope in the sense the Derrick Jensen postulates: hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency – one can be at a loss for action for change.

It is in this form of stasis that I have found myself positioned. In critically and reflexively engaging with my own actions and attempting to improve on them prefiguratively (based on my mediated white existence) I have struggled to do little more than provide constructive criticism for past/present actions. This clearly contrasts with having a grass-roots revolution (of whatever form) that is enmeshed in a Marxist perspective. Whilst I still do not have prescription, and I should not need it, I know have a basis for direction beyond what I had. This has come about through both listening to Antonio Negri and reflecting on what he said to pose questions – the answers to which coalesced as I was attempting to construct the questions. To explain this, I need to outline the crux of what was presented by both Judith Revel (last week) and Antonio Negri (today).

Judith referred to a multiplicity of singularities that form communities as the source of resistance that can (provisionally, or more?) exist outside of merely reflecting the embodied power relations with the state/capital. Antonio referred to the subjectivities created by via the biopolitics of post-modern society and the dynamics of the power relation with the populace (power only exists if it is resisted - Foucault). He stated that it is not only the state/capital that can create subjectivities, rather that resistance can create them in their own right. Within and alongside this dynamic equilibrium is the basis for the possibilities of change emanating from this resistance. The subjectivities created can and do provide for existences outside of the state/capital modes of operation. This is where the potential for change lies.

Whilst articulating this has provided me with a renewed optimism, it still does not, per se, provide a clear direction – again a good thing as prefigurativeness is incommensurate with prescription. The last question posed to Antonio during the seminar provided for a means for some: what to do for the left. After critically challenging the left and referring to it is a parasite of capitalism, Antonio provided a response I had not come across before. What is needed is a reconceptualiseation of how we see exploitation at the core of state/capital relations. Whereas labour was previously the basis of exploitation, this has shifted to intellectual exploitation (i.e. knowledge). This needs to be clarified as I heard someone outside denigrating this – with the ability to do so being it taken clearly out of context (or based on a misunderstanding) I have a similar initial response.

Antonio Negri is not implying that it is now the intellectual classes who are the oppressed via current state/capital relations, rather the exploitation emanates from the social relations in the minds of the workers rather than as a direct action of the state/capital. I find this very interesting, given the context of a recent seminar of Derrick Jensen’s (where the hope reference is also located). In this seminar, Derrick refers to ‘rich’ people have more bits of paper than other people. The bits of paper mean nothing, it is the social relations that we accept. This ties back to hegemony, and thus agency and/or consent.

To surmise (also for my own benefit) the subjectivities created through resistance, specifically the aspects of the subjectivities that transcend state/capital relations is where the potential for radical change is located. It is not revolution, to again refer to Foucault, that we want to pursue – we do not want to replace the state – we want to dismantle the state. It is abolition that we seek.

surfing – is it inherently prefigurative?

avolve — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 02:09:09 +0000

Given that I am land-locked and have not seen waves or the ocean for some 10+ weeks, that there were amazing waves at my local, and that I was sent some amazing pictures of a special place right near where I live (under threat from the lifestyle we acquiesce to on a daily basis), my mind has lingered on many aspects of this place. One of these is surfing, what it is, what it means to me, and it base nature. It clearly means a lot to me, given my current longing to immerse my body in the ocean and both ride float in the rise and fall of the waves as well as dance with some of them…

Whilst it is my current situation that has led to my lingering on what surfing is and what it means, it is my thoughts on the base nature of it that I want to attempt to express. I have thought about other activities lately like skateboarding, mountain biking, snowboarding – effectively what are often referred to as extreme sports. One thing that disturbs me about surfing is the explicit sexism in advertising and to an extent the culture of a significant number of those who surf. It is often for in excess of that you could attribute to the other extreme activities. It is aside form this that my reference to surfing as inherently prefigurative emanates from.

With skateboarding, mountain biking and snowboarding the terrain is always essentially fixed: concrete/ramp/terrain/hills/etc. These are things that one overcomes, once conquers (as many see it). It is about succeeding. Landing a new trick, riding some new terrain, going faster… Surfing can be this too – big wave surfing for example. There is however, the ever-changing reality of the ocean: currents, winds, tides, sand banks, swell size and direction. These, whilst always present, are not constants in the sense that a hill or ramp is. Every wave is different – even at the same break.

Where I am heading, or what I am trying to lead towards, is that surfing requires attempting to be in tune or harmonious with the wave itself. A wave cannot be dominated as such. Can this be though of as outside of power relations – probably I guess. Nature doesn’t think in terms of power over, it essentially just is – or am I essentialising? When you ride a wave (or attempt turns or other manoeuvres) you are use the waves energy and flow with its liquidity, its fluidness. This is different to, say, using the energy of gravity and a hill and bouncing off rocks (mountain biking). Maybe it is the fluidity that is the essential and defining element here. Snowboarding may be based on a semi-fluid medium, yet this description comes as close as it will get.

For me, given this new emerging perspective, I can respect the notion of the soul surfer and see this understanding at the core of what surfing actually is. Aside from the machoism, the bravado, the sexism and other social constructed shite, at its core surfing is prefigurative?

Maybe I am talking shit. Maybe I am essentialising given my reminiscing about the lack of ocean and not being able to immerse my body – to step into liquid. Maybe I am not. Whilst I think we can continue to pursue activities like skateboarding, mountain biking and snowboarding in a prefigurative way, I think at its core surfing is prefigurative. It requires becoming attuned to natural phenomena, having an appreciation for natural processes. Becoming aware of the inter-relatedness of events, existing outside of the constructs of our mediated existences. Not much needs to change – at least at the core basis – of surfing for a better world.

I guess I really need to go for a surf, yet I think there is something to my thoughts…

increasingly draconian government… where will it end?

avolve — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:25:22 +0000

The Australian government has recently rammed through more draconian legislation. This comes as no surprise – even though in contrasts with the apparently ‘minimal government’ philosophy… oh but that only applies to social services and (negative) regulation of the market. What has pissed me off to no end is the critical response, published in a mainstream Sydney paper, of the authors: one a distinguished academic.

Whilst deploring the legislations implementation, Professor George Williams (director) and David Hume (an intern at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW) do little more than legitimate the legislation. In fact they actually endorse it.

The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act provides for ‘the government to read private emails, text messages and other stored communications without our knowledge’ – specifically this ‘power extends to innocent people, called B-parties, if they have been unlucky enough to communicate with someone suspected of a crime or of being a threat to national security’. We all know what a crock of shit the term ‘threat to national security’ is…!

Further, the act enables the government to ‘access communications not only between the B-party and the suspect, but also between the B-party and anyone else. If you have unwittingly communicated with a suspect (and thereby become a B-party), the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations with family members, friends, work colleagues, your lawyer and your doctor.’

So of course I, and many others are outraged, yet as I said before, the response of the George Williams and David Hume are fucked to say the least! In their op-ed response, they go through details of what the legislation enables – for me a pointless waste of time. The legislation should not exist, they pander to it and at the least provide it credence. However they go further… No matter what clarifications they provide like ‘the law goes beyond what can be justified and undermines our privacy more than is needed’ they support it – as implied in this ‘clarification’. There opening comment on the act in the op-ed, after mentioning the bill is:

The Government should sometimes be able to monitor the communications of innocent people. This may be necessary to protect the wider community where a suspect can only be tracked through another person.

I don’t give a rats how benevolent a government is, they do not, and should not, have these (not to mention many other) abilities. The legislation is another piece of draconian, political shite. The response of these two academics is so fucking lame – wake up! What invasion of personal privacy will we accept next???

(white) Australian xenophobia – so pervasive and hegemonic?

avolve — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:53:25 +0000

The term xenophobia received mainstream media attention following the election of Pauline Hanson to the Australian Federal Parliament. Comments in her maiden speech including that Australia was/is ‘in danger of being swamped by Asians’ led to her being asked on a tabloid current affairs program if she was xenophobic. Whilst the ‘please explain’ response resonated with many disaffected with tabloid journalism, out-of-touch elected representatives and the liberal elite, the notion of xenophobia as widespread, even hegemonic is something that has hit me pretty hard in the last week. The context of this is my attendance a school in Canada (for close to a week now) and the significantly more diversity in people/cultures here than in Australia.

I consider myself (and hope others do, and think my posts here indicate/support this) to be progressive and one working on addressing/challenging racism, amongst other things. It came as a big shock, and somewhat disturbing, that I have come to the realisation I unconsciously harbor a form of hegemonic xenophobia. This is (hopefully was) not overarching in the sense that I do not find myself scared of difference, yet that I was second looking and also being the presence of a feeling that I was out-numbered (that is the only term I can come up with at the moment).

In Australia, the notion of being ‘swamped by Asians’ – which has now been superseded by a fear/ostracism of Muslims – receives widespread mainstream media coverage and reification. Is this so pervasive that it has become hegemonic to the extent it permeates into the mindset of those challenging such racist stereotypes and misnomers. The frequent shock-jock beat-up on talk-back radio may promote this heavily, yet those with a critical outlook and reflection surely must not be so easily persuaded? How has this become hegemonic to such an unconscious level?

My awareness came when walking around campus and not being part of the visible majority. There were many people who looked different (and this had little to do with being in a different country) to me, and I was not in the majority. It seems that Australian xenophobic hegemony was showing itself. I also noted my reaction when seeing many posters promoting seminars about Islam (was it trepidation? – I am not sure). I am certain these reactions are rooted similarly.

Having become aware of this I can critically reflect and use this awareness to work towards self-change. However, it says a lot about (mainstream) Australian society – and more than the existence of xenophobia. Why can a country like Canada exist without the racial stereotyping and scape-goating (I am not saying it is non-existent) that we see day-to-day in Australia – especially given the level of diversity present? Why does Australian society (generally) view Islam in such a negative way? How has it become so pervasive that it affects those of us with a critical outlook?

These are questions that need to be considered and addressed. Is there a viscous cycle in that such stereotyping and scape-goating leads to those targeted banding together, and thus perpetuating the fear (and even hatred)? This is something that Australians specifically (and people more broadly) need to consider and discuss with our Asean, Muslim, people of colour and other minority/marginalised sisters and brothers. For everyone’s benefit.

I, for one, am shocked and disturbed by the impacts this has had on myself and glad that my circumstance has forced personal reflection before I made any actions that were visibly racially based. I hope this helps me in working towards changing this, and perhaps provides insight for reflection into other problematic areas of my existence and outlook I am not even aware of.

Cheers to personal growth…

how prefigurative are we?

avolve — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:47:45 +0000

Over the last three days I have attended (I pretty much abstained from participating) a three-day open source content management system (OSCMS) conference at UBC Robson Square (again giving the feds a heads up!). Some of the discussions here – not the content, rather the communicative methods – have stimulated many thoughts on my part completely outside of the focus of the conference. There are many parallels with my thoughts after reading many posts on a forum I frequent. The cross-over and very similar experiences have prompted me to share my thoughts…

These thoughts relate to body language, tone and/or general response (communicative) to comments and questions by less experienced people (in the sense of open source CMS design and implementation) or people newer to such things (i.e. veganism). I see both communities – aside from contradictions that I see and will elaborate on – and their end goals as embodying prefigurative politics and many actions (unintentional I am certain) I have seen go against the nature of this.

With regard to the OSCMS conference, the kind of responses I see as inherently problematic were embodied in the way a significant number (the vocal majority – pretty much the exclusive vocal/visible response) of people reacted to the questions of one person in a number of different sessions. The views expressed – as in made visible though the type of questions and/or comments shared – by this person were similar to many I and many others have based on current shortcomings with the specific open source project we are attempting to be a part of (drupal), yet a select group of those present (the vocal majority) responded in ways that embodied disdain and a too cool for school attitude. Specifically a I know this, so should you and/or if you don’t know this you must be stupid response: neither are prefigurative nor helpful.

There are a number of significant issues with this, one of the most problematic given the nature of open source projects is the lack of willingness to accept critical comment and suggestion for improvement as embodied in these responses. The other, and what I see as far more problematic and not specific to open source projects was that the person raising these issues was a woman and from a minority background. To provide context – with a focus on what I see as inherently problematic for open source projects when they start to achieve the popularity/success that drupal has (and deserves), is that not all involved embody the prefigurative ideals of such projects. The conference was overwhelmingly male, and this vocal majority were essentially middle-class and white. As a generalisation, they all want to ‘make it’ and many of their personal attitudes (and thus politics) emanate from this – which includes their apparent complete ignorance of the issues raised.

To switch to recent experiences with the forum I frequent and participate – and many of these issues are less visible and or/explicit – I have noticed a number of events I found problematic: not in the sense that they are intentional undertaken to be so, rather that they have specific contradictions with the nature and aims of the forum. Having more experience with the nature and basis of this forum, and the attempting to be vegan in a non-vegan world, I have an awareness of some of the non-spoken and generally unconscious factors shaping the responses I am referring to. This specifically emanates from (and there is a cross over here with what transpired at the OSCMS conference) what amounts to being asked the same (to long term vegans, for example) banal question for the hundredth time.

Further, it is a question (which differs to the OSCMS conference) that goes against what veganism is, and thus often draws reactionary responses (i.e. but you eat chicken, right?). For me, and from the general discussion and nature of this forum – aside from having a refuge from such banal and (to us) naïve and stupid questions – veganism is prefigurative at its core. Thus we need to address our reactions to such questions so as not to turn people away through merely our communicative responses. Doing so is inherently NOT VEGAN as those at the receiving end may be turned off (if so, hopefully only for a short time) veganism as a lifestyle and thus perpetuate animal suffering and exploitation.

As veganism becomes popular, and those new to it see themselves as to cool for school, these are challenges we are going to face. Our responses to these people, as with those responses I am referring to in the forums broadly, need to be based on an awareness that they are less experienced, have not had the time to gain the insight and fortitude that longer-term vegans have (and there are some that have none). The challenge with trying to be truly prefigurative is, whilst wanting to escape the naïve, mundane and inherently stupid questions vegans repeatedly get asked, we need to respond in a way that is open and not reactionary. To do otherwise is a disservice to what we are trying to achieve.

Yes refuge is nice, but lets not let the need for it fully distort our compassion. We also need not to help the perception that our principled stance is a too cool for school dismissive, and not come across as arrogant (as – as I see it – those whom have experienced their lives mostly in the USA – and some Canadians – generally do). If we are to be the change, inner growth based on awareness, open-ness and a willingness to accept constructive critical comments is essential. Critical self-reflection is also at the core of this.

Restaurant/café ostracism – with a twist

avolve — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:20:02 +0000

Being a vegan freak, and living (until recently) in your everyday ‘burb, I often find I receive blank looks, sometimes full of disdain, when perusing a menu and asking about vegetarian food. This tends to be the most profound in restaurants/café’s that do not even have a vegetarian section (even option) on the menu – places I avoid at all costs accept when unable to (see recent post). I have often received similar looks, not with the same note of disdain generally, when inquiring as to vegan options in vegetarian restaurants/café’s. I had an similar, yet different, experience recently that I actually enjoyed!

I recently went into what is my currently favourite restaurant/café with some friends for dinner: Sweet Cherubim (Commercial Dr, Vancouver’s east end). To provide some context, it is effectively a vegan restaurant/café (with a linked/adjacent store) that has vegetarian options. It has a wide variety of dishes and treats, with these all having labels in front of them. These labels have the dish/treat name in the centre with small clarifications in the corners. These clarifications include vegan, raw, gluten-free, wheat-free, etc. The vegetarian options have dairy (and/or honey?) listed on them.

My first experience with Sweet Cherinbum was my last trip to Vancouver in October/November last year, and then when I arrived back here recently. Some of these labels are either old, or temporary(?), and do not include any clarifications. So I am not full experienced with all dishes, and they are not all clear what they are. On looking at options for dinner – and I am trying to try different dishes each time I visit (a very short walk from where I am staying) – I was uncertain as to whether one of the dishes I was considering may be non-vegan. I inquired with the person taking orders as to whether this dish was vegan or not, and the response – specifically their body language – came as somewhat of a shock. It was not quite the disdain mentioned above for carni restaurants/café’s, yet it was something – almost a how dare you consider otherwise.

Whilst it would probably be more appropriate, prefigurative and amenable to promoting what we wish if the response was different, there was no malice involved. I (ironically?) found it pleasant that if I was to be scolded in any way at all, it would be for (essentially inadvertently) questioning if there were vegetarian options. It’s a nice change from feeling marginalised and belittled at every turn for attempting to live a compassionate, prefigurative and ethical lifestyle free from cruelty and exploitation. If I am going to be ostracised – which I am sure I will again be many many times – I hope it to be in this form and many others find themselves in a position for this to be possible.

tofurky, ‘mock’ meats and the like…

avolve — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 01:08:31 +0000

Today I came across tofurky for the first time whilst in one my favourite stores on ‘the drive’ in the east end of Vancouver (just in case the Feds didn’t know I had left the country). I have also had some conversations recently with people who, like me, do not partake of such food items preferring using fruit/vegetables and other non-processed items. This ties well with my comments and perspective on vat-grown meat that was the subject of a podcast (and follow-up) by Erik Marcus and also received a mention on subsequent VeganFreak podcasts. To me, it seems that those on this continent are more open to such products than back home. And I think this ties in with the views on technology as progress here. I am not saying that such perspectives on technology are absent in Australia, rather they exist at a different and more intense and/or subliminal level here. And, given that the USA is apparently at the centre of the universe, I am sure I will receive some critical attention! Before I go further, I would like to say heads-up to Dino for his non-fake stance in cooking alongside his ability to make tasty food with whatever is available and making things from scratch (i.e. without a recipe). To me, which is similar to Dino’s perspective, why would you want to eat something that is similar in look (at the least) to something oozing with exploitation, cruelty and anthropocentrism? I have heard perspectives from people who were brought up veg*n and to them such products are seen as marinated soy (or similar). I can accept that, yet it is still a processed food and I prefer to avoid these as much as I am able. Then there is the notion of transitional foods. This is where I see the place for such products. My concern, however, is that people get used to these and do not really change towards a more holistic and grounded diet rather than maintaining a processed product existence. I had no idea how to cook when I went vegetarian (I am sure there are loads of people who tried rice and tomato sauce – I was pretty poor too), nor really when I went vegan. And I did – when they were available – eat some of these products (which did draw criticism from the carni’s I temporarily lived with at the time). However, the process of learning to cook, and the subsequent tasty and amazing foods I began to prepare and eat was a (still continuing) journey I will always look back on. As my previous post indicates, I was raised in what can be described as a meat n two veg household so had not taste, and a general dislike, for most fruit vegetables – which can be more accurately considered as resulting from not being willing to try anything different after the bias of such childhood/youth experience (indoctrination). So learning to cook, and also learning to embrace things I had never really tried – alongside overcoming a bias to these foods and the racism that had and still surrounds ‘ethnic’ foods – was a very challenging yet as mentioned an ongoing and rewarding experience. The crux of all this is, I guess that I cannot see why people would buy such products, let alone eat them. Perhaps the only reason I would buy them would be if I was having people over that will not even try foods different to their carni ways. This is something I almost exclusively do not do, yet can see this as a possibility. What it comes down to more – and specifically labelled at people who live a veg*n lifestyle – is the notion of processed foods and technologically mediated society. We need to remove ourselves from such a ridiculous, destructive and false paradigm. I hope the arrogance embodied in American culture can deal with this criticism!

‘good food’: a bastardised and inexperienced term?

avolve — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:18:33 +0000

I recently went to dinner with my parents. We would not be seeing each other for some time, so this was some form of doing something together. There were plans to have more of the family there, yet these did not come to be (for some of the reasons, albeit with different basis, I go into here). Aside from the issues implicit in a veg*n eating out with carni’s, there was more to this dinner.

My father is a meat and two veg type: he will not try anything, especially if it is vegetarian (unless he doesn’t know). My mother was vegetarian for a while, yet found it difficult as the ‘women’ to cook different meals… What gets more to the crux of the issue, as thinking on this has elucidated, is their generalised experience of eating out and/or trying new things. Where they grew up, and also the suburbia where they brought me up, and the implicit (if not explicit) racism that directs behaviour, the only non-Australian (whatever Australian means in this context) meals that they would have – alongside almost everyone (white) else was the bastardised food served in pubs.

These ‘restaurants’ still exists as I was to find out, and I have many memories of them from my youth. The local pub would serve food under the banner of Australian and Chinese meals – and the only way I can describe these is as a bastardised form of Chinese. Much of the food is bland – this is in no way a reflection on Chinese cooking, rather reflecting the meat and two veg lifestyle so common amongst aussie ‘blokes’.

So of all the places we could go to eat (and where my parents live has its share of restaurants, albeit not being overly veg*n friendly) we ended up going to a recently renovated and re-opened pub. I preferred not too, yet given my fathers limit to (bastardised) Chinese food, and this being for them, I agreed. Could you imagine my surprise to find not one veg option on menu! I cannot recall the last place I walked into that matched this – and I have walked into many places I would not eat at…
Upon going to the ‘chef’ (and I do use this term loosely) and inquiring, they asked what I wanted – with seemingly little idea. I thought it best to ask what they offered. l the choices: veggies on rice with either a curry or satay sauce. I mistakenly (? – I am not going to find out) chose the curry. This turned out to be a off-the-shelf aussie tradition curry powder, cornflour and water mix sauce.

Whist I stuck it out and ate this, it gave me new insight into carni responses to people who are veg*n (i.e. what do you eat?). Given peoples limited exposure – and in Australia from experience (especially in lower/working class areas) – to more than the bland food they consume, they really have no idea. I know myself, becoming a vegetarian was an amazing journey. I was forced to learn how to cook. I recently read an article someone (misanthropy) posted to a forum (vegan freaks) I frequent detailing someone’s experiences trying to be veg/vegan for a week. One specific comment tends to reinforce my perspectives (albeit on the margins) and those of my parents (and many others I assume). The basis gist of it being that it was not meat that the writer enjoyed it was the vegetables and how the dish was prepared.

It seems to me that many a carni has no idea what veg*n’s eat as both they have never tried anything beyond the basic bland dishes they were exposed (and limited) to as they grew up, and that they will not venture beyond this. For some, it is a class issue in that they cannot afford to eat out and therefore not be exposed to difference (and many more things here).

How do we, as veg*n’s respond to this? It is something I will rethink and ponder on…

patriotism(?) – aussie style

avolve — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:01:19 +0000

another year, another (white) celebration of the invasion and ongoing perpetuation of colonialism on our apparently ‘national’ day. Of note, this year was different. It was different in two ways – one emanating from what have post-event become known as the race riots in Cronulla, the other from a meeting of Aboriginal peoples at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra.

January 26 is labelled as Australia Day and to many (at leat at present, and I hope this number is diminishing) it is a day of national celebration. It (generally) has two-fold meanings in this context. The first, the ‘official’, being a commemoration of the day James Cook raised a union jack on the east coast of what is now referred to as Australia and proclaimed it a British Colony. Secondly, and I would consider of more appeal to (generalised label here) mainstream Australians, it is a day of and normally provides for a long weekend. With it falling on a Thursday this year, the Australian ‘tradition’ of throwing a sicky received print media coverage earlier in the week – emanating from the business council – calling for employers to treat workers harshly who called in sick for work on Friday. In line with this tradition the four-day weekend was enjoyed by many I assume.

What makes this January 26 different for these people? Given my imminent departure, that I would not see many friends for some time (some never again?), and that I often enjoyed an ale at my local on a Thursday eve I ventured out and experienced this difference first hand. The number of people sporting Australiana – especially the colonialist flag – was far more than I had ever seen before. I find this highly offensive (for reasons many would see obvious – and will be come clear if not) and this was my initial reaction. Thinking on this more, and talking with friends has refined (and also clouded) my perspective.

It is undoubtable that what transpired at Cronulla was the major determining factor that the increase in Australia flags being present – whether this being worn on clothing, draped over their bodies or (the vast number of people having it) tattooed on faces or other body parts. As with more thought on the events at Cronulla, my perspective on this does not attribute the reasons for this to patriotism, nor necessarily nationalism. Rather it is a reification of the assumed vales that many see this country as built upon. The notion of a fair go, mateship, and doing what’s right by others (what same may call respecting the locals).

This is what I see the initial reaction at Cronulla was based on. It was manipulated by a handful of powerful media personalities, with Alan Jones perpetuating racism and hatred – to the extent (somewhat ironically) that he could be convicted under the new federal sedition laws. The community reaction to the Cronulla ‘riot’ and the presence of Australiana on the 26th have the common basis of promoting these values in a passive (and passive-aggressive?) way. I also hope they are a sign that people have had enough of the race-baiting and stereotyping (at least to some level) that electoral politics embodies at the moment – which the incumbent ‘liberals’ have promoted for the last 13+ years and the (apparent) ‘opposition’ labor party have not challenged in any significant way.

So my perspectives on this, whilst I still have serious issues with the flag, see some significant positives. My hope is that these positives will come to light.

The second point of difference with this years 26th – and I am not fully up to speed on all the issues here – is a form of a united (to what level I am unaware) front from Aboriginal peoples towards this day. Demonstrations highlighting the colonialist and racist base of such a celebration are not a new thing. The bicentenary of white settlement in 1988 was a significant year for this, as was the establishment of an Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Victoria Park, Sydney during the 2000 olympics. For many years, especially for a whitie like myself, how to refer to this day was an issue of contention. Two names have received significant usage: Invasion Day and Survival Day. The first critically commented on for its negativity, the second (perhaps) for its non-attribution of injustice. This is something I have discussed with friends in the past, with some calling for separate days – one invasion, one survival – of recognition. I do not see any benefit in this as they are one and the same, inextricably tied together. You cannot separate to the two.

The united front I referred to has apparently come up with a new means to referring to this day, and one I hope will lead to justice in this country. This day was renamed as a national day of Indigenous sovereignty. Time will tell if this will provide for positive change. Whist not discounting the past, it points towards the future, dismisses many (white and/or reactionary) criticisms afforded references to invasion and refers to more than survival – it calls for the recognition required before we can truly walk the path towards justice.

I hope the commonalities of these two differences can provide a part of the necessary change.

self imposed social marginalisation…

avolve — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 09:12:59 +0000

Yesterday I went to the city with a friend to pick something up. He is one of/maybe my best friend(s). We had someone come along with us who we have known for around a month. Neither of them are vegetarian and both know I am vegan. My friend is very respectful, and we are close enough for me to give home some stick about not being veg*n given his progressive and green minded philosophies/ideologies. He recently broached the issue with me and commented that he cannot challenge the arguments for being veg*n and maybe he will change one day. I knew Green Gourmet was not open that time of afternoon, yet I had not ever had a look at Vegan’s Choice, what I thought was a café, which is right next door. It did not look that appealing at the time, and my friend suggested the a restaurant (Vietnamese I think) a couple doors up. I looked at the menu (and had a quick chat with a staff member) and found a good number of options to choose from. On ordering, my friend ordered vegan as did I. The person with us ordered a soup with… well you can guess where this is going. It might be prudent for me to clarify a few things here. I am not one who tells people what they should/shouldn’t or can/can’t eat (or do with their lives). It is not my place (nor anyone else’s) to do this – this is a decision for the individual and one they have to live with – whether I agree or disagree. This does not mean that I will help them in anyway to do this. For many years my parents were knew that I would not by them cigarettes, dairy products, etc., from the store. They know why and they do not have a problem with this. It is the same for friends: I am not going to help someone when the outcome would be something I fundamentally cannot support. An extension of this, and perhaps something that many people may have an issue with or find controversial, is the notion of respecting other people’s beliefs, way of life (or whatever else you can think to throw in here). I think such a notion is a crock of shit. I do not think I need to go into this in detail on many issues, rather will stick to my main point here. I do not respect any persons’ choice to consume animal products (and nor should I, and anyone else, have to) – and let me also make this clear… this is not a right! As I have said, I am not going to tell people what they should/shouldn’t or can/can’t – this does not imply I have to respect or accept what they choose to do. Getting back to eating out yesterday, this put me in a position that I had not been for a while, obviously one I did not want to be placed in, and one I hope to never have to face again. In line with not telling people what to do, I did not comment on what the other person was consuming. I tried not to look at what was sitting in front of them. What made in increasingly difficult were a number of comments pertaining to how good what they were eating was… This reinforced immensely that I do not want to be in such a position again. With each new day, week and year my knowledge of what such meals actually are and constitute becomes (painfully) increasing clear. In this instance large chunks of the carcass of a small tortured bird. I cannot escape the horror of knowing what happened to animals reared to end up on a plate. I think I am going to have to prevent the possibility of being in such situations as much as I can. I may be further distancing myself from the apparently real world and living with the freaks. Until commodity fetishism and the property status of animals are seen for what they are: give me increased social marginalisation any day!

you still think there's an island? sentience and value of animals…

avolve — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:25:29 +0000

The notion of sentience is somewhat widely adopted by some as the definitive factor in affording consideration and/or status to individual species. This is prevalent, to varying degrees amongst both ‘mainstream’ groups and those who specifically promote the well-being of animals (in whatever form that may take). Whether this is viewed as a problematic criterion depends on whom you ask. I consider that it is and a recent ‘mainstream’ film that is completely un-related to such issues, at least explicitly, provides for an interesting analogy and potential future situation where consideration may need be given on this issue. The film I refer to is The Island. Please do not assume that I am implying this is a good film in any way. When I first watched this I was significantly disappointed – this has little to do with not knowing any detail about the story/plot, rather that having viewed it, there was potential for this to be a good movie. Some groundwork was laid and there were some critical engagements with significant and controversial issues. For those of you who have read older blogs, you may notice that I often refer to ‘mainstream’ films. Why, you ask? The thoughts on why that form the basis for this were recently reinforced through an ‘encounter’ I had with an artist some may know as ‘art nuko’. Myself and about six other people – some who knew him, some like me who did not, went to his studio in downtown Vancouver. I thought we were dropping by for friends to say hello and for me to be able to have a look at his gallery… it turned out we were there to chat with him and to have a somewhat structured/facilitated discussion on the state of the world, what we can do to change this, and why we (for those of us who are) driven to this – I think I will expand on this in another blog… Carl’s (art nuko) plan is to make a film (or several) so as to reach a wide ‘mainstream’ audience based on the potential to affect change through exposure. It is a medium that has the potential to affect some change on a broad scale. This is, loosely, where my attention on such films rests. To return to the issue of sentience as a characteristic upon which we choose as a basis for affording status, the film The Island, on a number of occasions, makes critical comments on this notion. There are also two specific references to this notion, albeit as this film is not about other species, in referring to the agnate’s (also referred to as products, ‘insurance policies’ and/or clones). These are both provided by Merrick (Sean Bean): It’s a product… in every way that matters: not human The agnetes, their simply tools, instruments, they have no souls in the middle/latter parts of the film. Earlier, during the initial meeting between Merrick and Lincoln Six-Echo (Ewan McGregor) Merrick talks to Lincoln in a manner in which (as an agnate) he is an ‘other’ which clearly parallels our reference to non-human animals as an inferior other. Descartes would be proud. If we (humans) can dictate what is ascribed value (i.e. change definitions of sentience to suit agendas), does this not indicate it is a problematic basis for ascribing status? Does providing basis for moral status/instrumental value in sentience leave this open to exploitation? Why are we deciding what is of value, or assigning this value? My take is that animals are not ours to do with as we please – a rejection of instrumentalism – and they do not need a value ascribed to them at all. Sentience is as problematic as the notion of rights (human or animal). They are both social constructs that are routinely manipulated: all men are equal, some men are more equal than others… Clearly Michael Bay has some talent as illustrated through his direction, however a more critical engagement, and a tighter story, with many of the issues would strengthen and further what I see as the potential this film did have rather than the shallow conclusion. My biggest issue with this film is that it promotes minor reforms (even thought their is a revolution of sorts at the institute) as the means for real change. The Situationist concept of compression/decompression perhaps provides a frame of reference to reflect on keeps us comfortable with minor reforms of the system albeit no significant changes (if you have any thoughts on this, please leave some comments). I hope that anyone watching this draws the obvious parallels between the agnates as soul-less and the consideration/status afforded non-human animals in society…

repackaged bullshit, or creating more spin for the next election(s) campaigns

avolve — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:07:20 +0000

Two recent unrelated events – both espoused by ‘our’ illustrious leaders – have really gotten up my nose. The second of the two, which received the media attention it was aiming for on Monday (Nov 28) – which would probably go against the grain of the first and be of some annoyance to the former NSW Premier Bob Carr who made it – has annoyed the shite out of me (to be polite!). They both relate to (read fucked up!) considerations of nuclear power in Australia. The first of these involved Bob Carr’s attempts to divert attention from something (I forget what is was indicating the efficacy of the tactic, although I think it was a proposed coal-fired power station) unpopular by touting something of significantly less popularity. In the wake of this unpopular issue, and also to divert attention from a controversial reverse osmosis water treatment facility (sea-water to drinking water) as a ‘solution’ to the current ‘water crisis’ (i.e. another technological fix ‘band-aid’), it was proposed that a nuclear power should be considered as an option/was essential for powering the treatment plant. At the time it seemed the treatment plant was never going to see the light of day – and it may not still – though a lot more detail has found its way into the mainstream media. I think there is a good chance that there will be a ‘back-flip’ on the water plant closer to the next state election alongside spin that the government listens to the people. The nuclear power plant, however, dropped from public discussion almost as quickly as it was proposed – clearly indicating that its mention was more spin. This brings me to the second, and unrelated yet related event. After decades of massive public oppositions to, and controversy surrounding, uranium mining in Australia – with the late 1990s seeing one of the largest and sustained broad-reaching environment campaigns in a long time in Australia (Jabiluka) – and years of controversy surrounding a proposed ‘nuclear waste dump’, the federal government has thrown the nuclear power issue out there. What gets to me is not that these right wing neo-liberal reactionary fuckstains would consider such an issue (aside from the many and varied reasons why no other country is really going there – even the neo-conservative ones), it is the manner it which it was put forward and the tactics of spin it draws on… Aside from the usual anthropocentric rhetoric – and the pretence of speaking for us all: ‘think we owe it to ourselves to examine all of our options’ that also embodies that such direction – the real bull shit and the most ridiculous justification I think I have ever come across was calmly and PR-manufacturedly stated: We can’t responsibly dig 30 percent of the world’s uranium out of the ground, export it overseas and allows some 450 reactors to operate in other parts of the word and not seriously consider this is an option for ourselves. This is laced with so much shite, invoking so much constructed sensibilities, appeals to an implied common sense and dressed up to not address any of the issues at all! The result – an inquiry that will further varnish layers of shit so much so that it don’t smell anywhere near as bad as it should. Pseudo public involvement will be implied as a means to infer consent and the best outcome for us all – that is, again, unless the issue is to unpopular alongside many other issues come the next federal election. Under the ‘we have come a long way’ techno-fix bullshit (they are still relying on a process proven to not work in the 1980’s: synrock – and yes I have seen it and the scientific reports on its testing – my technical knowledge of this stretching back to the late 1980s) we have career academics enjoying the spotlight. There is so much rhetoric and bullshit… the question that perhaps needs to asked is why is it the Federal Education Minister (who is trying to destroy student mobilisation against the government by making it ‘illegal’ to politically organise on campus) talking publicly on issues ‘outside his portfolio’. Rumour has it he has behind closed doors support to run for the leadership of the party/prime minister once John (spin doctor supreme) Howard finally resigns – or loses the next election… something to keep an eye on? The final word for me… Brendan Neslon (and the rest of them): FUCK OFF!

good to see people taking a stand together - especially on my return 'home'

avolve — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:12:48 +0000

I arrived back in Sydney at 7am aware that there was a planned Community Day of Action against Industrial Relations Change Australia-wide. There was no chance I would make it tothe even in my town to participate in the actions there and as i just missed my connecting train I followed the masses of people – representing many different unions, organizations, political ‘parties’, and other bodies as well as people from multitude walks of life – from the train to to the Sydney event..

My initial reactions were mixed. A continual stream of people kept arriving at the park, and I was scanning them on the off chance that I would see some friends/associates/colleagues in the mix. I was positioned pretty close to the ‘stalls’ and socialist ‘broadsheet’ sellers. There was a younger – and very enthusiastic – women repeating almost exclusively one cry to those passing towards the main assembly point: ‘resist Howard’s anti-terrer laws – sign the petition. Whilst trying not to be too critical (we all start somewhere) – I found her passion and drive inspiring – I found myself pondering what it could be if there was more awareness of power structures, reformism and the potential limited and generally inconsequential impacts (in the sense of other less critically-aware people only hearing this and not having a comprehensive awareness) of such a cry. I am glad this women – and many other’s – were present putting contrasting withy the neo-liberal agenda and outright attacks on the rights of Australian working people under the guise of ‘work choices’.

As I sit and watch – for some 30 minutes now – the still continuing, perhaps fading, throng of people joining the assembly I feel a sense of outrage against the government I have not felt since the attack on members of the Maritime Union of Australia by Patrick and the Federal Government some 4 years ago [check how long]. The collective sense present does give me hope – albeit I expect any potential from this action to fizzle out under the guide of union ‘negotiations’ with government, militancy watered down, pacified and/or marginalised by unions who have become and end in themselves… another train passes with the driver sounding his horn. This is an issue that affects everyone and I am glad to see people taking it to the streets and taking a stand.

What is to come of this? It will probably fade under the guide that the ‘labor’ party will save the working people at the next election. I don’t pretend to have the answers of how to mobilise such a gathering – and I probably should think that I could possess such knowledge. The internal contradictions I have are that I see as essential collective social awareness developing from below yet how long do we have? What to do in the meantime that is effective and does not compromise our ideals?

Can any immediate and concrete action – as in change right now – come from this action except policy change? Of course such actions sow the seeds of change amongst people – the experience of solidarity, collective awareness of others similar plights, critical exposure and the development of such thought – are essential to grassroots social change. What happens in the meantime? Until we can experience and live a system…

I decide to skip and wait for the next train… to see what transpires before the organised ‘march’ takes off (I am not feeling like several km’s through city streets with all my gear)…

As the first speaker/mc addresses those present and leads in a ‘fighting for?’ … ‘workers rights!’ chant I reflect on how the majority of those who participate in this are the ‘burly’ male unionists and I have images of marchers in the past with ‘big burly blokes’ at the front. The patriarchy of it leads my the reflect… yet when charged by police I would rather have a line of these ‘big burly blokes’ at the front – both as a disincentive to a police charge and also that thay are generally more able to handle such an act. What does this say for a forms of action? What other means could we use? Again, I return to pondering how can we achieve something concrete from this?

If the government is forced (again) to water down it Industrial Relations policies it can be very empowering for those involved to see that they have effected change. I recall the Cunningham Bi-election in which a local activist won – the first time a member of the ‘Greens’ had one a lower house (direct election) seat in Australia (and I think the world) – largely based on his involvement on the ground with many issues and for the first time the workers going against the ‘labor’ party. Even those of us who do not believe in electoralism could see the positive impacts this had on people – the electorate this seat covers is where we live – in the sense that could see that they could effect change. Whilst this was expressed through the ballot box, it was a victory for people and they could clearly see that they had won. Given all the defeats despite long and ongoing actions over a long time that were sustained, had a very strong and diverse base, victories are essential to avoid burnout. And this is how many of us saw the election result.

So I come back to what can we achieve out of today. If the government is forced into another back-down this is a big step forward and one we should take something from. What needs to follow however is actions that clearly expose the basis of such policies and provide for the development and growth of critical awareness of the issues amongst the community at large. I just hope that the ‘end in themselves’ unions wake-up and do not continue to promote themselves at the expense of stifling the outrage of the broader community – recent (at the least) history does not provide much hope on this level…

I am happy to arrive home to such a spectacle.

vegan love cake, hippy havens, and amazing journeys… critical reflections as always

avolve — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:14:53 +0000

Whilst in BC, Canada many opportunities arose that have provided for experiences in some pretty nice places. For the last week or so a friend has let me crash at their place in East Vancouver (out near the drive) and a few days at a place they also arranged to share with another person (a split-time room) on the Sunshine Coast at Robert’s Creek. In themselves, both are very nice places to exist.

The ‘Drive’ in east Van has some amazing food co-op’s, organic produce and multitude vegan and vegetarian cafés and/or restaurants. It is also nice to see a diversity of people around and the sense of progressive and aware atmospheres abounding. Likewise Robert’s Creek – significantly smaller – has a good vibe. The menu at the only ‘restaurant’ in town has about 7 mains, of which 5 are vegan with non-vegan options. Progressive and aware atmospheres also abound.

I have enjoyed most of my time in these two locales and my experiences have provided much to think on. On my second day in Canada (as mentioned in a prior post) I met a women from Nova Scotia and we ended up talking about concerns we have that people in Vancouver ‘talk-the-talk’ and do not ‘live’ their politics (or beliefs, ideology, or any other descriptor you may prefer to use here). I have also met and talked with many others who possess what I would consider well-developed critical awareness. Why then, do I have a number of issues with their actions?

I find many people – and I am not referring to those who rebelliously without much thought consider themselves as anarchists – who would describe their politics as anarchist as being very aggressive in demeanour, bordering on the patriarchal. A simplistic – and I think too easily drawn conclusion – could be that the perception of aggressive rebellion legitimises such day-to-day espousals and/or they do not feel the need to critically self-reflect based on the socialisation resulting from mainstream sensationalist imagery associated with coverage of – what I would consider very legitimate and positive – actions of defiance and resistance around the globe. In east Vancouver I have noted this – and I must say also back in Australia.

Around Robert’s Creek my experiences have also led me to think on things. For many, the term ‘flaky hippy’ many inspire images. Without going into detail, this typifies a number of people whom I interacted with in this part of BC. My main concerns do not relate to the ‘dropping out’ or what I perceive (through my own socialisation) as the effects of excessive smoking of weed – which is far more prevalent and socially acceptable than in Australia (it appears to be akin to the consumption of alcohol) – rather the very poorly developed critical analysis put forward. And I see this as problematic as these views are explicitly put forth and as they are often weak, they tend to undermine other well-developed ideas. We are all learning and experiencing… I think if we gave ourselves time to listen to others (and I am critical of myself here too) and take stock of what we are thinking, I do believe we could develop our ideas so as to become more sound and robust to reactionary criticism.

I was trying to emphasise the positive… that was my goal at the outset. Three times I returned to the gumboot during my stay on the coast. Each time I acquainted myself with a (large serving as they are) of vegan chocolate love cake. I uncommonly each chocolate, yet this was so good and not an opportunity I would have regularly… I was also able to have some pretty fine food. On the ‘Drive’ I also had many opportunities for good food. It did take some time after arriving in Vancouver to have what I consider ‘good’ food. I had some pretty average meals – and most of these were very expensive. One night I went to an Indian diner and had dinner for less than $5 – which included 4 vegan dishes! Even today, after 3-weeks I was still going into places I had not. On the sweets side, I experienced my first Nanaimo bar from a 20+ café that was exclusively vegetarian and almost entirely vegan. This was only a couple doors up from an exclusively vegan (mostly raw) café!

I didn’t quite make it to ‘amazing journeys’… I will return to this!! There are so many stories I want

a renewed and re-foussed rejection of our consumerist society... a personal journey [part 1]

avolve — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:40:37 +0000

My trip to Canada to date has comprised a number of journey’s – or journey’s within journey’s – and I have learnt a great deal from these. It might be more accurate to reflect that alongside learning per se, thoughts once had have re-surfaced and perspectives once grasped (however loosely) have again provided for a renewed contempt for many aspects of our so-called ‘modern’ society.

I want to wholeheartedly thank those whom experiences with are where these resurfaced and renewed thoughts and perspectives arose. The first I met whilst attending a movement against war and occupation rally in downtown Vancouver. At the regular post-rally gathering of the facilitators/organisers, we chatted about things general and specific – after I think I joined in a conversation they were having with someone else. An obvious connection – on many levels – was apparent quite quickly. We were both travellers – myself obviously from out of the country, they were from the east coast – and we arranged to meet at a ferry terminus on Vancouver Island four days later at a specified time. In contrast to factors beyond both of our control, we still managed to meet at the terminus from where we began what turned out to be a journey that I will remember – for many reasons – for the rest of my life.

But I digress. The journey I wish to focus on here – and the one from which I have taken from an immense and profound re-focus in how I act and exist in this world – centred around five days in which I camped with this person and a number of others adjacent to Cathedral Grove/MacMillian Provincial Park about 10km east of Port Alberni. It is the way these people exist – and it is a way of life specifically chosen – and experiencing this with them (albeit for only 5 days) that has led to these profound mind shifts.

They exist outside of and in direct contrast to the exploitative, wasteful, consumptive and ludicrous ‘thing’ we consider modern society to be. It has impacted on me on multitude levels – and as I was and have since listened to the new Propaghandi album Potemkin City Limits, I have pondered over this a significant level. To what extent – in contrast to my critical and anarchist outlooks – have I become subsumed within the redicularity of the multi-faceted, systematic and pervasive operating system we have constructed and/or have allowed to be imposed on us. How much has my wanting to live my ideology been mediated and shaped so as to conform – at least partly – to the status quo, the hegemony of the current forms of capitalism that bleeds from the walls of what we consider ‘developments’.

I recall a friends’ leaflet (if it could be called that) which essentially forms the first blog I read with interest (and awareness) albeit in paper form (it was not a ‘zine’ as it was only I page) – well before I think blogs actually existed. This reflected very personally on the mediation of ones existence despite well-defined ideals. They recalled the surprise noted when they found themself humming along to pacifying supermarket music one day. This may seem trivial to some, yet it was also profound to me and clearly illustrates the pervasiveness and effectiveness of this multi-faceted construction that tends to envelop us.

To return to existing outside, I have taken some solace from the experiences I had ‘living’ with this small group of people. You can live outside the system and do it well. It is what is ‘well’ that one needs to confront. Most of our perceptions are so shaped and mediated that we can imagine nothing else but what we have allowed be imposed on us (and that which we have perpetuated). I think this is easier to do on a number of levels in Canada than Australia and this is based on small but significant cultural differences based on experiences since the first attempts at colonisation.

I have found myself, given my being in a position of having a stable and guaranteed ‘income’, questioning how to house myself given both my detest at paying ‘rent’ to a ‘landlord’ and having contempt for the institution of the bank. This coupled with my rejection of private property is a conundrum I have grappled with for some time. Whilst I still do not have the answer for this, I now at least have a more optimistic outlook on how I can reconcile this.
My new-found psuedo-middle-classness has also somewhat unconsciously (and consciously) shaped my purchasing habits. I have found myself – on small number of occasion – becoming less opposed to buying ‘brand’ clothing, even to the point of seeking specific ones out for what I consider (even though I am aware that some thought had gone into it) little more than mediated false reasoning’s (albeit I do try to but non-sweatshop produced items). Many of these reasoning’s, and the outcomes clearly, contrasting with my ideological perspectives. At least on this level I can rectify this…

My presence at a seminar about the performance of Aboriginality in a globalising world – and sharing of my own research on how this is affected by us whities – has also helped with this. I was asked by a friend in Australia to send them back something ‘cheesy’. All I have seen when entering a number of stores – of which I did not really want to for reasons that will become clear – was essentially the commodification of Aboriginality and I staunchly refuse to participate in this grossly offensive practice. This, however, led to more pondering of broader issues. To enable survival within this construct we exist within, where does the ownership of artworks lie? What about Aboriginal artworks. I recall a poem recited by Aunty Barbara (an Wadi Wadi person) that reflects on a flower she came across – this was her first visit to Canada. She new little of it, yet she found no need to ‘capture’ it on film or in any other way. Its existence alone was enough. To what extent has art itself, its ownership not creation, become what it is via the mediated pervasiveness of the construct?

[to be continued…]

Malicious-ness transcended… my rants coming/now back online

avolve — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:55:32 +0000

Some of you (assuming there is any/still existing readers) may have noticed that on accessing veganarky a dbase error was listed. This was because of the second malicious attack on this site. Whilst I managed to overcome the first attack, I was not able to overcome the second. The reason it has taken so long to get the site re-established was having the host ISP going through it’s back-ups to find my dbase that was ‘lost’ during the second attack. No thanks to this ISP, they do not have a back-up of my dbase. And a big thank you (not!) to those behind the malicious attack. I have logs – if I was a malicious person (even though the IP’s are probably hacked) I could track you down. If you want to hack things, why not target your energy towards something that will have a positive impact for society – the corporate elite…? To turn to the positive, over coming days/weeks I will be re-establishing what content I can track down from anyone who has it in their rss readers – if you have any of my previous posts please contact me via the form here. As all was lost (except the skin) I will also be recreating the site architecture so please be patient as the site re-evolves. Given that I have no print record of the site (i.e. what the architecture looked like) the changes will be organic. I may even make some changes to the skin based on feedback from a number of people. As I obtain copies of past posts (or parts there-of) these will be added to the site. If you are newer to this site, please check posts not listed at the top as they will be inserted by the original date (and therefore not inserted at the top of the page). This post will be kept as a ‘sticky’ until I get the site back to a level I am happy with… I hope you get something from my rants. Please add any comments you have – all past comments were also lost in the attack!

random events and amazing encounters… morphing together into journey’s worthy of being remembered!

avolve — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:11:07 +0000

Today I was trying to meet a friend whom I had not seen since they left Australia close to a year ago to return to Canada. I had also made arrangements to meet a pretty amazing person I had randomly met for the first time four days before. I was to meet them two bus and a ferry ride away and we were to get a ride together out to Cathedral Grove (I had no idea how to get there). My friend was running quite late and I waited what I thought would be too long to make it to the second bus and thus the ferry. I boarded a bus giving it all to chance – attempting to follow the randomness of the chance meeting – only to see my friend cross the street seconds later…

I decided to go with the chance encounter. As the bus made it to downtown I kept looking at my watch all the way. I happened to look out the window as the at what turned out to be the right moment – I saw the second bus with a line of people. I jumped off at the next stop and fully loaded with all my gear ran back to the cross-street… I had managed to make it with about a minute to spare – things seemed to be falling into place…

Things slowed down as this bus arrived at ferry terminal with around 30mins to spare. The boat ride to Nanaimo on Vancouver Island about 1.5 hours – exposing me to beautiful views of islands, forested hills and rivers (added to on a subsequent trip two weeks later when these peaks had recent snow on them). I realised once again how scenic the coast islands are after 5-years of absence and subsequent memory loss.

As the ferry pulled docked at Nanaimo I had no idea whether this new friend would be there. The timetable we had previously seen and based our ‘meeting time’ on was completely wrong: my boat pulled in before 3 and we had arranged to meet around 3:40. Given that she would have worked this out when she arrived at Horseshoe Bay, I had no idea of when she would be there…

As the clock ticked towards 4:30 things were not looking to good and I was close to giving up and believing that we may never see each other again. As the last bus out of town (the Tofino bus) arrived, it appeared that was where I would be spending the night and not in the Grove.

Then, almost out of nowhere this new friend walked into the ferry terminal! It appeared that our journey together would continue…

Getting a ride into town – a 45 minute trip – had taken about 5-hours. Hence why they were late. So we set off together for the Grove. The 30 minutes we waited for our first lift did not dampen our enthusiasm, nor the 30 minutes for the second ride. As the clock ticked on more than two hours waiting for the next ride – at the edge or Parkesville, the sun disappeared and the temperature dropped we both began to consider out options. I did have a tent and sleeping bag – albeit my sleeping bag is a bit small for two!

As darkness increasingly blanketed us and the temperature continued to drop (it eventually became the coldest night of the season to date – and for days to come) we started to think we were spending the night somewhere close and not the Grove. Moments later a car pulled up about 100m short of us. We had had two cop cars pass in the 2+ hours we had been trying to get this ride so we were not too sure if it would be them or who else it could be (apparently it is illegal to thumb a ride in BC). A figure approached, the dark silhouette possibly a cop. As they closed in, we had not idea of their intentions and stood there in silence. It was my friend broke the silence - she had hitched across the country from Halifax – with hello. The response was ‘are you travellers… would you like a home cooked meal and a warm bed for the night’!

You can only imagine our surprise and relief. The kind of offer you hear stories about from the sixties/seventies… of course we were like yes. The couple who picked as up only lived a little up the road and were non-violence activists from the sixties. They were their way home from hospital major afyer one of them had major eye surgery… making the generosity of the offer even more amazing. Their hospitality and their persons furthered this.

After they cooked us dinner (before cooking themselves something else) – and vegan to boot after inquiring (they assumed we were) – we sat and talked about non-violence as both an ideology and a way of life. They espoused non-violence in every way. The way they talked, their mannerisms and actions. They were obviously very much in love and had been perhaps their entire lives. Their house they had built themselves some 18 years ago with the structural elements and windows reclaimed from a building being torn down. They had 4 kittens they were raising for the SPCA (4 others from the litter had already grown enough so they could go back for adoption).
We all shared stories and talked for hours. By the time we were ready for sleep, there was a pile of books on the table that they wanted to share with us as they had had profound impacts on them (I hurriedly wrote down authors and titles)…

They had prepared for us a bed near the fire – it had not been long for me, but it had been months since my new travelling companion and friend had slept in a bed. For me it was a nice size and not the hostel bunks I was forcibly being accustomed to. It was nice to be sharing a bed, and for it to be someone I was increasingly finding deep connections with!
In the morning, breakfast was offered as soon as we arose. We talked more about things and the beautifulness of the hospitality abounded again. What an amazing start to my Canadian adventure. I had met my new friend on my first full day in Canada and a simple meet you at the Nanaimo ferry terminal on Wednesday had turned into a full-blown adventure…!

Oh, and we were driven the remaining 20km to the camp at the grove… such wonderful people.

US Customs an inherent part of the Imperialist project!

avolve — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:19:57 +0000

Today I experienced the most ridiculous exercise I had ever come across. It is probably the only thing I can say was a complete waste of the time of all involved. And this has nothing to do with my outright objections to what it was… it all unfolded on a transit stop at Honolulu on my way to Vancouver, Canada.

The purpose of the transit stop was for the plane to re-fuel for the second leg of the flight. My thoughts were – based on past experiences – that we would alight and wait in a transit lounge for the 90-minutes stipulated in the itinerary. This was not the case. We were told we would need to pass through US customs – even though we were not leaving the airport. And guess what that entails: an exercise in nothing more than imperialist attempts to monitor everyone in the world! Being ‘filmed’ (i.e. face recognition scanning) was the least controversial part on the scale of things. Scan’s of index fingers on both hands was also required! If I (and all the other passengers) were not even ‘entering’ the USA why was this necessary – perhaps more importantly how could this be justified?

Those who have read any of my other rants may conclude that why I think many of the reasons why is based on my having significant issues with such an intrusion on my personal liberty framed under a guise of border protection and safety. And responses I have seen of US citizen’s do little to change the generalised stereotype many from the lesser world (i.e. the insignificant other that exists outside the centre of the earth – read: USA) hold. Whilst many may agree that those entering your country have to obey by your ‘laws’ – and I am open in admitting that I do not – do you not think this has gone too far. Oh but protecting freedoms you say! If this is not the most ironic and hypocritical response I have ever heard…

Without rambling further and indicating how outrageous and imperialist I consider the imposition and the explicit assumptions attributed to such a ‘policy’ is, I think the redicularity of this is clear in what followed. After passing through US customs we ended up following a path through deserted sections of the airport, up a fire escape and back to US Customs so we could got to the departure gate. Not only did we have to go through another bag search – by this time the fifth, shoes had to be removed and my belt (a canvas one!)… after passing through even more ‘checks’, before we even arrived at the departure lounge the call for boarding was made. So all we did was walk off the plane, have numerous searches and intrusions of privacy based on some constructed notion of protecting freedoms, and walk back onto the plane without stopping once – except in the queue for these ‘checks’!

I think it says it all. Needless to say I will not fly Air Canada again and will make it clear to them that their tacit (at best) support for such draconian, ridiculous and imperialist policies is a significant problem. That these are imposed on those not even entering the US – and not made clear at the time of ticket purchase…

anarchy as chaos - again! [is there some truth in this, ironically?]

avolve — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:01:28 +0000

I have attempted to watch some news of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina after reading some blogs from the USA about the appalling response of the administration/government over there and linking this to race and class - perspectives I am finding a significant amount of credence with. As would(should) be expected I found most of the clap-trap put forth as narrow, punch-line driven info-tainment with a clear aim of keeping people entertained rather than actually informed. There is one other aspect that I often forget that tends to be a feature of such news services

On one of the major (commercial) news stations here, they have a three-hour current affairs style news show on Sunday mornings. It starts with news of the week and Hurricane Katrina, unsurprisingly, was the first/deadline story. The title, rather than the content, was surprising, though also not surprising:

Sliding into anarchy

How can it be both surprising and unsurprising? It is unsurprising as as soon as there is what is usually referred to as lawlessness following some major incident/series of incidents, the turmoil that eventuates is often referred to as anarchy on the streets. In this case, I insinuate that they were referring to the looting that was taking place (see my previous post for brief comments on this). The surprising part for me - perhaps not consciously undertaken on the part of the reporters, producers or executives (or any one else involved) was an significant aspect of the story and the questions posed to the on the ground correspondent.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

contradictions, inequality and our (general) lack of awareness of it

avolve — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:20:47 +0000

a young girl, bone protruding from her arm, sits in the emergency department of a hospital for eight hours waiting for not just for treatment - she has not even been seen (let alone assessed) by a doctor...

a professional sportsman (gendered term purposively) with a suspected calf strain receives an MRI scan, and then spends significant time in a hyperbaric chamber to speed his recovery.

see any contradictions here?

What kind of world do we live in when we prioritise the health and well being of those who can afford to pay (and sportsmen are the worst category of this) over everyone else. The concept of a private health system (private health care, private clinics, private surgery's, private hospitals, etc) is so ludicrous, classist and does little more than entrench, promote and legitimise structural inequality in society.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

american ignoranace and arrogance... what a fucked up world we live in!

avolve — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:57:58 +0000

Many responses of 'officials' in the US to the impacts of Hurricane Katrina for me do little but perpetuate common perceptions of American‚Äôs as little more than self-obsessed, arrogant, ignorant people who consider themselves as above all others in the world.

Over the past days I have heard commentators, politicians and others refer to the devastation caused in ways that smack of this arrogance, illustrates the self-created and perpetuated ignorance of US culture (yes I am making a sweeping generalisation here), and stinks of racism. Two comments stand out and really offend me beyond anything I could have thought possible in the wake of such a natural event.

The Mayor of Biloxi A. J. Holloway's comment outraged me beyond anything I can remember. How did he describe the aftermath???

'This is our tsunami'

Yes this natural event has led to large loss of life but to equate to the scale of the Southeast Asian tsunami! The first thing this clearly highlights is that American‚Äôs place more value on white lives as opposed to asean lives.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

today's revolutionary's tomorrow's reformists - consistency as a challenge?

avolve — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:18:19 +0000

The experiences outlined in my previous blog and a couple of other events have stimulated again my own thoughts on class awareness broadly. It is something I think we all should reflect on from time to time, and these events have somewhat pushed the issue into my mind again (I am also preparing to present my current research in front of many peers, including academics from Canada, and the material I am engaging with has led to some interesting and challenging self-reflection).

There is no doubt (at least at present) that I am going through a process of exodus from the low socio-economic situation in which I grew up (and my parents still face some-what). This constantly throws up many challenges to my want to live the change that I want to see in the world, and I often find myself in positions I had not conceived and having the potential to contrast with me preferred means. I am certain this will continue to happen and I hope that I can continue to reflectively engage with this and remain open to constructive critical comment.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

engineers critically aware - is there hope for us yet?

avolve — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:14:51 +0000

On Thursday I had the last of my classes for the subject I am currently teaching that revolves around ethics and professionalism in engineering practice. The last class, a tutorial, turned out to be the best I had all session. The group presenting before the class looked at the controversies surrounding potential health impacts of mobile phones and power lines. What made it the best tutorial I had all session was the critical awareness and engagement with these controversial topics provided by those in this group. Seeing flickers on faces around the room as recognition of the oft-systematic basis of class disparity emerged was definitely a moment I gained something from.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

Erik Marcus and 'animal free meat' - my perspective...

avolve — Sun, 04 Sep 2005 08:56:33 +0000

Those who check this site (if anyone does) somewhat occasionally, would notice a completely new design. This is my own design that I finally got to a working state on August 28th and am now currently beta testing. This is my first self-designed drupal site (drupal is the community plumbing that powers this site) and my largest foray in using CSS for layout. I spent several weeks attempting to removing bugs that I ended up not being able find, so restarted the coding three times until, all of a sudden, it worked. So here is v1.0 beta.

To provide an rss news feed ‚Äì something I had waited on doing until I got this new design working ‚Äì I spent some time looking on the web for sources. I wanted both something with animal news and something more directly related to struggle against our consumer capitalist mediated world. It was through this search that I found a host of new sites that I had not come across including vegan freak, animal voices and erik‚Äôs diner. All three of these sites have podcasts ‚Äì the first two I have found quite good through my brief listens to date. The Erik‚Äôs diner episdeo, however, I have found something he has said that I significantly and fundamentally disagree with:

Animal-Free Meat, VegNews Awards, PETA Controversy, Poultry Blaze, Meat Institute Comedy, Chicken Super Bugs, the Boys and the Bees (August 18, 3:58 PM ET)

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

we spend our youth attaining wealth and our wealth attaining youth

avolve — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:54:34 +0000

Today I started reading Douglas Coupland Generation X a Canadian friend passed it on to me. It followed a recent comment from another friend that you (generically) need to read books without bibliographies. I found this to be quite a succinct way of putting it, and as I was wanting to read non-academic material quite a timely remark.

Reading this book - where I obtained we spend our youth attaining wealth and our wealth attaining youth - has already provided for some deep and critical reflection on my own perspectives. I am only some 50 pages into this novel and finding many of the comments/observations/reflections, albeit not presented as factual, posing stark and valid questions to my current everyday consumer capitalist mediated life.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

preferences, but not expectations

avolve — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:53:14 +0000

A friend included these inspiring and valuable words in a recent email: i don't go through life with expectations. preferences maybe... but not expectations. In reflection of my outlooks to the world ‚Äì and a specific aim of living prefiguratively (i.e. be the change) ‚Äì I think this is quite prophetic.

I do not personally think I can could remove all expectations from my life. I know when I meet new people, especially those who come across as progressive and aware I not only assume this awareness extends across to animals, it is an oft-unconscious expectation I have. This is not as in my saying to such people they should be veg*n, I just assume they are.

This is also extended with more and expectation being placed on women. I believe this originates from/is based on the dualistic construction of woman as nurturing, man as ‚Äòrational‚Äô. Whilst I openly admit this is problematic, I can also see another factor shaping these assumptions. I tend to reject the status afforded the rational. This is both a reflection of my abhorrence for the rational man as being considered superior (and thus the irrational/nurturing ‚Äì i.e. emotive ‚Äì female as inferior) and my attempts to embody/associate with this. With this dualistic construction aligning woman with nature I often find myself expecting women I meet to thus be more aware on this level.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

pentecosatal 'converts' - a dote-full new age form of christianity or another weapon of the religious right?

avolve — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:47:41 +0000

I find the rise of the 'pentecostal-style church' in Australia as not only very scary, it is a phenomenon that has significant implications for society more generally. Given my explicit anarchist outlook, my rejection of hierarchy clearly indicates that I am not a believer in any notion of a 'god'. It also indicates support for 'freedom' of opinion. The issue here lies not with its 'religious' basis per se, rather the societal implications of this phenomenon and a strong concern for those part of, or succumbing to, the machinations of it.

Images of those now a part of what is known as 'hillsong church' in Australia, even before they open their mouths, imbues concern. The dote-full naivety espoused in the radiating innocence of these 'converts' - whilst something I would happily prefer to see in the world - is frightening indeed. This naive innocence, based a looking for something from 'above' or elsewhere in response to serious issues with society, scares me. I see these people as being taken in, manipulated - whether intentionally or not. What we need is not a naive acceptance, rather a critical questioning. The clearest and simplest response that comes to mind is the lyric and title from a Rage Against The Machine song - used and perhaps posthumously popularised by the Matrix series of film - Wake Up!

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

more thoughts on the 'mainstream' genre of film

avolve — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:46:05 +0000

Given my recent foray into mainstream 'action' films for 'academic purposes', it has made me think of somewhat random dialogue that I have noted in such films. This random dialogue I am referring to consist of comments that one could construe as prefigurative in the sense of the director or writer making critical comments on society. Perhaps they could even be construed as a clear attempt at being the change one wants to see in the world.

I could go into details about films such as the matrix series or others that are clearly ‚Äì whether most people are aware of this or not ‚Äì making critical comments on society. In contrast, there are films that are not specifically aimed at making significant broad claims. Filmmakers themselves must consider this notion as they write/direct/produce.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

on technology... some thoughts on the film 'I, Robot'

avolve — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:28:53 +0000

I watched a movie today that a number of people in one of my classes last year had talked about: I, Robot. The class (Engineering Design and Management 3) is based on incorporating and fostering and awareness of the social aspects of technology, specifically the role of social and ethical considerations in engineering design.

The school of thought for this subject (specifically this aspect of it) is the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS ‚Äì sometimes referred to as Science Studies). A central aim of this field is to critically look at how technology is perceived in society. We often uncritically accept technology as both a means to progress and progress itself. What I drew from this film (aside from a number of problematic associations deriving from its creation to be 'mainstream' in genre) is the critical look at how logic and what is considered rational thought are constructed and considered as superior. What is effectively constructed is a dualistic way of knowing and seeing the world. One the one hand you have rational (i.e. technological) thought that is associated with masculinity, and irrational (i.e. based on emotion) thought that is associated with and portrayed as an inferior feminie other.

The role reversal in this film ‚Äì Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) as irrational and Dr Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) as rational ‚Äì was interesting to note, yet it is the deconstruction of this dualism that is the main feature of this film that I drew something from. It was also not a rejection of either way of seeing and attempting to understand the world, rather that both have a place and they are clearly interlinked and also shape each other.

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

to live ones truth gently but totally and consistently

avolve — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:34:15 +0000

I found these words (who lives his truth gently, but totally and consistently) whilst surfing the web today. They, and the notion they appeared alongside - finding yourself in words - spurred me to throw some more together. I have not received any recent emails from a friend who has an exceptional talent with words. The transcendences of literary boundaries alongside a differing perspective that these words often embody makes for a pleasant and refreshing experience... I am waiting for your words to again fill my screen and mind Dan Fish ‚Äì I hope your world is doing what it does for you.

To live ones truth, and to live it gently. Being the change one wants to see in the world is something I aspire to. To live it gently is something I am grappling with everyday. It is something I do give a lot of thought to on many levels. I believe in direct action and non-violence. However what constitutes violence is an interesting and philosophically challenging notion. I will write more on this in detail at a later stage, yet my thoughts regarding this at the moment centres around ALF style raids that liberate animals and/or the tools of their oppression (i.e. lab reports, equipment). Is property damage violence...?

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]

New Ageism as espousing naivity...

avolve — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:25:10 +0000

At 2pm today someone stopped their bike in front of me at the Sandon Point community picket [see Sandon Point website for details] and stated that he didn't think that the picket should be there as 'this place' was for everyone. I found this a very interesting thing for him to say as the aims of the picket and protection of public open space for the benefit of everyone. This contrasted sharply with the McMansions under-construction - the privatisation of public space - immediately adjacent to the picket.

Upon attempting to strategically question him with an aim that the contradictions in his two comments would become visible to him, his partial response indicated inherent problems in his outlook. Upon it becoming clear to him that another of his comments was indeed misguided and contradictory, and that his assumptions about his knowing best were challenged, his remark before proceeding to ride off was 'the world goes round'!

[this was a post written pre my site being hacked - this is all that remains. I will add more soon...]