Cognitive Dissidents discussion
MANIFESTOS
>
Manifestos
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
NEOISM is often considered to be the latest (or last) of a series of cultural avant-gardes. Such avant-gardes are usually defined by a statement of purposes presented as a manifesto. One possible lineage that NEOISM might be considered to be the last member of wd be that of Dadaism to Surrealism to Situationism & Fluxus to NEOISM. A considerably more expanded list than this is certainly possible & is explored in Stewart Home's bk "The Assault on Culture".
Even in this simple-minded version, cracks already appear. Was/Is there something called "Situationism", eg? As I recall, it was stated by some Situationists that there were Situationists but no Situationism. Many people seem to disregard this statement as if the shared concerns of the Situationists are what constitute 'Situationism'. However, it seems to me that by declaring there to be a Situationism, a false closure is created, a closure that for historical convenience's sake shuts off potential Situationist fluidity.
FLUXUS: same thing. If FLUXUS was (& is) something that's in FLUX, there may be manifestoS (plural) but not necessarily an uber-manifesto that unites them all. Dadaism is wonderful, may it not be closed for the convenience of history. Surrealism is wonderful, may it not be closed for the convenience of history. Situationists are wonderful, may they not be closed into a Situationism box for the convenience of history. Fluxus is wonderful, may it not be closed for the convenience of history.
It became traditional for avant-gardes to replace their predecessors. But it's not my intention to create the next fad or phase to be replaced in turn by the next fad or phase. We each approach the problems & interests at hand w/ our own imaginations & resources. Since it's become traditional for cutting edge creativity to be an avant-garde, avant-gardes are no longer cutting edge creativity.
As such, it doesn't appeal to me (& hasn't for decades) to create an avant-garde. NEOISM, IMO, is not an avant-garde. If NEOISM's in a lineage, to me, it's more as friends to those who've come before & not as a successor/replacement.
I've avoided the manifesto as something that narrows the field. That's why I've been not particularly enthusiastic about Stewart Home's identifying NEOISM w/ "plagiarism". "Plagiarism" becomes the modus operandi that simple-minded people can latch onto to both explain NEOISM & to close it.
Is this a manifesto against manifestos?
I like the last question you ask very much-- & I think that's one direction that may still be possible-- maybe the sort of ironic or parodic swan song of the manifesto. Who was it-- Northrop Frye maybe in the Anatomy of Criticism-- who formulated that styles, movements, & genres proceed through successive stages-- each terminated finally in some sort of ironic mode? Sounds like a Hegelian idea.
But perhaps another direction-- maybe a more "transcendental schichophrenic" one-- might be a manifesto in favor of the infinite proliferation & succession of the manifesto itself: the manifestoization of life & universe. Call it "¡Manifestoism!"or whatever.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, tENT,about the closure which coincides with the "defining" aspects of manifesto. &, as you state, part of that closure belongs to the false sense of unity a manifesto creates in defining any polymorphous & heterogeneous movement as a singular phenomenon. A desire to totalize a field of discourse-- which, as I recall-- is an impulse that Lyotard critiques as part of the ideology of modernism, tracing it back to those unifying discourses of the nineteenth century-- including those of Marx, Freud, Darwin, et al.
But a point that I was trying to make in my post-- & I stumbled over it way too quickly there-- was that the manifesto is unique as a discourse genre in the way that it constitutes a "radical performativity." & this I would not dismiss.
Let me break down that last phrase in quotations & explain what I mean by it. I'm using the term "performative" in a manner similar to that of J. L, Austin in his essay titled "How to Do Things with Words." In that essay, Austin notices that we usually think of language as a description of the world-- this use I think I recall he refers to as the locutive-- I may be wrong. But Austin also claims that generally we fail to consider that language has another function--that it can perform certain "acts"-- it can do things-- sort of call things into existence. I wish I had a copy of his essay to refer to, but since I don't I have to rely on my memory of his argument. His examples would be something like the manner in which the justice of the peace can call a change in social relations through the utterance of a phrase like "I now pronounce you husband & wife."
I have long been critical of Austin's analysis-- not because it is skeletally incorrect-- but just because Austin fails to note the social & political dimensions of the powers of the performative. Most speech acts have power to make changes in social status or to define our relation to the world by means of their connection to the codes of authority incribed within the culture through which they are performed. I cited laws, rituals, & diagnoses because these domains quite clearly demonstrate what I mean. Laws come into existence-- but only when authorized by the judicial system. A diagnostic change in social status-- say, the labelling of a individual as schizophrenic, sociopath, or whatnot, is authorized by the medical institution. Rituals, even very ancient & archaic ones, are also typically supported by hierarchical codes & differentiations made within the field of the socius-- afforded to priests, or shamans, perhaps to the social organization of the community as a whole-- or simply to a kind of "specialist"-- an executioner, for example-- who may not have a priviledged staus within the social hierarchy, but who does have a very limited, well-defined, & identified role within it.
So, from my point of view, what Austin misses is that most "perfomative" uses of language are also a repetition & reenforcement of the extant hierarchy of cultural codes, values, & means of organizing human life through a top down articulation of power.
I see the manifesto as equally "performative" in the sense that Austin seems to mean to utilize it-- but exceptional in that its means are almost completely "unauthorized" by such codes of individual difference & such hierarchies. "I" or more often "we" call something into being through the manifesto by an appeal to some abstract principle independent of these socail codes-- in the Communist Manifesto that principle is the negation of exploitation, in dadaism, that principle is the negation of enlightenment & romantic thought as well as the negation of the western conception of art/aesthetic-- the undoing of the hierarchy of seriousness over laughter, etc.
I called the manifesto an "anarchist" genre-- & I still beleive that it is-- because it displaced the power of creating through words from the machinery of social organization as it exists, to the force inherent in an individual or group of individuals willing to work together to determine a course, create, reorganize a community, call forth, imagine, & change.
& that I see as a powerful value.
Let me also make another distinction that Austin fails to notice-- this is the distinction between the "immanent" power of words & the "extrinsic" power of words. Austin writes almost as if all performatives have an "immanent" power-- that is, by ignoring how spech acts are supported by the "social contract," he writes almost as if language has the magikal power to bring things into the world independent of belief systems, ideologies, & the obligations of mutual agreements & contracts among individuals.
Many mythologies also express a belief in the immanent power of the word-- at least in some form. For example, in the judeo-christian-islamic tradition, god calls the universe into existence through a speech act. I think the ancient egyptians believed that the god ptah had similar powers.
On the other side of the matter, a good materialist thinker-- & I fall closer to this position-- would argue that the power of ALL speech acts is extrinsic rather than immanent-- they all depend upon some shared code of belief-- some form of agreement within a community to abide by the conditions of power, shared principle, etc in order to enact their own form of efficacy-- whatever that might be. & I would say, in this aspect, manifestos are not different than other forms of perfomative discourses-- it is just that the individuals or communities who/which authorize
them, do so from a different locus of power.
Where I want to go from here is to evoke another distinction, made by Victor Turner. He distinguishes between the initial stage of community formation, "communitas"-- which grows from a collective sense of "flow" (a term he borrows from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) & unites individuals under a shared sense of belonging, & "societas"-- which is a sort of tribal allegiance marked as much by its exclusion of others from the group-- a principle of closure, difference, individuation of the group formation. Actually, his formulation, found in the essay "From Liminal to Liminoid" is a bit more elaborate than I'm making it out here-- but I'm trying to condense enough to fit this all into a single comment. Here is a quotation directly from that essay: "Communitas tends to be inclusive-- some might call it 'generous'-- social structure tends to be exclusive-- even snobbish, relishing the distinction between we/they & in-group/out-group, higher/lower, betters/menials."
Manifestos seem to perform both "communitas" & "societas."
I guess what I would like to consider is how a manifesto might generate the "communitas"-- which I see as an opening of human potential, connectedness, & belonging-- WITHOUT creating the "societas"-- which I think tENT & I both see as detrimental to a truly radical & revolutionary project-- that sense of closure, separateness, & false unity or totality.
A manifesto for & against the manifesto?
What about a humanifesto-- or does that sound too archaic? A postparadigmanifesto? Maybe just a postmanifesto-- which we could send by mail...
But perhaps another direction-- maybe a more "transcendental schichophrenic" one-- might be a manifesto in favor of the infinite proliferation & succession of the manifesto itself: the manifestoization of life & universe. Call it "¡Manifestoism!"or whatever.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, tENT,about the closure which coincides with the "defining" aspects of manifesto. &, as you state, part of that closure belongs to the false sense of unity a manifesto creates in defining any polymorphous & heterogeneous movement as a singular phenomenon. A desire to totalize a field of discourse-- which, as I recall-- is an impulse that Lyotard critiques as part of the ideology of modernism, tracing it back to those unifying discourses of the nineteenth century-- including those of Marx, Freud, Darwin, et al.
But a point that I was trying to make in my post-- & I stumbled over it way too quickly there-- was that the manifesto is unique as a discourse genre in the way that it constitutes a "radical performativity." & this I would not dismiss.
Let me break down that last phrase in quotations & explain what I mean by it. I'm using the term "performative" in a manner similar to that of J. L, Austin in his essay titled "How to Do Things with Words." In that essay, Austin notices that we usually think of language as a description of the world-- this use I think I recall he refers to as the locutive-- I may be wrong. But Austin also claims that generally we fail to consider that language has another function--that it can perform certain "acts"-- it can do things-- sort of call things into existence. I wish I had a copy of his essay to refer to, but since I don't I have to rely on my memory of his argument. His examples would be something like the manner in which the justice of the peace can call a change in social relations through the utterance of a phrase like "I now pronounce you husband & wife."
I have long been critical of Austin's analysis-- not because it is skeletally incorrect-- but just because Austin fails to note the social & political dimensions of the powers of the performative. Most speech acts have power to make changes in social status or to define our relation to the world by means of their connection to the codes of authority incribed within the culture through which they are performed. I cited laws, rituals, & diagnoses because these domains quite clearly demonstrate what I mean. Laws come into existence-- but only when authorized by the judicial system. A diagnostic change in social status-- say, the labelling of a individual as schizophrenic, sociopath, or whatnot, is authorized by the medical institution. Rituals, even very ancient & archaic ones, are also typically supported by hierarchical codes & differentiations made within the field of the socius-- afforded to priests, or shamans, perhaps to the social organization of the community as a whole-- or simply to a kind of "specialist"-- an executioner, for example-- who may not have a priviledged staus within the social hierarchy, but who does have a very limited, well-defined, & identified role within it.
So, from my point of view, what Austin misses is that most "perfomative" uses of language are also a repetition & reenforcement of the extant hierarchy of cultural codes, values, & means of organizing human life through a top down articulation of power.
I see the manifesto as equally "performative" in the sense that Austin seems to mean to utilize it-- but exceptional in that its means are almost completely "unauthorized" by such codes of individual difference & such hierarchies. "I" or more often "we" call something into being through the manifesto by an appeal to some abstract principle independent of these socail codes-- in the Communist Manifesto that principle is the negation of exploitation, in dadaism, that principle is the negation of enlightenment & romantic thought as well as the negation of the western conception of art/aesthetic-- the undoing of the hierarchy of seriousness over laughter, etc.
I called the manifesto an "anarchist" genre-- & I still beleive that it is-- because it displaced the power of creating through words from the machinery of social organization as it exists, to the force inherent in an individual or group of individuals willing to work together to determine a course, create, reorganize a community, call forth, imagine, & change.
& that I see as a powerful value.
Let me also make another distinction that Austin fails to notice-- this is the distinction between the "immanent" power of words & the "extrinsic" power of words. Austin writes almost as if all performatives have an "immanent" power-- that is, by ignoring how spech acts are supported by the "social contract," he writes almost as if language has the magikal power to bring things into the world independent of belief systems, ideologies, & the obligations of mutual agreements & contracts among individuals.
Many mythologies also express a belief in the immanent power of the word-- at least in some form. For example, in the judeo-christian-islamic tradition, god calls the universe into existence through a speech act. I think the ancient egyptians believed that the god ptah had similar powers.
On the other side of the matter, a good materialist thinker-- & I fall closer to this position-- would argue that the power of ALL speech acts is extrinsic rather than immanent-- they all depend upon some shared code of belief-- some form of agreement within a community to abide by the conditions of power, shared principle, etc in order to enact their own form of efficacy-- whatever that might be. & I would say, in this aspect, manifestos are not different than other forms of perfomative discourses-- it is just that the individuals or communities who/which authorize
them, do so from a different locus of power.
Where I want to go from here is to evoke another distinction, made by Victor Turner. He distinguishes between the initial stage of community formation, "communitas"-- which grows from a collective sense of "flow" (a term he borrows from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi) & unites individuals under a shared sense of belonging, & "societas"-- which is a sort of tribal allegiance marked as much by its exclusion of others from the group-- a principle of closure, difference, individuation of the group formation. Actually, his formulation, found in the essay "From Liminal to Liminoid" is a bit more elaborate than I'm making it out here-- but I'm trying to condense enough to fit this all into a single comment. Here is a quotation directly from that essay: "Communitas tends to be inclusive-- some might call it 'generous'-- social structure tends to be exclusive-- even snobbish, relishing the distinction between we/they & in-group/out-group, higher/lower, betters/menials."
Manifestos seem to perform both "communitas" & "societas."
I guess what I would like to consider is how a manifesto might generate the "communitas"-- which I see as an opening of human potential, connectedness, & belonging-- WITHOUT creating the "societas"-- which I think tENT & I both see as detrimental to a truly radical & revolutionary project-- that sense of closure, separateness, & false unity or totality.
A manifesto for & against the manifesto?
What about a humanifesto-- or does that sound too archaic? A postparadigmanifesto? Maybe just a postmanifesto-- which we could send by mail...
Mod
Anyway, you're bringing up Austin is very pertinent. Have you read the part of "Paradigm Shift Knuckle Sandwich" yet where such things are gone into? When a manifesto is put forth, it's usually the 1st articulate statement of a usually (but probably not always) sense of purpose of a small group of people. Creating the manifesto not only makes their ideas clearer for themselves, it helps other people identify that purpose w/in themselves - thusly enabling the spreading of the actualizing of the purpose. That is a language "act", I suppose, in the Austin sense (in my very limited 'understanding' of it).
So, in the sense that the manifesto doesn't only actuate b/c of its position in the social whole but also b/c of the ability of language to call attn to something already felt - thereby bringing to the surface something w/in enuf individuals to create a "zeitgeist" - it creates the social whole, IMO, as much, if not more, than it relies on a pre-existing one for effectiveness.
Anyway, excuse the simplicity of this comment! My excuse is that I'm writing hurriedly before I have to make food & rush off to work on my barely functioning bike.
tENT, well, writing hurriedly or not, I think you manage to express, quite clearly & directly, what I was trying to get at in my typically circumlocutionary verbiage. The penultimate paragraph of your last comment captures very succinctly what I was attempting to tease out in my elaboration on the "radical performativity" of the manifesto.
Yes, indeed! I have read that section of PSKS-- & when I finally send you back the manuscript, you'll see that I was a bit critical of Austin in my marginalia regarding some of the areas discussed above-- particularly in regard to his apparent blind spot concerning the social codes and structures which support the power of the word-- critical of his failure to make the "invisible" ideological powers which support the efficacy of speech acts "visible"-- of the sort of "mythological" thinking which regards such power as "immanent" in the word itself, fabricating an illusion of word-magic because it hasn't dug far enough into the social & political dimensions of how words are used & how it is that words do things. Well, Wittgenstein's writings on language don't really go into these areas either-- but I don't get the sense when I read him that he is fabricating an illusionary metaphysics of the word in the same way that Austin is. I don't know why.. Wittgenstein seems more aware of the basically tentative & provisional nature of the connections between thought, language (games), actions, & realities.
I know that I keep perseverating on the term, but Wittgenstein's notes seem more in keeping with the "constructivist" approach that I'm still struggling to push & develop in my own processes of understanding. (I don't mean to imply that Wittgenstein is a constructivist per say.)
I've been wanting to write a book on the subject for some time-- some little voice rattling around in my head keeps telling me to do so-- but I'm frightened that I have neither the intellectual capacity nor the fortitude to research the subject thoroughly enough to accomplish this. I've even thought of a variety of potential titles: "Towards the Revolutionary Practice of a Radical Constructivism," "transcending the absolutes & resisting the relatives," "A Pliable Paradigm," "From the construct to the connective," "Ties Unbound: Anarchism & Constructivity," "A Brief History of the Human Organization of Thought Concerning the Organization of Human Thought,"-- I dunno-- maybe these could also be chapter titles. I'm fairly certain I'll never write this text-- unless I do so, however minimally, within this very discussion group.
But I suppose that if I were to write it, it would be a sort of manifesto-- at least, I would hope it would have something of the manifesto about it-- fierce & gritty & filled with fire, storm, tenacity & courage.
Beyond my own self doubt, & back to your last comment, the hourly demands of earning "a living wage" in a position which barely fulfills such a necessity, makes the dream of completing such a project seem, if not impossible, at least monu-mentally difficult.
& yet the little voice continues to insist: "Push, still push, beyond the limits & margins & through the outer rim-- towards, ever towards, this, that & the other."
Yes, indeed! I have read that section of PSKS-- & when I finally send you back the manuscript, you'll see that I was a bit critical of Austin in my marginalia regarding some of the areas discussed above-- particularly in regard to his apparent blind spot concerning the social codes and structures which support the power of the word-- critical of his failure to make the "invisible" ideological powers which support the efficacy of speech acts "visible"-- of the sort of "mythological" thinking which regards such power as "immanent" in the word itself, fabricating an illusion of word-magic because it hasn't dug far enough into the social & political dimensions of how words are used & how it is that words do things. Well, Wittgenstein's writings on language don't really go into these areas either-- but I don't get the sense when I read him that he is fabricating an illusionary metaphysics of the word in the same way that Austin is. I don't know why.. Wittgenstein seems more aware of the basically tentative & provisional nature of the connections between thought, language (games), actions, & realities.
I know that I keep perseverating on the term, but Wittgenstein's notes seem more in keeping with the "constructivist" approach that I'm still struggling to push & develop in my own processes of understanding. (I don't mean to imply that Wittgenstein is a constructivist per say.)
I've been wanting to write a book on the subject for some time-- some little voice rattling around in my head keeps telling me to do so-- but I'm frightened that I have neither the intellectual capacity nor the fortitude to research the subject thoroughly enough to accomplish this. I've even thought of a variety of potential titles: "Towards the Revolutionary Practice of a Radical Constructivism," "transcending the absolutes & resisting the relatives," "A Pliable Paradigm," "From the construct to the connective," "Ties Unbound: Anarchism & Constructivity," "A Brief History of the Human Organization of Thought Concerning the Organization of Human Thought,"-- I dunno-- maybe these could also be chapter titles. I'm fairly certain I'll never write this text-- unless I do so, however minimally, within this very discussion group.
But I suppose that if I were to write it, it would be a sort of manifesto-- at least, I would hope it would have something of the manifesto about it-- fierce & gritty & filled with fire, storm, tenacity & courage.
Beyond my own self doubt, & back to your last comment, the hourly demands of earning "a living wage" in a position which barely fulfills such a necessity, makes the dream of completing such a project seem, if not impossible, at least monu-mentally difficult.
& yet the little voice continues to insist: "Push, still push, beyond the limits & margins & through the outer rim-- towards, ever towards, this, that & the other."
Mod
As for yr ""Push, still push"".. Ain't that what MANIFESTOS are for? To try to push the limits of what we can imagine a bit further & then further still? It's the NOT-FALLING-OVER-THE-PRECIPICE-OF THE-CRACKS-WE-PUT-IN-OPPRESSIVE-'REALITY' in the process that's a wee tad tiny weenie bit hard at times. Goo goo.
tENT, I've been thinking about manifestos since you first posted on your intention to write one. While I'm still not commited to a stance, here are my diverging (from each other) thoughts:My first reaction was - no, not a manifesto! After all, you are the single most prolific individual (I know of) who has consistently subverted his entire life the notion of branding. And, as we know, this notion is what enables the capitalist dynamic of approapriating everything. The moment something, no matter how radical, becomes consistently identifyiable, it becomes brandable and therefore commodifiable. Only look no further than Punk. So, I tend to consider manifestos as such unifying tools that make a movement, agenda, etc, consistently (and succinctly) identifiable.
On the other hand, manifestos also can have the magical quality of declaring an intent out loud, and of inserting a new focus in the universe of discourse (as you pointed out). In other words, of bringing a tactical approach to the level of strategy, thus disrupting ever so slightly the strategic network of power.
These are my divergent arguments which I haven't yet managed to reconcile, but I thought it would be useful to put them out for consideration.
Mod
IN SUPPORT OF FUN & AGAINST POLARIZING "AUTHORITIES" VS
the idea of revolutionary guerrillas creating situations intended to bring into overtness the intrinsic nazism of legalised power. i.e.: polarizing "authorities" vs..
- vs what/whom? - those who didn't choose "their leaders" & who don't want them or any others?
this polarization means bringing a war into overtness w/ the idea that the majority will as a result understand that these "leaders" lead them into illusions of wide open space
- lulling them w/ a security the falseness of wch relies upon having the possibilities that the "security" creates seem greater than those that it represses
- a security wch is actually the security (minimum & maximum) of a prison w/ wallpaper murals of (mediocre representations of) idyllic landscapes & prisoners willing to lock themselves in..
- as if a war can be won?
i have no faith in the masses' ability to cope w/ serious thought (is it too intimidating & tiresome for them? - not necessarily.. - maybe most people are just too busy for such things)
the masses are the masses because
they are different
from those who are different
(trying to write these things to my satisfaction can seem so futile)
- & a possible difference is their wanting security to be provided as a commodity. i.e.: a "security" provided by an external source - a false security wch is the security of being led ("by the nose") - of being relieved of the tension of decision making.
the idea of the fun guerrilla as possibly more revolutionarily effective insofar as it presents the happiness potential of revolution & insofar as it relaxes people from the tension of serious decision making by presenting them w/ the possibility
of playful roles wch are flexible (unbinding) enough not to involve life & death polarization.
"police/criminals" catalyzed to laughter by a person facing possible "victimization" from them might perceive the person & the situation in a changed enough way to disarm the rigidity of the roles
(but you'd better be a damn good comedian if you want to survive long! - don't try stupid jokes like this:
"What's the difference between a W.A.S.P. & a Let-It Bee?
- Imperialistic Homings." - NYUK, NYUK, right?)
fun guerrilla not as ridicule (contrary to popular opinion)
- ridicule just perpetuates the polarizing, the rigidity, the tension, & the victimization..
TOWARD A REVOLUTIONARY THEORY (& SENSE) OF HUMOR
- tentatively, a convenience
(Psychopathfinder & Jack-Off-of-All-Trades)
"Slightly odd to me that as important as manifestos have been to me, I have never actually written one-- something I should very much like to rectify before I leave this world-- the only world to which I profess a sense of belonging-- & one still very much in need of the affirmation of the manifesto.
Perhaps the forum of Cognitive Dissidents might be a place to begin such a project...."
Furthermore, Ben Opie responded to Bruce's idea favorably, SO:
In honor of this proposal there's now the new MANIFESTOS folder here & this is the 1st topic in it. I reckon the idea is to post either someone else's manifesto or one of yr own - w/ the idea being that it might generate discussion.