Etiquette versus “take me as I am or else I’ll eat you alive!”

I do feel that it is a great loss that the formalism of relationships seems to have been entirely lost in the west. In some ways this is a good thing — but in other ways it leads to a very vulgar naturalism, which predictably turns all women into the most natural objects of all: a child’s mother. This is why I did not follow through on my diploma of education, despite completing all the academic requirements for it. I could not stand the sacrificial role, which really I was not temperamentally suited to, and which would have been like doing everything with my left hand (I’m right-handed).
I’m thinking that if I teach, I’d like to do so in a more authoritarian culture (it is unfortunate that ‘authoritarianism’ is seen only as a negative word, because, as I explained, without some degree of formality implied by this term, us women end up all cast in a role which is dominated by the absolute tyranny of the students’ undisciplined and unconscious minds).So, ideally, I would be more than happy to teach at a small African university, wherein formality still applies.

Actually, I remember feeling, as I tried to do my practical teaching module at a high school that something about the mode required of me, indeed, something about the mood there was like cannibalism. Psychologically, the experience impacted on me as something repulsive, like eating fresh blood. I later realised it was because the psychological boundaries between student and female teacher were deliberately broken down. Anyways, that is the meaning of the extending your arms to allow the leeches and ticks to feed.

So, it’s another day for sparring tomorrow, and this time I will try something a bit different. I will carbo load tonight, eating fried rice, with very little oil. I will get up early tomorrow, and eat breakfast before 7. I will refrain from drinking dehydrating coffee.

What I dread is that feeling you get at some point in sparring — either because you’ve been hit, or because your body is screaming its pain at exertion. It produces a sudden sense of electricity running through you, as an alien form, as if changing you into base matter, against another force that’s trying to resist. Such is the pain of semi-contact sparring (sometimes we make contact).

Needless to say, the pleasures outweight the pains. More tomorrow.

Nietzsche, followed by Bataille

I would say that there are “tensions” (rather than psychological contradictions exactly) in Nietzsche’s oeuvre, and that his student Bataille employs similar strategies: You must lose yourself in order to find yourself — thus, the meaning of the intellectual maze. (Bataille, I think, creates a more convincing and maze-like maze). This is Nietzsche:

Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now, alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you. The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies, he must be able to hate his friends. One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a student. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers-but what matter all believers? You have not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.

…………

Bataille tries his best to rescue Nietzsche’s misappropriation by the right by combining his own Nietzscheanism with Marx, and by making sure that the boundaries of experimentation (the zone of losing oneself and finding oneself again) involves the kind of self-risk which is detached from militarism, but attached to eroticism, gift-giving, and religious sacrifice. He also wanted to ensure that such experimentalism would give the subject a deeper sense of being physically as well as historically implicated in the universal human condition, so that we would act with deeper self awareness. He made a strong effort, in other words, to turn ‘Nietzscheanism’ to the left, in the face of the nazi onslaught.



In the light of this, Richard Wolin’s hostile comments about Bataille (ie. using the term “left fascism”) are superficial — a kind of historically belated “own goal”

Getting through

Some women, unlike me, do want a stereotypically feminine vocation. In actual fact, I read in Virginia Woolf’s THREE GUINEAS that, according to her, women cannot understand the lure of war, only the lure of nurturing. (I said to Mike, “What about Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg — weren’t they around approximately during Virginia Woolf’s time?” They had a spirit of war, even if they did not support war.)

Just like most rational people, I want things to be easy for me. Yet having my brain bored through full of holes of boringness is, at least for me, excrutiatingly painful. For this reason I find myself at odds with my environment most of the time.

I cutaway the bungled and malfunctioning shute up above my head, and fall to earth under the flurrying mushroom splash of new salvation in a freshly opened reserve.

I rape and pillage when the time allows, before the sun starts setting.

I make hay whilst the sun shines.

GOLDMAN 1869-1940
WOOLF 1882-1941
LUXEMBURG 1870-1919

Dream ‘scape

We reached the checkpoint at the top of the mountain, but my father ignored it. He went straight through, veering sharply to the right. I noticed that he’d set us on a course on which he’d lost control. In fact, he was becoming faint — and we were on a steep and curved decline. I said to my sister, who was also in the back seat — we need to wrestle control. Either this, or we die! She was reluctant. She said, “First we need to get a glass full of water, and then we need to stand on it, one foot on each edge. That’s the only way to apply the brakes.

I jumped into the front seat and grabbed the steering wheel. I must have blacked out, for the next minute I, and several others, were encased inside a mountain prison.

We were actually inside the mountain. In a lift, with iron bars, we sat upon a bench, enclosed by darkness. The point was to get to the base of the mountain. There was no other way out. But the lift inside the mine (for that is what it also seemed to be) stopped as we went down, at every level. I jumped off my seat to prize open rusty iron gates, at every level. I felt the lack of air, a sense of oxygen starvation before I could open one gate. It swung open easily.

At each point, I discovered how the rest of the world lived. At one level, when I’d managed to squeeze through the iron gate, I saw the keep-out signs against intrudors. The driveway and the sign that warned us not to enter were immaculate.

We went further on down, trying to get to the root of the mountain, to make good our escape.

exercise in attentiveness

I’m learning these days to bring my self image more greatly into line with who I actually am. I don’t think I’ve ever had a distorted one as such, but we all wallow a little bit in ignorance because of transcendent identity structures (cultural ideas about who we are). We don’t alway observe ourselves carefully enough, in order to know ourselves. We are inclined, rather, to shop for an identity in the supermarket of culture, and put it on and wear it proudly.

You are not your transcendent identity. Gloriously — you are more than that. Pathetically — you are less than that.

You can tell if your identity is one that you have shopped for or not by the need to be defensive about it. Having bought your identity in the Ladies Boutique, you want to display it in your own Fashion Bizarre. You are defensive of your purchase because it is something external to you, and yet is the product of your internal judgment — a product of your “choice”.

But the desginated role of “choice”, used to express one’s inner self is an atrophication of the inner self and its potentialities. You are not the image you have chosen as the representation of yourself. That is merely a delusion.

You are, rather, as Bataille teaches, “immanence”. You are the pleasure that you receive in the moment, and you are the facilitation of these disappearing moments of breathless life. This is pathos. This is also ecstasy.

Enjoy the close embrace.

fighty fight!

Fought a probation purple belt yesterday, twice my size — and I guess he was tired, but I more than equalised him. Did three rounds of wrestling, two rounds of focus mitt work, half a round of shadow boxing, and two rounds of sparring. Today I did three thirty second sprints on the beach. Yesterday I paid for a tang soo do competitor to enter a tournament in Maputo, Zimbabwe.

Identity politics and psychological violence

Whilst I believe in standpoint epistemology — the notion that those who have been oppressed can often read the political system much better than those who are the oppressors, I’m no believer in identity politics as such. I’ll tell you why.

There is too little difference between the position of liberals, who categorise people according to oppressed and oppressors and the position of the right, which has the same demarcations, but uses other terms.

I’m too left wing to be liberal. But also I have standpoint experiences of my own. I understand personally and profoundly how attributing a certain identity to someone can facilitate their destruction. The liberal classification of people into groups of oppressors or oppressed is far from innocent. The harsh divisions of people into social identities may seem necessary in order to fight back genuine oppression. But, like insurgency and guerrilla warfare, it is not free of violence. Nor it is the case that the violence is lessened by being ideological rather than physical in its nature. As liberals themselves know — or ought to know — the two are inextricably linked.

Western identity politics was new to me when I emerged from Africa, and was labelled white as well as western. Of course, I knew that I was white — but I had nothing in common with you other whites. I understood neither you culture, nor your motivations, nor your methods of socialisation. Nonetheless, as I have remarked on before, I was considered “white” — absorbed into a monolithic category, which excused those who found me unusual for my actual cultural background from having to engage with me to find out who I was.

White identity…. In narrow terms, I’d had such an identity when I was in colonial Africa, but this was not in western terms at all — or barely. I was part of the new generation of Zimbabweans who went to school with those who weren’t my colour. (I say this as a neutral fact, but nonetheless the fact that I have said it will seem to appeal to salacious minds, as if I was arguing for or against the reality. Not at all! I’m representing it as a fact.) I didn’t find anything odd about this. Indeed, I didn’t find it odd that some of my best friends were blacks (once again, salacious minds on the left and right will rush to do their ‘moral’ calculations.)



Anyway, when I came to Australia, I discovered that since I was part of monolithic whiteness, that I should feel guilty or at least uneasy about concepts of blackness (Watch my language!), because it was the duty of monolithic whiteness to feel this way. I was reprogrammed and acculturated to watch my Ps and Qs and to lose my ease of associating with people from other cultures.

That was violence. It has taken me a long time to undo the violence wreaked on me by those who remain ignorant about different cultural attitudes towards identity. The additional violence in treating me as an oppressor if I mentioned where I’m from destroyed my health and livelihood for a long period of time — proving that ‘oppressors’ are often not who or what we think they are. They can be nice “liberals” or well-intentioned leftists as well as being from the hard right.



le bruise


Well, I’m still as fast as I plan to be in the gym. Yesterday’s couple of rounds was a return after a week and a half absence, and I will say that this is a bad thing. You need to be in the mind of boxing, to do it well, which means keeping your eyes open as a flurry of punches come in. (Traditional Muay Thai practitioners go waist deep into the ocean and smash up the water to cause it to enter their eyes as training to keep their eyes open during a bout.)

The progress I have made in the past two weeks is clearly not stylistic, but in terms of body mass. My neck and shoulders are much bigger now (not so well evidenced by the pictures, which were taken from the base of the boxing ring — hence the distortion of the images). When I lean my neck backwards, I feel that I am being cradled in something like a plastic baby chair on some parental backseat. It is actually extra sinew and fibre.

In other news, I’ve noticed some amount of bruising.

Addendum–Apparently, it’s rope burn, from when I was pushkicked back against the ropes.

beyond identity politics: Marechera and my world

For Marechera and those of the generation whose parents fought in the war for independence (Rhodesian civil war), things fell apart, as well, in more ways than we could have told. We were the children of our parents – and therein lay a problem. Neither Marechera nor I had any choice in the matter. His awareness of politics and the world around him would have been taking form in his teenage years, when the white colonial regime of Rhodesia declared its independence from Britain, thus crystalising the political structure of the society as a system which would probably be white-ruled for a long time to come. 

Five years before I was born, the country had seen the beginnings of a guerilla war – for there were those who wanted their independence from the whites, whereas the whites wanted their independence from Britain. So, I was born into a situation that had a backdrop of guerilla war and suppression of black ‘insurgency’. I was born on the white side of the fence, in glorious and expansive rural style suburbia. (Not so fantastic that we could afford more than one family sized coke a week or have a car that wasn’t beat up, however.)  Marechera was born into rural huts and ultimately into the black ghetto of Vengere Township. Given these obvious differences, what can we have in common?

We were both children of our parents. Neither of us decided to afflict war on each other. That was a decision undertaken by those who represented our parents. Marechera and I were both in some sense born on the wrong side of the fence. The global community was for the black guerilla fighters and against the white oppressors, and yet, in actual fact, they were taking sides with one or other of our parents. We – the children of our parents – were never asked about our views. We were never given a choice. So, it was that Marechera, child of his parents, grew up struggling against the tide. Offered an education in English, he was keen to follow through in order to get out of his ghettoised environment. Meanwhile, his parents raged against him learning English, causing him to burn his school books in anguished confusion or protest. I, on the other hand, the child of my parents, was caused to emigrate a few years after the guerilla war had ended with the country falling into the hands of a black majority. Being the child of my parents, the war didn’t end there for me. In fact, it was only just beginning. For little did I realise that sacrifices do not go unrequited. The Rhodesian war only began for me, upon migration to Australia, when I had come of age. I was 16 at the age of my Zimbabwean exit. It was the year 1984. We had barely found our feet in an altogether different culture, when it was already time for me to requite the parental sacrifice.

It began with condemnation that I was both socially lost on one hand, and that I was adapting to what must have been presumed to be the nefarious and decadent values of the first world, on the other. Poor adaptation and the cultural values that I had adopted through partial assimilation meant that all my parents’ sacrifices to maintain an ideological purity had been entirely in vain. I was not growing up with the values that they had battled for against Dambudzo’s parents. So, I was worse than a traitor, from my parents’ point of view. I was somebody who was undoing history – and undoing them, in the process. Each difficult step I made towards adaptation to the new and foreign culture earned its punishment. To break me down and make me repent was my parents’ goal – the unspoken agenda they had against my growing up in ways which hadn’t been prescribed.

The tyranny of straightforward things is more oppressive and more degrading than such idle monstrosities as life and death, apartheid and beer drinking, a stamp album and Jew-baiting. One plus one equals two is so irrefutably straightforward that the unborn child can see that even if man was wiped off the face of the earth one plus one would always and forever-equal two.


[92]

Who is Dambudzo Marechera and what does he mean to me?

Not too many people outside of Zimbabwe have heard the name of Dambuzo Marechera,  while many have heard of Chinua Achebe, whose 1958 work, Things Fall Apart, was hailed as the definitive African novel. For Marechera, as well as for me and so many others of the generation whose parents fought the second Chimurenga or Rhodesian civil war, things fell apart, as well, in more ways than we could have told.

We were the children of our parents – and therein lay a problem. Neither Marechera nor I had any choice in the matter. Marechera was born in 1952, into a rural community in what is now Zimbabwe. When he was about to turn 16, I was born. His awareness of politics and the world around him would have taken form in his teenage years, when the white colonial regime of Rhodesia declared its independence from Britain, thus crystalising the political structure of the society as a system which would probably be white-ruled for a long time to come.

I was born three years after pronouncement of white independence. Five years before I was born, the country had seen the beginnings of a guerilla war – for there were those who wanted their independence from the whites, whilst the whites wanted their independence from Britain. So, I was born into a situation that had a backdrop of guerilla war and suppression of black ‘insurgency’. I was born on the white side of the fence, in glorious and expansive rural style suburbia. Marechera was born into rural huts and ultimately into the black ghetto of Vengere Township. Given these obvious differences, what can we have in common?

The question might well be asked, and the most honest answer is that we were both children of our parents. Black and white we may be, but neither of us decided to afflict war on each other. That was a decision undertaken by those who represented our parents. Marechera and I were both in some sense born on the wrong side of the fence. The global community was for the black guerilla fighters and against the white oppressors, and yet, actually, they were taking sides with one or other of our parents. We – the children of our parents – were never asked about our views. We were never given a choice.

So it was that Marechera, child of his parents, grew up struggling against the tide. Offered an education in English, he was keen to follow through to get out of his ghettoised environment. Meanwhile, his parents raged against him learning English, causing him to burn his school books in anguished confusion or protest. I, however, the child of my parents, was caused to emigrate a few years after the guerilla war had ended with the country falling into the hands of a black majority.

Being the child of my parents, the war didn’t end there for me. In fact, it was only just beginning. For little did I realise that sacrifices do not go unrequited. The Rhodesian war only began for me, upon migration to Australia, when I had come of age. I was 16 at the age of my Zimbabwean exit. It was the year 1984. We had barely found our feet in an altogether different culture, when it was already time for me to requite the parental sacrifice.

It began with condemnation that came about because I was both socially lost on one hand, and that I was seen to be adapting to what must have been presumed to be the nefarious and decadent values of the first world, on the other. Poor adaptation and the cultural values that I had adopted through partial assimilation meant that all my parents’ sacrifices to keep up an ideological purity had been entirely in vain. I was not growing up with the values that they had battled for against Dambudzo’s parents. So, I was worse than a traitor, from my parents’ point of view. I was somebody who was undoing history – and undoing them, in the process. Each difficult step I made towards adaptation to the new and foreign culture earned its punishment. To break me down and make me repent was my parents’ goal – the unspoken agenda they had against my growing up in ways which hadn’t been prescribed.

This brings me to why I relate so much to Marechera. Reading his works, I am made aware of how the simplicities of our parents – and indeed of the global community, in supporting one faction of our parents against another parental faction – have led to intellectually impoverished perspectives. Marechera and I have both revolted against moral, social and political oversimplifications, in favour of a level of understanding that takes into account the human elements of suffering, and what it means to be historically (and socially) contingent beings – the children of our parents.

Reading Marechera’s works, I encounter the complexities of emotional life, in forms which do not compromise the meanings of experiences, in order to please the powers that be. Marechera writes in a complex way and this complexity is his integrity, for as he says:

The tyranny of straightforward things is more oppressive and more degrading than such idle monstrosities as life and death, apartheid and beer drinking, a stamp album and Jew-baiting. One plus one equals two is so irrefutably straightforward that the unborn child can see that even if man was wiped off the face of the earth one plus one would always and forever-equal two. [92]

HAVE WE MET??

If you mistake mechanical pressure (skinnerian behaviourism, institutional power, or bald threats) for social interaction, then it is true to say (from my point of view, at least), that despite your imposition of power on me or over me, we have (in the true sense of being human to one another) never actually met.

And this is why I can so easily shrug off those who address me primarily as a stereotypical, Western female, or on the basis of my country of origin, or my economic status. These are not by any means categories that can enable you to know me. So, addressing me in those terms by themselves is pretty meaningless. (This is particularly a note to trolls.)

To address me as “weak” because of my gender, for instance — what to make of it? If the name-caller was able to encounter me in an interaction, each considering each other’s point of view for its merits in a way that didn’t already presume qualities derived from pre-existing notions about gender (or race, for that matter), then the encounter would be able to yield some truths about strengths or weaknesses. But, usually an encounter with somebody puffed up with bourgeois evaluations doesn’t reach this point — not even. The bourgeois individual works to avoid encounters that could turn up a different reality from that which he or she wants to embrace. The sign of a victim of bourgeois values? — as ‘dangerously’ trollish as they might like to seem, they always avoid a genuine mental encounter.

Between punishments: living this humble life

It’s funny how little the rulers of state and education understand themselves. Their mechanistic efficacy appears to me to be based upon being unconscious about who they are, what role they are playing, and so on. This blindness enables them to function, so long as they are being mechanistic, following a script. Yet should the mechanism of the script fail, it would then become necessary for those who control others to think about the situation they are in. This is where they fail.

Effective ruling depends on both the rulers and the ruled being relatively unconscious of the bigger picture which determines their allotted roles. For this reason, and no other reason, punishment is generally applied when the continuity of routine and workaday procedures fail.

There remains  a common confusion between mechanistic efficacy and social efficacy, with the former being confused with the latter. No wonder Bataille saw that bourgeois society was the lowest expression of humanity that had ever existed!

I have been punished a great deal by our bourgeois society and in various ways, when talking through a matter might have solved a problem on the spot. From a rational point of view, the bourgeois seem to delight in prolonging antagonism, but actually one goes too far in reading “will” into the mechanics of being bourgeois. They simply aren’t habituated to treating the human behind the prescribed mechanical relationship, and so exert no effort other than to punish.

And punishment, of course, creates in those who aren’t unconscious (as they are supposed to b)e, a disenchantment with the merits of the rulers.

irreverence is African, as is reverence

You should understand that I am keen on pointing out that my roots are African. So, I have some characteristics that have become a part of who I am. They are hard to shake, even though I suspect they put me greatly at odds with much of the culture around me.

My thought patterns are not culturally normal. For instance, the stoicism. I do not particularly enjoy such things as: crying in public, emotional manipulation, begging for help in an undignified way, showing fear, gushing, expressing communitarian emotions.

–Those aspects of my personality put me at odds with what is considered to be female in this culture.

Secondly, because I have an aversion to all of the above, if I do express a strong emotion about something, you had better believe that I do mean it, and that I mean it to the infinite degree, and that the people concerned had better stand up and take note, because I will pursue my goal in attempting to rectify what I see as wrong to the ultimate degree.

–This propensity for action is rarely, if ever expected. Females, in particular in this culture, but also just about anyone who is proletarian, is expected to lack will power.

There are other differences, too. My morality, for instance, is not a categorical imperative by any means, but is based upon a feeling of reciprocation — good for good and bad for bad.

Also, I have a preference for what Bataille calls “sovereign communication” rather than too direct communication. I would like nothing better than subtlety and hinting rather than someone spelling things out for me, and acting like their words are written in stone: a form of positivism. I don’t like that at all.

So, there are some avenues for misunderstanding. Another  is that I find innocent amusement in things that I am not supposed to, because it is considered immoral to amuse myself with others missing the point, or whatever.

Most significantly, this aspect of humour is often attributed to my supposed white elitism,although  to the contrary, I had picked up this attitude from black african culture and its spirit of irreverence. (Interesting — how the Western whites always read their own mean-spiritedness and other repressive qualities into me.)

this is the hatred for salvation

I read Bataille’s book called Inner Experience wherein he speaks of “the hatred of salvation” as as state of not wanting to be everything.  “NO LONGER TO WANT TO BE EVERYTHING. this is the hatred for salvation”.

So, it seems to me that he is saying that to accept one’s insufficiency without trying to change it, without working to improve oneself, or to raise oneself, and so on, is the hatred of salvation. As such, he is implying that salvation is something that we are all inclined to seek, in a sense which is not really differentiated from the religious sense of salvation.

Bataille saw it as positive to reject the idea of salvation, since investing in it robs us of our sovereignty as individuals: he preferred the formula: “The fall from grace is everlasting”. This is the position of those who do not have contempt for the reality of the here and now. Others attempt to make their way up the mountain to the metaphysical “summit”, to escape themselves. Yet in making such an attempt, they more damage than if they had embraced the sanctity of the moment. Because, ultimately, we cannot be the universal “everything” that encompasses all knowledge, all power, and so on. Also, by encountering our limits, we become initiates into knowledge concerning the substantive nature of our being.

meet the groom and bride

Still reading Simone de Beauvoir, and I’m wondering and I’m wondering. This book was published in 1949, but Lord be gracious and shed some light on things for me — some things are surely like the present.

I like the idea that Beauvoir has that women, meeting among themselves, are actually ‘behind the scenes’ of the great drama that is to be their presentation of themselves before men. It accounts for the fact that there are certain women I can talk to who really leave me with the feeling that I’ve not so much engaged with something living as talked through them. “This is not the scene, this is not the scene,” they tell themselves. Christian meetings, any events that ceremonially presequal marriage, the vulgar emptiness of time before the workers are compelled by the clock to put on their appropriate public faces — all these involve conceptually “behind the scenes” chatter. All of these situations sadden me.

Perhaps, however, this is the meaning of the inevitable and emotionally drab hen’s nights or bachelorette parties. For, according to Beauvoir, women may let down their hair in company not mixed by men. The image of a troop of women cacophornicating raucously is the stage curtain drawn back to reveal the stage cast and crew, not yet attired in mixed-company appropriate feminine dignity.

The groom has his own behind the scenes humiliation rituals. Not unlike the bride to be, he is also thingified. He is the vanishing thing of his playmates, soon to become her thing.

At the performance of the wedding, he takes pride of place, having paid his friends their paltry dues. The bride and her entourage are now transformed into perfectly tranquil social fixtures, not a hair out of place. They are now ‘on stage’ for the patriarchy.

The transformation of bride and groom is complete — he has acquired his symbolic realm to rule over. She has acquired the will to conform.

zee pill

This has been a rough week, because for some reason I’ve had the most severe allergic headache on and off, throughout the week.

It very likely has to do with my weaning from the pill. I’m giving it a break, in order to develop muscular abs. The hormones tend to weaken the muscle development in that area. Yet, I am very susceptible to wind born allergens, and somehow I seem to have less protection from the violence of allergic attack off the pill as compared to on it.

Nevermind.