Given that Tunbridge Wells (in the words of Wikipedia) "has a reputation as being a bastion of the middle class and a typical example of 'Middle England'," it might seem surprising that an "Occupy" camp might be set up there. It happens to be the most local planned or existing Occupy site, so I went along today to the inaugural General Assembly, held in the centre of town, and timed to coincide and show solidarity with the public sector workers' strike.
I turned up half an hour late, to find that they were only just beginning to sort out the spray-painting stencils to create a protest banner (somewhat bland, using the established Occupy slogan: "We are the 99% Occupy Tunbridge Wells") and people looking like they didn't know what was going on. This, it turned out, was because most of them didn't know what was going on. One of the people who had helped plan this event admitted to me when I turned up, "It's a shambles."
A jovial copper from Kent Police popped by a few times to see that everything was in order and was warmly received by those present - he might be the very antithesis of the pepper-spray/tear gas approach to policing. But then, nobody was actually trying to camp anywhere at that point.
Eventually, with the banner more-or-less completed, there was an attempt to run through the way that the consensus/General Assembly process is supposed to work, and then get started. Then we had to go through the process and hand signals again for those who hadn't turned up, then there was a proposal to break into smaller groups because it seemed as though people weren't paying attention but chatting amongst themselves anyway. Then they got the megaphone working properly so people could hear better (it was a small group, and we couldn't get consensus on whether or not to use the Human Microphone or not, because some people wanted to make quite detailed points that they felt would be hard to get across in small enough bites, and surely everyone can hear okay anyway?)
At last, everyone seemed to be involved and the GA began. And then people didn't seem involved or wanting to talk, so we got a few speeches about how bad the cuts and austerity measures are, and boo-hiss to the government, from a couple of the people who I gathered were "usual suspects" around the organisers (well, I say "organisers" - I didn't see much evidence of organisation except for the minutes of a "planning meeting" held the day before!)
The points that were to be discussed:
Shall we set up a camp today?
Where shall we set up an Occupy TW camp?
People seemed to be somewhat uncertain about both questions, and so the discussion did not remain terribly focussed. With no clear facilitator (the role seemed to shift several times, depending on which of the organisers was having most input in other respects to the conversation) the two questions kept switching over, and then got derailed by someone asking whether there would be alcohol allowed on the camp, which led to a long discussion (that started with the words, "that's a different debate, we can leave it for another time"...) about drugs and alcohol policy (most people saying "keep it off-camp").
After wrestling the conversation back on-topic, there seemed to be some agreement on one site in particular (not giving any clues) and the general sense seemed to be that yes, we should occupy straight away if we have enough people willing to be there on the first night tonight. However, no one ever put the proposals to consensus, so nothing was actually formalised!
About halfway through, during a break in the GA, a young reporter from the local paper (the Kent & Sussex Courier) came along to find out what we were all about, and a few people were happy to chip in with their explanations. At one point, when she asked for names to quote, she was told, "It's a leaderless movement." Hopefully out of earshot, I muttered under my breath, "...and rudderless, it looks like..."
If anything, this is the stereotype I have in my mind of "Middle England" - lots of earnest ideas, but hardly any organisation to sort them out. To be honest, it's a wonder how we English ever managed to rule an Empire with territories in just about every timezone! (The dinner party in the finale of Carry On Up The Khyber really does resemble the way the British do things, historically and in regards to the current financial crisis - although waving our knobs at the bankers and financiers who are carrying us to hell in a handbasket probably isn't going to be as much help to the 99% as it was for the 3rd Foot And Mouth Regiment!
It was a lot of fun, but very little seemed to be achieved. Eventually, after about 3 hours (I'd been there 2 1/2), people started to drift away and there was finally a proposal that won unanimous consensus - "Let's move the organising committee into the pub!" I opted to head home after that.
I suspect that with practice, the Occupy TW bunch will get better at holding GAs and running them smoothly (appointing a facilitator, and having a process meeting to draw up an agenda would really help! The planning meeting really should have done that).
As I write this, I have no idea whether or not there will be a camp set up tonight, but I do know that they plan to try a similar meeting and GA tomorrow lunchtime in the same place and maybe arrive at some kind of conclusions this time!
~***~
In other Occupy news, more camps have been shut down by the police in the US. It beggars belief that you would need 1,400 officers to arrest 200 protesters - the report says they operated in teams of four or five per protester, arresting them one by one. There was no use of violence by either side, and the protesters did not, it appears, attempt to resist arrest (which raises the question of why you needed so many officers to restrain each protester - if you need that many to make an arrest, why do most TV shows show cops only going around in pairs?!) This is about a show of force by the police, it seems to me, and an attempt to intimidate those who think about protesting against the government, just the way "kettling" tactics are used to intimidate law-abiding protesters in the UK. More to the point, it's about showing off to the media that "you can't trust these rebellious scum to play nicely" (hence, also, wearing riot gear and biohazard suits).
So today I had a telephone interview for a job working on the London Olympic Games next summer. This was just the initial phase of the interview process, and in general it went well (apparently, I need to focus less on my negatives in interview, but I kind of knew that already). I know it went well, because I got through to the face-to-face interview stage, which will take place over the next 6 weeks or so (I have to wait for the system to update, and then book my slot - so exciting!)
If you bothered to read the heading for this post, then by now you will either be wondering what this has to do with flirting, or else have leapt ahead to the conclusion that at some point in the interview, something happened that afterwards I thought might have been, or be taken as being, flirting.
Indeed, when I played back the interview in my mind, I wondered if somehow practically the entire interview had been me in "flirt" mode. If it was, then it's a bit of a shock because I really didn't think I had one. If it was, I don't think it quite matched the descriptions of flirting that you'll find on a lot of dating and/or pick-up advice sites, but it felt somewhat flirty anyway.
Yes, the interviewer was a woman. What happened was, I had booked a slot in the middle of the afternoon so that I knew I would be at my peak performance levels when they called (that part seems to have worked perfectly). Because I knew when to expect the call, I was sitting by the phone ready for it. The phone rings at the appointed time. I pick it up. What I hear is a woman laughing uproariously. This left me somewhat nonplussed (I mean, who rings a random person just to laugh at them?) I realised very quickly that this was some unfortunate timing issue for the interviewer. Then she explained that this was what it was, saying: "I didn't expect you to pick up the phone so quickly!"
After she checked that I am who she's expecting to speak to, we get into the interview, and I am at my bright, breezy, witty best - humour, intelligence, the lot. Some of the humour is self-deprecating (like, "Hey, I'm just reading my answers off the screen right now!" when she asked if I was good with computers - it was only half-true!) but talked about all the good stuff, and I was having fun. Evidently, I pushed all the right checkbox buttons for the interview process, because I got through to the next round. I also got the feedback that I need to focus less on the negative, as well as her feeding back her assessment of my performance (funny, friendly, approachable - NICE words! I assume that "hot" would have been among them had that been appropriate for the context ;-) ).
The interview concludes, she tells me I'm through to round 2, we say goodbye. I hang up. I frown for a moment, and say to myself, "Was I just flirting there? That felt like flirting!" And it did - or at least, it felt like how people say flirting is supposed to feel, rather than how it usually feels to me!
So if it was flirting, or at least, a mental state similar to flirting - then that raises some questions:
How does this "flirt mode" relate to my usual self/manner/mode of thinking/behaving?
Why does it seem that I get into this "flirt mode" in a telephone interview, or at the supermarket checkout, but not when I'm actually wanting to chat someone up?
Is there a way that I can get into this "flirt mode" by choice, so that I can use it in actual flirting situations, and not just telephone interviews etc?
I think one of the key features of the flirt mode state of mind is that I am projecting myself out there. It's not like an acting role where I am consciously displaying X,Y,Z characteristics, but it's also very definitely not "my usual self" as I am when I am happily going along, minding my own business and generally being the introvert that I am. It is not even a conscious decision to "be myself" (as the hackneyed advice goes) - because that, too, is an acting role where the characteristics X,Y,Z are ones that one thinks belong to this fictional character of "myself". It isn't a conscious mode-switch, but at the same time it is a definite response to the situation and results in a change of role. It's still "me", but somehow more outgoing, and the mental image I have is like a cinema projector sending an image onto a screen (which seems to make the other person into the screen onto which I am sending this projected version of me, which I am not sure is an image that suits, but may be useful anyway). It might be described as me faking it as an extrovert but I don't think that works, because that is a conscious effort when I do it.
As for why it happens in some situations and not others, that question is really hard for me to figure out. I am sure that if I told any PUA/SC guru about it, they would come up with some version of Approach Anxiety as taking me out of that confident, projecting zone, which isn't right; or that somehow I wasn't trying to impress the company on the telephone (Um, hello? It's an interview for a JOB! The whole purpose is to impress them so they want to hire you!)
One clue may be that I think I do this projecting quite often when on the phone, regardless of who I'm talking to. Maybe, therefore, something about face-to-face situations changes how likely the projecting "flirt mode" might be. But in that case, what about the checkout episode, linked above? Another thought is that I function better when I have a clear beginning and social context. A telephone call starts in a definite way (i.e. [Brrrr...brrrr... **click** "Hello?" "Ah, hello, may I speak to so-and-so please?"] - or in the interview situation [brrrbrrr **pick up phone** "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, sorry, I wasn't expecting you to pick up so quickly, is that {my birthname}?"]) It also has a clear context and purpose to the call (usually). Likewise, at the checkout there's a clear social context to the encounter. So, put me in a situation where the clear social context is to get to know members of the opposite sex, and in theory, I would be on top form, just like I was in the interview (especially if I remembered to not display lower value).
I think there is some foundation to the idea that it's something to do with telephone versus face-to-face, because I think part of it may be that I look for feedback a lot from the other person. I just can't figure out how to buy into the whole "she has to want it more than you" mentality that is pushed by a lot of PUA types because at least initially, I have to be wanting it more than her, otherwise I wouldn't be making the move in the first place! So, given that I want a response from her, I'm going to be looking for feedback to see if I'm getting that response. You get more feedback from facial cues, and that means it's easier to see yourself falling flat on your face, making it harder to project and reach out, for fear of over-reaching and overbalancing. On the telephone, you get the vocal cues but not the visual cues, which may make it easier for me to be confident and fearless about my manner and self. Which sort of raises the question of maybe trying a pick-up while blindfolded or with my eyes closed or something! Not sure that's a good idea in general, because good eye contact is an important part of appearing confident and not creepy (although possibly a suggestion for a stunt by SimplePickup, but I won't link to them because of the racism, sexism, ableism (which makes me very wary of suggesting blindfolds to them!) and many other -isms that their youtube videos portray, you can Google or search on youtube if you're curious).
Now, the final question was "how to get into flirt mode when I want it?" and that suggestion of "close my eyes to chat up women" crossed over into that territory. But, as mentioned, it's probably not a good option in practice! Might there be other ways to get at the projecting self and be able to engage on that level?
I don't honestly know the answer to that one. The best bet is simply to have a situation where it's set up deliberately to be chatting each other up. The immediate thought with that regard is speed dating, except that 5 minutes feels too short for me to get a handle on whether I like someone or not (according to Wikipedia, research has shown that most speed-daters make up their minds in the first 3 seconds, which seems odd to me). But having a situation where there's some automatic impetus or cause for the conversation, and it's understood that chat-up is the name of the game, seems like the most likely situation where I would get to use "flirt mode" while actually flirting.
Regular readers may be aware that I have, on occasion, used "So" to start a blog post, which means that I perhaps have an interest in answering back the criticisms of the tendency that are articulated by Messrs Rentoul and Humphrys. That is to say, I think there is a specific and useful purpose to the way in which "so" tends to start sentences.
After hypothesising that it comes "from the internet - comments on blogs" and possibly from "imitating academics' usage", Mr Rentoul expresses his explanations for its use as:
Drawing attention to what is being said
Draws the listener into membership of a private club, by implying a continued discussion and assuming shared knowledge
While I think that these have some weight, I think that Mr Rentoul has missed the actual structure of what is being said in a lot of examples. Mr Humphrys and Mr Rentoul laugh about their made-up examples of redundant usage, but I couldn't see those as realistic forms, unless you continued the statement further. In the example clips played at the beginning of the snippet it was also hard to gauge, because we didn't hear much of what followed the "so".
I looked back at some of mymostrecentposts beginning with "so", and looked at the way in which I was using the term, and considered whether that reflected what I think I hear in other people's usage. I think it does in a lot of cases. I think one or two of John Humphry's clips on the radio programme hinted at it as well.
Here's what I think is happening: "So" has effectively moved from being a conjunction to being an introduction.
Messrs Humphrys and Rentoul laugh about people saying, "What's the weather like?" "So, it's sunny at the moment." I don't think I've ever heard that usage. What I tend to hear/read is usage like this:
"So, it's sunny today. I think I'll go for a walk."
Effectively, this is a reordering of, "It's sunny today, so I think I'll go for a walk."
Sometimes you get repetition of "so", like this: "So, it's sunny today so I think I'll go for a walk".
"So" becomes an indicator of a preamble to the main point. The main point in the above examples, is "I think I'll go for a walk". The preamble, giving the context for that statement, is "it's sunny today". "So", in this usage, therefore has a meaning similar to "given that" or "because".
The only example from my earlier posts that doesn't seem to match this pattern is the one about dreams, where the real preamble/context element got placed inside brackets instead of as part of the opening sentence (a better construction might have been, "So I was nervous about my upcoming interview, and had a weird dream. I'd like to describe it to you.")
I suspect that this is also the way in which "so" is used in academics' speech. After receiving a question, the academic introduces their answer with the word "so" and the basis for the answer - the underlying principles on which the full explanation will depend.
There is an exception to this classification, which is what might be called the "chat-up 'so'", which is typically, a longer, drawn-out word, thus:
"Soooo, are you having fun tonight?"
This I think falls into the category of "drawing attention" that Rentoul picked out, and I think it generally works still as an indicator of a preamble, though this is like a conversational preamble - it alerts the other person that you wish to speak, and gives them time to switch their attention to you and it introduces the opening question or comment that is designed to start a conversation without necessarily being a direct part of that conversation.
For instance:
"So, do you think it will rain today?"
"It looks like it'll be fine."
"Cool. How about we go to the beach?"
The aim of the conversation is to discuss plans for the day. While the weather question might impact on those plans, it isn't the central theme, it's used to open a conversation. In my mind, I read the above example as hinting (through the use of the "so") that the first speaker feels nervous around the second speaker either because the second speaker has higher social status, or because they don't know each other well yet, or because this is actually first speaker asking second speaker on a date.
All-in-all, I think that makes the sentence-opening "so..." a useful part of speech, and a helpful qualifier in written language.
***
Mr Rentoul is identified as the author of a book called "The Banned List: A Manifesto Against Jargon and Cliche". However, jargon and clichés come into being for very sound and useful reasons.
Jargon is simply language that has developed within a community with common frequent references that need to be made. Spelling out the description each time becomes laborious and unnecessary within that community. For instance, within the BDSM community, "safeword", "vanilla", "CBT", "CFNM", "top", "bottom", "twue" etc. Of course, some terms have other uses outside the community (for instance, you don't want to get your cognitive behaviour therapy mixed up with your cock and ball torture!) Some are unintelligible to those who aren't in that community. If you don't need the terms, you generally don't learn them! It's the same for any trade or profession, or subculture. Does it serve to "exclude" people, as suggested by Humphrys and Rentoul towards the end of the clip? Of course it does, and I think some people do do that deliberately. More often, though, I think use of a community or profession/trade's jargon comes about because the user is used to doing so and forgets to shift gear for the non-member audience. Jargon is needed, and because it is needed, it can't be eradicated and people will, by mistake or on purpose, use it in general speech and not just specialised speech.
Clichés have a habit of becoming clichés because they are useful, and they are common tropes or circumstances that need to be expressed. Some words, or word-combinations, happen to fit those feelings or needs really well. Those words or phrases then become clichés through being used for that reason.
Mr Rentoul identifies "Any time soon" and "moving forwards" as particular pet-hates, but I can't think of another way to say "any time soon" that is as succinct and carries the same meaning. Thesaurus-brain says you could have "at some point in the near future" to mean the same thing, but that's a bit of a mouthful compared to the snappy, short, and instantly understandable "any time soon". If there is a problem with "any time soon", it is only that its shortness can make the person seem short-tempered: given the wrong inflection, it sounds like an accusation. Similarly, "moving forwards" is a cliché because it expresses something pretty fundamental: the idea of a project or situation progressing in the near future. It can say "we're in the middle of something and we need to work out what to do next", or it can say, "We've completed phase 1, so what's phase 2 and how do we start on it?" This makes it very useful indeed!
Clichés can be the product of lazy thought and lazy writing or speech. But they are very useful structures, so avoiding them often just becomes clumsy. Often, when the aim is the most effective and immediate communication, cliché is the best option, especially if you are confident that other people around you are familiar with the cliché. (This is not the same as "indirect language" because those forms are just a subset of cliché. Many, if not most, clichés are actually presented in direct language.)
So, moving forwards, can anyone see us losing these speech forms any time soon?
Last week, I made a couple of posts raising questions about the validity of the claims of the Occupy movement to openness, horizontal rather than hierarchical governance, and effectiveness. In a spirit of challenging my own beliefs, and because the questions I had could only be answered by experience, I decided to go to Occupy Brighton and see what an occupy camp looks like in practice. I also had a few conversations with some of the camp members, focussing on some of the questions I jotted down to ask them.
These are the impressions I got, the answers I was given, and my overall feelings about what I saw.
The first thing I noticed was that the camp was racially diverse. However, when I arrived I only saw 2 or 3 women present (including one WoC); it had quite a masculine vibe. The people mostly resembled the people I have seen at progressive movement and "alternative" events for the past 15 years or so.
I also noticed that there was one major exception to the "no drinks or drugs" rule, and that exception was tobacco/nicotine. Several camp members were bumming smokes from each other, and attempted to bum some from me (but since I don't smoke, this was unsuccessful!) When I said I don't smoke, a majority of the ciggie-seekers said "good for you!" in a tone of voice that suggested I was to be congratulated for not smoking. This aside, most people who spoke to me did so to welcome me. However, their manner was one that I again found familiar from many other "alternative"/"progressive" movement events and that I found quite aggressive or off-putting. That may be to do with my own insecurities or my introversion in general, but it was the impression I had.
I spoke to three or four people about how the camp worked, and what they saw as the "long game" for the Occupy movement. One in particular (who introduced himself as Ben), was willing to talk at length with me about these questions. I also spoke with a man in the Info Tent (whose name I've forgotten - I didn't really catch most people's names, hearing them only once or not at all), who was in fact the first person I met on-camp, really.
I opened my questioning by mentioning that I had read about the Bank of Ideas in London, and he volunteered that he had been there at the weekend. As the Brighton delegate? Yes. How was he selected? General Assembly nominated and approved him, in his absence, as the Brighton delegate (laughing, he agreed that he would have blocked the vote had he been there!) He told that he had been surprised that he was expected to give a talk about how the Brighton camp worked, "to a room of 600 people." This implied to me that he had not been given any particular instruction on how to represent the Brighton camp, so I didn't follow with that question.
I then got onto more challenging questions. When I asked, "Who, out of the 99%, aren't (represented) here?" I got a rather too quick answer, "No one." They told me that everyone is represented, "We're very diverse." I questioned further, and they explained about internet involvement, including trying to set up a livestream of the General Assemblies so people who can't attend in person are also a part of the debates. I wasn't really satisfied by the explanation, but moved on to a related question.
I wanted to know how they made sure that all voices are heard, particularly in reference to the shy or people averse to large gatherings (such as me!) The Info guy took this one for those specific suggestions, by referring to his own experience: he was shy himself for his first couple of GAs, but then there was a comment that he just couldn't ignore and he just had to put his hand up to speak. He felt that this would be a tendency for most people who attended. I questioned further, and he added that there was a kind of unofficial policy of prompting those who remained silent, to get their feedback. I was satisfied with this answer. The broader questions of accessibility overlapped with the previous question of "who isn't here?" At about this point, I raised the question of those who maybe don't feel invovled enough or don't have the energy to participate on the level that the people at camp did. One of the few women on site rattled aoff a list of heavy duties she had (single mum, full-time job, student, and I think a couple more) - and concluded "And here I am!" Thinking of my battle with depression, or of people who work a 9 hour day plus long commutes and just want to slump and relax when they get home, I suggested that not everyone has the same energy levels. I was slightly nonplussed when they said that basically, people who didn't tune in online or turn up at the Gas were "excluding themselves, we don't exclude them". I settled for suggesting that it is important to be aware that there may be silent people who aren't reached or involved, even if the movement doesn't have any way to involve them - that it is important not to pretend to include everyone if there are some people whose voices are not yet involved. In general, this is a question that nags me about participatory democracy: can people in general, as opposed to activist-minded people, be expected to want to be in on everything, or to invest time in stuff that for many may seem like minutiae or irrelevant to their own lives? Many people feel that way now, it seems to me, about things that actually do have a strong impact.
Ben spoke with me at length about his personal views on how scalable direct/participation democracy is, and what the movement's "long game" might be. He spoke about the current moves to start unifying the global Occupy movement through stronger communications. Having seen the How To Occupy site's description of their planned Global Occupy Assembly, it sounds to me like the sort of thing that is one of the big reasons I do not participate much on social media sites (even the ones that I am a member of!) I envisage overload and introvert freak-out even at the remove of the computer screen for that one. In my initial "Ordinary Commies" post, wrote:
Politically, there wouldn't be a "state" as such, because democracy would be completely devolved, with decisions being made and power being wielded at the lowest possible levels. In a way, if we consider Plato's Republic, with the "Philosopher-Kings", then that would also be a way of looking at a communist society – except that everyone would be a Philosopher, and everyone would be a King. Participation in democracy would not be a once-every-2-years affair, but would be almost daily, with the real chance of seeing one's own thoughts become developed into policy that spreads throughout society.
This was an attempt to describe the type of democracy that the local General Assemblies seem to be aiming to be. The key point I want to pick out from that passage is, "power being wielded at the lowest possible levels." My concern is that I do not know whether "Occupy Britain" (the Bank of Ideas conference and whatever follows from it) or "Global Occupy Assembly" will tend towards making a central government of "Occupy" and draw power away from the local GAs by establishing an overarching, unified, policy. I don't know if any experts on US history and the US constitution might be able to draw analogies with the issue of States' Rights versus the Federal Government in these kinds of matters?
I was more interested in asking about expanding membership and involvement of the local communities. I was told that they had spoken with a couple of thousand local people, and only two had expressed disagreement with the aims of the Occupy movement. I feel like I didn't really express my thoughts very clearly on this: I was more thinking about making more GAs, that were located in the communities and owned by them, but Ben and the others who were listening in at that point seemed to be focussed on the Occupy Brighton GA as being the centre or focal point for it all.
My last question was, "What's the long game?" or, "What do you hope/expect the Occupy movement to achieve?" In my conversation with Ben, this got narrowed down to a specific concern or question, which will be familiar from the "Could you govern a nation like that?" post. I said that I had seen two different strands of thought online: the first was that Occupy, with its participatory democracy, should become the new way of governing things, while the other was that it should be essentially a way of governing the protest, and that results eventually in a list of demands presented to the people with the power - "take power" or "negotiate with power" would have been a more succinct way of putting it, but I didn't think of that in the conversation.
Emphasising that it was his own point of view, but backed up by Info Guy and one or two others, Ben explained that he viewed it as a false dichotomy. He described a political structure whereby the General Assemblies acted as an advisory or consultant body for those who actually made the final decisions, presumably having power of veto or recall or something, if those holding the strings disobeyed too heavily (that last clause is me reading between the lines). His idea was that GAs would neither be sovereign bodies of government, nor temporary bodies of protest, but an integral part of the political structure.
To me, that sounds like a "negotiate with power" option with some bells and whistles, when I prefer something closer to a "take power" approach. That said, it seems quite realistic, and not all that different from the structure I outlined in "Ordinary Commies" (see quoted passage above).
I think I found this part of my conversation with Ben to be the most useful, perhaps because I was not coming with a direct challenge but more curious to know what answer I would get.
***
I returned to attend the camp's General Assembly in the evening. I counted maybe two dozen people in attendance, and maybe half a dozen women (give or take one or two). With that error margin, we're talking between 20% and 33% female representation at the GA, with my best estimate being 25%. UK Parliament has 22% representation of women. There were several POC there, including at least one for whom English was a second language (by his own admission). However, the predominance was for White (or at least, I read them as White), male, apparently-cis folks (I didn't ask anyone about sexuality!) I did not see any BSL interpreter present, I don't know if there would have been someone available to interpret had a D/deaf person wanted to be a part of the GA.
Before GA started, it was announced via Human Microphone that GA was running "fashionably late", as people were still eating their food. A lot of what I saw in terms of camp maintenance and food provision was familiar to me from the holidaying Folk Camps that I used to go to with my family, if not in detail then in ethos. However, I felt quickly as though I would feel "forced" into socialising (again, introvert, so please no!) if I were a regular/long-term member of the camp. What wasn't familiar was that food seemed to be quite "ad hoc" even though there was some communal catering; the folk camp tendency to sit down together at tables did not apply here, and people milled around holding a plate in one hand and a fork in the other, from what I could see.
One thing I noticed and found interesting was that the Human Microphone was not very strong in amplification while I was there. Typically, someone would call out "Mic Check!" and get a strong response. Then zie would give the actual message, and only a few voices would be heard to pass the message on (if I heard it clearly, I was one of those). Part of me wonders if there is something of the "bystander effect" involved here: people know what is expected when they hear "mic check" but the repetition of the message is less clear, and people tend not to act out of character with their neighbours - they need to feel confident the person next to them will repeat the message just as loudly, and a lot of the time it seemed as though most people didn't feel that way.
So, eventually, General Assembly started, with one of the few effective Human Microphone uses that I saw. I shall get onto why I think that is later. Ben acted as facilitator for the GA.
After running through hand signals, and outlining the agenda for the meeting, things got under way. Pretty soon, Ben was apologising to the newbies (such as me) that "it isn't normally like this". One person was interrupting speakers and making a nuisance of himself. Another was (by his own admission) very sleep-deprived, and raised his hand to speak but seemed to go off-topic, repeating issues that were to be dealt with later in the agenda anyway. At times, Be was reduced to the role of teacher in charge of an unruly class. In fact, once or twice I almost felt like his role resembled Griff Rhys Jones' character in the "Hey Wow" sketch by Not The Nine O'Clock News (starts about 2'30"):
There was some interesting debate, and I added a comment of my own, that seemed popular but didn't move things forward as I had intended it to, because it maybe didn't address what others thought was the issue or something. Anyway, most of the time I sat as an observer, with occasional show of "like" or "meh" fingers. I heard the same points batted back and forth a few times, and once again it felt very familiar from other progressive movements I've been a part of over the last 15 years. Eventually, Teacher Ben had to move things along.
Early on, the woman sat next to me asked if I minded if she smoked and, because I do mind smoke in general, I apologised but said I would mind. A little later, this question was asked by someone else in the form of "what's the rule on smoking in the GA here?" Ben said, "okay as long as no one objects". I lacked the confidence at that point to say loudly, "I object", partly because I could see no one else raising an objection and several people already reaching for their tobacco and lighters. I said it, but not loudly enough to be heard. I needed a "temperature check" to be called explicitly, then I could have made the silent gesture of "blocking". As it happened, the smoke wasn't too bad and I was able to tolerate it for as long as I was there.
Now, in my previous post, I suggested that all groups have leaders, whether or not they are recognised/identified as such. In the GA, I saw about 5 or 6 people who spoke with the sense of privilege and "I expect to be heard". Not, it should be noted, delineated along the usual lines of race/gender but present anyway. These people were sure of their footing, and of their role. In addition to these "leaders" there was Ben as facilitator. Even before he was appointed/allowed to take this role, his role as leader was apparent. Remember that effective Human Microphone? That was his call, as an instruction to the seated group, that we were to echo. People followed him as a leader. Ben seemed very comfortable with the role and the business of maintaining order. Now, I think it is true that there was not a great deal of overt influence that he had, and I saw direct challenges occasionally to his debating position, but I think it is important to notice these things and see that hierarchical relationships do seem to crop up in these groups, despite the theoretical/ideological desire to avoid or mitigate them.
I had to leave after the first couple of discussions to catch the last bus back home, and it is also valid to say that one example does not form a strong foundation to draw conclusions about what the movement is "really" like. This post is just to report my findings from this particular visit. I shall probably have more thoughts after the Occupy Tunbridge Wells initial meeting which is planned for November 30th, and is also within striking distance of my home.
At the moment, my feeling is that there is potential for Occupy to be something positive, but at the moment I am not sure that it is fully-fledged yet.
Admittedly, it was an unused building, not one where anything is being done or where the protesters might strike directly at the heart of the "1%", but in a sense this is even better, judging by what they say they aim to achieve by doing it.
The following video explains a bit more about it, with shots explaining how they got in, the notice that they are claiming squatters' rights (a squatters' rights activist group helped with planning and executing the occupation), their first press conference, and a walk around talking about their plans for the building.
I like very much this news, and it looks like Occupy London at least are looking for the bigger picture, and trying to make something change directly.
From the Guardian report (linked above):
In contrast to Occupy's existing camps in the capital – next to St Paul's Cathedral and on Finsbury Square – the new outpost will not be primarily residential but aims to act as a forum for ideas and meetings.
Called by protesters the Bank of Ideas, the buildings, near Liverpool Street, will hold an inaugural conference of Occupy movements from around the UK this weekend.
...
"The Bank of Ideas will host a full events programme where people will be able to trade in creativity rather than cash," said Sarah Layler of the group. "We will also make space available for those that have lost their nurseries, community centres and youth clubs to savage government spending cuts."
In keeping with the queries I had regarding how participatory versus representative/elected democracy could work on a national scale, I am curious about how the conference of UK Occupy movements is going to work, in terms of determining who turns up, how the concerns of the different Occupy constituencies are adequately represented, etc. Again, I am excited that Occupy London (and, I guess, "Occupy UK") is going to be confronting and dealing with those issues, by virtue of actually going ahead and trying to do it.
One question I want to raise, because this is a feminist blog an'all, and because it's an issue that I care about quite deeply, is the question of whether they are going to (be able to) use the occupied building to help victims of domestic violence? It was reported back in March that services to help them were to be hit severely by the cuts. The "to be able to" qualifier is there because I don't know whether the needs of DV survivors might require a separate building or not (for instance, due to concerns about sharing a building with male-identified folks - the footage in the video seems to show quite a restricted entrance/exit as the only one in use, which might induce very negative emotional problems). I also don't know if they would have the necessary counselling skills available to help survivors. Hopefully, they can make women's issues such as these a priority, even if they can't actually offer the practical requirements for a DV shelter.
Be all that as it may, it is a very encouraging step.
I am slightly amused at the way it was done, because it strikes me as terribly stereotypically English the way they've gone about this:
An attempt by the Corporation of London to have the St Paul's camp removed is set to reach the high court on Wednesday. The Finsbury Square camp is on land owned by Islington council, which has privately told activists it does not have the money to pursue a court case.
UBS, however, could apply very quickly for legal repossession of the buildings and request bailiffs, backed up by police, to move in. A spokeswoman for the Swiss-based bank said: "We know they're there, and we're taking appropriate action."
...
At a hastily-arranged press conference inside the UBS building, about a dozen activists answered questions while sitting on a stained blue office carpet in front of a vast Occupy London sign. The group said it hoped to avoid confrontation with police and had asked UBS about agreeing temporary use of the site. UBS said it had no comment on this offer.
In the video, the Occupiers were at pains to emphasise the above-board nature of the occupation: first, talking to the police outside, they quote the relevant section of the legislation that allows them to stay (and as the policemen walk away, a protester calls to them from the window, "Thank you very much"; then, at the press conference, they say, "There was no criminal damage, and, this is a completely legal occupation."
So, they take occupation of the building and then say to the owners, "Can we arrange a temporary use of this building?" How stereotypically English is that!? Heck, the only thing spoiling it is that they all look like New Age layabouts - if they had either shaved and cut their hair, or just worn smart business suits (not both - you need some kind of visible badge to say "we are hippie-ish protesters") then it would have been the most English-looking protest ever!
But, I love it. It's how you win this battle, I think. They do everything above-board, politely, and as law-abidingly as they can, but they still make their point, use the force that is necessary (and no more), and they take practical steps to try to make the changes that they want to see. This is what I felt was missing when I wrote my piece on Tuesday. This is what movement looks like. This is excellent.
They want the idea to catch on, too - in the press release (read out in the video), they say:
We hope this is the first in a wave of public repossessions of property belonging to the companies that crashed the global economy.
This could be the start of something big.
Now, the hard work begins: they have to repair and clean up the building they've occupied. They have to sort out the legal position so that they can actually put on the programme of events that they have planned:
There is a slight potential conflict between the protesters' stated intention to make the building a public space and its status as a squatted building. This will be overcome by designating visitors "friends" or "guests".
In the interim, the building remains shut to outsiders, making it a different prospect to the open-to-all ethos of the other camps, where passersby and local workers have been welcomed.
But this is how change comes about. If I had the freedom to go and help out, then I would, because I am not afraid of hard work when there's something worthwhile involved (like a revolution! ;-) ). What I hope is that an Occupy... movement closer to me will start up, or will occupy a building near me, so that I can get involved directly. In the meantime, I'll cheer from the sidelines. And hope. And maybe make a suggestion or two... But I'm not volunteering to organise anything (been there, done that, suffered the mental breakdown...)
Protester Fran Agnone said it did not matter that the demonstration had not achieved its aim of shutting down the stock exchange. "That will come another day," she said. "All that matters is we're changing people's ideas. It started well, and we've still got a long day ahead of us."
Protesters did succeed in marching to commemorate 2 months since the Occupy protests began.
There were protests in St Louis, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and other cities around the United States to mark two months since the Occupy movement set up camp in Zuccotti Park in New York.
Britain's young unemployed are being sent to work for supermarkets and budget stores for up to two months for no pay and no guarantee of a job, the Guardian can reveal.
...
Young people have told the Guardian that they are doing up to 30 hours a week of unpaid labour and have to be available from 9am to 10pm.
...
"I was told [the work experience placement] was mandatory after I'd attended the [retail] open day," said Reilly.
She said she felt she had to do it because, "without my JSA, I would literally have nothing".
...
But including similar schemes such as "mandatory work activity", sector-based work academies and the work programme, which is mainly run by private companies, the government expect hundreds of thousands of young people to do weeks of unpaid, and forced work experience for big companies.
I think the title I've provided for this post tells you what I think this is equivalent to, and for the record, I've been there, done that, and hated every fucking second of it. The utter fear for one's livelihood that is used to motivate people in this, is disgusting. JSA is calculated based on "what the government says you need to live" (using the language of my notifications at the end of each tax year of the change in my benefit) - it is barely enough to get by. They might as well lock these young people up in cages and give them basic food for subsistence and have done with it. (Now I've said that, of course, the Daily Mail or Daily Express will probably think that's a great idea and start campaigning for it **shudder**)
Now, I am currently not being jerked around in quite this way, despite being officially on the Work Programme. For one thing, I've shown myself to be pretty good at sticking up for myself (Letters of complaint? I can haz moar skilz in writing them!) For another, the guy who's overseeing it for me (he's from G4S/RBLI - yes, there's a link between G4S and the Royal British Legion, and they run a programme for the Jobcentre) has said directly to me (at my last appointment with him 2 weeks ago, in fact), "We are not in the business of people trafficking," when describing to me PRECISELY the problem that the Guardian article highlights, and saying that he does NOT want to be responsible for doing that. He wants there to be a realistic chance that any placement I am given will lead to a long-term, sustainable job, and that the promise of an interview is also a promise of there being a job to interview for. So, I have an ethical person to deal with, making me one of the lucky ones.
In my last post, I asked what the Occupy movement has achieved. One thing that at least shows promise from it, while not directly affecting anything concrete at the moment, is the experiment in direct participatory democracy.
We may debate for 4 hours on the siting of a loo or the agreement of anything, but you know what it is? It's not the thing we're discussing that's important, it's the unity and democracy we're building on our way to get there, and the fact that we don't leave a voice out, and that every voice is heard. And then, when you're caught up in that - yeah, we do get caught up with our own form of bureaucracy and at first I rejected it, and thought, "God, give me a benevolent dictator. You know, someone who will push this through!" But then, you've done it often enough, and you're like, "Wow, I actually trust this!"
The first question I have is one that I have heard mentioned in the resoundingly negative by various campaigners for minority rights: "What are you doing to make sure every voice is heard?" Or, put another way, "How can you be sure every voice is being heard?" While I understand that there is a system to prioritise the voices of women and minorities in the "stack" (queue of people waiting to speak), I am unclear as to how it is ensured that there is a representative sample of such voices joining the stack in the first place. I am also unclear on what the reception is like for those voices and whether they are actually heard as openly as privileged voices are.
There are also the issues of shyness or introversion that might make a person reluctant to be involved in large group debates for various reasons (fear, in the case of shyness, just overwhelmed by peopleness in the case of introversion). There are people who are just quiet in general, for those issues or others, who need to be directly prompted to share their thoughts, even when they perhaps feel quite strongly about something, or have something very valuable to put into the debate.
From what I have read about previous experiments with participatory democracy or programmes (and seen in certain classes at school where these were supposed to take place) is that these people are easy to miss unless there is someone who is alert to their silence - people who are, in effect, in charge of the debate and can direct the appropriate question at the quiet person to ensure that they speak next. I have seen groups, or been in groups, both where the teacher/chairperson did this job very well, and also been in groups where they did not do it so well, and either I have been the quiet one who missed out, or else I have spotted a quiet person and tried to draw attention to their voice so they could be heard, by asking from the floor what they feel or know and wish to say. I have had to self-teach the art of being vocal, and in fact in one fairly recent group I was someone who had to be told to pipe down so that the quieter voices could be heard.
Another issue is with the scalability of direct participation. Occupy LSX takes 4 hours to reach a decision. I don't know how many people that involves, but I'm guessing we're talking in the low hundreds for the biggest gatherings? The town I live in has a population somewhere in the low tens of thousands. How are we to govern that many people through their own self-government via direct participatory democracy? How long would it take to make a decision? How many decisions can be reached in a day, and how many do you need to make in order to run a small town like where I live, function properly? While people are making these decisions, who is doing the necessary work to put the last lot of decisions into practice?
At some point, it seems, a shift from direct democracy to representative democracy would be inevitable just to keep things from becoming bogged down. Either that, or participatory democracy becomes a form of peer pressure in which not all opinions are freely voiced or fully heard.
This video from MsNikkiyork highlights some of the concerns I have about this:
MsNikkiyork starts by explaining the hand gestures that are used to signify assent, dissent or veto during a debate. After describing the veto gesture, she notes that,
In the beginning days there used to be a lot of people jumping up and going like this [makes the gesture] ... but it's a very diverse movement ... so you gotta actually be able to voice YOUR voice. Because the intention of that movement is to speak as one voice.
Which is the first hint I get that maybe freedom of speech isn't as free as they imply. And, personally, I am a stubborn bitch when I think I'm right. It sounds as though there's not much space for persuasion by argument (which is what you need to do to get me to shift).
Then we get a gesture for "direct question". Again, MsNikkiyork says:
When it was a smaller movement, that happened a lot, so people talking back and forth, now it's hardly possible to do that, but I guess it still happens.
After explaining the "human microphone", which is the system whereby people nearer the speaker repeat loudly the speaker's words so that people further back can hear them, and so on, MsNikkiyork also describes the General Assembly:
You go to the facilitator and have yourself put on stack ... with any opinion you are having. You could go there as a racist Nazi and say whatever you want. What you would have to face is that people go like this [dissent gesture] or this [veto gesture], but you know, that's up to you. So, it's very direct.
So then, you can talk, and with the human microphone, it becomes very obvious you can't just talk bullshit, because everybody has to repeat what you're saying.
So it becomes very disciplined, what people are saying. It also becomes very disciplined in the sense that people stop saying things that not everyone will agree with, or feel well with. So that makes it really, very basic, but also very strong.
So that sounds like the typical thing of dissenting voices actually being discouraged from speaking.
It also sounds like deeper, more developed, philosophies are also discouraged from being transmitted or expressed to the larger group. It is all very well having a few broad stroke ideals that you talk about a lot, but at some point you need to be able to get deep into the beliefs that uphold them, and into the practical consequences of them, and how you're going to resolve those. As near as I can figure, the committee/working group system is an attempt to resolve detailed issues in various specific areas of policy and action, but at that point not everyone is involved in those debates, and it seems to me that the depth and breadth of political thought must be restricted by such a system. Sure, a wide range different positions might be held, but there's no opportunity to get right into them and challenge and develop ideas together.
The danger I see in all this is a tendency towards groupthink - though MsNikkiyork says it's okay to disagree on things, there seems to be implicit in what she describes, a tendency to limit the scope for people to disagree and a tendency to lose nuance in the debate.
One more concern I have, not directly mentioned yet in the stuff I've read, is to do with the whole "no leaders" thing. Put simply, I don't believe it. While I believe that there are no appointed leaders or officially recognised authorities, what I also believe is that in any group there will be people whose voices are heard more frequently and with more support than others, and who may end up by force of personality or strength of their apparent support base, carry others along with them. I believe there are also people in any movement whose perceived knowledge, experience or confidence in some area will make them the de facto authority on that area, and culturally people start to defer to their opinions as well as to their knowledge, on those issues. Thus, leaders and authorities do exist in any group, whether they are recognised as such or not. Such people have the tendency to shape things around themselves in various ways, not necessarily by conscious will but simply because they are heard more frequently, and with greater support or deference, than others. Sometimes this is simply because that person tends to voice what others are thinking but not voicing, so the people's ready assent is not anything directly influenced by the leader, but rather zie starts to accrue an aura of leadership through repetition until you get to, "I agreed with hir last time, so this must be a good idea".
The concern to which this gives rise is a concern about accountability and power. When you know who your leaders are and who is influencing opinion strongly, then you can watch them and keep an eye on how they use the power that they have been given by the people around them. If, however, you claim that there are not leaders, and everyone is an equal part of the group, then the influence still happens but now we cannot see directly who has it and how they are using it. It becomes much harder to hold them to account for the effects that they have, because "everyone is equal".
Since I haven't been to an Occupy site (I may investigate the Occupy Brighton site next week, as the only one in easy travelling distance for me), I am not making these points as any criticism. In fact, I am making them in the hopes that they can and will be answered by the developments in participatory democracy that take place in Occupy groups - or have already been answered. Maybe, for example, my belief in the existence of leaders in any group is mistaken, and can be proved wrong by people who are there. Or maybe, ways have been found to keep leaders from acquiring power and followers where none are meant to be.
The point of this is not to say that the Occupy... experiments in participatory democracy have failed. I think that they do show that some system that functions at least as well as what we have now, could be envisaged. The point is more to say, "Can this be scaled up to a national government?" and "Can it be made to be something definitely better than what already exists?"
With the eviction last night of the "Occupy Wall Street" camp, I am left asking myself what, exactly, the "Occupy" movement has achieved so far. I have been thinking about this for a while now, in fact, but as ever, events have prompted me to get off my metaphorical arse and write about it.
First, I want to write about the eviction itself. It is clear to me that the purpose of the eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park has been conducted in the manner calculated to cause the maximum distress for the protesters. It is a clear and unambiguous act of harassment and an attempt to discourage protesters from future action.
Mayor Bloomberg (also, the eviction notice) has told people that the purpose was to remove health, safety and fire hazards, that were supposedly impinging on the protesters and people in the surrounding community. He argues, strangely, that these concerns trump the US Constitution's provision of free speech rights. He added that, "Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others," and "We could not wait for someone to get killed." Be that as it may, the main aim, and the aim cited on the eviction notice handed out at 1am local time, was "sanitation" and health and safety.
So, I thought about what the rational thing to do if my aims were, as Mayor Bloomberg says, "guaranteeing public health and safety, and guaranteeing the protesters' First Amendment rights." I would think that the best option would be to give plenty of notice, probably 24 hours at least, at a time when people are capable of taking it in coherently (i.e. not the middle of the night). This notice would explain the exact concerns that justified the need for sanitation action, and would allow provision for those willing to vacate the space temporarily to do so without confrontation. It would also allow the possibility that the occupiers might correct the issues themselves.
Here's what Bloomberg says about the reasons for the timing:
This action was taken at this time of day to reduce the risk of confrontation in the park, and to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighbourhood.
From the sound of the reports of the aftermath of the eviction, the second aim spectacularly failed and perhaps an orderly clean-up of the style I envisaged would have been better at avoiding disruption! They also did not avoid confrontation, because a core group of protesters resisted the eviction anyway, which is probably what would have happened whatever time of day the eviction took place.
Bloomberg's justification only makes sense if you view protesters as an unreasoning mob who must be treated brutally and put back in their place. It is clear from his remarks about lawlessness that this is exactly how Bloomberg views them. The aim is to make protesting seem as unpleasant as possible, so that people with legitimate grievances will not voice them. The media blackout on the event by the police, preventing reporters from witnessing what actually took place during the eviction, also speaks volumes about how they view freedom of speech and information. (Again, health and safety trumps freedom of speech - Bloomberg says it was out of a duty to "protect" reporters...)
So, I am disgusted at the actions of authorities in New York, but hardly surprised.
With the second Occupy Oakland eviction in recent memory, the ongoing stand-off in Occupy LSE, and the fact that winter and cold weather is creeping in (making camping outdoors seem like a bad idea in general), I am left wondering what this has actually achieved beyond a big dose of media attention that, while obviously helpful to get people talking, doesn't actually make anything change for the better.
Ultimately, my frustration is this: when I see a movement called "Occupy", I expect it to bloody well occupy** something. By which, I mean something a bit more significant than a lawn. Alright, a park is a BIG lawn, but it's still basically a lawn: a bunch of grass growing in a patch. If it wasn't a lawn, you'd have a bit more trouble pitching tents there!
When I first heard the name, "Occupy Wall Street", I thought naively that the protesters were actually going to go into the buildings and institutions that make up the centre of capitalist finance and occupy them, preventing them from being used and perhaps even either using their devices to remake the system, or else trashing the joint. That's an occupation. That's occupying. That's a protest that has an impact. Similarly, when you call yourselves "Occupy London Stock Exchange", what I expect you to do is get inside the building and occupy it, denying it to the oppressors. But no! Their highest ambition was to camp outside and when they were told "no", they sat outside St Paul's Cathedral instead.
It may just be a quirk of media reporting on the issue, but I really cannot think of a single concrete change in policy or legislation or behaviour by the governments or private businesses that are the supposed targets of these protests. I have heard a lot of weasel-words from them, but nothing concrete seems to have changed. Indeed, it seems more often that friends of the protesters have been brought down by virtue of their resigning over disagreements with their bosses.
I have argued before on this blog that there is no such thing as peaceful protest, because by-and-large, protesting peacefully doesn't do anything, and more often than not if there's a chance it might, then it gets treated as though it is violent protest anyway. I sat down and thought about the last time that an organised (or even, disorganised) protest actually effected change in government policy in this country. It's now just over 20 years since the last one I can think of: and that was the Poll Tax Riots that led to the toppling of the then-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (although her party remained in power, and there is some reason to believe that they may have rigged the 1992 General Election, but that's just conspiracy theory, right?) and the abandonment of the tax. That was not a peaceful protest. I can't even think of a successful peaceful protest that had a significant effect in this country. Wikipedia informs us that "suffragette" is a term that, used correctly, only applies to "those who used violent protest". In general, it seems as though the rule is, if it changed something, then violence (or at least, the credible threat of violence) was involved somewhere.
So, the question arises again: what has the "Occupy" movement actually achieved? What have they done, and what movement have they created? They haven't occupied anything (see footnote again re: North America). They haven't moved anywhere or moved anything either: indeed, the whole thing is a misnomer as far as I can see!
The freedom of speech that is so vaunted in the US, seems to add up to very little at the moment. What is the right of protest, if protest does nothing? It is only this: you have the right to whinge. You have the right to choose a tyrant for the next few years, and then you have the right to complain about that tyrant until you choose the next tyrant. If the tyrant in question owns or runs a multinational corporation, then you only have the right to choose your tyrant if you buy shares in the business. Sure, you can set up your tents, wave your banners, play your drums and whatnot, if it makes you happy. If it clears your conscience to say, "Look, I said I wasn't happy, so you can't blame me for this mess." But if the mess is still there in the morning, then what good did you really achieve?
** I'm approaching this from a more Eurocentric perspective, with the European socialist understanding of occupation; I recognise the contextual inappropriateness of the term in North America due to the occupation of lands belonging to Native groups by European settlers.
I started to think about this consciously tonight after watching a documentary about George Harrison, and in particular about his explorations with Eastern mysticism.
One thing that struck me in particular was a clip where he and the other Beatles were talking to an interviewer about what the purpose of a mantra was in meditation and they all said that the idea was to stop thinking or having thoughts, and if you notice yourself thinking you repeat the mantra over and over to blank out the conscious thoughts and get back to "not thinking". That contrasts somewhat with my own spirituality, and I'll explain exactly in what way in a moment.
So, anyway, because I feel myself to be a very spiritual person in one way or another, I started thinking consciously about what my own spirituality was, starting with this sense of comparison against that one thought and then spreading out to think about the other stuff that I've learned or developed ideas about through my living.
That word, "living", struck me as being a pretty important one in terms of understanding what spirituality means to me. My spiritualism is above all an embodied and experience-based spiritualism. Feelings, awareness, thought, meditation, even - all these things that are a part of a soul, spirit, mind, whatever you want to call it - are to me things that relate in some way to a body, and that body relates back to them.
This is not to say that we should focus on the sensual realm to understand the spirit: rather it is to say that, while some pleasures are undeniably sensual, those pleasures do not reside only in the body but in the soul as well: because the soul is where pleasure is experienced. Equally, some pleasures are spiritual in nature, but unless I'm doing ti wrong, these pleasures bring a feedback to the body and feel good in the embodied self as well: tensed muscles start to relax, breathing becomes easier, and so on. There are bodily changes, as the spiritual pleasure is experienced. We cannot divorce the body from the spirit or vice versa, and neither can we understand them as antagonistic or contradictory realms, as St Paul seems to view them.
Which leads me more or less to my differences with the meditation that was discussed in the George Harrison documentary. The idea of leaving earthly things, and of "not thinking" seems like an odd thing. Not impossible - I believe people who say they achieve it through meditation - but ultimately rather pointless. Of course, when the laser was invented they thought it was also a pointless exercise building such a thing, and now look at what lasers are good for, so it could just be a blindspot in my understanding. But to me, the aim of non-thought seems rather like building a musical instrument and then nobody ever plays it (or perhaps, writing a wonderful tune and then never playing it on the instrument it's written for). Instruments are meant to be played, and tunes are meant to be played on instruments (where instrument includes voice, or hands, or whatever).
There is also a personal thing: for me, the idea of aiming for non-thought feels just a little bit too much like the experiences of depression that I have, which for me involves feeling cut off from my body in a way that deadens the spirit as well (you can see where some of my view of spirituality comes from, perhaps!) There is research that suggests depression really does leave perception of the senses dulled and weakened. Thinking itself becomes sluggish and reluctant, almost, "why bother?" To aim deliberately for a state that sounds like that but taken to extremes, seems absurd. George Harrison talked about a feeling of bliss from his meditation, and I have no reason to doubt his reports of his experience. I just do not believe that it would feel that way to me.
But, I have tried meditating, or at least, something that to me seems like what meditation involves, after my own fashion. For me, the aim is something more like tuning the instrument in the previous analogy. It's about focussing on simple things of awareness, and experiencing my embodied self purely as a body at rest, with maybe just one or two sensations going around and really "listening" to my body in itself.
Another thing for me is that spirituality is about being open to the moving of one's own spirit. Most people when they talk in terms of spirituality seem to have a hierarchy of more acceptable or less acceptable feelings and sensations, with the acceptable ones being "spiritual" and to be cultivated and the less acceptable ones being "mundane", and to be avoided. You can see what St Paul thought about those by following the previous link!
I tend to be less picky in that way: I believe anger, fear, pain, and so on, can all be positive things and feelings to which we should listen and of which we should be spiritually aware and welcoming. Not in all cases, though, but then, there are cases when it is mistaken to be welcoming of pleasure, calmness, love, etc. Love can lead to very harmful actions where it is not understood (by the person feeling it) or it is misdirected. With both these things, it is important to listen and understand that link between the embodied emotions and the spiritual element. Being aware and alert to one's own state, I have found I have sometimes felt emotions and realised that something was misleading me; examining and looking for what lay underneath the emotion, I could find out why the potentially harmful feeling was there and dispel it or redirect it constructively. But sometimes, being aware and alert just allows me to give myself to my emotions confidently, or to deal with them.
Given my BDSM leanings, it may come as no surprise that my spirituality reflects, and is reflected in, my kink and how I relate to it. BDSM is embodied stuff, and also works on a mental level. It is very much the case that when I have a partner tied up and I'm beating her so that she cries out in pain, that I am being violent, I am being sensual, I am being embodied. But it is also a spiritual experience and, though there are those violent emotional components, in that moment I am typically also very calm, very aware, and indeed, in a form of blissful state on a spiritual level. Likewise, when I am the masochist and/or sub role, experiencing the pain brings embodied reactions, and there is a "negative" side to it, but there is also bliss, joy, release, and lots of the stuff that goes with "positive" spirituality.
I couldn't understand a spirituality that tried to separate the two, that said that there are feelings that are always bad, or say that the "earthly" things need to be left behind. There can be no transcendental without the mundane. The best things happen where the two meet. Yes, there are feelings that cause harm, and need to be understood and redirected or dissipated; but those cannot be classed as "hate is always bad, love is always good", because sometimes hatred is what motivates us to make things better, and sometimes love leads to us holding onto things that no longer help us but hold us back.
One of the rather less feminist-y things I watch on television (or iPlayer) regularly is James May's Man Lab. James May is one of the comic presenters on Top Gear (another shameful thing that I watch regularly) and in Man lab, he sets out to reinvent masculinity by finding masculine things that men used to be able to do, or he feels we should aspire to do, and explaining them.
The most recent episode had James May visiting Savile Row and a bunch of fashion students in order to reinvent and redesign the boiler suit as something that isn't just for dirty work, but that could be pulled straight from the wardrobe, put on, and serve as everyday wear, evening wear, or indeed any purpose. These designs were then presented at the big student fashion week (the name of which escapes me).
Annoyingly, the only clip available from the BBC has the rather basic versions, modelled by May and his producer:
Youtube contributor slashgirl71 was a part of the show, and although their video only features the same two designs, the response is nice to see:
Of course, the full segment of the show concludes that the idea won't catch on, but I liked it, especially the evening wear version that pretty much makes getting ready for a posh do so much easier. It struck me that a smart one-piece suit would go a long way to solving my issue of feeling like a performing monkey when I have to dress up for an interview or whatever, and one or two of the designs in the programme seemed to me to be ideal. And, some of the more fancy pieces looked like a lot of fun to wear in the right context, too.
I was left wondering, though, what the female fashion equivalent would be. Or indeed, if such a thing is impossible because most fashion for women is already designed with display in mind, even when it's supposedly about practicality?
In which Director Gattell and Dr McDonald reveal more of their control-freakishess.
Part 22
When Doctor McDonald removed Asira's girdle and dressing back art the medical centre, she was relieved to see that the stitches had not, after all, been torn. The wound had seeped considerably, however, and the dressing was soaked through with Asira's blood.
“You're very lucky you didn't do worse,” Orla chided the cyborg agent, “As it is, you are going to have to spend a few more days with limited movement. You said you'd be 'just about permitted to shuffle to the toilet and back', well thanks to your irresponsible behaviour that just about sums up the restrictions I'm putting on you now. I am going to recommend that you be considered restricted to quarters, where 'quarters' means this med bay. If you make sufficient progress in your recovery then I will consider lifting that restriction in a few days' time. Is that understood?” The doctor's anger was a surprise to Asira, who had never seen her in that mood before. It may have been simple professional pride that caused it, or a deeper concern for her patient, but either way, it showed a steel to Orla's temperament that was new to Asira's understanding of the doctor. From her memory, she dredged up the fact that Orla had in fact earned the rank of Captain in military service, and it was now apparent that she had the spirit still of a field commander.
***
The atmosphere in the Director's office was tense. Doctor McDonald had placed a call to Gattell as soon as she had made sure that Asira was adequately restrained. She had not been joking when she said that Asira needed restricted movement to be allowed to heal, but right now there was no doubt she was also being prevented from rebelling further, at least until the decisions had been made here.
The Director was frustrated and showing the signs of stress, Orla noted, and knew she was in for it.
"So the Agent was allowed to run off despite being seriously wounded and under your care? How?"
"She is a professional, sir, as is everyone on this base. I expected her to wander a little because it would be good for a soldier like her not to be too heavily confined. I did not expect her to head off into the wilderness. As you see, I am now requesting an armed guard placed on her until I declare that she is fit enough for light training to begin. I will not allow this to happen again."
"Yes, I agree. Agent Asira has been less stable since her injury than normal and we must take that into account. I have another concern, however. You say she met another of the Agents?"
Orla made a mental note that the "we" probably referred to herself at least for the short-term.
"Yes, sir. Charles V, it seems, was doing his pre-mission practice in the firing range when Asira Y went to try to obtain a weapon there. You can get a more detailed description of the encounter from those present, or wait to interrogate Asira Y in person when I am satisfied that her medical condition is suitable. Right now, I think she needs to stew for a bit in as solitary as we can manage while still treating her injuries properly."
Gattell was the second person that day to be caught out by the doctor's mean streak.
"You mean to use this to punish her for escaping from you?"
"Yes, sir. I think this may just bring home to her again that her actions have inevitable consequences, and in this case there are serious medical consequences that require treatment and, unfortunately, those will require her to stay where she is and see as few people as possible until I say otherwise."
"I see. I will arrange to have soldiers posted outside the medical centre to stop her from leaving. Contact me when you have decided to declare her fit to leave. That is all."
"Yes, sir."
Orla turned and left without a word.
***
After the doctor had departed, Director Gattell sat at his desk for a moment. He did not know what to make of the development that Agents might start to form relationships with each other. It was not an issue that had ever arisen before, with Agents spending so little time awake on base under normal circumstances. There had, of course, been Agents requiring medical treatment before, but they had generally been healed quickly or else requiring such serious treatment that rehab took place entirely within the medical centre and gym. There just wasn't much opportunity for meetings to happen. He sighed. "I should probably have realised that they would get together sooner rather than later," he muttered to himself. It was just typical that a potentially unstable Agent would be the first one to contact another Agent outside of the initialisation process.
The cyborg Agents were supposed to be the ultimate professional special forces/espionage soldiers but Gattell now wondered what ideas about their status and role they might form if they got together. However much he needed them to believe that they were accepted, he knew that their experiences and lives were so different from what a normal person could have, even from a normal soldier could have. Both Asira Y's mental state and this new spectre of cyborgs interacting with each other added new unpredictable elements to his job. There was nothing he could do about it right now, but he would make sure he monitored the situation and hopefully he would be able to head off any trouble that might ensue before it did any damage to himself, the project or the base itself.
He picked up the phone and made the call to set up the guard on Asira.
I have, to my shame, been hooked by this years X Factor, and my pick for the overall winner has to be Misha B, who just seems awesome almost every week.
However, I have absolutely loved it for Frankie Cocozza's rock'n'roll style, and the fact that he actually lives the lifestyle properly. At the risk of sounding like an old man, I can just about remember there being a time when you weren't doing it properly unless you did all manner of drugs, sex and other crazy stuff.
But Mr Cocozza's "wannabe rockstar antics" (that seems to be the phrase that journalists like for it) have got him kicked off the show.
This video explains more:
Essentially, the voiceover explains that there are "golden rules" - a list of "showbiz commandments" - that contestants have to stick to to stay on the show. There is speculation (reported by some sources as fact, but that's what tabloids do...) that Mr Cocozza boasted (within earshot of people working on the show) about taking cocaine and having sex - apparently, these are things you don't get to do on the X Factor.
Ofcom apparently also criticised ITV when Frankie swore on the results show at the weekend after being told he'd survived in the competition, and his behaviour has been alleged to "glamorise alcohol consumption". For fuck's sake, what else are rockstars supposed to to do?! More to the point: rockstars' tendency to break the rules is a part of what makes them, and their rule-breaking, seem glamorous in the first place.
You can't have a show called "The X Factor", seeking performers who have the "X Factor", and then turn around and say to someone who shows it, "Um, well, we quite like your 'factor', but can you tone down the 'x', please?" If what you want is safe, nice, take-home-to-meet-your-mother type performers, then call it "The Safe Factor" and have done with it.
Like I said: Frankie Cocozza is doing what stars are supposed to do, and my opinion is that the guy has the stage persona to carry it off. If Misha B is the finished product as a singer and artist, then Mr Cocozza is the finished product when it comes to rock'n'roll. I am convinced that if you give him a good backing band he will fill big venues, and sell records, because he has that "something".
What I fervently hope for now is that some record company or artist management company will contact Mr Cocozza and offer him a deal, and get this fella out there and in the attention of the music-buying public. I want my nostalgia for the good old days when popular music was brash and annoyed the older generation. (I almost typed "like me", but at 33 I'm not sure I qualify yet for "older generation".)
All of which is not to say that I think taking drugs is a good thing, or something to which people should aspire. Rockstars are not supposed to be role models for our own behaviour, but I think, part of our way of living vicariously and allowing ourselves the fantasy of being bad. We need people like Frankie Cocozza, who can go out and choose to skate on that edge for us. trying to make life, music, whatever, be all clean and lovely and "nice", erodes the very things we have famous people for in the first place.
The Priest running the finding spells called Orla McDonald fairly quickly.
“She didn't want to be found, Doctor,” he apologised, “It's making everything much less precise. However, here's what I've got. She's somewhere near the perimeter fence, and probably now trying to return. I tried dowsing the map but only got an approximate reading. She's somewhere in the region of this grid reference.” And he gave the coordinates as they appeared on the base maps. “I would say maybe a couple of hundred yards in each direction.”
“Thank you, Priest, I appreciate your work.”
McDonald immediately called the lieutenant and passed on the information from the magical search. The lieutenant in turn radioed his search parties to direct them to the right area. Unfortunately, he had sent them to points some distance from the identified grid reference and it would take up to an hour for them to get to the area where they needed to be. McDonald was worrying now. The fact that Asira was missing this long seemed to her to increase the chances that she had done something to undo the healing that had already started. If she had ripped the stitches open again, she could even be bleeding to death right now. Some would call her melodramatic for that, but Orla knew that a stubborn streak meant that Asira was likely not to take it easy, and that increased the chances of her having done serious damage to herself.
***
Two squaddies responding to the lieutenant's radioed call to change the search area jogged across the rolling countryside inside the base.
“I think it's just a fitness thing, I bet there's no 'bot out here at all, they're just making sure we're up to spec.” said the first.
“Yeah. Why else would they send us all that way and then drag us back over here? At least they chose a nice day for it, could be pissing it down with rain. That's what they usually like to do.”
“Too right!”
They were slowing down, not taking the call and search seriously, but also not really wanting to be the ones who found the cyborg first. Although their CO had told them there was no threat, they figured that if the cyborg needed finding then it must have gone rogue and they were just trying to keep it quiet and not alarm the whole base. That was if it was true. Some of the guys had suggested that it was a training exercise for tracking an intruder, and now these two had decided that it was purely to check their fitness levels. So although there was a tinge of fear to their attitude, nobody was really taking it seriously.
Right up until they stumbled – almost literally – upon the prone body of Agent Asira Y. She was in the middle of lifting herself back up to her knees to resume shuffling towards the base.
She reacted first:
“What the fuck... Look where you're fucking going, arseholes!” she swore, the impact of the cursing lost as her voice croaked and gave out.
The squaddies sprang their standard-issue assault rifles to their shoulders to cover the injured cyborg, not realising that had she really been any kind of threat their slow reaction time would probably have meant they were already dead before they did anything.
The first squaddie radioed back to the lieutenant, “We've found your rogue cyborg, sir, threat is contained.” The lieutenant didn't bother to correct the soldier right there, but instead called the medical centre.
“Set a charm beacon and protect the target,” ordered the lieutenant, “Inform the target that Doctor McDonald is coming to collect her now and the target is under orders to wait and rest until the doctor arrives.”
He was somewhat careless in his manner as he obeyed the instructions: “Hey, 'bot! The Doc says you're to stay put until she gets here!”
“Fuck you!” sneered Asira, angered at the slur and frustrated that she couldn't in her current state do anything to punish the man for it. She rolled herself into a sitting position, and with difficulty crossed her legs, gazing with contempt back at the nervous soldiers who watched her and twitched at any hint of sudden movement. Asira wanted badly to scare them further, but despite the radioed orders (Asira had overheard them, of course) the soldiers were more intent on protecting themselves from her, and she knew that if they got too jumpy then a bad twitch of a trigger finger could be disastrous for her long-term prospects.
***
It took fifteen minutes for the jeep carrying the paramedic crew, accompanied by Doctor McDonald, to arrive on the scene, using the signal from the charm beacon to head straight to the point much more precisely than even a map reference could give.
McDonald told the squaddies to head back to base as she hopped out of the jeep, because she could see that they were not handling the situation well. Almost without drawing breath, she turned on Asira.
“If I have to strap you down in future to stop you doing this kind of thing, I will. And right now, you ARE going to be strapped to a stretcher, you ARE going to return in that fashion to the medical centre, and we ARE going to check just how much time you've added to your recovery time.” All the worry and stress of the previous few hours went into her voice as anger. For once, Asira did not have a quick retort, although she wanted to resist as the paramedics laid her back on the stretcher and, just as Orla McDonald said, strapped her to it before lifting her into the back of the jeep.
The doctor did not immediately start to investigate what Asira had done to herself, that would wait until they returned to the medical centre and the ride back would not be smooth. Webbing cushioned Asira from the worst of the uneven ground but it was still not conducive to good medical care.
Orla regarded her seriously.
“I mean it, you know,” She said, “I really will have you strapped down if I feel I can't trust you to stay out of trouble like this. Your duty now is to obey my orders and get yourself fit for service as quickly as possible, do you understand?”
Asira gritted her teeth, barely able to bring herself to give the answer. “Yes,” she finally spat.
They passed the rest of the short journey in silence.
