Remapping
Power Relations Narratives : Poisenous Poetics
Potions
of(f) Potency
Like the search for the elusive Saturn—once
detected, now unidentifiable. Like the anxiety…a thought that it might have
disappeared. Whereas, it is there…somewhere. Only inaccessible to the sense of
sight.
Like darkness filling the interior of the house of
the stargazer. Who almost forgot that what hides underneath the misnomer might
just be observing the ungraspable vacuity, vastness of dark, ineffable spaces.
Not entirely unlike the atmosphere infused in the
”Ithaca” chapter of James Joyce’s Ulysses. It is an unparalleled
instance of the energy of resistance experienced in the encounter with the
narrative devices ranging from the point of view, via the plot, the setting, to
the characterization and the storyline itself. Namely, a contemporary reader
might need to re-sensitize to the freshness of the revolutionizing occurrence
of the narrator that mutates from the dialogue between Bloom and Stephen to a
supposed neutral position traditionally devised to secure authoritative
guidance along possibly misleading narrative paths.
None of it is true in the case of this defiant text
of Joyce’s. The voice posing the questions might be perceived as either Bloom’s
or Stephen’s, but it might not. It could be sensed at the level of narration
that is conventionally provided to connect and/or ensure a distance between the
reader and the story, but it may not. It is undoubtedly intertwined in the
tension of the negotiations between Leopold and Stephen, but it is also safely
detached in its apparent metaposition. It is unmistakably imbued in the depths
of profoundly personal endeavors of Stephen and Bloom, respectively, and their
mutual considerations of a possibility to continue the wanderings in the form
of a joint effort. However, it is also incontestably aloof while generally
observing, noting, and stating. Close, and yet unreachable. Familiar, and yet
alien. Suggestive of guiding potential, and yet, suspiciously unreliable.
A contemporary reader might be oblivious of the
revolutionary role of the introduction of such a narrative voice—between the
point of view, setting, plot, characterization—storytelling in the crevices of
narrative tissue, narrative flow generated through the oscillations between the
convivial and distrustful. To the core.
Like the hamlet son-father…and the ghost…seemingly
tangential, and yet, quirkily central to the play. Like Stephen’s response when
asked how trustworthy his theory is.
Joyce’s writing is inexhaustibly inspiring, despite
its untameably wild energy resisting any attempt to be contained within
encompassing comprehension, captured in its entirety. Or, precisely by virtue
of such an impossibility. By virtue of the capacity to be approached, if not
usurped, solely through patience and perseverance. By virtue of humbleness.
Such recalcitrance reflects a possibility of
remapping power relations narratives. It resonates with Hannah Arendt’s ruminations
about deviations in both perception and practice of authority--vapidity of
political power bereft of substantiality, based on the vacuity of flawed
projections and corrupted image of omnipotence:
Theoretically speaking,
it is as though absolutism were attempting to solve this problem of authority
without having recourse to the revolutionary means of a new foundation; it
solved the problem, in other words, within the given frame of reference in
which the legitimacy of rule in general, and the authority of secular law and
power in particular, had always been justified by relating them to an absolute
source which itself was not of this world. (On Revolution 151)
Obviously, a tendency ensuing from a delusional
sense of ubiquity and absolute power in the political realm--despite frequently
disguising it in the appearance of progress, distorting the genuine spirit of
the age of reason--indicates a truly atavistic mentality manifested in
aspirations toward an olympo-babylonian sentiment, rather than genuine
communication within the community of human beings.
Thus, just as secularization is needed in order to
sustain a distinction between the church and the state, thereby reflecting a
distinction between worldly and divine power, so is “secularization” key to the
disambiguation of the public sphere polluted with byproducts of unholy mashups
merging ethics and economics, politics and business--particulates epitomizing
bewildering cacophony concocted in the brewery of circian fake nectar and
ambrosia.
Likewise--or conversely--depending how one looks at
it, those who revel in intoxicating properties of the mimicry of solid
grounding in tradition lean in vain toward the eras bygone to prove the
anchorage to their basically reactionary mindset under the disguise of
traditional proclivities, a.k.a., conservatism. By contrast, Arendt calls for
uncompromising, nonconformist rejuvenation and recuperation of the proper sense
of continuity:
This exposure of the
dubious nature of government in the modern age occurred in bitter earnest only
when and where revolutions eventually broke out. But in the realm of opinion
and ideology it came to dominate political discussion everywhere, to divide the
discussants into radicals who recognized the fact of revolution without
understanding its problems, and conservatives who clung to tradition and the
past as to fetishes with which to ward off the future, without understanding
that the very emergence of revolution on the political scene as event or as
threat had demonstrated in actual fact that this tradition had lost its
anchorage, its beginning and principle, and was cut adrift. (On Revolution 153-154)
Because of multiple bastardization of the perception
and practice of power and rule, politics has infrequently been but a futile
reconfiguration of sovereignty. Or, attempts thereof. Being void of authentic
authority, political elites have been trying to discursively conjure up and
manipulate an image of it, hence striving to live up to the chimera thereby
produced. The flaccidity pertinent to such artificial endeavors required means
to solidify the unlikely rule. That’s the reason why aggression is often
associated with the politics of that kind. That’s why it--enchanted by a
deceitful fantasy of power--proliferates duplicitous socioscape premised on
fearmongering. That’s why, as Arendt rightly observes, nationalism is only
possible as a political means conditioned by negative social relations. It is
devised as a form of defense against external and internal threats alike. It is
imagined to have the capacity to provide social cohesion, whereas all it can do
is fabricate socio-political ties that generate corrosive energies.
Thus, the argument advocating a positive meaning of
nationalism is, predictably, untenable. As Arendt succinctly remarks,
nationalism thrives on hostility. Nominally instrumental in ensuring society’s communal being, it, in effect,
serves as a manipulative mechanism of oppressive socio-political control. If
presumable political tensions are not merely orchestrated narratives, it is,
nevertheless, highly questionable how vibrant its gregarious potential is, how
sensible the choice of defensive mode.
No wonder nationalism finds fertile soil in an eerie
alliance with religious fundamentalism and the military-entertainment complex.
Needless to say, all these instances of critique illustrate Arendt’s persistent
insistence on discerning and sustaining the distinction between the secular,
the church, and the sacred. Furthermore, they are indicative of her observation
about obsolescence and failure pivotal to the phenomena that in the parlance of
the remix spell out as olympo-babylonian aspirations: (self)dissolving noise.
No comments:
Post a Comment