Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:34:16 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: hegemony, direct action,


Hi People
Two coins of a foreign currency (Israeli Agoras)

> > I feel that direct action entails a radical refusal
> > to acknowledge the
> > legitimacy of the capitalist hegemonic avenues of
> > conflict resolution.

Direct action is many different things. It is of course not
a 100% support for the legitimacy of the parliamentary
process, but it is not by itself revolutionary.

Direct action can be of the level of symbolic disobedience to
catch the interest of the media. It can even be a shout without
permission in the parliament by a member of pro-capitalist
coalition... or even also an expression of rightists opposition to
the democratic decisions....

It can just be a a means to do PR for a specific cause one pursue,
but it can also be on a level that question the legitimacy of the
capitalist system.

Promoting it as a challenge to the capitalist democratic process
is usually one of the characteristics of the out-of the parliament
social movement and anti-authoritarians more than others.

> Yet
> > the hegemonic project can and must come to terms
> > with direct action.  Direct
> > action lies at the edge of hegemonic project, often
> > making manifest the
> > latent repression that underlies the whole process,
> > and also showing an
> > outside to the whole process.  Yet this can only be
> > temporary as direct
> > action is rendered deviant and incoherent by
> > capitalist institutions.

The class society system came to terms with formal democracy and
workers self organizations. It is usually strong and wise enough to
come to terms with the the direct action of anarchists too when it is found
to be the best for them.

It is like the decision not to send the army or police to suppress
striking workers... Or the usual decision not to take to court people
who just distribute leaflets with revolutionary content.

In Israel, the direct actions of groups from the whole political spectrum is
in not far from the mainstream of the political discourse.

> > Now here we can see two distinct modes for action.
> > The reformist project
> > relies on the appropriation of the hegemonic terms
> > of reference through the
> > hegemonic process.  The revolutionary project
> > rejects this very process.
> > Hence, you can often see a deep division in the
> > current counterhegemonic
> > project between these two modes of practice.  Hence,
> > a lot of the time, the
> > more moderate reform-focussed activists condemn the
> > anarchists for their
> > violent confrontational tactics because these
> > tactics threaten their own
> > project.

The level of rebellion and intensity direct action is not bi-modal.
It is even not on one continua. It is a multi dimensional one.
Questioning hegemony is only one of them.

> but isn't the hegemonic process somewhat of a mystery?

The working of a personal computer or a car can also be
a mystery for people who do not have the knowledge.

Every one who study the upbringing of children master
the essential knowledge of the processes involved,
even if the terminology used is different.

Every one who learned the subject regarding adult life
can easily intervene to influence the relevant processes
to the direction one wish. (For sure the achievements can
be smaller or bigger depending on resources and
circumstances.)

> it's pretty clear education, mass media, and a number
> of other very visible things are part of disseminating
> the principles of the hegemonic discourses and
> worldviews to working class folks, but it seems to me
> that since hegemony is not about indoctrination,

Hegemony is not ONLY about indoctrination, but
indoctrination can surely be one of the relevant
processes involved.

> but subtlety, than we still have not isolated exactly
> where and how the dominant culture excercises its
> ideological power...

In human being, social processes are nearly never applied
in an exact point in one specific act.

So, the best we can do is to have an intelligent assessment
of the contribution of specific actions on the tendency to accept
hegemony in general or in specific points.

For instance, people of the US DAN who were for 100%
passive resistance and boycotting the Black Block during direct actions,
started to change their mind after Quebec. Both regarding throwing back
tear gas canisters, and accepting the choice of various direct
actions as legit.

> this relates to the current list
> discussion b/c i think it's not clear whether direct
> action is reformist or revolutionary, it's depends on
> the specific action, and it depends on how sucessful
> the action is in mobilizing more people and doing harm
> to those in power, and the systems of power that
> suppress us...

Being of an activity reformist or revolutionary is not one dimensional either.
People can intend one thing, but the result of the activity can be of the
other. And of course it depends how people campaigned about it before,
during and after... and the responses of the involved and the general
population can vary too.

For sure some activities cannot be intended and result in other than reformist
mode. Some are on the opposite, but all the others are probably mixtures
of options and results.

> after genoa there was a lengthy debate
> on the list over the black block, some thought it was
> reactionary to the core,

The opinion people express towards the acts that convey
disrespect to authority is most revealing...

> others thought it was quite
> appropriate and effective... but unless we can
> establish what the organs of hegemony are and perhaps
> even establish some of their weaknesses we cannot
> establish whether a specific direct action is counter
> hegemonic or not...

Some people even when ignorant have the correct gut feelings.
Others, even when they see things deny them. Of course
every time one do not obey the authority and its rules it is
undermining hegemony in one way or another.

> at least according to the
> framework you've laid out... but anyway i don't think
> this discussion is so theoretical that we cannot
> address these problems very concretely, thinking about
> them in this way... we often make many educated
> guesses at these questions but it may never be a
> science, and we probably wouldn't want it to be one
> anyway...

Science is not religion. If it is not pseudo science, it is just
a systematic way to organise knowledge and advance
the accumulation of knowledge. The same content can be
the subject of science, applied science, literature, layman
contemplation, etc. Good science can be a base for applied
science and help people to be more effective in daily activity -
social revolutionary too.

Some people refuse to accept the "hegemony" of reality.
Thus, they prefer to use "philosophical tools" they bothered
to learn instead of reality hard facts and processes they
did not bother to learn.
Ilan




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---