By:
Akbar Chawdhary; Buddhiman Tamang; Busan P K D Prasain; Dawiat Syeim; Deepak Raj Pandaya; Li Xin; Michael Machera; Pedro Lara de Arruda; Rachit Murarka; Vijayta Mahendru
INTRODUCTION
The itch of modernity drove scholars, religious leaders, politicians, drunken, vagrants and freedom fighters to spend liters of inks and generations of youth energy and contemplative elderly in the search for answers, solutions, or, at least, some kind of comfortable lie to support the challenge of living one day after another in the dusted grey world of followed “heavens ruled by yet one more evil angel”.
Rather immanent to the human existence or not, the fact is that; people domination over people, scarcity, injustice and unhappiness are frequent features in the human history. Also frequent is the millenarian expectation of an abrupt change in all and everything, forever and ever, AMEN! More than a funny end to a period, this AMEN must be seen as the deliberately unseen link among religion and science in the industrial world. If the industrial being – the economicus zombie of modernity – has learned to work and to complain, he also has learned to believe, to have faith, and, for so, to wait… for the millenarian God reborn in a second Christ or, for Shiva’s merciful destruction of a world in pain, for a Marxist turnout of history, for a Liberal redemption of our stupidity, or, at least, for the most awaited time of death, when finally life may make any sense.
Driven to the extreme by our own modernity language, many authors, such as Kierkegaard, Turgenev and Jacobi concluded that the existence is a matter of suffering, and pain which could just be supported by the devaluation and death of meaning and purpose. In a more acute modern approach to the sadness of existing, Niestzche brought up with the concept of Eternal Return, on which the self-eating Ouroboros raised its pain and its hungry, its vanity and its greed, to show us that the European project is doomed to fail and, in fact, is failed by the mere perception of truth, the lost of scientific faith and the astonishment before God’s dead body suicided by our rational faith.
Pushing Nihilism to unseen levels of criticism and coherence, Niestzche made unsustainably painful to live according to the modern rational beliefs, in a way that his death left for the remaining pagans of a Godless world the duty and the invitation of trying something else. Confronted by modernity nails, the post-Niestzche heads were compelled to change directions or to accept the self pursuance of a dead body as sad ontological answer to the life inside each one.
For those who didn’t accept their future achievements were fated to taste like their toenails, the challenge would be to solve the rational diagnosed problems through non-modern ways. Marxists drop out of their all-wisdom hills and tried to build their revolutions from people level, liberals tried to put value to the feelings which killed their God. But, still, what they all are doing is to pursue other goals, however, by the same patterns. If we recur again to Niestzche’s mythological resource to Ouroboros we can easily notice that simply changing the direction of society spinning forces will still put our nails ahead of us. And, independent of the number of times that we apply this choice, the portrait of our long term run wouldn’t be different of the latin lemniscata, which, curiously, portraits the Eternal Return while being the symbol of infinity.
Trying to escape the fate forgot by a dead God, some authors evoke us to go ahead of the binary clockwise – anticlockwise, as the only way of releasing the snake of society from the fate of itself as the best to be achieved. It means that more than changing our choices, we must change our pattern of choices. As illustrated by the Oroboro, which can do nothing but the lemniscata if we get stuck to the clockwise – anticlockwise pattern, the fact is that a transformed world, different from the history of violence and inequality, may depend first and foremost on shifting patterns of choice, questioning patterns of belief and putting the Id again in the pages of human history.
Pointing in that direction there are a myriad of important human movements and thoughts. Most clearly in the arts and aesthetics field, trends like Dadaism and Surrealism arose in a Débutant post-Niestzche world as crude descriptions of a non-Ego censored reality which, by the way, happened to be more free and enjoyable, or at least more colored and imaginative, than the routine jail of everyday modernity.
Trying to communicate this artistic perception to the world of ideas, or hints, some authors worked hard in concepts which pushed the possibilities of language to its edge, as to evaluate and disseminate the desired possibility of changing the world by enjoying it in a Surrealist way, by Dadaisticaly inexisting according to the settled patterns, or, in short, by shifting ahead the modernity closed windows. Among this trend we can identify, for example: The Frankfurtian cultural approach to Marxist ideas; the deep environmental movements and the synthesis of Anti-Civilizational (Anarcho-environmentalism) ideas and the Situationist movement; as well as the Post-modernist freedom utopias.
In our work we will focus on a Post-modernist anarchic idea of Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ) as freedom holes in a dominated world. From this standpoint, we will search for experiences of freedom among factory workers of New Delhi. Although the creator of the TAZ concept, Hakim Bey, radically denies his ideas to be any theoretical effort, preferring to see them as “an essay, attempt, suggestion, almost a poetic fancy, which is just fully comprehensible through action”… The fact is that we will try looking for TAZ among factory workers not as a way to submit his hypothesis to practical experience and validate or not his theory. Instead, what we try to do is to conceptualize his ideas in a landscape completely different of the backpackers, cyberpunks, pirates, hobos and hippies realities in which he mostly lay down his arguments.
METHODOLOGY
Starting from the belief that there is no neutral knowledge, we try to make our work as less dogmatic as possible by clearly declaring our preference for the TAZ approach to the buildup of freedom times and geographies. As a consequence, what will be noticed is an interview, or, better saying, a conversation with research purposes, aiming to highlight eventual TAZ occurring on what can possibly be considered the hardcore of modern capitalism oppression. After all, Delhi is one of the most capitalist economies of our times, accounting for one of the biggest industrial productions in the world and with a landscape of almost any labor protection or guarantee, in a situation very similar to the traditional Marxist stereotype of dominator employers and dominated workers. Resorting to the Marxist view, the overcrowded and miserable population of Delhi turns very easy to the employers to exercise such a control over their employees that they possibly wouldn’t be able to give any individual step toward their freedom.
By searching TAZ experiences in such an unlikely path we deliberately want to prove that the possibilities of individual challenges to modern patterns are possible even in such conditions. And even in the cases we don’t really face any TAZ in the interviewed story, our effort will be to understand how it could possibly come to happen in such conditions, or else, to evaluate whether we were not able to access this experiences for having our interview-like conversation too bonded by modernity speech. This ‘Quixotic’ pursue of TAZ in realities apparently armored against such possibilities is, after all, a signal of our agreement with Bey’s critics to the possibilities of Revolutions, opposed to his praise for Uprisings. As will be explained in this essay, Bey’s reading over the aspect of revolution is very critical for seeing it as ontologically belonging to the Oroboro logic.
Through a language which may seem complicated by the big amount of quotations and illustrative-poetic examples, this essay aims to reproduce Bey’s methodology of not presenting any inductive wire of input-output relations among punctual elements which explain reality. Instead, the methodology, or denying of methodology we will take, aims to create a sensitizer reality of thoughts and feelings shared by their aesthetic and artistic expressions. For this specific purpose, the reader must be aware that the big amount of illustrative examples, which goes from shamanism, religion and theater to deep philosophy, are just ways, or attempts to speak about another reality without contaminating it by our reality linguistic shapes and structures.
Our strategy for that goal consisted in interviewing several different factory workers, from two different factories. The interviews were conducted individually by different interviewers. Since the main goal was to make them feel comfortable, as in a simple conversation, and not properly an interview, we decided that different interviewers would be more likely to have at least one success in creating this environment. Ideally, the conversation would take the way of a TAZ. However, create this environment would depend on the skill of the interviewer.
Other necessary measure to assure the confidence of the interviewed was the promise of hiding their identities. We will refer to them by nicknames and allude only to aspects like sex and kind of work they perform and where.
All the ‘interviews’ were previously prepared in a sense that we had some key points to be mentioned, some special issues which would be interesting for some analysis we wanted to do. However, in order to create a relaxed moment, we decided not to force any issue which would drive the conversation out of the informal shape. Anyway, we could get basic information of most them, and at least one or two answers concerning key issues of Bey’s ideas.
Since Bey´s idea is just not explainable through very traditional modern organization patterns, and our objective, as well as Bey’s one, is much more an aesthetic sensitization than a rational convincement, we decided to present the interviews all together with the key ideas about the TAZ, deliberately willing to illustrate them. Consciously of the difficulty it may generate to the reader, we may first present a brief view of the TAZ idea, to then go deep in some key aspects altogether with the analysis of the workers answers to the ‘interview’.
TAZ IN A GLIMPSE
According to our methodological reasons exposed above it is necessary that one gets a broad general notion of what is exactly the TAZ, or, at least, what is it supposed to be. For Bey’s proposition is beyond the traditional positive idea of knowledge, one should first look at it as to a portrait, undressing prejudices and not bothering of creating inductive links among the fragmentary parts. First of all, let’s simply take the TAZ in a glimpse.
What Bey tries to show is that freedom can be achieved by ways which are not bonded to the traditional concepts of revolution. In fact, he points that traditional freedom struggles based on revolution are useless. He points that the main power struggle among sensitive beings (because it is not only restricted to the humans beings domination within their selves, but also involves others species) didn’t lead the fighters to a world similar to their goals, but, instead, it just reshaped the reality of domination in other terms, eventually even worst.
He points that what bond us to this reality is basically the language, the methodology, action and perception patterns which conducts traditional movements against the system and, for this reason, drive one to a reality of continuously domination. For this he condemns the revolution concept. He also condemns revolution for its reticence, its millenary message which happens to drive individuals to a comfortable waiting behavior.
When pointing the failure of revolution in history he also points that attempts of invisibility and blossoming uprisings proved to be way more successful in the reality transformation. In a first moment it can be questioned by the simple fact that any uprising has existed continuously until now. However, Bey points that the merit of uprising and invisibility is exactly their non-dependence of perpetual structuralization of their bodies. More than this, their victorious role is to overcome language bonds and provide the sensitive actors a possibility of acting and experimenting linguistics, aesthetics and to freely express and experiment their flows and impetus.
According to Bey, the success of this tactics would lay in the fact that such achievements depend on buildings which took place in realities non-perceived by the domination world. For this, the society would be weakened by the loose of their dependent variable, the language actors and aesthetics performers. Complementary, this tactic would prove victorious because it’s ethos would work as an invisibility cloak which the modernity values would not be able to percept and, for consequence, would not be able to destroy.
Through his historic approach, Bey sets the Pirates islands in the overseas world as a place of autonomous zones fostered in the scientific failures of the scientific society. Passing ahead time and evaluating the current situation, Bey points that nowadays there are no more virgin islands, that the science perception of world has no more unexplored caves to build secret freedom shelters. For this reason he points that the language shifting and the aesthetics and perceptions regarding basic institutions must be extremely critical and creative to foster, observe and engage new meanings behind the traditional maps of what would be reality. According to him, this effort would highlight and give raise to what he calls Temporary Autonomous Zones (TAZ).
One particularity to be studied in the TAZ is the fact that the non-continuity of these events is not a proof of failure. In fact, the mere shifting towards another perception of time, eventually without beginning and end, is already a victorious step towards a world which is not in the scientific map and clock offered by the reality.
EPISTHEMOLOGY OF FREEDOM AND THE LONGEST WAYS
History and expectations
Bey’s notion of Ontology points out that in order to avoid misrepresentations caused by a dominated meditative language, which is the case of modernity, one must understand the epistemology which brought up one such perception. This way, it would be easier to evaluate possibilities of real standpoint shifts, as well as to understand the non fetishist ethos behind the shadows projected in the caves of perception. Coherently, he introduces the concept of TAZ by an epistemology of the idea, highlighting the empirical approach which allowed him and his supporters to idealize the broad concept of TAZ from other specific realities.
Starting from a historic approach and pointing to the futurist expectations theories, Bey’s argument is that spots of freedom irruption have ever existed, however, not listed in traditional history books. That’s, in fact, his epistemological reason for an ontological impetus of making smoke out of the traditional history book pages. Instead of looking to the history traditional most valuated turning points, which, by the way, Braudel argues to be nothing more them different aesthetical representations of a same continuity, he claims one should recover the untold history, search for the invisible happiness and joy, because, accordingly, there would lay the historical experiences of freedom.
Following his own prescription he makes a historical choice of facts which is way uncommon even to the historiography of freedom fighters and utopian experiences. Quoting pirates islands and the pirate culture he shows that, at a time when hierarchy and inequality crossed the Oceans as exportation product of the Imperialist colonial world, pirates ruled their criminal life with shockingly levels of respect and equity among the crew. Going even further, he quotes some famous Pirate Islands, like Tortuga, which were known for distribution of incomes and horizontality, as well as an atmosphere of celebration. In the referred examples of piracy he shows how their blossoming freedom hidden geographies were a whole different space where perceptions were induced by a festive mood of real liberation of the self.
In short, the text takes piracy experiences in the overseas world to show that spaces of freedom and different patterns of civilization can occur by other means than the idea of revolution itself. After all, pirates were everything but revolutionaries and, still, they certainly established an environment of justice and freedom way more intense than observed in the ‘revolutionarie conquers’ of that time.
Yet, Bey covers the history of those Pirate societies from that time to current days and builds the argument that their freedom experiences, regardless of being sporadic or not existing anymore, were valuable to create some freedom cultures which originated important social movements in current days.
Similarly, he rips out the traditional pages of 20th Century history and, instead of looking for freedom at the epic battles among Allieds and Axis, or at the blood communist regimes, he points to the brief existence of Republic of Fiume, a state created by an anarchist troop which mutinied and decide to rule their own country according to a Constitution that predicted “music to be the central principle of the state”.
Passing forward to the current years of the beginning 21st Century, he points to the Cyberpunk trend, mostly hosted in California. A movement which predicts the technology development to re-open the possibilities of contesting modernity sovereignty control over science and, as a result, enable people to use technology to create spaces released from the state domination.
Besides taking in account some Cyberpunk propositions, Bey believes that modern technology makes this kind of autonomy a romantic dream. He believes that modernity has reached a level of control over its traditional language that just makes impossible any kind of struggle depending on modernity knowledge/language failures or any form or contestation through modern patterns. For this, he claims that instead of Piracy Zones or any freedom memory confined to the past, or to an idealized future, we should look for real possibilities of Autonomous Zones. In this pursue, he then notes that Modernity imposes a pattern of reality established according to generalizing patterns – everything must be structural and universal – rather than individual possibilities of reality experiences, of illegal freedom. As a consequence, he claims that to contest reality as it is we must shift the speech to a non-structural speech in which even the transition path is not defined on modernity patterns.
One predictable first step in that direction would be the self perception according to non structuralist patterns. The very fact of noticing the particularity of one existence after 5 centuries of individualities elimination in favor of structures already represents a necessary small shift in perception. As an attempt to evaluate this among the workers, we spoke to them about how they feel they are treated by their bosses. How they percept their bosses differentiate them from the others, if there is such differentiation. And how they perceive their selves.
All the workers identically answered the question reporting rather they were good workers or not, or if their bosses were kind to employees or not. They all described their selves and their bosses according to general categories, classifying their judgment under the expectations over a worker or a boss. None of them, however, could speak of their bosses or their selves in a language which didn’t depend on their economic allotments in the society. This repeated pattern of answer draws the difficulty line of shifting standpoints in modern society. One should inquire rather such a movement is possible for ordinary people whose opportunities to debrief their existence are always conditioned by economic constraints.
Bey himself, in the beginning of his text, shows awareness that the revolution of the individual freedom to percept and de-percept time and space is not an automatic one, or, at least, not automatic in a positive way. When faced by the fact that the basic inquires for shifting reality standpoints are just constrained to never raise by economic constraints and, for that, would be dependent of a traditional revolution, he poses the followed doubts:
Are we who live in the present doomed never to experience autonomy, never to stand for one moment on a bit of land ruled only by freedom? Are we reduced either to nostalgia for the past or nostalgia for the future? Must we wait until the entire world is freed of political control before even one of us can claim to know freedom?
Before analyzing Bey’s answer to those questions, it’s interesting to note that most workers showed some kind of resilient expectation to structural solutions, pointing to religious beliefs or to revolutionary millenary acts to perform a suddenly change in the world. This way, they showed some kind of conformation with their current situation which, however, was just another face of a big expectation they deposit on structural promises, rather scientific or religious.
There was, however, a madam who expressed a radically different view of things. Therefore called Mrs ‘B’, this married mother of three children told in a very relaxed conversation with Vijayta that she already enjoys her life, or, in her own words:
I’m living a good life already. Just a little more facilities from the government or a little more money and my own house would make it perfect, because then I will not have to leave my 3 year old son locked outside home every day. People who have too much are constantly afraid that they’ll be looted, at least we don’t have that fear. We don’t have so much that somebody would want to steal from us. There are a lot of others who are living worse lives than my own, I’m comparatively very blessed.
This sole answer could drive us to think Mrs B is a very resilient typical employee, with no expectations and definitely comfortable on her difficult live, however, the fact is that all along the conversation she showed to be very critical to the reality surrounding her, questioning a lot whether peoples opinion should restrain her life and with a very particular notion of justice. For instance, she felt proud of saying that whenever she doesn’t feel like going to work she just doesn’t go and pretend being sick while, in fact, she hang out with her friend, a mother of 4 daughters and no husband.
This friendship also revealed to be a very proof of her autonomous perception of reality since her friend’s condition of a widowed mother and some autonomous behaviors she has raises the neighborhood jealousy and gossips. Mrs. B simply declared not to mind other people judgment and pointed out some very good arguments of why she shouldn’t mind about it. In fact she said her friendship is one of the most valuable things of her life and, when posed to the comparison of the happiness she felt in the company of her friend and the moments she spent in festivals and other institutionalized celebrations, she was incisive in saying that she preferred her friend much more. Also here Mrs. B proved her personality, both, by recognizing the freedom and joy of happiness moments which usually arose when she is in the company of her friend, and also for her additional comment on how festivals are events for rich people, nor really related to her perceptions of reality (she used the word ‘world’).
Returning to Bey’s questions, he points that, besides the constraints for achieving those shifting of standpoints, there are at least two reasons which don’t allow us to simply resign to the Oroboro sad fate. First of all he mentions “the heart revolts at a universe so cruel as to visit such injustices on our generation alone of humankind”. One second reason, however, takes the path of Niestzche’s rationality self-destruction and points that “reason demands that one cannot struggle for what one does not know”.
Following the logical consequences of his second argument he builds up a strong base between the critique Nihilism drove by a severe realist view over modernity and the abstract de-construction of limited realities for the unfolding of Idyllic universes. At this point he is basically saying that we must experience freedom to fight for it, to build a structural general reality we must first know it in an individual level. Therefore, he endorse some critical pedagogical approaches, like Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which points that the real learning depends on engagement, in the active learning, and, as a consequence, he points out that “Only the autonomous can plan autonomy, organize for it, create it”. After all, he considers that freedom can’t be really desired as a constant and structural reality without a previous individual experimentation.
Here he advances some of his critiques to the concept of Revolution, which, according to him, is a blind attempt to built structural freedom by the very fact that its modern institutional body has no space for moments of individual joy and real experimentation of liberty.
Therefore, Bey unite those motivations in a critique of revolution and an appraisal of uprisings as blossoming moments of riot and individual free and joy subversion about modernity in all its pictures, from the small acts of the routine to the big institutions as the state and the market. As a conclusion he states that the realization of the TAZ begins with the simple act of realization and, for this, “to say that ‘I will not be free till all human (or all sentiment creatures) are free’ is simply to abdicate our humanity”.
Trying to see the pedagogical notion of Bey, our group drove the conversations to the description of what would be a good quality of life. However this question didn’t receive any answer very positive of a non-material perception of life quality, because most workers associated this to the possession of goods, the fact is that all of them declared their preferences on base of previous experiences. Rather their better life would depend on the acquisition of a car, a TV or something else; the fact is that all of them resorted to experience to define their desires, reflecting the validity of the active learning pedagogy. The exceptions were some workers on Mother Daily industry, which showed a very happy and creative mood, and declared their good life would be the extension of some routine break they have already experimented by stealing some ice creams, having fun during work time, or just getting drunk or eventually using drugs with friends. By the way, those workers also confessed, in a very nice atmosphere of talking, that they go to work drunk with some frequency, and that those days are usually ‘shorter’ and ‘funnier’.
Also, we could recognize among them many speech fragments in which they declared the intensity of some moments of their lives are just understandable through taking part on it. A clear example of what Bey meant by his activity pedagogy belief. Another worker of Mothers Daily, Mr. SS, for example, declared that just the family experience could express what he feels when he can stays with his family. Mr. L, a worker from Darbhanga Bihar, also quoted this same pattern of learn through experience when he stated that only he could know how his family got frustrated when he drink.
Realizing that Revolution usually put this people to kill or to die without properly giving them a chance of experience a real reason for that, Bey direct efforts to settle the value of Uprisings. Moments which, according to him, are fully internalized by the participants. And here, we must add, the internalization is not dependent on any meditational language but, instead, is a source of feelings, impression, sensitivity.
On this issue Bey adds that Uprisings, or the latin form insurrections, are words used by historians to label failed revolutions – movements which do not match the expected curve, the consensus-approved trajectory: Revolution, reaction, betrayal, the founding proof a stronger and even more oppressive State – the turning of the wheel, the return of history again and again to its highest form: jackboot on the face of humanity forever.
By failing to follow this curve, the up-rising suggests the possibility of a movement outside and beyond the Hegelian spiral of that “progress” which is secretly nothing more than a vicious circle. Instead of talking about revolutions, we asked the workers about protests in which they failed to achieve the desired objective it left a mark in their memory. Mr. D, from Mother Dairy, told us that first of all, he loves protests. Even though he is a temporary and belongs to no union, he always goes along with any group that protests. Shouting slogans against the authority, just for the fun of it is a part of the memories that he cherishes from protests. He also told us that once he wanted a raise and he threatened to organize a protest, but the contractor secretly just increased his salary. He felt great about it. That was his moment of TAZ, where the moral, the immoral and the amoral paradigms just dissolve, not only because of the monetary gain, but also because of doing a thing that the structures of the society would condemn. He was the only man who later also stated that he only wanted just enough means to eat well, be clothed and have no excesses, as long as the body is in working condition. The others, stated about the material things like wanting to be a businessman, a villager etc. An interesting case here was Mrs. B who said very animatedly that she wanted to be in the army and if not much, just finish one more bullet of the enemy by receiving it in her chest.
Another interesting observation was that of their involvement with politics. Almost all of them condemned the state. People in Mother Dairy were quite aware of the developments they very candidly said that it means nothing to them.
When talking about their friendships and alliances outside the family and work structures, they all explain in detail how interesting it is to have a friends group. One person very clearly stated that he can be himself when among friends, another said that he even forgets even his children when he is in a high moment with friends. They talk about women outside marriage, about having a drink now and then and at that very moment, being surprised at the confession. In some moments, they all enjoy the conversation as much as the research team does. It was a mutual moment of TAZ for both parties. It is an intensification of an everyday activity like sitting and talking, and to put it like the surrealists do, it is life´s penetration by the marvelous.
CONCLUSION
In short, those workers showed to have a null or very small evaluation of their freedom ontology, however, the mere struggle of everyday life pushed them to eventual ‘criminal’ breaks with the routine. Even in cases where some moments of intense joy of indiscipline acts or extreme pleasure were not directly identified, the fact is that the very way they talked about such moments was completely different from the way they usually refer to their ordinary lives. Whenever our group was able to identify TAZ in their stories we noticed that in the special moment where their speech were referring to these moments they were somehow more poetic, bringing more detailed descriptions, and expressing some feelings which clearly raised good emotions on them.
It was interesting to perceive that, although in a situation where the achievement of TAZ is particularly difficult due to their structural constrains and alienation allotment in the factory, the fact is that Bey’s proposition about different perceptions of time and space, the raising of a poetic soul daily suppressed by our fears and shames, as well as a joy caused by the simple experimentation of freedom are still there, possible to be achieved.
In an acute observation, we could notice that, for instance, wherever the workers talked about possible TAZ of their lives, like, for instance, stealing ice cream from the factory, drinking during service, having fun after work with friends, killing work to have pleasure with friends and many other situations, they showed and extended perception of time. Being the time denial a key feature of Bey’s idea, for he believes that abandoning the traditional history drives to a different settlement of historical facts to serve as reference to measure periods, and also for his appraisal of abstractly non-mechanicist perceptions over reality – including the time… the fact is that the punctual existence of such moments didn’t seem to drive the workers to condemn them to failure, neither to shape their role in the workers speech to be proportional to their traditional time duration. Regarding this second point, it was very clear how the description of such moments took more time than whole weeks of work and routine activities.
For that, our conclusion impressions points in the way that, in fact, a simple shifting of standpoints can offer some deep liberty experiences even for those most bounded by material-structural constraints. However punctual and sporadic, one can’t deny that those moments happened, and that their happening is proofs of the vulnerability of structures when faced by blossoming ideas, feelings and aesthetics expressions. As well, it can’t be denied that the poetic experience those workers gained in each particular experimented TAZ left lessons, memories and a hungry for freedom which simply turn to be a rock in the way of routine imposition to these people. Rather the amount of those experimentations are still too small to realy stop the flow of domination forces affecting their lives was not an evaluated issue on our analysis, however, we may conclude this work pointing that, in further texts, Bey suggested some kinds of collective actions aiming to offer these people more and more TAZ opportunities. In such propositions he raises other ideas, such as Poetic Terrorism and praises artistical movements aiming to share those temporary geographies of freedom and joy with the prisoners of the land of labor and suffer.
Published at http://prod.midiaindependente.org/
Check the full article at http://prod.midiaindependente.org/pt/blue/2010/10/479968.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment