Mind, Body & War

The Pentagon recently decided not to award the Purple Heart (the medal for getting wounded or killed in combat) to those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Three arguments are being used in favor of this decision. All three are based on the claim that mental wounds are not central to warfare.

Defense Department Spokeswoman Eileen Lainez:

The Purple Heart recognizes those individuals wounded to a degree that requires treatment by a medical officer, in action with the enemy or as the result of enemy action where the intended effect of a specific enemy action is to kill or injure the service member, [...] PTSD is an anxiety disorder caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event." It is not "a wound intentionally caused by the enemy from an outside force or agent," but is a secondary effect caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event.

Army Staff Sergeant Jeremy Rausch (who saw combat in Iraq):

PTSD can be serious, but there is absolutely no way to prove that someone truly is suffering from it or faking it.

John E. Bircher III of the Pentagon-supported service group, the Military Order of the Purple Heart:

You have to had shed blood by an instrument of war at the hands of the enemy of the United States, [...] Shedding blood is the objective.

(Interlude: 1 in 5 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have some form of PTSD)

The official DoD line explicitly cleaves off mental wounds from the true nature of warfare by pointing to the intention of warfare. The question of fakers does this by privileging the visible body over the invisible mind. And the invocation of blood places the body of the soldier as the direct implement of the state.

Yet, the Iraq war was carried out, proudly, under the banner of Shock and Awe - whose central tenet is the inducement of a specific mental state:

The aim of Rapid Dominance is to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fit or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe. [...] This means that physical and psychological effects must be obtained.

So, clearly the DoD is aware that in warfare one might go about purposely inflicting mental anguish. The world doesn't need me to write a post to show that the folks at the Pentagon are a bunch of bastards and hypocrites. But why is there a need to maintain this particular hypocrisy?

(Interlude: in 2000 a plaque was added to the Vietnam Memorial "to honor the veterans who died after the war from exposure to Agent Orange, post-traumatic stress disorder and other causes not directly related to combat wounds".)

A large effort was made to disseminate, legitimize, and establish as an improvement the concept of Shock & Awe, and specifically the capability of the U.S. military to succeed through psychological and not physical means. The U.S. military has supposedly transcended physical force. This seems to be a crude attempt at what Der Derian has called "virtuous war".

Virtuous war is an attempt to fulfill a dream of the Enlightenment, delivering a force that is complete and yet seemingly self-induced therefore impossible to resist – a machine that renders its calculating logic invisible, obscuring the grotesque practices that are necessary for its maintenance. (Culp, Virtuous Bombs)

However, PTSD brings out the fact that there is nothing transcendent about "psychological warfare". (Even insurgents can do it with makeshift IEDs.) In fact, all warfare is psychological and force and power are never located solely in physical violence. So the Pentagon's refusal to grant Purple Hearts to victims of PTSD is not merely petty, cruel and bureaucratic. It is part of a larger attempt to control the conceptualization of war and power.

Workshop on Workshops?

An excerpt of a rant from Steve S. in which he takes on our concept of skill shares and workshops:

The other side of this dynamic is that people treat Radical Writers as a space where you can just show up and expect to be taught how to become a better writer, without having the involvement or having to do the work that a real academic class at school would provide. I think that type of education, which despite our best intentions tends to happen any time someone professes to host a "workshop" i.e., a model of education more democratic and non-hierarchical than a hated "school" class, is in fact even more hierarchical than traditional schooling, because it further reinforces the idea that a student is an empty vessel lacking knowledge, to be filled by the teacher/expert/professor. Without each and every participant preparing themselves to both learn AND teach, all workshops on any subject will run into this same problem. Writing workshops can be a shining example of how to use education for social change, and it's incredibly easy to lead them without hierarchy. But they require dedication and preparation, and unless you are interested in putting that in with me, then I'm not going to bother trying to put this thing together anymore.

Towards Love Infused Theory

Some great comments showed up on the Theoretical Relationships post.

I really liked TechPhobe's point that I went about it backwards. Instead of injecting politics into relationships we should be looking at how to inject relationships into politics. Except, then I sat there wondering how the hell do I do that? But, luckily Bhaskara came to the rescue and completed the inversion with the question "Is it possible that critical analysis can deepen and elaborate relationships?" Instead of treating theory as an analytic post hoc affair it should be a tool for building relationships. Bhaskara's focus on consent in the later questions points the way for how to do this. Perhaps solitary obsessive evaluation should be replaced by mutual questioning which not only examines the power dynamic but simultaneously acts on it.

Two closing thoughts: (a) I would love to hear from folks who have done anything like this. (b) I feel like I am letting myself off too easily and that there is more and deeper things to say.

Towers

TechPhobe's "boston + skyline" reminded me of this image of a school fence in Livermore:


It's fashionable (amongst a certain population) to refer to tall towers and other similar structures as phallic. On the one hand I am glad that such critical theory-esque terms and attitudes have entered popular discourse. On the other, what the hell does it mean to refer to the bell tower on your campus as phallic? -- especially when you do so only half seriously. When I was in D.C. I can honestly say that I felt oppressed by the architecture, and I doubt it was just the phallic nature of the Washington Monument.

So, lets move beyond calling all tall building phallic and generalities about big government buildings. What features of your landscape do you notice/find interesting/affect you?

I, relatively recently, moved to a new city, which looks unlike anywhere I have previously lived, and where I am still learning my way around. My interaction with surroundings is as an outsider and not a true inhabitant of the space. So, while I do have plenty to say, I'll take my turn after a few others have chimed in.

Boston, MA.

Elephant Walk

I had a delicious soup last night that surprised me as much as my tastebuds. I went a' searching for some sort of recipe online and Lo! — was immediately directed to a Google Books result which featured a volume of recipes published by none other than the restaurant we went to.
People should eat with their professors more often. Eating is a humbling experience which involves opening your mouth in front of another person but not to speak. To add vulnerability to the mix, every moment contains the potential for your food to escape your mouth altogether and end up on your shirt instead.
The best excuse for cigarette-smoking I ever heard was that it provided a natural pause during conversation. And an elegant one at that.
Now I can safely say that the best dinner amongst academics I ever had involved a lot wine, a lot of frank opinions, and a clear, chicken-based stock simmered with lemongrass, tomatoes, and shrimp, served with mint and basil leaves.
No cigarette needed- the lull of good conversation and good food was enough to satisfy me plenty.

The Dialectics Play Scrabble

This IM conversation was found growing naturally in the wild. No seriously, it was. Only names and spelling have been altered.

Shrdlu: we should play chess some time
Etaoin: and scrabble
Shrdlu: no
Shrdlu: no more scrabble
Etaoin: word hater
[Read more - Click here]
Shrdlu: you and your two and three letter words just kill it for me
Shrdlu: no, quite the opposite
Etaoin: short word hater
Etaoin: short hater
Etaoin: that's it
Etaoin: I see how it is
Shrdlu: I love the words too much and not the spatial and geometric optimization aspect of it
Etaoin: words only have meaning in context
Shrdlu: yes
Etaoin: and the power of space is important
Etaoin: it's the spatial arrangement of meaning in society
Etaoin: just as it's the spatial arrangement of bodies
Shrdlu: and my context of thinking words are cool and interesting is stronger than the practical, capitalistic aspect of whether or not the word will give me the maximum output, the most points, win the game for me
Etaoin: oo harsh
Etaoin: but your escapist aesthetic is bourgeoisie luxury
Etaoin: detournement scrabble
Etaoin: now that would be a cool game
Shrdlu: it's not escapist, it's preference for artistic and personally defined meaning in life -- the situationist dilemma between life versus survival. and your rigid, mechanistic delineation of bourgeois vs. acceptable proletarian stinks of trotskyism
Etaoin: artistic? or socio-artificially determined acceptability in your parallel world? you have simply replaced point value with coolness without addressing the fundamental issues of letter tile distribution and word value.
Shrdlu: ps. I would like to officially recognise that this is the best/most ridiculous conversation ever
Etaoin: - aye
Etaoin: -- a tad like the do your own dishes poster
Shrdlu: weirder
Shrdlu: yes, artistic. yes, subjectivity in determining coolness. the point is, we should be able to determine for ourselves what words are valuable and interesting, and not allow parker bros. or milton bradley or whatever multinational corporation made the game determine this for us.
Etaoin: but why accept that words should be looked at in terms of value at all?
Etaoin: that is the fundamental flaw of marxism -- it still see production as the fundamental value of man,
Etaoin: and why this strong dichotomy? I can play for points while simultaneously enjoying something transcendent no?
Etaoin: and lastly
Etaoin: I think short words are cool
Etaoin: and see playing such words for points
Shrdlu: ... me too. just not bullshit I've never heard of like qa
Etaoin: as sticking it to the man
Etaoin: I never used qa
Shrdlu: but you're not sticking it to the man. in fact, you're participating in normative scrabble strategies which are mastered by all scrabble champions
Etaoin: qa is not a word
Etaoin: qat is
Etaoin: it's a drug
Shrdlu: okay, you get my point
Etaoin: a leaf actually
Etaoin: I'm sticking it to you and you're the man?
Shrdlu: no
Shrdlu: you aren't sticking it to anybody
Shrdlu: you're using the masters tools and expecting to be able to burn down the master's house
Etaoin: yes I am -- I am pushing the game to its absurd limits
Etaoin: like throwing money at the stock exchange
Etaoin: it's a performance
Shrdlu: no no no, the game completely incorporates these limits you think are absurd. it's like shoplifting.
Shrdlu: it's not going to tear down capitalism or even make one store close down
Etaoin: it's like shoplifting very publicly
Etaoin: to show the absurdity of consumption
Etaoin: I m not hiding or snickering or shopping at hot topic
Shrdlu: and it's even counted on. for example, I have this theory, which I have lived experience to suggest may be true, that Hot Topic allows kids who look suitably punk or alternative culture to shoplift their stuff
Shrdlu: so that other kids will be seen wearing it
Etaoin: hot topic would
Shrdlu: yeah, because when the real kids with credibility, real punks, shoplifters, wear your shit, it gives you credibility that the other kids go out and try to emulate with their money
Shrdlu: instant fashion cache
Etaoin: someone should table anarchist lit in front of hot topic
Etaoin: or something
Shrdlu: right, and get shot by a mall cop
Etaoin: o right
Etaoin: ok
Etaoin: something more subtle
Shrdlu: now, when you use these 2 and 3 letter words, which are listed on wikipedia and scrabble strategy websites in memorisation lists, you're participating in a very, very normalised, not-at-all radical aspect of scrabble playing
Etaoin: context though
Etaoin: I'm not doing this at a scrabble tournament -- I am doing this in a friendly game
Shrdlu: not very friendly to me
Etaoin: thereby exposing the fundamental unfriendliness of the game
Shrdlu: wtf?
Etaoin: it's a critique of the game
Shrdlu: hahahahahaha
Etaoin: showing that the myth of the friendly game is a lie
Etaoin: and roping you into my performance
Shrdlu: well, I've got you one better
Etaoin: if we went together to a tournament we would play a game full of silly low scoring words
Etaoin: it's an inversion
Etaoin: [[I soo have the losing side in this]]
Shrdlu: once in a game of scrabble, to which we eventually appended an extra rule -- "your word must potentially be dirty and, if questioned, you must be able to argue its dirtiness" -- the three of us playing used the last of the pieces in the bag to spell "frothgazm" with an upside-down w for the m
Etaoin: but that's like mardi gras
Etaoin: a supposed inversion that's really there to let off steam
Etaoin: like rocky horror picture show
Etaoin: but really only re-enforces the specialness and outsiderness of rebellion
Etaoin: and the sexual and the absurd
Shrdlu: we shattered the uncooperative nature and the rigidity of the rules while spelling something immensely satisfying, despite not being a real word, to those of us who were playing
Etaoin: you turned sex and dirtiness into a game
Etaoin: instead of taking it seriously
Shrdlu: yes
Etaoin: while I turned point grubbing into a game
Shrdlu: because what is the point of a game? is it to be enjoyed or is it to be won?
Shrdlu: and, what is the point of sex? is it to be enjoyed or is it to be won?
Etaoin: point?
Etaoin: why do we have to impose a point
Etaoin: that sounds dangerous to me
Shrdlu: oh, so people just play games and have sex for no reason?
Etaoin: each their own reason
Etaoin: who am I to blanketly determine their point
Shrdlu: ok, fine. this primacy of subjectivity just feeds back into my own point
Etaoin: of course you would say that
Shrdlu: about how we should enjoy the aesthetics of our words for ourselves instead of how they are socially determined by those who made the game
Etaoin: but that's not what you're doing at all
Etaoin: your aesthetic is a hipster aesthetic
Shrdlu: hahahahaha
Etaoin: which accepts that words should be seen in terms of value
Etaoin: instead of challenging that
Etaoin: by playing up the absurdity of words as values
Etaoin: [playing up - get it get it?]
Shrdlu: yes, because we aren't forced to play scrabble. we could be writing poetry instead
Shrdlu: we don't need to critique and challenge scrabble as our primary goal because scrabble is not society, is not capitalism. there is life outside of scrabble and it's easy to escape.
Shrdlu: instead, we can participate in scrabble and enjoy it.
Shrdlu: and do so in our own terms, no less
Etaoin: but we can't escape that scrabble is a reflection of our world
Shrdlu: (aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh)
Etaoin: it's foolish and yuppie escapism to pretend otherwise
Etaoin: our terms yes, but our terms not in a false vacuum which will merely replicate the prevailing power structure
Etaoin: this us them in out dichotomy isn't working for me
Etaoin: (weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee)
Shrdlu: so how does your strategy of, basically, winning the game better, disrupt the prevailing social order, hierarchy and hegemony?
Etaoin: by doing so in such a ridiculous way
Etaoin: that you question the very notion of winning
00:01 AM) Shrdlu: which is indistinguishable from the way it is done normally
Etaoin: which is exactly what it has made you do no?
Etaoin: the fact that it bugs you proves my point
Etaoin: you play the game in an appeasement way
Shrdlu: your methods are about as ridiculous as running a campaign in order to win a seat in electoral office
Shrdlu: no, I play the game in a personally liberatory way
Etaoin: and you're running the rat race and telling yourself quality time with the kids on the weekend makes it ok
Etaoin: or yoga
Etaoin: I have made you realise that the game is always about winning
Shrdlu: no, I'm doing what I must to survive in a capitalist system while finding meaning in my life through transcendent relationships with other people and building radical alternative communities
Etaoin: while your way obfuscates that fact with feel good coolness
Etaoin: your own description sounds escapist -- and you still accept the basic notions of survival and value as necessary to survive
Shrdlu: yes, but I have a real strategy for using the attractiveness and joy of alternative cultures to remove support for and supplant capitalist hegemony
Shrdlu: I accept survival as necessary to survive? yes. yes I do.
Etaoin: while I am drawing out and exposing the inherent contradictions in that system so they don't get glossed over
Etaoin: both are necessary at the very least
Etaoin: [not survival for survival but value and some form of success for survival]
Etaoin: why should aesthetics be reduced to survival
Shrdlu: okay, I'll accept that. so why are we letting the standard definitions of point values in this game put us at odds with one another? and, accepting that there is social privilege in winning the game and attaining more points, what are you doing to support those of us whom society does not appreciate our struggles with the same modicum of privilege?
Etaoin: you're the one who no longer wants to play -- I am happy to enjoy the game my way and your way in a joint game and not worry about the points vis a vis our relationship -- we use the game as a way to spend time together and employ a diversity of tactics on the game
Shrdlu: you're happy to enjoy the game your way because society privileges your technocratic ability to win the game, you white man you.
Etaoin: [I don't know if dialectics can break bricks but it can play scrabble]
Shrdlu: I'm saying, I understand that your technical ability to score points in order to draw out the absurdities of scrabble is useful
Shrdlu: but what are you doing to share your privilege with those of us who are struggling in other forms?
Etaoin: how could I continue to contribute in the way I can while supporting your struggle ?
Etaoin: [non rhetorical question]
Etaoin: and if my support is imperfect is that a reason to abandon my project ?
Shrdlu: (uh oh. this is veering dangerously close to an actual serious conversation)
Etaoin: [[ok in the real world the answer to the that last question is an emphatic yes]]
Etaoin: (yes)
Etaoin: damn scrabble!!
Shrdlu: btw this needs to be posted on your blog
Etaoin: yes
Etaoin: the theory of scrabble
Etaoin: but I don't actually agree with my stand point
Shrdlu: yes
Shrdlu: hahaha
Etaoin: my last question I think undercuts the whole argument
Etaoin: I ll edit it up a bit and post it
Etaoin: scrabble: a dialogue
Etaoin: a Socratic dialogue
Shrdlu: haha
Shrdlu: you know, we could have had another 45 minutes of arguing about privilege after that
Etaoin: o yes
Shrdlu: I think you should append something at the end about that
Shrdlu: or we can just keep going
Etaoin: that forces me to argue in favour of privilege
Shrdlu: hehehe yup
Etaoin: not in favour but justify turning a blind eye
Shrdlu: well, no
Etaoin: or something
Shrdlu: it forces you to argue from the position of one who has privilege
Etaoin: I was doing better with my attacks on hipsterism
Shrdlu: yup
Etaoin: but that's not a defence of privilege just a weak parry
Etaoin: now I can never play scrabble again
Shrdlu: are you kidding?
Shrdlu: we just argued for 45 minutes about it
Shrdlu: that should make it more fun than ever
Shrdlu: hahaha, we rule
Etaoin: yes we do!
Etaoin: and I still like the way I play
Etaoin: short words are cool
***Etaoin sticks out tongue
Etaoin: scrabble is a good metaphor
Etaoin: words reduced to letters reduced to points
Etaoin: stuck in a rigid divided space
Shrdlu: hahahaha
Shrdlu: there was a point I was going to make a few times and then realised it actually favoured you
Etaoin: yes I was trying to make it in the opening
Shrdlu: about just as easily being able to write poetry instead of play scrabble
Etaoin: but it got lost
Etaoin: I was going to bring in Foucault
Shrdlu: and then you could put down all the pretty words you want
Shrdlu: hahahahahaa
Shrdlu: whaaaaaaaaaat
Shrdlu: how?
Etaoin: ordered space
Etaoin: letters disciplined
Etaoin: asserting power over words by placing them in a rigid ordered space
Shrdlu: very structuralist
Etaoin: my short words that line up against each other
Etaoin: subvert that by creating cross currents of meaning
Shrdlu: was I going to have to bring in Derrida and give it some poststructuralist insanity?
Shrdlu: argue for margins, parenthetical, and footnotes in scrabble?
Etaoin: haha
Etaoin: that's the real way to play
Shrdlu: agreed
Shrdlu: diagonal words. letter stacked on top of one another. using the letters that spell "scrabble" on the game board as part of your words
Etaoin: I love it
Shrdlu: house of scrabble tiles
Etaoin: LOL
Etaoin: (I still didn't like that book)
Etaoin: tiles under the board
Etaoin: and next to the board
Shrdlu: yup
Etaoin: cut up magazines to get more letters
Shrdlu: yes!!!
Etaoin: and pictures
Shrdlu: start writing stories, pictures
Shrdlu: yes
Etaoin: take polaroids of previous states of the board
Etaoin: so you can have a tree of possible boards
Etaoin: scrabble is art
Etaoin: who knew
Etaoin: I think this counts as conceptual art
Shrdlu: hahahaha, totally
Etaoin: the shop should have a scrabble party
Etaoin: wait, Lorem went to a scrabble party on new years eve
Shrdlu: also, when you put this on the blog, can you include something about this little conversation we've had about post-structuralist scrabble?
Shrdlu: oh yeah
Etaoin: class traitor?
Shrdlu: hahahaha
Etaoin: o I will
Etaoin: you should "confront" her when you see her
Etaoin: send her messages written with tiles
Shrdlu: hhahaha

Theoretical Relationships

As radicals, we do our best to be aware of and confront issues of power dynamics and specifically gender dynamics, gender roles, feminism, patriarchy, etc. Most of the time we're focused on what's happening out in the world. Some of the time we bother to check how we're doing within our own community. But what happens in our personal relationships? I sometimes feel like the ongoing critical analysis in my head gets in the way of my ability to fall in love like "normal people" do. Relationships with other people shouldn't be mediated by theory. But at the same time I wouldn't want it any other way, because I feel that my politics should permeate everything I do, and what's more important than relationships? That's exactly the place where we should be confronting the ills of the society we live in and building the future we want to see.

Which is why I would like to pose the question: What is the role of theory in a relationship? (and am I even asking the right question?)

First Post

Hey. We were just talking theory. Join us. There's food and drinks in the kitchen (and thanks for bringing a dish). Have a seat wherever you want, and welcome to the conversation!