September 17, 2006: Trouble-Tickets, the flag, struggle, sectarianism, and surrender
A colleague once mentioned his objection to the use of the flag as part of the Trouble-Tickets logo. "I can't direct the people I work with to the site if there's a flag on it."
I told him he's clearly working with the wrong people. But, there's no reason to expect him to understand a joke like that.
Why is that flag there?
Yesterday I posted a piece about the overdetermined complexity of ideological narratives. The flag is a narrative, in our sense. Along with the word "patriotism" it has many meanings, often contradictory, often confused.
What does it mean to the people who visit the site? To average Americans? To the people my colleague works with who won't visit the site if there's a flag on it?
Different things, which illustrates the point.
Meanings are never simple. They're the outcomes of complex and intense and ongoing processes, not of neutral interpretation, but of struggle. Overt, obscure, conscious, unconscious, individual, societal: their overdetermination is the result of these complex and intersecting processes of struggle.
Why is that flag there?
Because we believe that the meaning of words like "patriotism" and symbols such as the flag can be and should be struggled over.
"Patriotism" means: loyalty to the best interests of our people.
The "Patriots" of the revolutionary period are the political forefathers of the contemporary left. The "Tories" of that period are the political forefathers of the contemporary right.
These are powerful narratives. They shouldn't be abandoned. It's incompetent to abandon them.
Why do the people my colleague works with object to the flag logo? Because they're sectarians, who refuse to struggle, that is who agree in advance to be defeated, because the messy realities of the struggle conflict with their sectarian agenda. Why did I joke with my colleague that he shouldn't work with them? Because they can never win, because they don't want to win, because they don't want to struggle, because the messy realities of the struggle conflict with their sectarian agenda.
Fuck 'em.
But that's maybe a different blog.
Comments
Recall the famous exchange between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine after the end of the Revolutionary War:
Franklin: "Where liberty is, that is my country."
Paine: "Where liberty is not, that is mine."
Both statements were, dialectically speaking, partially true and forcefully indicated the birth of the modern political struggle to struggle over, work through, and move beyond patriotism in order to achieve a meaningful internationalism. Some years later Paine famously proclaimed that "My country is the world; and my religion is to do good."
If the modern political struggle has been to enlarge and deepen human freedom within, and beyond, the nation, then the Marxist tradition has, at its best, made three important contributions to this cause. First of all, we Marxists have sought to explain how capitalist social relations hinder such enlargement and deepening of human freedom. Secondly, we have tried to outline a feasible socialist alternative. Finally, we have proposed a strategy of self-emancipation by the working class and all other oppressed groups.
Dialectical patriotism, anyone?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2006 05:59 PM
In one of the worst disasters in the fight over the future of the United States many well meaning people, of the left and right, let a group of extremists take possession on the United States flag. Or, to use the term under discussion, the narrative or emotional connection, associated with the flag. The sometimes visceral reaction that many people have to a display of the flag, coming as it does from association with pro-war individuals and groups, starting with the Vietnam War, has played heavily against the anti-war and progressive movements since that time.
Just to give you a prime examples: Library Director Marcellee Gralapp of the Boulder Colorado Public Library refused a request from her staff to hang a large U.S. flag at the entrance to the library. She justified the decision stating: "[displaying the flag might] compromise our objectivity. We have people of every faith and culture walking into this building, and we want everybody to feel welcome.� Why did this person think a flag would make someone feel unwelcome? A leader of the protest against this decision responded "[the library] is a government building and this is our country�s flag. For them to say this flag could be considered offensive, well, that�s just beyond the pale." Tell me who "won" the narrative and why?
This coincides with another set-back, a disadvantage to the left that continues to this day. The right (or the corporate state, or any given administration) commits acts which we as citizens disapprove. Many will use wording such as "The United States has..." When you do that, those in power have, with those words, "won" the fight to control the narrative. This enables the accusation that critics "hate America." For years I have taken care in my writing and in my verbal discussions to pin the responsibility for policies where it belongs: the [fill in the blank] administration did XYZ and I object to this because [insert reason here]. Focus the criticism on the originators of the policy and shift the focus away from the United States. I care about what leaders of my country do. In theory they are supposed to be accountable to us, not the other way around. Make a clear distinction between the country and its leaders. Many critics of a given administration's policies continue to impale themselves on this pointy rhetorical weapon. I suggest as the best way to construct a "counter-narrative" that we always make a habit to use the name of an administration or an individual when making our criticisms. We side-step the "they (meaning us) hate" America nonsense.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 20, 2006 07:32 PM