Slow Revolution
Conspiracy flat, 2012
I
The contemporary rhythm of life – if it is possible to make such an intuitive generalization – is often determined by the pragmatic achievement of goals. The world around us is also structured to accommodate this rhythm, for example: fast food outlets, methods of transport and other systems organized in such a way for people to get a result, having invested as little time as possible. However, this daily rhythm can generate a feeling of unfulfillment and a desire for compensatory experiences: people search for alternative forms of expression, which are found in various „pre-technology” activities, such as handcrafts, painting, cooking and gardening for example. These activities cannot be reduced to the simple achievement of a goal, because the process, and the fact that it has been undertaken, is just as important as the result.
However, the search for alternatives does not require a choice between these apparently conflicting models of the world. Instead, we should consider what the American philosopher of technology Albert Borgmann calls main or focal practices1 – those which contrast with daily activities, but also simultaneously structure the general flow of life. One example of this is the creation of a special table culture, which replaces fast food in certain instances and cannot be reduced to the act of eating to feel sated.
These practices are comparatively well suited to a bourgeois lifestyle, although the question remains if it is possible to coordinate a slow life with the revolution (not various types of pseudo revolutionary social activities such as, for example, passionately expressing one’s opinion about political questions at a social dinner)? A revolution consists of sped-up social changes. As such it is difficult for revolutions to become part of the everyday life a bourgeois society – not only because the aims of revolutions are sometimes unacceptable, but also because they don’t allow for significant acts of observation and reflection. In Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feurbach, he comments: Philosophers have explained the world in a variety of ways, but the main aim is to transform it.”2 It is precisely this opinion about political involvement – the search for new models of activity – that allows representatives of the bourgeoisie to avoid being involved in revolutionary activities. Furthermore participating in a revolution would be an uncomfortable occupation, because it involves violence, the division of property and various other undesirable side effects.
Marx, in his description of the destruction of the Paris Commune, classified it as a special type of show which was suited to a bourgeois passing of time: the representatives of the bourgeoisie watched the battle with great pleasure through a telescope, counted cannon blasts and swore on their honour and on that of the local street walker’s honour that the show was much better than in the theatre by the Porte Saint-Martin. The fallen were really dead, the screams of the wounded were not staged, and the drama that unfolded in front of their eyes was the drama of world history.3 A revolution is a special event because a particular, previously unknown political subject announces itself, and with its actions attempts to change the logic of existence. This subject is the potential potentiality, which either gains a political voice, or cannot realize its potential and – being subjected to moral judgement – is normalized back beneath the ruling structure.4 An example of this on a local scale was the so-called „13th of January” or „Cobblestone Revolution” in Riga in 2009, and the following comments and judgements expressed by politicians and other members of the ruling elite in the media.
The aim of the project “Slow Revolution” is to discard the interpretation of the slow life of the bourgeoisie and to find an answer to the question: is it possible to take part in a revolution from a safe distance, actively creating focal practices and simultaneously discovering the possibility of different models?
II
A document recently came into our possession, which is quite peculiar. In 1914, 3000 workers from the “Fenikss” factory in Riga left their work stations and went home, without issuing any demands. This kind of behaviour may seem irrational, taking into account the political climate of this and previous years, when workers actively protested, issued demands and so forth – it was considered that to gain a desirable result, it was necessary to make their (the worker’s) needs known. However, this aforementioned event and quiet resilience could just as well be regarded as an act which threatens the current political order the most. A change in political order provides for the creation of new political subjects, which were not visible as potential voices in the political milieu earlier. We are talking about the potential of potentiality when we behold how workers, who earlier were not political subjects, suddenly become such. However, for the potential of potentiality to preserve its status (for it to exist), the logic of existence must change. The logic of existence dictates that one does not arrive at legally formulated relationships of the old establishment, but instead changes and creates a new basis for relationships themselves. Words and formulated demands are the things which allow one to arrive at legal relations – within these relations, those who are not the “rulers” will always be the losers, because they have not created the language, rules and order in which they want to be heard. The intellectual pretends that they can read the message, although those carrying out a subversive act do not offer a key to help understand their work; thanks to the absence of the key and the subsequent difficulty in interpretation, the bourgeoisie and intellectuals are made powerless – they are dependent on those who are acting, but in this case they have no way to reinforce their superiority over them. Therefore the most dangerous form of activity is that which is not expressed in words, which are carried out without concrete statements and demands - because these threaten the foundation of political ontology.
Artists' Bios:
Iliāna Veinberga is an art historian, curator and art critic. She has obtained MA in Art History from the Art Academy of Latvia, where she currently is a PhD student. Veinberga’s academic interests include 20th century design history and industrially produced objects of Soviet era. She has participated in research projects, most notably „Documenting and preservation of the non-conformist heritage of the Soviet Period for the archive of the Contemporary Art Museum” carried out by the Latvian Centre for the Contemporary Art (2010). In 2011 she co-curated the exhibition „Modernization. Baltic Art, Architecture and Design in the 1960s-1970s” at National Gallery of Art, Vilnius, Lithuania. Apart from academic duties she enjoys curating contemporary art exhibitions and collaborates on various art related projects, etc.
Ainārs Kamoliņš has obtained BA (2002) and MA (2006) degrees in philosophy from the University of Latvia and right now studies Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen. His academic interests focus on questions raised by early modern philosophers. Kamoliņš regularly takes part in conferences, and his papers have been published in conference proceedings, journals and the mass media. In 2008 Kamoliņš took part in a bio-art workshop organized by Symbiotica in Stavanger, Norway. Since then, the correlation between philosophical theories and biology has become one of his interests. Kamoliņš participated in SURVIVAL KIT 3, developing a project together with Iliāna Veinberga.
1 Borgmann, Albert. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life - University of Chicago Press, 1984.
2 Markss, Kārlis. Tezes par Feierbachu. – Markss K., Engelss F. Darbu izlase. 2. sēj. – LVI, 1950. 380.lpp.
3 Markss, Kārlis. Pilsoņu karš Francijā. – Markss K., Engelss F. Darbu izlase. 1. sēj. – LVI, 1950 493.lpp.
4 Badiou, Allan. The Communist Hypothesis. – New York, London: Verso, 2010. – pp. 168-228.