Posted on April 13th, 2006 in activism, musings and
M. mentions boundaries—and she’s right. It comes down to boundaries, the objectification of the land, the measurement, the quantification, the reduction of space, the reigning in of the imagination (necessary, at times, in order for our small minds to combat the vastness of space). It’s how man imposes his dominion over the land. Control. And, then, who has control? Who has the right to ownership? A political body? A collective group of land-users? A moneyed individual? And, then, is the ownership of land transferrable? Usurpable? Or, indomitable? (One wonders if a collective group of land-users might propose it’s own brand of eminent domain?) What right does a group have to the land, in the interest of the common good?
Land ownership was/is the myth of the inalienable right, of existential certitude. To own land is to be—fully. It is the dream. A dream, however, built upon the foundation of sand (not of rock). The American myth (space is ours to divvy up and a small slice is available for all who can obtain it). Quick sand, quickly dispersed like sifted silt. Gold remains. Gold to gamble. Fortunes found. But I digress—what I meant to say was: Land cannot be owned unless it can be measured, described, and sold. The land of many controlled by an elect few. Where is the common good in all of that?
This is somewhat abstract. More precisely: What if we claim the land for ourselves, we the collective land-users? How might we stake such a claim. Before time, the land was not owned. Once, there was a time when the land was still not owned, but the land was used. Not used; tended, cared for, felt and understood. (Oh, this is an ecological issue, too!) Those people who tended the land were coerced and cajoled. One value system came from across the great waters and corrupted, displaced another value system. Then, the land was owned. And it was exploited, and it was abused. But it provided some with a livelihood and it provided even less with great power and wealth. The subjugation of the land and of the land-users became unnaturally natural. And we’re still paying down that debt.
From where do we draw our strength? The American myth of land ownership has coupled wonderfully with the other great American myth—the myth of the (empowered and determined) individual. (It is who we are; I feel it even now, writing this.) Alas, so was born a great schism in the American consciousness: I am an individual, I have a voice, yet that voice is no more (or less) significant than the voice of my compatriots. (This does not sit well with many of us. So we inflate our meager voices with shouting, kicking, bribing, hating, stealing… the list goes on.) One voice, one vote; not quite enough it seems. Many voices, many votes—the collectivization of individual wills. (Are we moving left or right with this?) Maybe democracy, maybe socialism, maybe even anarchism—all depends on the particular form. Not monarchism, not totalitarianism, not even oligarchism (I’m talking to you, Dick). The collectivization of individual wills. For the common good. (Not for the State.) A collective action with common cause.
Back to boundaries, because that’s where I started. Put them aside—hypothetically, of course–and imagine a boundless space free of trespassers (because there is nothing to trespass upon) and open to meaningful use. I’m thinking of a place, a place of openness, of enjoyment, of respect, of debate, of disagreement, of frustration, of comraderie, of trust, of accountability. (Hey, it’s a place where your dog can take a crap—and you want to clean up after it.) It’s a place of cyclical occurrences, where things grow and pass away, and as many things flow in and out. It changes, because we change, because everything changes. It’s a symbolic place, but we use it like we use our front yard. It’s a place we want to be. It’s a public place. You know this place.
In 2004 the State of Pennsylvania passed legislation allowing slots gaming in Pennsylvania, and two gaming licenses have been designated for Philadelphia. Three of the potential sites are located on the Delaware River, approximately 1-2 miles from where I live in the Fishtown section of the city.
Posted on February 13th, 2006 in activism, of interest, project news and
Wes Janz, an architectural educator at Ball State University, has initiated One Small Project, a collection of projects related to his forthcoming book: Building More, Wanting Less: architects searching for relevance, one person, and one small project at a time.
The site features a range of projects that operate on the periphery of “proper” Architecture—provisional structures, bricolage tactics, leftover materials, displaced persons, vernacular contexts. Contributions come from architects, designers, artists, activists, and others working across the globe.
You’ll also find my Provisional Monument project included as a contribution to One Small Project. It’s exciting to be included with such a wide array of substantial and critical work.
Posted on January 15th, 2006 in activism and
Noam Chomsky speaks to power:
There’s basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that.
…in this interview on alternet.org. I’ve seen Chomsky speak before, and he’s brilliant of course, but his analysis and critique are always so sharp as to be overwhelming. However, what keeps us from sinking into a paralyzing despair is his genuine optimism that things can change for the better if only we do the work:
What gives me hope actually is public opinion. Public opinion in the United States is very well studied, we know a lot about it. It’s rarely reported, but we know about it. And it turns out that, you know, I’m pretty much in the mainstream of public opinion on most issues. I’m not on some, not on gun control or creationism or something like that, but on most crucial issues, the ones we’ve been talking about, I find myself pretty much at the critical end, but within the spectrum of public opinion. I think that’s a very hopeful sign. I think the United States ought to be an organizer’s paradise.
Posted on January 22nd, 2005 in activism and
He might just be the next Kennedy for my generation. I don’t know much about him, but apparently he may be running for New York State Attorney General. He’s done much work to clean up the Hudson River (with amazing success) with an environmental activist group called Riverkeeper and has recently published a book Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy–the title makes it clear enough what his mission is all about.
Read Kennedy: Fascist America for more of an introduction to Kennedy. I’ve remarked and lamented the unmistakable strains of Fascism (Friendly some would call it) evident in the Bush oligarchy and corporate ownded and operated government (Corporatism) before, and it seems that Kennedy is investigating these same dire tendencies as well. When statements made by Hitler’s propaganda chief Herman Goerring seem to describe so perfectly the tenor of the Bush Oligarchy’s politics in practice, is something seriously wrong?
Posted on November 5th, 2004 in activism and
This morning, some (very little) of the mind-numbing immobility I felt the day after Tuesday with the knowledge of Bush’s re-election is starting to wear off. Sure, I’m still stunned, worried, angry, nauseous, bewildered. In truth, the people have spoken, and the people will get what they deserve. (The real tragedy is that the rest of us, the other half of this country, will have to suffer what they deserve also.) It’s time to prepare ourselves for the next four years. (Shit, almost a decade of my life will have been spent under this idiot!) What are you–we–going to do to stop the impending assault on our civil liberties, the working poor, independent media, peace, the necessary separation between church and state, and a host of other issues of social justice?
I find myself waiting for reassuring words from my elders in the form of historical long-views and firsthand accounts of lived experience which tell me that things have been worse, that we’re just in one of the many troughs of history, that the pendulum will swing back, that Hegel’s dialectical model will hold true and this culture and nation will move forward rather than backward. Much of the post-election commentary has been so non-scholarly, so uninteresting in either its doom-and-gloom vision or its pumped-up we’ll-get-’em-next-time rhetoric. What’s really going on here?
I’m even more anxious to read Thomas Frank’s (editor of The Baffler) latest book What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, which traces how socially conservative Americans traded in labor and economic issues (job safety, fair trade, fiscal responsibility) for a small handful of “values” issues. The obvious point here is that the very party these folks voted for are systematically implementing policies which push them further down the economic ladder.
