Individualism and uniqueness are not the same
Front lawns are American republican (small r) expressions of individualism. Here I am, here is my private property. Keep off the grass. The lawn is a carpet. The lawn is part of the inside of the house, like a carpet, on the outside, like an assiduous dinner guest showing their tongue, to show you it's clean. (My essay on that, kind of an ecological subject to say the least.)
Lawns are individual but they sure aren't unique. In fact in many jurisdictions you can be prosecuted quite severely for not making sure that they fall in lines with exact specifications for individualism. They have to look masculine, for instance: 1.75" is the standard crew cut. And no psychedelic crucefixes!
Because they are withdrawn, objects are unique. In my terminology they are strange strangers, irreducibly uncanny. This doesn't mean that they are individuals or that they are individualists. In fact, it means that they can enter into any affiliation they goddamn want. The fundamental anarchy of objects allows for communist enclaves, individual isolationists, syndacalist collectives and monarchies.
So in answer to a comment on an earlier post, no, the fact that emergence is sensual, or that OOO isn't a form of holism, doesn't mean that objects are individualists.
Holism or individualism. That choice is itself a kind of stark alternative, which reminds me of the title and intent of Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy. The point is, argues Arnold, you can have authority, or you can have anarchy. Guess which one he prefers? Seems to me that it's equally “polite” in eco circles to say you're a holist. I want a lot more options than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment