Monday, September 29, 2008

Reflections on Political Responsibility

Well, I could be writing about the stock-market I guess, but really, I just don't have much to say about it. It's not a shock to me; the financial market is a big, global casino and like at any good casino, poor Jane and Joe who are hoping for the a roll of the dice to change their lives, are getting fucked in a bad way. I'm sorry for them. That's it.

I would much rather write a short entry in response to, or in reflection on, an article written by Serbian political scientist Dasa Duhacek on the role of individual and collective responsibility in Serbian. She is making her analysis of the events of the 1991-1999 period through the lens of Hanna Arendt's thesis of responsibility. In essence Arendt, and subsequently Duhacek, argue that it is the responsibility of the individual for crimes committed in their name, by their political representatives, elected or not.

As Duhacek suggests, "No leader, no hierarchical structure can stand without the support of a plurality of individuals..." Thus it is suggested that anyone who participates in an unjust system, who does not actively oppose or declare their "disloyalty" is responsible for all acts carried out by the system. Arendt's most famous work on the subject is, of course, Eichmann in Jerusalem.

As I read Duhacek's text, and the parallels she draws to Serbian society, I found myself in agreement, nodding my head in a somber, scholarly fashion at the appropriate moments. But a question jumped out at me half way through: what about knowledge? I wondered what the role of knowledge was in relation to individual responsibility? I know that for myself, knowledge is precisely what makes me responsible for what is carried out by my government (as I have not done much to oppose it or declare myself disloyal...). Yet, can we say the same about individuals who, for one reason or another, have never been educated to construct such critical thoughts of the political system under which they live?

I thought of these question in the Serbian context. There is a significant gap in wealth between Belgrade and the rest of the country, and again between the region of Vojvodina and Central and South Serbia. As a result, educational centers such as top academies and Universities tend to be clustered in Belgrade and Vojvodina (with a few minor exceptions). Thus it is also logical to conclude that there is a difference in level, strength, and access of education also.

So, can we say that a person, to poor to move to Belgrade and attend university, where they would acquire the same critical analysis skills I posses, is also responsible? What about agricultural communities? There lives are focused on the production of food, there academic education is secondary to the agricultural one. What is their relationship to responsibility?

My question, finally, is simply, what responsibility does an individual have, who has no knowledge, and therefore no ability or tools with which to critically asses their lives as political, towards the actions of the state?

Luckily, I will have the occasion to ask Dasa Duhacek herself tomorrow. Stay tuned...

Sunday, September 28, 2008

It came to me at 2 am...


The above quote was taken from an interview with Slavoj Zizek. It is called Zizek on Vegetarianism and can be found on youtube.com. I am mentioning this because since my arrival in Serbia I have chosen to follow a vegetarian diet.

The reasons for this conversion are interesting, to me at least. In part I am doing this to test myself, to see how much meat is a habit, and how deeply it is ingrained in human culture. Serbia is particularly meat orientated and not always open minded towards new ideas or identities, adding to the challenge. A fellow (Serbian) vegetarian shared the story of a time when he was offered some food, which he refused due to the meat content. The food pusher, however, protested that there was no meet in the dish. Only noodles and chicken.

The question here is whether I eat meat because my body needs it, or simply because that is how I was brought up, with the societies around me (including the educational system) telling me I need proteins (which I do) and that I get that from eating meat (which is true), but not telling me where else I can get it. I have also learned that the process of digesting animal proteins, turning them into something my body can use, takes a huge amount of energy, and thus is not particularly efficient, particularly in relation to the proteins derived from non-meat sources, which are already in a form our body can use.

I have also chosen to abstain from eating meat due to conditions suffered by the animals born and raised for human use and consumption. Not only do their lives amount to a miserable torture, but also, the waste produced is an environmental disaster. The waste created by thousands of cows, or pigs or chickens living in a tiny geographical area generally gets dumped into nearby water supplies, and contains all sorts of bacteria that should not be there. This water is then eventually consumed by other earthlings, making them sick, and spreading disease.

I think it also symbolizes our detachment from the natural world in which we have no choice but to inhabit anyway. Our subjugation of animals is but another level of power games and crude domination. The fact that meat is not a necessity for living a healthy comfortable life means this treatment of other earthlings is also not needed. As such, I am doing my best not to participate in this system.

Anyone interested in a deeply disturbing hour long documentary should watch “Earthlings”, you can google it and watch it for free on google video.

It has been interesting to observe my own willingness to admit my vegetarianism. Thus far I have been cautious to admit it, and I find myself, particularly in company where I fear a hostile reaction, minimizing its significance, or shying away from admission to not eating meat. What is this symbolic of? A fear of being the outsider? Or not wanting to challenge the norm (which is to eat meat)? Both I guess. Being a minority is never an easy thing, as the rest of society considers you a fringe element, as different, even if they are not overtly hostile towards you.

Ok, maybe being a vegitarian is not as serious as being an ethnic minority, but the mechanism of social marginalization is the same. If you don't fit in somehow, people like to question and make fun of you. I doubt I will ever be beaten up because I like veggies more than meat, but I can still feel unwelcome, like there is something wrong with me for my lifestyle. On some level that is just as brutal as being beaten up, because it make me feel pshycologically inferior or not normal.

It's an ongoing process for now, and a learning experience. At least I can say I haven’t had any meat for more than two months now, and I feel fine. No different from when I did consume beef, pork, or chicken (wait, that’s not meat…). I guess meat is not essential to our survival, and while I am suddenly growing hair in strange places, at least I am not a monkey yet.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

e-dialogue

The text below is a response to an email from a good friend in Maine. She was emailing me about my entry "Odds and Ends" in which I discussed my reaction to an interaction with a man in the street. My friend question whether the response was truly racist, or was it not more classist?

"To answer your question, re: "odds and ends", I tend to think of racism as being another term for discrimination, which can take place in many contexts (class, skin color, gender, etc.) so you are right to recognize a classist element to situation (what are you, a Marxist or something!! ;)). There is a huge financial gulf between myself and the Roma communities of the world and my prejudice towards this man is a general discrimination. I think I tended to focus on the ethnicity issue simply because it was the most obvious signifier for my response to this man.

I also know that as I was growing up in Paris, which has a significant Roma population, I was feed the stereotype of Roma as "Gypsies and thieves". Of course, this is just as much a classist mentality as a racist one.

What it ultimately boils down to is a fear of what is different from yourself, because in so many aspects of our childhood socialization process we are taught to discriminate against difference, against otherness (what ever form it takes). This was, in some way, the point I tried to make in my thesis, that by introducing team mentality and segregation through team colors, soccer (or any team sport) is encouraging a rigid, discriminatory ideology, and the physical (violent) element only enhances this type of hierarchy.

Certainly, the situation I found myself in vis-a-vis the Roma man could have happened anywhere, and it was not entirely his skin color that triggered my response. It was a combination of signifiers that made my mind assign him with the label of 'other'."

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Defining moments

Well, September doesn't look like it's going to break records on this blog, in terms of entries anyway. Between the sudden increase in workload, starting Serbian class, and a brief sejourn from home Internet connectivity (unpaid bills will do that to you, E said) have made for less than inspired evenings. But all is well here.

Over in Serbian politics, I think September will be a record month however. The implosion of the Radical party alone has the country shocked. Nikolic's split with the Radicals is as shocking as it would be if suddenly Hilary Clinton left the dems and started her own party. The Radicals (SRS) are arguably the single most popular party in Serbia, and the only reason they aren't in power is because no-one wants to coalition with them, and currently the Democrats (DS) have a fairly solid coalition with the Socialists (SPS) and some of the smaller progressive parties (like LDP and G-17).

The fact that Nikolic, who wasn't even the leader of the party, could single handedly tear it in two, virtually overnight, is amazing. Furthermore, he has already established a new party (Forward Serbia) and co-opted a significant portion of the SRS MPs. Its as if he was planning this all along... I have to say, I do find it ironic that the issue that triggered Nikolic's departure was the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) by Serbian Parliament. This issue, a key step in eventual EU integration, should be a no brainer for a nationalist: no way should they support it! But there was support within SRS for signing it, most notably by Nikolic. He even publicly announced the SRS would support it. Then Seselj, calling long distance from Holland, said: au contraire mon ami, SRS will not support this!

Nikolic left the party on the spot, and the SRS MPs boycotted the vote, and Serbian Parliament ratified the SAA. Briliant stuff. As A said, looks like the radicals are just going where the money is. It made me think for a moment, in a way, maybe this is exactly what democracy does, it tempers views, bringing everyone toward the middle. The middle is where the largest pot of votes and cash are.

The other significant event thus far in September are the developments in getting the Serbia's case on Kosovo heard by the ICJ (today the GA added it to their agenda: big score for Vuk!). 

Monday, September 8, 2008

Odds and Ends

Travel clearly is good for the writer in me. I am glad to say that August was the second busiest month, in terms of entries, on this blog. :)

I was confronted by my own deeply repressed racism the other day. It was the day where I was wandering around suburban Beograd, searching for my dentist. I was going round in circles, 30 minuets late when a Roma man, who was going through the trash and extracting the recyclable materials, called me over. In my frustration, and embarrassment at being totally clueless about where I was going, I wanted to ignore him, but I didn't. I went over and he started rattling off in Serbian, and I didn't understand anything. Eventually we figured out what the other was trying to do, and he managed to give me directions (albeit to the wrong dentist). But as he was talking to me, I noticed that I was keeping a certain distance from him and that I had my hand over my wallet in my back pocket. I had done these things subconsciously, but I felt awful once I realized what was going on.

This man had reached out and tried to help me the best he could, and my immediate reaction to him was to condemn him as a thief. It made me think back to HON 299, because I think, in some way, this is the very learned reaction, totally artificial, that Dusan was trying to get us to recognize was part of us. The critical multiculturalist in me has now exposed the deeply subconscious suspicions of otherness, embodied by this Roma man. Now I am aware of this mechanism and hope that I can deal with it in future encounters with the other.

Hmm, is it racist of me to even describe the man by (what I am assuming) is his ethnic origin? I ask this because it feels like I am not looking past his ethnicity if I continue to use it for my social cues. Rather than being a "Roma" man, maybe he is just a man.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Email from abroad

"One thing struck me about your thesis and your bibliography (this is me don't forget) and that is how are you tying gender into all this? For instance - something struck me about the football game ( and the same thing hits me again and again when listening to the news, looking at captions under pictures and soon). You talk about the number of "people" in the stadium and the"fans".

I've put those words in inverted commas because I wonder what those collective nouns are hiding - where they "people" or were they men with a few women? Were they fans or again where they actually men who happened to be fans?
If you think about the way collective nouns are used in reporting events, especially from societies where men predominate - they hide lots of things...."

This is the second time in two weeks this topic has come up re:my thesis. Its true, when I look at my bibliography, that I have defined everything from a masculine point of view, and thus made assumptions about the subjects of my discourse. The only female writer I can say had an impact on my thinking is Silvia Federici (Caliban and the Witch), but she didn't get a nod in the actual text.

It is clear that I need to take these issues into consideration. When looking over my main theoretical arguments, particularly in relation to discrimination, gender has a significant aspect to contribute. Hmm, that sounds like I am belittling it. No, what I mean is that I cannot exclude it from the discourse; I cannot pick and choose.

To my critics, I say Merci; this is an ongoing body of work and mental evolution for me, and you are contributing to its shape. Weiter so...

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

blogging before bed

What a day. Long. At work at 810 am to prepare for the morning department meeting, then a long (longer than it needed to be) meeting, and then into the dentist chair. I have one cavity, and otherwise perfect teeth. But the cavity is now plugged, and my teeth are shiny again.

Why write about this? Well, two years ago I went to the dentists in the US, Aspen Dental, and had a check up and a cleaning. They charged $60 for the cleaning, and then the dentist tried to tell me I needed 4 (four) minor fillings. I was surprised, but when they told me the total for the four fillings would be around $1000 dollars, I was devastated. No way I could afford that. So, I just brushed like a crazy man, and didn't get the fillings.

How surprised was I today when my Serbian dentists told me my teeth were in great shape, bar the one small cavity. I certainly didn't need 4 fillings. So, I was pleased, of course, but also in-sensed at the fact that I was almost scammed by this dental chain. How ironic that I was saved by poverty. By the way, one filling in Serbia cost $35 dollars, not $250. Even if I didn't have dental coverage, I would still be able to afford it.

~~

Yesterday I wrote about the experience in the Red Star stadium, and today I thought some more about it. I conceptualized the "North Curve" as a kind of law-free zone, where there is basically a state of anarchy, and in which you can do anything you want. Into this zone, no figures of legal authority dare set foot, at least not until things get so bad that the riot forces are called in.

Some one asked me today if the three kids smoking pot could have done the same in the US? I said no, certainly not in that context. Not so openly and blatantly, right in front of the security forces. In the US, those kids would have been busted for sure. But the stadium culture is also different, less violent and anarchistic, as the average US sports fan is a more law abiding person than a Serbian soccer fan.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Hello September...

Sunday was perfect. A football match followed by a football match. First stop was the Red Star game at Svezda stadium. The match was very poorly attended, I estimate about 5,000 people, but it was like being one step away from my thesis. The people in the stadium, at least the ones in the section where we were (North Curve, Red Star section), were only a generation away from their predecessors who went to Zagreb in 1991, who followed Arkan to the front line, and who fought in Vukovar.

Watching the leader of the firm stand on his bench and pump up the crowd, and seeing the many young (by young, I mean 10-15) I felt I was literally witnessing the moment of where the ideology was being transfered and propagated. It was both devastating and fascinating at the same time. The singing went, as the game deteriorated for Red Star, from encouraging support from the fans no matter what, to calling for the coaches head to threatening the players by telling them they were going to break into the training ground and beat them up.

But the most telling moment came as the game ended. The firm, en mass moved towards the very front rows of the north curve. They did this to call the players to come to them over. It was not an aggressive move, yet before they even got all the way down, the riot police appeared out of no where and formed a barrier along the fence. It seemed to me an unnecessary move on their part, and is actually what provoked the most violent behavior of the evening when the Delijer began to actually launch the flares and  at the cops. This in turn provoked a small stamped of people out of the stadium, I guess out of fear of what may happen. But that was also where it ended, and slowly the crowed dispersed.

During the match I watched three young boys smoke a joint in plain sight. They were not even hiding it from the security forces right on the other side of the fence. It made me think of something DB said a few weeks ago as we discussed the situation over the Karadzic riot. It appears as if the cops are a little less committed to the rule of law, than the hooligans are to chaos. Maybe it's a stretch to make the connection here, but the kids stood in plain sight breaking the law, the security force, clearly recognizing what was going on, did nothing. He just watched.