A small lexicon concerning an individual’s understanding of the current situation in the Netherlands.
by Ernst van den Hemel
Everywhere people are scurrying to find words to describe what is happening. Increasingly people are feeling that words are no longer suitable to reach either consensus or to express dissent. Those who want to express criticism can feel an active lack of words behind which one can rally. What follows is a very personal lexicon of words that fail to house the social.
‘Polder model’
What is left of the famous Dutch ‘polder model’ consists of one person in parliament. The technocrat head of the social-democrat party was hailed as the social-democrat answer to populist times, yet fails to revive old values. Stubbornly insisting on doing old-school politics, he speaks of respect and decency like reminiscent of an age in which it ensured the most common-sense definition of the polder model (the same one wikipedia offers): ‘a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity’. For anyone aware of the basics of current Dutch politics, charged as the situation is with talk of failed integration, notions of insecurity, and an obsessive fear for Islam, this model is clearly an anachronism. In a recent bout in Dutch parliament, the social-democrat leader Job Cohen was heckled, insulted and humiliated by populist politicians. This was certainly to much delight of the media, for which the combination of shame and amusement served to feed a public hungry for both. What we can see is not just the end of old politics versus new politics, it is also a display of the defunct status of consensus based politics, and thus of a form of dialogue. This type of politics traditionally pacified conflictual politics and in the past the polder model has helped to marginalize forms of politics that were aimed at dissensus. Now, ‘poldering’ as a way of doing politics is dead, and conflict is generated by criticizing its implied depoliticized tolerance. As a result the media reported on the heckling of the social-democrat as a sign of the declining moral standards in the political arena. While in fact it was the belated death of social-democratic ‘poldering' and the possibility for dialogue that we were witnessing. What was presented as a clash was in fact an embarrassing silence and the impossibility of breaching the single language of politics that is available at the moment. The result is a widespread feeling of unease amongst those who want to criticize the status quo. People wanting to criticize current developments are stuck in either appealing, in a conservative fashion, for an outdated model of consensus or in failed attempts to defend their ideals using the language of liberal democracy – a language that in fact might not be suitable or capable to accommodate them.
‘Art’
Defending art in a politicized society – one that is increasingly asking art to defend itself in terms that are alien to its practice - artists, curators and institutions are scurrying to redefine themselves. Or, the protests seem to come down to simple, conservative resistance: saying ‘no’. At a demonstration in the autumn of 2010, entitled ‘Nederland Schreeuwt om Cultuur’ or the ‘the Netherlands is screaming for culture’, a representative, Frits Bolkestein, of the ruling liberal party VVD, spoke to a mainly left leaning critical-of-the-government crowd. ‘I am not in favour of budget-cuts on culture. I am against these budget-cuts. I am in favour of an increase of funds for culture. And I want to finance these extra funds for culture… by taking money away from development-aid.’ After a short pause, the crowd roared with indignation.[1]
The moment and the triumphant grin on Bolkestein’s face was a clear indication of a lack of language that expresses solidarity, or that knows how to speak about language without relegating the discussion to a debate on dividing funds between ‘leftist hobbies’ such as art and developmental aid. Bolkestein presented a clear and dominant situation: politics consists of distribution of means within the status quo. The only answer was anger. A non-verbal roar that communicates very little.
‘Squatting’
With the criminalization of squatting on the 1st of October 2010, a number of things became apparent. First of all, the outlawing of squatting signalled a prevalence of the right to own property over the right to be housed, and the right for populations to claim empty spaces in crowded cities. At the same time it became increasingly clear that the language traditionally used to defend the practice of squatting had become insufficient. All-too often, defending squatting comes down to either cooperation with municipalities, proving that squatters are in fact good cultural entrepreneurs for the gentrification of neighbourhoods, or to retreat in an ‘outside of the State’ position, under the threat of increasing criminalization and evictions.
For a long time, it was possible to eat in one of the voku’s on each day of the week, squatters provided housing for precarious people, and free space for cultural activities that were marginalized in more commercial cultural spheres. How come this teach-by-example critique of society lost impact and momentum? In the period leading up to the ban on squatting, supporters invited cultural institutions, communal living spaces to place a banner on their building stated ‘made possible by the squatter’s movement.’ It was made visible in what way the history of squatting led to many mainstream cultural spaces. Yet, it became also visible how setting up and defending the appropriation of empty spaces was increasingly difficult. Why has it become increasingly difficult to defend a practice that provides housing in spaces that are not being used, that allows one to eat for a couple of euros every day of the week? That allows one to enjoy cultural activities without having to pay a high sum? That keeps a housing market troubled by speculation sharp? Whereas the polder model fails in making consensus as open to pluriformity as possible, the squatting scene fails to generate popular support for dissensus. Activists are holding out, and, indeed, as in Amsterdam, regional politicians and populations are against the ban on squatting, but they lack the language to defend those who appropriate space that is rotting away.
‘”Illegal” migrants’
In April 2011, Kambiz Roustayi set himself on fire on the dam-square in Amsterdam. This most visible and dramatic of act was immediately depoliticized in the media, as well in public debates. The news covered the item by stating ‘there is no reason to think that this act was politically motivated’. The harrowing footage of the event showed people shouting ‘What an idiot!’ and ‘Why don’t people do this sort of shit at home?’[2] At the same time, activists struggled to find words to connect the despair of a victim of Dutch immigration policies to the everyday life of an average Dutch citizen. They keep struggling to give words to the lived invisibility that is the result of policies whose goal is to criminalize the presence of ‘illegal’ migrants. They are right, it is outrageous that documented human rights offences in Dutch detention centres aren’t enough for massive protests against policies that push people to suicide. In light of the self-proclaimed respect for human rights in Dutch society, new words need to be found to connect an outward appearance with the actual indignation failing to provide human rights for humans on Dutch soil.
’Gay rights ‘
In a number of articles in recent years, Judith Butler stated that increasingly the issue of gay rights is connected to an intolerant form of islamophobia. We can see this problem clearly in the Netherlands. Once associated with the progressive avant-garde of Europe, the gay-rights agenda seems to have passed over in the hands of xenophobes and conservatives. Conservative as well as populist politicians promise to protect ‘our homosexuals’ from islamic intolerance. Interestingly, conservative standpoints moved from worries about homosexuality in public life, to an embrace of gay culture and stressing the need to defend gay individuals against muslim intolerance. It is one of many examples of left-wing language that has been hijacked by an agenda that favours identity politics and fear of foreign elements. The challenge is to formulate a discourse that accomodates ways in which notions related to gender and sexuality can be addressed without prefiguring an intolerant Western European notion of identity. There’s an Amsterdam movement of queer activists that are actively trying to align mainstream notions of gay movements with a broader political appeal. Their struggle, expressed in the Queeristan festival, should be seen as an attempt to reboot a process of progressive emancipation. Far from over, the struggle surrounding sexuality and gender should connect with the struggle against broader notions identity-politics, resisting those who want to claim their appeal to emancipation as an reason for oppressing a different minority.
The search for a common language: presence?
As someone who has been an active supporter of the squatting movement and who thinks that the treatment of illegal migrants is one of Europe’s central problems, as someone who thinks that art is important, yet also who is clearly convinced that the polder model and its emphasis on consensus has failed - in short, as someone who wrote the above, it becomes apparent that although the absence of words can be painfully felt. The coherence of these frustrations might be difficult to perceive, similarities are nonetheless beginning to arise, if only because there is an active lack of voice that offers people the idea that things can change.
A beginning of an answer might be found in the Occupy Movement, and in particular in the General Assemblies that are such a characteristic element of them. In Amsterdam, as in New York and in other places in the world, the human microphone method is employed, in which participants repeat the words of whoever speaks in the Assembly. Born out of necessity (the New York Occupants were not allowed to use amplification), the method has transformed into a symbol of a new style of doing politics. The public meetings are long, and the consensus-based model can be frustrating at times. Yet at the same time, the simple presence of people discussing and deciding political issues that address the 99%, and the active non-hierarchical participation enabled by the human microphone method might be more important than the representation of a group or the ideological outcome. This is what makes Occupy differ from regular demonstrations. They are not expressions of coherent opinions that one can negotiate with in order to quench unrest. They are not, in short, part of the polder model, but a presence of people united in frustration with the status-quo. The non-hierarchical democratic element in these protests is more important than determining which lobby-group or political party approaches the Occupy ideals most. As such the Occupy Movement can be seen as an exercise in democracy in times when representational democracies have failed to provide words for peoples’ problems. One should see the assemblies in Spain, New York, and during the Arab Spring not as expressions of a preference for a pre-existant flavour of the status quo. Instead the occupations of public space, and the assemblies held there should be seen as a new form of politics that might not be coherent yet, but as attempts to combine participatory politics with fundamental criticism, and as a univocal expression of the need to seek new words to bind different angers together. Far from being confused expressions of an ill-defined interest-group, the occupations should be seen as the disrupting presence of those who up until now have lacked words to explain what they are doing. The manifesto’s that arise from the different occupied squares and streets in the U.S, Spain and all over the world give voice not to a detailed pragmatic programme, but to an anger that lacks representation.[3] The manifestoes preemptively undermine the criticism that one needs to speak clearly in order to be heard.
In the Netherlands, at the moment of publication, the presence of masses is absent. The Occupy Movement is nonetheless is starting to generate responses, and according to various polls, it can count on the support of the majority of the population. Things are far from perfect however. A country whose entire recent political tradition consists of consensus, is now faced with its demise. The Occupy Movement is faced with questions like ‘show us your demands’, and ‘whose side are you on?’ and the participants struggle to keep their ideology open, and their action unclaimed by political parties without falling into obscurity. We will see if the Occupy Movement can resist these forces. But perhaps we should remember that, in a situation where speaking comes down to taking sides that are part of the problem instead of the solution, it is alright to resist the call to provide words. In a situation where potential critics are left with a one-sided linguistic scheme that favours a particularly zealous brand of neo-liberalism and conservatism - the question becomes how to rally around the silence before the storm. There is little coherence, but similarities are starting to appear.
What the themes adressed in the lexicon above have in common is that the lack of words to describe what’s going on is almost tangible. The moment it becomes tangible, all we need to do is grab it.
[2]See ‘Human Torch in Amsterdam’ on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSyNIgf9uwg&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dkambiz%2Broustayi%26aq%3D
No comments:
Post a Comment