Je subis l’effervescence intel­lec­tuelle connue sous le nom de men­tisme.

[…]

Dans la fièvre vous êtes en proie à une foule d’erreurs tou­chant les per­sonnes et les choses ; vous n’avez plus conscience du temps ; vous exa­gé­rez les dis­tances ; vous subis­sez, auto­ma­ti­que­ment, le spec­tacle d’une fan­tas­ma­go­rie interne qui, d’une manière vague, vous fatigue, vous obsède ou vous récrée ; en un mot c’est le délire. Dans le men­tisme, il n’y a pour le moi, ni aber­ra­tion, ni désordre ; seule­ment, nous voyons, avec un sen­ti­ment très net, des pen­sées qui nous sont étran­gères, que nous ne connais­sons pas comme nôtres, et qui, s’étant comme intro­duites du dehors, pul­lulent, se meuvent avec la plus grande rapi­di­té… Je hasar­de­rai cette figure en disant qu’elles sont une seconde vue en état de stra­bisme.

[…]

Lorsque ces pen­sées intruses sont en exal­ta­tion, c’est alors qu’on sent la braise allu­mée ; mais lorsqu’elles sont calmes, elles se réduisent dans leur mul­ti­pli­ci­té, de telle sorte qu’il n’en est plus que quelques-unes qui dis­cutent, pré­disent, pro­jettent sans tenir compte du maître du logis. Se remuent-elles ? alors elles tra­versent la tête en décri­vant des lignes bri­sées comme le font des oiseaux tran­quille­ment enfer­més dans une cage. Cette com­pa­rai­son don­née, j’ajoute : – Effarouchez les oiseaux et vous aurez l’approximation du men­tisme éle­vé à sa plus haute portée.

[…]

Encore une fois, ces étran­ge­tés vous arrivent, et vous les subis­sez en sachant bien que vous n’avez pas la fièvre, que vous n’avez pris aucune liqueur capable de les engen­drer ; ce qui fait qu’elles ont un carac­tère tout par­ti­cu­lier pour le consen­sus ; et au lieu de pou­voir jamais vous char­mer, elles ne cessent de vous impor­tu­ner d’une dou­leur pro­fonde. […] Dans la condi­tion que je décris l’âme, est engois­sée pro­por­tion­nel­le­ment au degré de pas­si­vi­té qu’elle endure, parce que les phé­no­mènes qui se pro­duisent dans son habi­tacle y sont engen­drés sans sa coopé­ra­tion, au mépris de sa volon­té, de sa puis­sance, et qu’elle les consi­dère comme une inva­sion de la folie… Ce n’est pas cela, cepen­dant, car elle n’est point l’agent scé­nique, elle n’en est que la spec­ta­trice forcée.

J’insiste sur la dis­tinc­tion qu’il convient de faire entre l’inté­gri­té d’une part et l’aber­ra­tion de l’autre. Celle-ci existe dans le cer­veau, sans contre­dit, mais ne doit-on pas la consi­dé­rer comme un simple pro­duit de sur­ex­ci­ta­tion de la pulpe cor­ti­cale ? sur­ex­ci­ta­tion qui, dans le tra­jet des pro­lon­ge­ments de cette sub­stance, sur un point éloi­gné du foyer spi­ri­tuel, pro­dui­rait un four­mille­ment dans la jambe comme elle pro­duit l’anxiété pré­cor­diale, ou tout autre malaise pure­ment orga­nique. Dans ces exemples, on me l’accordera d’emblée, le symp­tôme n’a aucune prise sur le sen­ti­ment intime de notre rai­son ; car, dépla­cez l’irritation qui engendre le men­tisme, et vous aurez une crampe dans le mol­let… votre moi intel­lec­tuel n’en sera ni plus ni moins bien assis.

[…]

Il faut avoir subi la confla­gra­tion dont je parle pour être péné­tré de l’insuffisance de la réac­tion. J’affirme que, quelque effort que je fisse, ma volon­té ne pou­vait maî­tri­ser mes pen­sées, car celles-ci rico­chant de sujets en sujets, il m’était impos­sible de les tenir en bride. Donc, il y a entre nos facul­tés et nous-même toute la dif­fé­rence qu’il y a entre un cava­lier et son che­val deve­nu frénétique.

The dis­cur­sive stra­te­gy of appea­ling to safe­ty and inno­cence is also enac­ted on a micro-level when white radi­cals mani­pu­late “safe space” lan­guage to main­tain their power in poli­ti­cal spaces. They do this by silen­cing the cri­ti­cisms of POC under the pre­tense that it makes them feel “unsafe.” This use of safe space lan­guage conflates dis­com­fort and actual immi­nent dan­ger — which is not to say that white people are entit­led to feel safe any­way. The phrase “I don’t feel safe” is easy to mani­pu­late because it frames the situa­tion in terms of the speaker’s per­so­nal fee­lings, making it dif­fi­cult to respond cri­ti­cal­ly (even when the per­son is, say, being racist) because it will injure their per­so­nal sense of secu­ri­ty. Conversation often ends when people poli­ti­cize their fee­lings of dis­com­fort by using safe space lan­guage. The most ludi­crous example of this that comes to mind was when a woman from Occupy Baltimore mani­pu­la­ted femi­nist lan­guage to defend the police after an “occu­pier” cal­led the cops on a home­less man. When the police arri­ved to the encamp­ment they were ver­bal­ly confron­ted by a group of pro­tes­ters. During the confron­ta­tion the woman made an effort to pro­tect the police by inser­ting her­self bet­ween the police and the pro­tes­ters, tel­ling those who were angry about the cops that it was unjus­ti­fied to exclude the police. In the Baltimore City Paper she was quo­ted saying, “they were vio­la­ting, I thought, the cops’ space.”

The invo­ca­tion of per­so­nal secu­ri­ty and safe­ty presses on our affec­tive and emo­tio­nal regis­ters and can thus be mani­pu­la­ted to jus­ti­fy eve­ry­thing from racial pro­fi­ling to war. When people use safe space lan­guage to call out people in acti­vist spaces, the one wiel­ding the lan­guage is fra­med as inno­cent, and may even ampli­fy or poli­ti­cize their pre­su­med inno­cence. After the woman from Occupy Baltimore came out as a sur­vi­vor of vio­lence and said she was trau­ma­ti­zed by being yel­led at while defen­ding the cops, I noti­ced that many people became unwilling to take a cri­ti­cal stance on her bla­tant­ly pro-cop, clas­sist, and home­less-pho­bic actions and com­ments, which inclu­ded sta­te­ments like, “There are so many home­less drunks down there — suf­fe­ring from a nas­ty disease of addic­tion — what do I care if they are there or not ? I would rather see them in treat­ment — that is for sure — but where they pass out is irre­le­vant to me.” Let it be known that anyone who puts their body bet­ween the cops and my com­rades to pro­tect the State’s mono­po­ly on vio­lence is a col­la­bo­ra­tor of the State. Surviving gen­de­red vio­lence does not mean you are inca­pable of per­pe­tua­ting other forms of vio­lence. Likewise, people can also mobi­lize their expe­riences with racism, trans­pho­bia, or clas­sism to puri­fy them­selves. When people iden­ti­fy with their vic­ti­mi­za­tion, we need to cri­ti­cal­ly consi­der whe­ther it is being used as a tac­ti­cal maneu­ver to construct them­selves as inno­cent and exert power without being ques­tio­ned. That does not mean dele­gi­ti­mi­zing the claims made by sur­vi­vors — but rather, rejec­ting the fra­me­work of inno­cence, exa­mi­ning each situa­tion clo­se­ly, and being conscien­tious of the mul­tiple power struggles at play in dif­ferent conflicts.

On the flip side of this is a radi­cal queer cri­tique that has recent­ly been leve­led against the “safe space” model. In a sta­te­ment from the Copenhagen Queer Festival tit­led “No safer spaces this year,” fes­ti­val orga­ni­zers wrote regar­ding their deci­sion to remove the safer-space gui­de­lines of the fes­ti­val, offe­ring in its place an appeal to “indi­vi­dual reflec­tion and res­pon­si­bi­li­ty.” (In other words, ‘The safe space is impos­sible, the­re­fore, fend for your­self.’) I see this rejec­tion of col­lec­tive forms of orga­ni­zing, and unwillin­gness to think beyond the indi­vi­dual as the foun­da­tio­nal poli­ti­cal unit, as part of a his­to­ri­cal shift from queer libe­ra­tion to queer per­for­ma­ti­vi­ty that coin­cides with the advent of neo­li­be­ra­lism and the “Care of the Self”-style “poli­tics” of choice). By reac­ting against the fai­lure of safe space with a sus­pi­cion of articulated/explicit poli­tics and col­lec­ti­vism, we flat­ten the issues and miss an oppor­tu­ni­ty to ask cri­ti­cal ques­tions about the dis­tri­bu­tion of power, vul­ne­ra­bi­li­ty, and vio­lence, ques­tions about how and why cer­tain people co-opt lan­guage and infra­struc­ture that is meant to respond to inter­nal­ly oppres­sive dyna­mics to per­pe­tuate racial domi­na­tion. As a Fanonian, I agree that remo­ving all ele­ments of risk and dan­ger rein­forces a poli­tics of refor­mism that just repro­duces the exis­ting social order. Militancy is under­mi­ned by the poli­tics of safe­ty. It becomes impos­sible to do any­thing that involves risk when people habi­tual­ly block such actions on the grounds that it makes them feel unsafe. People of color who use pri­vi­lege theo­ry to argue that white people have the pri­vi­lege to engage in ris­ky actions while POC can­not because they are the most vul­ne­rable (most like­ly to be tar­ge­ted by the police, not have the resources to get out of jail, etc) make a cor­rect assess­ment of power dif­fe­ren­tials bet­ween white and non-white poli­ti­cal actors, but ulti­ma­te­ly erase POC from the his­to­ry of mili­tant struggle by fal­se­ly asso­cia­ting mili­tan­cy with whi­te­ness and pri­vi­lege. When an ana­ly­sis of pri­vi­lege is tur­ned into a poli­ti­cal pro­gram that asserts that the most vul­ne­rable should not take risks, the only poli­ti­cal­ly cor­rect poli­tics becomes a poli­tics of refor­mism and retreat, a poli­tics that neces­sa­ri­ly capi­tu­lates to the sta­tus quo while era­sing the lega­cy of Black Power groups like the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army. For Fanon, it is pre­ci­se­ly the ele­ment of risk that makes mili­tant action more urgent — libe­ra­tion can only be won by ris­king one’s life. Militancy is not just tac­ti­cal­ly neces­sa­ry — its dual objec­tive is to trans­form people and “fun­da­men­tal­ly alter” their being by embol­de­ning them, remo­ving their pas­si­vi­ty and clean­sing them of “the core of des­pair” crys­tal­li­zed in their bodies.

,
« Against inno­cence. Race, gen­der, and the poli­tics of safety »
,
vol. 1
,
Lies jour­nal n° 10
, lien

Deutschland hat Rußland den Krieg erklärt. – Nachmittag Schwimmschule.

L’Allemagne a décla­ré la guerre à la Russie. – Après-midi piscine.

, ,
trad.  Marthe Robert
, , ,
p. 383
, 2 août 1914

JS : I’m inter­es­ted in being a conveyor of mes­sages, whe­ther they’re the truth or not. There’s no rea­son to sup­pose that a mes­sage neces­sa­ri­ly because it’s conveyed from an out­side source to a poet is true. As far as not being inter­es­ted in lan­guage, it’s pro­ba­bly because I’m a pro­fes­sio­nal linguist.

As far as the busi­ness of rea­ding – edu­ca­tion – I think that unfor­tu­na­te­ly the uni­ver­si­ties hin­der it rather than help it usual­ly because they make rea­ding and edu­ca­tion a chore rather than some­thing that you enjoy doing. But cer­tain­ly I think that any poet who is going to write decent poe­try in this modern age where we don’t have the bal­lad tra­di­tion any­more, where you could get by with prac­ti­cal­ly no fur­ni­ture, and let’s squat on the floor, ma’am, and that sort of thing – I do think that just the ave­rage young poet ought to read as many books as he can and they ought to not be in paper­back. They ought to be books that nobody’s read and that aren’t fashio­nable, and things which are about ani­mal hus­ban­dry or what saline solu­tions are like with octo­puses or some­thing like that. It doesn’t real­ly mat­ter too much. But he cer­tain­ly ought to have more stock in his mind than he has.

I mean, things that you ought to be sus­pi­cious of are things that you can use for your own per­so­nal inter­ests rather than any­thing else. I wouldn’t wor­ry about if some­thing appears. It’s like an epi­pha­ny. Well then, use the epi­pha­ny, but just rea­lize that there could be about twen­ty-seven other epi­pha­nies which would be just as good, if they’d hap­pe­ned.

Yeah, except when he deci­ded that he was a solid recei­ver, then he star­ted wri­ting those damn pro­phe­tic books which I have gone through two, three times, and I can’t make any poe­try out of them what­soe­ver. I mean, I can make poe­try eve­ry once in a while, see it hap­pe­ning. But when Blake real­ly was sure that the angels were spea­king to him, they stop­ped speaking.

The point is that words are not some­thing which in them­selves are any­thing but Lowghosts, ins­tead of the Logos. Words are things which just hap­pen to be in your head ins­tead of someone else’s head, just like memo­ries are, various other pieces of fur­ni­ture in this room that this Martian has to put the clues in.

Q : Getting back to this idea of the crea­tive insights being iso­la­ted from the medium. Are you saying that all poe­try has to be writ­ten this way, or that some poe­try is writ­ten this way, or what ?

JS : Well, I cer­tain­ly don’t know. If you mean it as a recipe for baking a cake, obvious­ly no. If you mean belie­ving in all of this, obvious­ly no. But it’s my firm convic­tion that all poe­try, good poe­try, is writ­ten this way, in spite of the poet.

You see, the Word, the Logos is – and this is impos­sible to read out loud, just like the whole per­so­ni­fi­ca­tion thing is – the word is half the time with capi­tal W, upper­case, and half the time with the lower­case w, you see. And so Lowghost then becomes Word. In other words, the words which are being used are sim­ply a reflec­tion of the Word, with the capi­tal. And the pun doesn’t get as fun­ny when you have him pin­ned to the cross, and the busi­ness of the shadow—which was writ­ten, inci­den­tal­ly, on Good Friday, for some obvious reason.