Join the Resistance. Fall in Love
Saturday, November 26, 2005
I came across an intriguing book...by what appears to be an anarchist group in Olympia Washington. I think they were quite active in the G8 protests last year in Seattle. Crimethinc is what they call themselves. Anyways I have read some of it sporadically, and a section about love sparked my interest.
I appreciate comments, and hope that my paraphrase does justice to the original author.
Love is an enemy to the state. Love follows no rules. It completely controls action, without regard to behavioral norms. The person in love forgets, or rather recognizes, our arbitrarily fabricated and illegitimate social responsibilities and restrictions, and in that state is a threat of destabilization to society. Love, by its very essence, belittles the state by distracting, overpowering, and leading its victims down paths different from the state and society. Furthermore, love threatens the economic engine upon which the state depends. what interest does the lover have in consuming products that are for the most part useless? What interest does the lover have in participating in the production of such useless products? Doesn't love destract him, or better, show him that a better world exists outside of our fear driven economy?
"There is no place for the passionate, romantic lover in today's world, business or private--for he can see that it might be more worthwhile to hitchhike to Alaska (or to sit in the park and watch the clouds sail by with his sweetheart than to study for his calculus exam or sell real estate)...and if he decides that it is, he will have the courage to do it rather than be tormented by unsatisfied longing. He knows that breaking into a cemetery and making love under the stars will make for a more memorable night than watching television ever could." (Days of War, Nights of Love,L is for love, Crimethinc.com)
Does this only apply to what I would call "cognizant" lovers, or could it apply to all lovers? Is love only antagonistic to the state when the state makes it so, by making it difficult for lovers to stay together through poverty, war, etc.?
I appreciate comments, and hope that my paraphrase does justice to the original author.
Love is an enemy to the state. Love follows no rules. It completely controls action, without regard to behavioral norms. The person in love forgets, or rather recognizes, our arbitrarily fabricated and illegitimate social responsibilities and restrictions, and in that state is a threat of destabilization to society. Love, by its very essence, belittles the state by distracting, overpowering, and leading its victims down paths different from the state and society. Furthermore, love threatens the economic engine upon which the state depends. what interest does the lover have in consuming products that are for the most part useless? What interest does the lover have in participating in the production of such useless products? Doesn't love destract him, or better, show him that a better world exists outside of our fear driven economy?
"There is no place for the passionate, romantic lover in today's world, business or private--for he can see that it might be more worthwhile to hitchhike to Alaska (or to sit in the park and watch the clouds sail by with his sweetheart than to study for his calculus exam or sell real estate)...and if he decides that it is, he will have the courage to do it rather than be tormented by unsatisfied longing. He knows that breaking into a cemetery and making love under the stars will make for a more memorable night than watching television ever could." (Days of War, Nights of Love,L is for love, Crimethinc.com)
Does this only apply to what I would call "cognizant" lovers, or could it apply to all lovers? Is love only antagonistic to the state when the state makes it so, by making it difficult for lovers to stay together through poverty, war, etc.?
posted by Anonymous at
9:58 PM
Definetely, from a teleological perspective, it can be argued that love is dictated by some end, and in that sense is subject to rules. That is a good point, one I had not considered. But I think the author's point (probably the failure of my paraphrase) was to say that love perhaps influences the lover to follow rules different from the rules of society. Do you think this could be the case?
I agree that for many love can direct the lovers to social and economic responsibility, but why is this so? Doesn't the fact that many lovers do become more active and responsible in the socioeconomic realm tell us that they are scared of something, scared of the possibility that socioeconomic circumstances could tear them apart? Isn't this evidence of a conflict between love and the state and not a compromise or synthesis between the two?
Last summer I passed up numerous job and academic opportunities to sit and drink beer on the beach, with a woman I love, for nearly three weeks. This relationship did not end well, as the girl became quite convinced that I wasn't "responsible". I was lost in a dream. In this case I sacrificed socioeconomic security for love, at least I thought I did. It turns out that had love influenced me to be more responsible, love may have continued. I don't know for sure, but it seemed impossible to take that road at the time. I think this personal experience is why I enjoyed this book's passage so much. Thanks for your comments...are you a professor, perhaps one I have had?
Oh, ok, it's you Sam. Hey, when you are done with that paper on Kantian revolution, you want to email it to me? I read the metaphysics recently and would like to hear your input.
Post a Comment << Home