I don't know how many times she did or did not rehearse and perfect that impossibly poignant little inquiry, but ever since the indelible Myia posed me those five words almost 3 years ago now, they have been my conscience, demanding reconsideration of every thought that crosses my mind.
"Should" - Is it preferable by some higher standard that we act or feel in one way or another? Who prescribes this imperative? If only oneself, then whatever question follows might carry no weight whatsoever with the person asked, though essential to the inquirer. In an orderly and just world driven or designed by a guiding force, we would all be pressed upon to act and feel in similar fashion. But without that? If one is unsure as to the presence, absence, or nature of any greater power that might mandate or encourage certain "shoulds" or "should nots"...then one is left to his or her own choices, all the while looking over their shoulder for approval they don't expect to find.
"we" - Was she referring to only herself and I? Or was this a statement that might apply to all of a given generation, to subvert what those before have established? If only us, then why us? What would put the onus on only us or those of like thought to subvert anything? Is it only a task for the young? the educated? those far from home? the middle class? the political left? She could have asked "Should I...?" but then, Myia is always concerned about more than just herself.
"be" - Act? Think? Preach? Exist in function, style, form, or only thought? Or all of the above? If she wanted to delimit any particular mode of being, she could have done so. This was meant to be all encompassing.
"more" - This assumes, of course, that one is subversive to begin with. So then, did she feel, knowing me already, that I was somewhat subversive already? Or, if "we" performed in a broader sense, did she assume that everyone in whatever group she had formed mentally was already subversive in some way? Maybe subversion is inherent to life, and one cannot help but to be just a little bit. After all, our parents and society establish norms and goals, but who ever ascribes to all of them? Each person is a smorgasbord of their own unique blend of internalized values and dreams, no one perfectly lining up with another. Perhaps, everyone subverts to an extent, but nobody subverts entirely. Is comprehensive subversion a n achievable goal?
"subversive?" - A word as loaded as an offshore missile silo. What does it mean to subvert something, or more so to "be" - in all ways - subversive "more" than "we" are. To undermine? undo? overthrow? destroy? All of these potential synonyms crave to know what they will act against. The government? Society at large? The older generation? It is necessary that it be something external to the subversives, so the answer is primarily dependent upon defining "we." It is impossible to subvert an establishment or idea of which one is a part, for the very seed of subversion slashes whatever tie one has to what is now his or her target.
How do I respond?
"yes" - The question serves its purpose through its own language. As we've seen, it is vague and pluripotent, qualities which demand investigation and questioning in and of themselves. Questioning is the root of all subversive thought and behavior, so by simply considering the meaning and implications of this question, one has answered it in the affirmative and become more subversive.
"no" - The question defeats itself through its own language. "Should" implies a higher level of subversiveness toward which we ought to strive, but to seek to do so, in accordance with this higher standard, would be an utterly un-subversive act. By ignoring this question, one paradoxically becomes more subversive by refusing to seek out the goal it sets for us.
Either way, the question forces me to be subversive. Maybe one path is more subversive than the other, but that probably depends on where a person starts. I don't feel very subversive myself, but I think I'm heading the right direction...whichever way it lie.
Monday, January 29, 2007
"Should we be more subversive?"
Labels:
Philosophy,
Writing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment