Climate Strike 20. September 2019. and reflections on ecological politics

I feel that I have so much to say and write about ecology that obviously I could not even try to put it all in this essay. What I will do instead is state my impressions about climate strike in Freiburg and in the second part of the essay reflect on ecological politics based on the experience of this event but stretching a little bit further, too. 

I found about a strike a couple of days before thanks to posters in the town. While my stay in Freiburg was so permeated with ecology from the start, there instantly appeared a wish to take part in the strike, although for various reasons I didn't take part in the couple of strikes that happened in Zagreb earlier this year, though I heard about them and was interested in the whole movement. However, this was a global strike and, as it will show up, a manifestation of historical importance for Freiburg but, as I believe, for many other towns in the world as well.*

Two of my friends from the german class, a girl from the USA and a guy from Norwegen, and I decided to go to the strike together. We came to the Platz der Alte Synagoge fifteen minutes before the beginning of the programme. Some of the banners we saw I found especially interesting that I decided to take a picture of them.

Programm started a little bit after ten. There were no big speeches. It consisted of stating (repeating) the requests of "Fridays for Future Freiburg" and a couple of motivational group gestures. Here we touch on a first critique. A day before the strike I was reading an announcement of the strike in internet newspapers. On the bottom of the page, one could few quite negative comments about the movement, which surprised me because it was a total opposite to enthusiastic comments directed towards Greta Thunberg I encountered on her Facebook profile. But this totally negative attitude towards the movement, on the one hand, and its acritical (pseudo-religious) apprisal, on the other, are for me indications of the same political weakness, namely the impossibility to imagine really revolutionary ecological politics in the today's society. These negative comments indicated that leaders of this ecological movement (Fridays for Future) are actually kids who cannot have access to the knowledge about global warming and climate change and that its original initiator, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, is herself manipulated by private interests of others. Well, all this can be partially true but that still does not mean that we should turn our back to Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg. Yes, Fridays for Future is first and foremost "organization" run by school children and students, One must notice that this kind of "openness" of politics towards younger generation was not seen, at least not in this extent, in revolutionary movements of the 20th century but this is not something apriori bad. When it comes to knowledge, I would say that even scientists do not know everything about climate change and that they can only partially predict what might happen. And when it comes to private interests, they are pretty much inescapable. But all this, I repeat, does not negate the importance of Fridays for Future and climate strikes. What we should do is take advantage of them and use the impulse which Greta and other young activists give us to build upon it!



The strike itself went peacefully and without any problems. After the inaugural speeches, we went on a marching tour around center of Freiburg. Only then, when the masses spilt into the streets, became actually possible to observe (at least to some point) how many people were taking part in the strike. I must admit that me and my friends did not walk the whole tour. We wanted to go to mensa and eat in order to be able to be ready for afternoon activities so we left the march about a half an hour before it (first rowes at least) reached the square again. The whole program lasted till 4 o'clock.

While we were sitting on the steps in front of Freiburg Theater eating ice-cream and listening to the ending speech, me and my two colleges started talking. We touched upon the strike and climate. In that conversation many differences became apparent again. I'm aiming at economic and cultural differences. Take flying for example. People from rich western lands fly far more often than people from so-called "transitional lands" of eastern and southeastern Europe. Or take an example of vegetarianism. I noticed that there are far more people here, especially among students, who are vegetarians or don't eat meat. Again, a burst of vegetarianism in Europe in the last few decades, though a positive change, is strongly connected with capitalism and so-called "healthy food stores". One of the reasons why there are fewer people eager to transition to non-meat diet in eastern parts of Europe, apart from cultural (holding strongly to the nutrition of your ancestors) one is economic because eating vegetarian food is usually more expensive. That is why one cannot rely only on individual change. Ecological politics, like all politics, must include collective actions and must be global. In other words, we cannot expect from middle-class people to just stop flying or going on holidays with their cars. These things have long ago become part of the living culture, just as eating meat or using plastic bags. It is why movements like "Extinction Rebellion" are important; because they remind us that there are no easy-going politics and that it is necessary to make so-called structural changes, even if they at first also suppose bans and restrictions like carbon taxes and limitations of traffic in the cities.

There is one more thing to which I want to devote a few words at the end of this text but which concerns not economic and cultural (by means of national traditions) differences but differences in thinking ecology itself. In this age of ecological catastrophe in which we live there are so many different ecological discourses. But I think that one must differentiate between two main ones and these are environmental ecology which clings to the concept of nature and ecology without nature which wants to do away with the concept of nature. Me personally I am on the side of ecologies without nature as it is obvious from my other posts. There are numerous reasons for this or better said numerous dangers and limitations of environmentalism and nature-discourses in general, but which I don't want to write about hear.* The task of ecological politics today is precisely to connect groups and people with opposite understandings of ecology. Can the politics be the sphere where we could act together and cooperatively despite our differences in thinking and to oppose in this way an imminent doom of capitalist societies once again and stronger than before for the future of humankind and all living beings on Earth?!


* See an article about the "demo" here.
** I touch upon the problems of nature-based ecological thinking in most of my writings no matter how long they are (essays or shorter blog posts) or where they are published (in scientific journals or on the internet). 

Depression

"Just when I think I'm winning
When I've broken every door
The ghosts of my life blow wilder than before.
Just when I thought I could not be stopped
When my chance came to be king
The ghosts of my life blew wilder than the wind."
(Japan, "Ghosts")

Depression is taking hold of me again. I endured one week in Freiburg but then it has come back slowly, gradually and it is now swallowing me completely. After first few days permeated with intensive (Deleuzian) impressions, lots of possibilities being opened, pure possibilities for thinking and acting, came the period in which routine gradually established itself, pressures of bureaucracy started to be felt but no strong relationship possible, contacts with people lacking emotions and generally no one who could pull me out - depression started to take hold. In the text that follows I will try to describe and analyze the process and emotions that accompanied it. 

It started with exhaustion. After one week of the classes, I already started to feel exhausted. Waking up early, lessons starting at 9.15 and lasting about three hours (I really don't count), then trips or some other group activities in the afternoons - it all started to make effects. Exhaustion accumulated itself. But soon I noticed that it is not normal exhaustion which would suppose that by taking a few hours of rest, skipping one class or eating abundantly I could recover from it. There was more to it. It was acting not just as a state of body and mind but as a disease. 

Second came the loneliness. But it was not loneliness in the sense of being without company which would here mean: being in a foreign country, being obliged to speak the foreign language which does not feel natural to you, being far from your family and friends and so on. No, it was more like that existential loneliness - every man is alone, no one can help him - but again, not quite that. There was something specific to it: repetition of the past, namely the feeling that we are haunted by our own past, by chances not being realized and paths not being taken that although not realized can still influence our present. As Mark Fisher would say, it was the sense of the lost futures, which appear to us in ghosty forms, changing the appearances but not the essence - different cities, different people (but still the same personalities) and so on.*

And lastly came the disappearance of the desire. There was no desire to do anything - to go to class, to go shopping, to eat or to buy food, etc. And that is when we realize that desire is necessary for living - it is not just a question of sex and consumerism. As Lacan noticed - and I'll stop here - desire logically precedes need.

Currently I am sinking in that sea called depression, laying in my boat and letting myself be rocked. I am going to explore this state of things more deeply in these days but also the years that follow; I will try to find the way to coexist with it and to continue my life as best as possible. For now, I'm thinking about skipping a class or two although I know that my problems are deeper, that they won't be solved with one trip to the country.


* That's probably why I am obsessed with "Doppplegängers".

This song even anticipated my own life. To some extent even accidentally I am now in Freiburg and being able to experience more vividly some things I've already encountered in art and philosophy and even started to write about them myself.

Listen to Björk's song "Hyperballad" and her album Post. It's the music for the 21st century.

Future

Future isn't just something that we wait and predict - we produce it! But how? By playing with the virtual! 

Only now, listening to Björk and reading and listening works of some other artists, I am able to see my own future but also to see beyond it*; to see how this process shapes my own destiny but goes beyond it shaping the very life on this planet. This is not some transcendent meaning nor is it some big Other in which my own fate is inscribed. No, it is the very immanence that goes through my life, which my life produces and is being shaped by it in return. To try to limit it to our own life is the worst we can do. That's the way we actually block the flows and instead of the future create enclaves of hyperreality closing ourselves in our private worlds.**

* Because to really see your own future means to look beyond it at the same time and in the very same look (gaze).   

** Glimpses of this kind of thinking can be seen in my reading of poetry by Lara Mitraković. I really think that her poetry showcases both positive and negative sides, or better said, possibilities and dangers of this kind of ontology which insists on the capacities of the virtual. 

I'm in a big hurry these days. I have been planning some writings for my Blog since my arrival in Freiburg (im Breisgau) but they had to be postponed. I am currently preparing a short speech about OOO for my german class. It will be fun, that's all I can say. It is more than useful to work out the terms in a foreign language before you have even done that in your own.

Nisam stigao (a nisam ni želio) pisati o požarima u Amazoni iako se s obzirom na učestalost ekoloških tema na ovom blogu tako nešto vjerojatno očekivalo. 

Ali ne znam što bih još mogao reći o tome? Nisam li, da budem tako perverzan, cijelo ovo vrijeme pisao o požarima u Amazoni?! Objava "Brač: refleksije o vremenu" jezivo anticipira požare u amazonskoj prašumi koji su uzdrmali svjetsku javnost. Nije li već tamo bilo riječi o defakto istom fenomenu, samo u mnogo manjem razmjeru - o krčenju šuma. I Bolsonaro je nažalost u pravu kad kaže da se požari i krčenje šuma događaju svugdje i da su zapadne zemlje svoj ekonomski prosperitet ostvarile dobrim dijelom zahvaljujući sječi šuma i pretvorbi tako dobivenog zemljišta u što drugo - autoceste, hotele, plantaže. Naša nas agrikulturna povijest sada sustiže, kako bi rekao Morton. 

Nadalje, prije otprilike dva tjedna na svom sam Facebook profilu dijelio članak zvučnog naslova "Deathwatch for the Amazon" objavljen u časopisu "The Economist" na koji, čini se, nitko tada nije obratio pozornost. Možda je to bilo zbog toga što sam u opis umetnuo poznati odlomak iz Anti-Edipa o dva moguća puta nastojeći ukazati kako nam Deleuzeova retorika danas može biti od male koristi u borbi protiv ekoloških problema. Treba nam "treći put" (!). Što mogu ako spomen filozofije odmah odbija ljude ili im se čini da filozofija kao umijeće, pisanje i nešto izvedeno nije spojiva s "majkom prirodom"? 

Ja sam međutim i sam proteklih dana često posjećivao Mortonov blog i njegov Facebook profil očekujući da će se osvrnuti na najnoviju ekološku katastrofu. Nisam našao ništa.* Možda je čovjek u depresiji, a vjerojatno je itekako svjestan da ne bi imao što reći o požarima u Amazoni o čemu već nije pisao ili predavao. Za naše digitalno doba tako je karakteristično da se iscrpljuje partikularnostima i pseudo-aktualnostima jer ništa drugo i ne može percipirati. Filozofija je pak, danas možda više nego ikad prije, govor o virtualnostima, mogućnostima, onom ne-manifestnom i u svakom slučaju onom što nije podložno širenju viralnom brzinom. 

U vezi s požarima u Amazoni, osim navedenog, mogu uputiti još na dvije stvari. Požari u Amazoni pokazali su koliko je današnji politički sustav nesposoban reagirati na takvu katastrofu. Sjetimo se da je francuski predsjednik Macron inicijalno reagirao objavom na Twitteru. Trump nije dakle samo iznimka i krajnje žalosna pojava, već netko tko svojom glupošću zapravo svjedoči o općem učinku koji su digitalna sfera i društvene mreže imale na politiku. Ne postoji možda ništa strašnije u današnjem svijetu nego što je ljudska glupost koja se širi viralnom brzinom. Slabljenje snažnih i neovisnih ekoloških inicijativa i pokreta također je nešto o čemu bi se moglo govoriti. Dobar primjer toga je životna putanja Paula Kingsnortha, nekad jednog od vodećih ekoloških aktivista, a danas čovjeka koji živi povučeno sa svojom obitelji na imanju u Irskoj. Ekološki aktivizam i državna politika ujedinjuju se u svojoj nemoći. Tako se ekološki aktivizam danas sveo na širenje "spasonosnih poruka" društvenim mrežama kao što su Twitter i Facebook.** Ovo ne treba shvatiti kao kritiku  tzv. cyberspacea po sebi. Mark Fisher primjerice dobro razlučuje pozitivne učinke blogova koji "mogu stvarati nove diskurzivne mreže koje nemaju korelate u društvenom polju izvan cyberspacea (Fisher 2011: 128) od mrežnog narcizma MySpacea i Facebooka. Treba biti dakle oprezan kad se govori o virtualnosti i hiperrealnosti jer koliko god mogućnosti oni otvaraju, toliko i opasnosti vreba iza vrata.
Također, neki će reći da su objave na Twitteru i Facebooku, u izostanku nekog konkretnog djelovanja, barem usmjerile pozornost svjetske javnosti i političara na problem koji bi u suprotnom možda bio posve prešućen. Da, čini se da je to svakako točno. Medij jest poruka, kako je učio McLuhan. Bismo li o požaru u Amazoni uopće mogli govoriti da on nije postao vijest na društvenim mrežama? No možda bismo se istovremeno trebali povući s mreža kao što su Facebook i Twitter. Teško je to reći kad su najučinkovitiji prosvjedi u posljednjih desetak godina bili organizirani upravo preko Facebooka, ali mišljenja sam da je tako.
Druga stvar o kojoj sam htio nešto reći teorijske je naravi, a tiče se toga na koji način agrikultura, a onda i kapitalizam, shvaćaju "prirodu" te kako se onda odnose prema svemu onome što u taj koncept ulazi. Timothy Morton taj je "stav" nazvao agrilogistikom. Kao što sam pisao i u svome prikazu knjige (odsad dostupnom ovdje), ona se sastoji od tri aksioma:
a) postojati znači biti neprestano prisutan
b) načelo neproturječnosti je nepovredivo
c) postojanje (ljudsko postojanje) je bolje od bilo koje kvalitete postojanja.
Navodeći primjer koji ukazuje na ekološke posljedice tzv. metafizike prisutnosti (prvi aksiom)  i načela neproturječnosti, u svojem prikazu posežem za primjerima koje navodi i Morton u knjizi. On naime pokazuje da sve dok se držite ovih aksioma, ništa vas ne sprječava da polje ili livadu pretvorite u parking ili autocestu. No umjesto da govorimo o nekom apstraktnom parkingu, možemo uzeti ono što se događa u Amazoni kao gorući primjer agrilogističke logike ojačane kapitalizmom. Eto, to je ono što me pogodilo u vezi s požarima - to da sam na neki način već pisao o njima.

* Prije nekoliko dana Morton je međutim, možda i kao kontrapunkt toj digitalnoj histeriji koju su požari u Amazoni izazvali, prenio, i to tek na prethodnu molbu, komemorativni govor svog prijatelja i umjetnika Olafura Eliassona o nedavno nestalom islandskom ledenjaku. Vidi ovdje.

** Vidi primjerice https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/20/prayforamazonia-goes-viral-twitter-users-call-attention-international-emergency