 Chapter Three
Part One Relational Materialism and Citizen X Introduction In this blog entry, I will begin discussing the idea of and need for a phenomenological model of political philosophy. I will also begin explaining the structure of Citizen X, the politicized subjective agent, and the details of X’s relationship with the external world. What is a phenomenological model of political philosophy? This is a good question. First, a few concepts and ideas: - The core notion of Phenomenology is that it is the study (logos) of phenomena (appearance of things, things as they appear to us in our experience, the ways we experience them). Put simply, it is the study of experience and the structure of that experience. - Importantly, Phenomenology studies experience from a subjective and first person point of view (I do, I see, to my left, beside me, etc.). - Phenomenology studies the structure of various types of experience including perception, thought, memory, imagination, emotion, desire, volition to body awareness, embodied action, and social activity including linguistic activity. - The structure of an experience involves its Intentionality, its being directed towards something, the simple fact that it is an experience of or about some object. In phenomenology, Intentionality is a technical term and should not be confused with the more standard idea we have of intention. - Concerning Intentionality, Husserl claimed that our conscious experience is directed towards (represents, ‘intends’) objects/things only through particular concepts thoughts, ideas, images, etc. These make up the ‘meaning’ or ‘content’ of a given experience and they are distinct from the things they present or mean. So, the tree you see in the park is distinct from the general concept of ‘tree’. - The idea of ‘Lifeworld’: Intersubjectivity (relations between agents) forms the basis of the shared external lifeworld (as termed by Husserl). The lifeworld can be thought of in two ways. One, in the beliefs of the single agent, the rational structure underlying their everyday experience, the beliefs against which his/her everyday attitude towards him/her self, the objective world, and other agents receive their ultimate justification. Two, as the full realm of socially, culturally, or evolutionarily established concepts of general structure (motion, spatial shapes, causality) that groups or collectives of agents conceive of their world through. This includes language and the basic shared nature of a common external world that allows translation of languages and ideas between historically or culturally distinct lifeworlds. - The two leading figures in the formation of the phenomenological method and discipline, Husserl and Heidegger, utilized distinct approaches. Briefly, the bulk of Husserl’s work concerned transcendental phenomenology and was epistemological in nature (concerning knowledge and the cogito), while Heidegger’s work concerned a more existential phenomenology that was ontological in nature (concerning being). These ideas will be discussed in greater detail as we move forward in this blog series and they are presented here briefly to simply get us going. Please feel free to ask questions, add your own ideas, or whatever you want in the form of comments. I look forward to them. My notion of Citizen X To explain what I want to do by formalizing a systemic phenomenological account of political philosophy, I must first add the basics of my conception of Citizen X to the all-to-brief phenomenology primer given above. Citizen X is the ‘politicized phenomenological agent.’ This description has three components, so let us look quickly at each with the promise of getting into greater depth and detail in the course of this multi-blog entry chapter. I understand “agency” as the capacity to make and impose choices in the world; an agent is one who acts. This action, as fundamentally a capacity, is ontologically based in the phenomenological subject, the individual, the “agent” who may only act to the extent that she is able to with self-deliberation and empowerment. Ideally, an “agent” maintains the capacity to express her personal power with no limitations and with complete self-authored deliberation. However, as described in Chapter Two of this blog series, practical limitations to “agency” exist in the simple fact of physical and social reality, and acknowledgement of these empirical conditions negates the usefulness of ideal theories, requiring practical theory to base itself in material paradigms. A phenomenological agent is an experiencing agent, a subjective consciousness with a first person point of view of the external world around him/her, including other subjective agents. Since the phenomenological experience is embodied, it occurs through a physical, living, existing conscious body, I feel the proper term to describe the embodied experience is through the concept of the "phenomenological agent." Finally, the ‘Political’ refers to the processes of social relations: decision-making, state action, power structures, and the cultural habits, assumptions, and practices of distinct and diverse communities. ‘Politicized’ then means the action, process, or result of making something political. In this case, it is the action, process, or result of making the subjective phenomenological agent into a political being. In my conception of a phenomenological system of political philosophy, I understand two main ideas. One, that an individual experience of the external world necessarily involves both transcendental (a priori, intangible) structure and materialistic (a posteriori, tangible) structure. Two, that both the transcendental and materialistic aspects of any experience are affected by and effect the politicization of the shared external world. What is the need for a phenomenological system of political philosophy? A limit has been reached in political philosophy, and this limit, I claim, is exposed in the growing body of research based in “relational” paradigms, examples of which I include, among others, Michel Foucault, Iris Young, Marina Oshana, and Judith Butler. I do not claim these authors necessarily agree or always share views, however I understand that the basic mechanism at work in each one’s general theory as “relation-based.” Further, in this relational model it is stressed that these relationships, in the sociopolitical context, fundamentally have become domineering and oppressive. By emphasizing the material context of oppressive relationships of sociopolitical power, I understand that every exercise of power has three elements, the capacity to act, the actual exercised action, and some form or forms of resistance to the exercise. The capacity to act hinges on the phenomenology of the agent, how her experience is structured as a conscious “I.” This in turn hinges on the agent’s relation to the external world. The choices and actions an agent recognizes as open to her are deeply shaped by sociopolitical conditions, that is, the conditions concerning an agent’s social and political circumstances. Based on what I understand as a fundamental phenomenological relationship between agents, as both individuals and groups, and the sociopolitical state, I argue that sociopolitical power is usefully conceived in an alternative “distributive” model, termed “relational materialism.” Distribution involves materially satisfying the needs and wants of a populace in any social arrangement. Two important mechanisms are involved in the action of distribution at the sociopolitical scale, control and valuation. I argue that these mechanisms are not necessarily oppressive. However, in the contemporary liberal state, the systemic abuse of these mechanisms by capital-based liberal ideology results in a deep and diverse normatively justified state of sociopolitical domination. These ideas then will be the guiding motivations and directions future entries in this blog series will take, beginning with the upcoming Chapter Three Part Two where I discuss the concept and problems of Power. I will talk about personal and socio-political power as well as going into my conception of Citizen X in greater detail. Please leave your comments, questions, or the like in the comment section. I look forward to starting a meaningful dialog with you all.
0 Comments
 The Benefits of Writing in Different Styles and Formats
by David Edward Wagner Many times I have been asked by fellow readers and writers alike, what are my thoughts on writing in various formats and styles, moving from screenplays to novels to short stories to poetry and song lyrics. From Drama to Comedy to Science Fiction or Action. Do I do it, should they do it, what are the upsides and downsides of literary promiscuousness? My answers are always the same: yes I do, yes you should, and there are certainly positive and negative possibilities inherent in the act of authorial wantonness. In this blog entry, I will go into a bit more detail on these replies than I might go into during a typical friendly conversation. The Idea of Writing in Different Formats and Styles Generally, writers write many different things. There are novels and novellas, short stories, poems, prose, screenplays, flash fiction, stage plays, song lyrics, magazine articles, advertising text, journals, reviews, and blogs (to name but a portion). And while it is generally given that most writers do at least dabble in writing in multiple formats, as I can really think of no copy writers who have not at least started their first novel and very few novelists who have not banged out the occasional short story or poem, the question under consideration here is a bit more than just that. I am asking if a writer should consciously, deliberately, and consistently, work in various formats, moving between novels and screenplays and short stories and blogs, poems, flash, and so on. I will answer yes, yes the writer should. The Advantages of Writing in Multiple Formats At the risk of being over-simplistic, I will be thorough. Most basically, a writer puts words on paper (or, sure, digital word documents), and preferably puts as many down as possible in the course of their life. Those words are tied to the ideas in their head and those ideas are tied to the imagination and experiences they have built and nurtured. So, in a general and fundamental way, whatever you write, however you write it, only adds to your ability, only strengthens your capability and fortifies your capacity to produce pages. That is good. Second, another basic thought, different ideas seem to call for different manifestations. The painter switches between color palates, canvas size, and artistic intention, the musician has ballads and rockers, and a multitude of instrumentation combinations and subject matters, so, in this vein, the writer has any number of literary delivery mechanisms available in their arsenal and why should anything be denied? Why should that burst of rhyming meter be discarded just because you are a ‘serious’ screenwriter? That idea perfect for a thousand word flash fiction piece be ignored, stretched thin, or watered down only because anything under fifty-thousand words is a waste of time and energy? Nothing should be ignored, nothing should be passed aside simply because it is not something you have done before or are familiar with. Chances must be taken, paths must be followed, evolution must occur. Get the ideas out in the format and fashion they naturally want to be in and, worse case scenario, do not publish or publicly offer the results. Simply not writing them only limits experience and potential. Third, and related to the second, a writer is a creative laborer, they do heavy and, dare I say, important work with their inspiration and time. In itself, I propose art contains intrinsic value and should be pursued simply for it’s a priori value, however, as we do inhabit a material, political, monetary-based social system, abstract, philosophical value does not pay the bills, buy the food, or put the roof over our heads. Economic value must be added to your work, and in a general practical sense, value is added to products in a capital-based economy in several ways, most basically with the mechanisms of necessity, availability, and reputation. Bluntly and all-to-briefly, I will address these by saying, necessity in writing refers to originality of content uniqueness of voice: you are necessarily the only one who can do what you do, you have a monopoly on your personal voice. The only way to develop your one-of-a-kind style and literary voice is to write it out, work through your limitations, and develop the confidence to be free to say what you want to say in the exact way you want to say it. Availability is basically what it says: you must get your work out there in as many ways and places as you want. People need to be able to find your art, see your art, stumble upon your art, hear about it, be introduced to it, and just generally have opportunities to notice it. Getting your name and work out to a wide variety of potential fans requires an equally broad realm of distribution and venue, something writing in multiple formats, styles, and genres can provide. Last and most squirrely is the concept of reputation. As this is a ‘Writer to Writer’ blog and not a ‘Philosophy’ blog, I will do my best to keep this section short (please check out my ongoing philosophy blog for upcoming entries featuring the power of reputation). Here and now I will say this: reputation is an important component of social power and autonomy, and the opportunities afforded by a strong reputation are revolutionary for the artistic soul. To build reputation you must put out quality work at a consistent pace, you must be inspired, professional, distinctly creative, and you must be recognized as being these. Every word in every authorial method can only add to your total package and can only help you develop your artistic reputation. However, always remember, only let the public see your best work, do not put anything and everything you write out to the available audiences. Keep writing, try different things, learn the various formats and styles, push yourself to try new things in new ways, work on the virtuosity of your profession and verse yourself in the possibilities of your own creative processes. Everything is an opportunity to write better and more efficiently and should be on the table for potential use. In fact, some of the most important lessons I learned in writing my novels have come from studying and writing flash fiction, the sparseness and directness, the economy of words and focusing of force. Developing a visual-style of song writing informed my personal writing voice, preferring to develop a certain lyrical flow in my prose and many times writing to some unconscious beat in my head. Writing screenplays, studying plot beats and describing visual events within the strict formatting restrictions of writing for film certainly has influenced my short stories, novellas, and novels, just as they in turn have affected my ability to plot and embolden my screenwriting. And, lest we forget, many (nay, all) professional markets require you to include some combination and type of synopsis, cover letter, query, or the like, and writing a good letter or synopsis is an art in itself. The more you write them, the more adept you will become at writing them, and the more different variations on the same form you can produce is only helping you hone your skill. Everything you get from mind onto paper helps season you and make you more valuable as an artist, so do it, Do not hesitate, write what you need to write how you need to write it and then offer the best of what you have. Be brave and creative, nurture your experience, become a master. Plus, to be plain, its fun. I love books, I love movies, I love short stories and flash, and on top of everything else, I love to do things I love. So I do it, I write anything I think of in everyway I can, and since you asked, I can only hope that you love it too and I would encourage you to follow your heart, mind, and inspiration. The Disadvantages of Writing in Various Styles and Formats I will mention two problematic disadvantages of writing in various formats, styles, and genres. The first is the problem of being the proverbial jack of all trades and master of none. The trouble inherent in this idiom speaks for itself. If you dabble in many things, you will never master one of them, just develop adequate adeptness at several things. Too this I say, there is an element of truth in there and there is an undeniable amount of sustained focus that must be given one thing to truly master it, but before all, before worrying about what you write, just remember that you write. You are mastering writing, artistic expression, and that is what is important. You are working on becoming the best writer you can be, what you write is a second matter entirely. Just write things, finish things, edit things. Each thing you write will come easier and better, push forward, stretch yourself, challenge yourself to learn the advantages and disadvantages of each thing, try to see things, get feedback, try. It is eventual that you will settle into your sweet spot over time, finding those things that work best for you and carrying the lessons of the rest. Myself, I know I am a novelist and screenwriter now. And in between large projects, I have time for and need for banging out the occasional flash piece, short story, or song lyric. I take my time and edit them as I go, when they are cleaned up I take the best ones and submit them, getting my name out, making connections. Some I post on my blog. Writing in different formats, genres and styles helps you master the one thing of being a writer, and in the course you develop ideas and experience from your jack of all trading, and you will sort out for yourself the focus your career will take. Second, many people say: if I write a million things, I will never finish anything. I will have sloppy flash pieces and half done screenplays and half done novels and so on. This worry is amazingly real and widespread, yet I do not feel it has to do specifically with writing in various manners. Most writers do not finish things, from beginning to end to second, third, fourth, fifth and however many drafts. That is a hard truth. Starting, sustaining, and finishing multiple projects at once requires dedication, organization, and an achievable plan and schedule. I know people who have never finished their one novel and I know people who knock out several screenplays and a novel each year. It’s not what, its how and the answer is, as stated previously, dedication, organization, and an achievable plan and schedule. My own recent experience shall serve as an example. I finished my second novel in October. Right after the push and stress of self-publishing and releasing it, I had a relatively blank slate ahead of me. During the in-between times of working full time only upon the novel for six months straight, I would jot down ideas for stories and screenplays. When the novel release was behind me, I just began working on the new ideas that seemed most compelling to me at the moment. Taking notes, plotting out, developing characters, writing opening scenes and first chapters, dancing around a bit until I naturally settled into a groove with five projects, two novels, two screenplays, and my blog. After three months of easily flowing with all of them, getting deeper into them in everyway, I realized, quite naturally, that it was time to focus down even more, really get serious and think about finishing things. So… I thought of the time frame and my larger-life schedule and trimmed down my work projects as thus: One novel was projected at fifty-thousand words and would take five months to write at most, the other novel was projected for one hundred-thousand words and would take over a year to finish. Screenplays take the same amount of time to write regardless of their size, and for me they take about four to five months to complete on average, each one I write dropping the time it takes me to complete one. Regardless, I chose the screenplay I was most into at the moment and the shorter of the two novels, knowing that in in a handful of months I could have two completed projects and have two more waiting for me, already too far into to be discarded or ignored. While I am writing the long novel, I will do edits on the shorter one, eventually dancing between the two as the drafting gets deeper. Things must be finished and finished properly if you are to be successful in any way, and that takes time. You have to use your time wisely, efficiently, and always with some planning. You are a writer, a self-employed, self-sustaining artistic entity, you are a business of one, and your reputation only comes by treating yourself as such. Put in the time, focus yourself within a larger overall goal, and get things done. All the way done. This entry is long so allow me to briefly wrap up. Write as often as you can. Write whatever you can. Finish things. Edit things.  Going through some old files in preparation for an upcoming release of my older poetry and prose entitled Lingering on Past Melodies, I found a few short stories that have never really seen the light of day. I will be posting some of them periodically.
Here is a little morsel from 1998. The Symptoms are the Cure (1998) Saul Brimbraker generally liked to sleep until around ten in the morning, most often waking up at nine forty-two. Sometimes he stirred as late as ten thirteen and sometimes as early as nine twenty-three, but nine forty-two seemed to be the average. Of course, that was Mountain Standard Time and under the currently accepted Greenwich standard for temporal qualification. This was a morning, however, that began with Saul not only waking up at nine forty-two on the dot, but also feeling slightly queasy. A quick self-diagnosis found that the problem was not diverticulosis as he first feared (Saul carried a deep-seated belief that one day, for his sins, he would develop this disease that he knew nothing about and thus feared unsubstantially), but instead was simply in his stomach. He had what his mother would have called a ‘shitty belly.’ “Does my baby have a shitty belly?” “Not now, momma’s got a shitty belly.” Being a slow to wake, Saul stumbled, using only momentum and blind familiarity, to the bathroom. A flick of the switch brought a light to the room and Saul yawned in unison with his tummy growling, although slightly off key. It could have been the pizza. It could have been the chicken wings that had been hot enough to make his eyes and nose drip. It cold have been the company the night before, the droning conversation, the time of year, the influx of information, the color of his pajamas, the whiffle ball bat he owned as a child, the price of warmth, the delays, the doubts, the ‘Banana Boat Song,’ or even the Spaniards. He looked at himself. His reflection made him lonely. He decided it was the chicken wings and wiped a dot of toothpaste off of the reflection of his eye.  Chapter 3 -Preface
A summary of Chapters One and Two with a roadmap of Chapter Three and beyond The Value of Power a primer (for newer and older readers) In Chapters One and Two, I feel I moved quickly, presenting large ideas in rapid succession and not completely linking them together. This was needed, to a point, to lay the background for the upcoming chapters where those links will be expanded upon and tied together. In this preface to Chapter Three, I want to step back a moment and summarize and direct this blog conversation. My motivation for writing this blog series, The Value of Power. In contemporary philosophy, there are two movements that I am fascinated by with and impressed with. The first is Phenomenology, a discipline carved out in the early-20th century, generally attributed to Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre, but precursored and informed by the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, James, and Bretano. The second is Social Ontology, studying the fundamental state of being of both citizen and society. This is a rather new movement and has yet to fully emerge as a standardized discipline. Philosophers working on social ontological questions include John Searle and Ásta Kristjana Sveinsdóttir. My motivation is the fact that the discipline of Phenomenology lacks an adequate model of political philosophy. Many phenomenologists have touched on political theory, but it is agreed upon that a complete phenomenological system has not been developed. I believe that the work I have been doing the past five years is just that: a model of the phenomenology of the political. It is based in my concept of Relational Materialism and accounts for not only the phenomenological experience, but for the epistemic structure of that experience as well as the ontological structure of the structures of the experience. This personal work of mine has been greatly influenced and inspired by the recent multi-discipline endeavors in the Social Ontology and UC Santa Cruz's History of Consciousness. Main Ideas and Summary of Chapters One and Two In Chapter One I discussed the intricacies and difficulties of a meaningful and true political revolution. This introduction to my blog series was inspired by recent political events such as the Arab Spring, the Turkish Gezi protests, and the Occupy Movement. I wanted to present the realistic obstacles and possibilities of popular revolution and lay out the fact that this blog is ultimately about such revolution and is interested in healthy and meaningful political change. The main ideas of Chapter One include: 1. Badiou’s theory that Political Existence is created and sustained by Facts and Truths. Facts are objects, ‘things’ conceived in the dominant group’s language, pieces controlled by the structures of the State in order to maintain, legitimize, and empower its own hierarchal authority. Facts are not truths. Facts are concrete, preconceived, and catagorizable. Truths reveal themselves in the process of their discovery, in the moment of creative, dynamic and evolving self-definition. Truths are spontaneous organizations and relational social interactions resulting between self-creating political subjects interacting in harmonious congress. Truth is found in the subject’s recognition of her/his ‘self’ as a political vehicle, and as this is a communal event, it is relational, thus incorporates the cumulative subjectification of all those involved in producing new ways to perceive and understand. In sum: facts control, truths emancipate. 2. Both Badiou and Machiavelli stress the fact that an Event of political revolution is destabilizing and destructive, and there is a deep need to cling to aspects of the old social structure while simultaneously dismantling and replacing it. These two conflicting needs of the Event create a contradiction of necessities both internal to and external to individual political agents: the need to fill the vacuum created by a revolution struggles against the need to sustain the impossible creative momentum of the revolution. 3. If modern civilization is to move forward in a healthy and meaningful way, there needs to be an in-depth analysis of the structures involved in revolutionary actions, an analysis designed to locate the vital ontological structures creating the stage where political agents experience their lives in relation to natural and social forces. Chapter Two concerned the phenomenological agent, which I called Citizen X. I brought in the ideas of autonomy and power, and discussed these concepts at both individual and state levels. Using Foucault, Bartky, and Oshana, I began to lay out the basic interactions between state power and individual power and how personal and social identity create the space for both oppressive political behavior and emancipatory personal growth. The main ideas of Chapter Two include: 1. The core notion of autonomy is “self-law,” or better, “self-authority.” An autonomous agent is able to decide and act in accordance with his or her own choices and does not need to confirm these choices with any authority higher than their own. True autonomy is a rarity in contemporary society and this is due to the fundamental structure of the modern liberal state and its hierarchical and temporal normative assumptions and practices. 2. Citizen X, the phenomenological political agent, does maintain a complete and vital “Self” in the midst of all social construction, fragmentation, and mystification. This self is the seat of subjective experience and political truth creation. 3. Modern Princely (State) power is no longer strictly a hierarchical chain of command as in the past, but now it is embedded in social structures and bureaucracies and exists as relationships within a complex of social situation. 4. Power itself exists in the actions of agents (be they individual or groups such as in a legal action, i.e. Brown v. Board of Education). Power is a capacity that exists only as action and the limit to every exercise of Power is Resistance, the point where the action of one agent reaches the limits of its capacity. Foucault writes that modern state power is an action upon actions, and I understand this as meaning that political resistance ultimately occurs at a point where an action resolves from the choices that could be made into the one actually made. 5. The structures of the modern state are fundamentally oppressive, as what the state needs to operate involves a necessary restriction of personal autonomy. These mechanisms are not inherently oppressive, but under the influence of the current model of capital-based liberal ideology, they unarguably are. Moving forward from here: Chapter Three and Beyond Moving forward, I will slow down a little and begin going into more detail concerning certain topics, most importantly Power and Value. I will explain in great detail the notion I have brought up of Citizen X, the phenomenological political agent. I will also begin unpacking my original model “Relational Materialism” and show how and why it is a fully adequate and complete model of a phenomenologically based political philosophy, and how it is useful to our greater community of theorists and activists. In the upcoming Chapter Three, Part One I will begin my task. Viva!  Chapter Two - Part Five
The Value of Autonomy in Relation to Personal Power - The Origins of Citizen X Another look at Oshana The mechanics that legitimize state authority bear a remarkable positive parallel to the negative description presented in Oshana’s theory. By this I mean that the mechanisms involved with legitimizing the state’s authority to exercise its power are parallel to the restrictions placed upon individuals from exercising their power and usurping the common authority of the liberal state. To explain, let us look a little closer at the structure of State Power. A first look at the Structure of Political Power Political power is traditionally spoken of in terms of a “sovereign,” traditionally a particular individual or select group “holding the reigns” of state authority. Using the insights of Foucault, we see the idea of political power as an exclusive possession of a lone ruler or cabal does not describe the modern state, but “sovereignty” instead is embodied in “more-or-less organized, hierarchical, co-ordinated cluster(s) of relations.” In the modern capital-based liberal state, Princely State power has become structural and bureaucratic and is exercised in three distinct forms: Argumental/Persuasive, Compulsive/Brute, and Deontic/Structural. I will be speaking primarily of deontic power in this blog. The term 'Deontic" comes from the Greek, deon, meaning obligation or necessity. Deontic power therefore concerns, is related to, or is explicitly about the duties and obligations inherent in large scale social arrangements. Broadly, deontic power constructs the basic structural limits of the socio-political system and it is expressed in varied, interrelated manners: the standing directives of criminal law and civil society, the rights and duties imposed by constitutional amendments, the permissions and restrictions inherent in institutional bureaucracy. The enforcement of deontic apparatus involves the legitimate interference of the state into the personal lives of its citizens. Rights, obligations, restrictions, the standing intention and threat of violence empowering authorized military and police action, and the basic assumptions, habits, and norms of our social background all constitute the basic structures of the state and all serve to actively create, express, and maintain the legitimacy of state power. The dispersion of authority throughout the system allows for the deontic mechanisms at work to strengthen the identification and recognition of state regulations and authoritative patterns. And once the recognition of an external authority is internalized, it is the acceptance of deontic state power that allows for its authority to compel, by law, force, and argument, the choices and actions of agents standing as subjects to its will. It is collective recognition of agents as both objects and subjects of state deontic power that empowers state authority and the greater the element of control over the autonomous actions of agents, the more efficient and effective the powers of the state can be exercised. The tensions of Power Agential acceptance of state authority is established and maintained when individual agents recognize the state’s claim of possessing the sole means to provide citizens with the structured and level playing field in which to develop the skills and opportunities needed to live their own chosen ‘good life,’ a liberal cornerstone that I must assume, for the sake of this blog, to be generally understood. Recognition of state authority ultimately hinges on the state’s monopoly of legitimate violence within it territory and the state’s ability to peacefully resolve group conflict. This conflict resolution is tied to a larger issue of the state being seen as capable of creating a space for individuals to live lives free from unwarranted intrusions and dangers, thus to promote conditions of security and personal value. To do this, the state must be recognized as legitimately having the authority to sanction or punish any activities taking place within its borders and must have absolute control over legitimate means of violent behavior within that territory, making itself the lone source of authoritative coercive punishment and legitimate intervention. Further, it must be known to exercise its power through its police, military and penal systems. The main justification for such interventions, to speak in broad terms, is for the protection or good of the people, as it must be seen as able to provide relative security and opportunity for those who live under it laws. The state must make use of and justify certain paternalistic measures so that it may promote an environment of mutual safety and respect for all of its citizens. Placing restrictions on drunk driving, shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, or the compulsory mandates of education and minority-group equality fall into arguably justifiable interventions, but beyond such notions, the needs of state authority are at odds with the needs of agential authority. In theory, the state must be seen and known to promote general social conditions favorable to individual growth, prosperity, and self-authoritative control, but, in practice, the state must create underlying conditions that go against these basic ideals. To remind you, Marina Oshana’s model describes empirical conditions in which autonomy is the possession of the few and the general constitution of such conditions leave many agents with a fundamental lack of control as they face their general social environment. The criticisms Oshana's theory faces concerning a general “lack of control” and allowing excessive paternalism could be usefully directed towards the liberal system itself where evidence supporting her claims is revealed in the actuality of lives that are marginalized, excluded, and disempowered. By framing her theory as a description of what mechanics are involved in the creation of a social system where only a minority may qualify as self-authorities and justification for potential abuse of paternalistic measures are readily available, I have tried to explain how empowering state authority requires a general condition of disempowerment for agential autonomy to insure its power is legitimate and its authority complete and uncontested. This is perhaps making a stronger claim than Oshana herself would want to make, but I feel it does sufficiently describe the mechanics of our liberal state where the lives of citizens become mere apparatus for its maintenance. Objection and defense of Oshana’s theory An objection to Oshana’s overall thesis is that her descriptive theory is simply wrong and individuals are afforded more autonomy in the contemporary liberal state than ever before in the forms of personal and civil rights. This objection points towards a potential flaw in her (and therefore my own) reasoning. Such an argument could claim that far from facing the restrictive conditions proposed by her theory, the socio-political structure has actually increased the area of personal choice and action by affording greater room for personal control in areas such as reproduction, lifestyle choice, and employment or ownership opportunities. The argument would conclude that the legalization of abortion and advancements in minority group rights following the civil rights movements are examples of this widened sphere of self-authority and ownership. To respond to this type of objection, I argue that these rights, while affording a greater degree of freedom in particular choices and opportunities, do not effectively increase the more relevant ‘global’ conditions of autonomy necessary to possess de facto control over the final decisions one makes concerning his or her life. In distinguishing autonomy from freedom, Marina Oshana says, “To be free is to possess the power to decide or to act, but autonomy deals with agential authority over those decisions and actions”. To truly be autonomous, to have actual authority over oneself and one’s decisions, requires more than having the freedom to choose between options that are controlled by an authority higher than oneself. The more entrenched and internalized the mechanisms of power come to be, the more outlets for the expression of localized autonomy are needed. These outlets afford the agent a relative degree of freedom and independence, but the general conditions within which the agent operates are fundamentally structured to force an underlying subjection to the authority of the state. To recognize that one has the right to choose what to do with her body is to recognize the prior standing authority of the state to be able to decide if your capacity to choose or act according to your own intentions and deliberations is a legitimate option or not. To be autonomous, not merely free, in the reality of our social system, requires more than having the capacity to be an authority over one’s own choices and actions. To be autonomous, one must fully exercise that capacity and hold de jure entitlement over ones deliberations and actually be the de facto authority over oneself. Once the structure of the modern state’s dispersion of authority is recognized and internalized, the range of individual freedoms is able to open even as the range of the conditions suitable to autonomy is diminished. Conclusion to Chapter Two This blog has argued that autonomy, traditionally believed to be a granted state all agents share in common is, in the reality of our social environment, quite the opposite. Not everyone has the opportunity to develop a life conducive to self-directed behavior; there are social, political, and economic conditions operative in the liberal socio-political system that rely to an important degree on creating conditions non-conducive to autonomous behavior. Oshana recognizes the importance of the relational aspects of our empirical world, and her theory takes pains to stress the fact that actual self-authority is tied to the development of critical cognitive and social skills, as well as to underlying economic and political conditions. The critiques to her theory, that her model is overly paternalistic and exclusionary, would be more usefully directed towards the liberal system I read her as describing. Finally, I need to say that there is a movement in contemporary political philosophy towards applied theories, where it is understood that our conceptions have verifiable results, and one may in fact do philosophical work to “get things done”. By understanding the dynamic practical and ontological mechanics of political systems, I see the potential for applied work in areas such as domestic and international relations, distributive economics, privacy, and various forms of oppression. In Chapter Three I will begin tying several themes together by discussing in detail the concept and structures of Power and the Identity of Citizen X. References Bartky, Sandra Lee Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression, Routledge, 1990, New York Baumann, Holger ‘Reconsidering Relational Autonomy. Personal Autonomy for Socially Embedded and Temporally Extended Selves’, Analyse and Kritik, Lucius and Lucius, Germany, 2008 DeCew, Judith Wagner ‘Marina Oshana, Personal Autonomy in Society’, Social Theory and Practice, 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6395/is_1_35/ai_n32102786/?tag=content;col1 Foucault, Michel ‘Discipline and Punish’, Vintage Press, USA, 1995 ‘The History of Sexuality’, Vintage Press, USA, 1990 ‘The Foucault Reader’, Pantheon Press, USA, 1984 ‘Power’, Essential works of Foucault, Vol. 3, Edited by James Faubion, The New Press, New York, 2001 ‘Power/Knowledge’, Pantheon Press, 1980 Meyers, Diana Tietjens, Feminist Social Thought: A Reader, Routledge, 1997, New York Oshana, Marina ‘Autonomy and Free Agency’, Personal Autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy, Edited by James Stacey Taylor, Cambridge University Press, 2008 ‘How Much Should We Value Autonomy?’, Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation, USA, 2003 ‘Personal Autonomy in Society’, Ashgate Publishing, USA, 2006 Searle, John ‘Making the Social World’, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010 Walzer, Michael ‘Spheres of Justice: A defense of pluralism and equality’, Basic Books, 1983 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): “Foucault and Feminism” http://iep.utm.edu/foucfem/  Another entry in my old 'Intermission' series from the mid/late 1990's, and the second one concerning my time in New Orleans. Intermission (New Orleans #2) (1996) “You can stay at my place, and I’ll get you high if you suck my dick.” “No thanks. I’m okay.” “New Orleans is a rough place, bro. I’ll take care of you.” “That’s cool, man, I’m taken care of.” “C’mon, brother. How about I suck you first?” “No thanks, man, that ain’t my scene.” “Alright then. You get cold, you know where to find me.” “Yeah, see ya.” And the rest of the night progresses. A few beers. A couple of jazz bands, blues bands, rock bands. The hustlers wanting your money, your lips, your blood, your soul. The pack on your back is getting heavier by the block. Up and down those streets you go, kept on your feet by the rain and the fear and the knowledge that around that next corner you may be saved, you may be beaten, you may be left for dead, but it doesn’t matter. Esplanade. Bourbon. Decatur. Burgundy. Past the gay clubs and the strip joints and the all night bars. It smells like a wet sweater left in a plastic bag for far too long, you can actually taste the city on your tongue, did you know that? You can open your mouth and the city makes it start to water. It tastes of sin and of magic and of power and of things that you are not able to comprehend, so you settle for acceptance, as you curl up in a door stoop. Your head in the shadows, your feet getting wet. Writer to Writer: GUEST BLOG by NANCY STOHLMAN New Year’s Resolution #1: Finish That Manuscript12/27/2013  I am truly excited to have a good friend and a much admired writer Nancy Stohlman (author of The Monster Opera as well as being the sexy lead singer for the lounge metal band Kinky Mink) talk about her upcoming online workshop.
This event is certainly worth checking out if you are stuck on a manuscript or if you have just always wanted to write a book and it seemed too daunting a task. Nancy can help!!! NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTION #1: FINISH THAT MANUSCRIPT (AND GET IT OUT INTO THE WORLD) by Nancy Stohlman 4 week-intensive workshop beginning January 6, 2014 FREE preview call Friday, January 3 at 7 pm mst An Online Workshop on Re-visioning, Publication, Promotion, Taking Risks, Finding Your Readers, Taking Yourself Seriously, and Falling Back in Love with Your Vision. Are you still sitting on that same manuscript? Are you stuck in the writing phase or in the revision process? Or have you “finished” but not gotten the response you wanted out in the world? Are you not sure what comes next? Most of us are better at starting manuscripts than we are at finishing them. But it’s only when we can conceive, create, and bring our projects to fruition that we begin to master the longer form known as a book. Each book we write brings us closer to understanding how to write a book. What phase of the finishing process are you in? And…what’s it costing you to not finish? Three Types of “Finishing” 1. Crossing the Finish Line. In this phase, you’re creating, allowing, and writing yourself to the finish line of that first draft, where you can write The End and give yourself that well deserved glass of port. In this phase you need the support, motivation, and commitment to get to the end. A first draft is like a lump of clay—it doesn’t have to be perfect, but it does need to be complete before you can start shaping it into the grand vessel it will become. 2. Alligator Wrestling. In this phase you’ve finished a first draft and now you’re in the revision—re-visioning—process. Re-vision. Seeing again. Sometimes it’s hard to see your manuscript with fresh eyes—like looking for your sunglasses when they’re on your head. Yet the true writing magic usually happens in revisions. In this phase you need new ways of seeing your manuscript differently, both in pieces and as a whole, as well as identifying your strengths and weaknesses as a writer and inviting the potent potential of unexpected possibilities into your work. 3. Becoming a Player. In this phase you and your manuscript prepare to enter the public arena, and the “finishing” has just as much to do with you as a professional. This is the point where we usually long for an agent to swoop in and do all the uncomfortable work of promoting ourselves, but the catch here is that if we want to be taken seriously, we have to start playing seriously. In this phase you need help with promotional and professional materials including bios, queries, how and why to excerpt, and learning how to avoid the mistakes of looking like an amateur—regardless of your publishing goals. In this workshop we will explore: • What’s keeping you from finishing? • Are your blocks telling you something about your manuscript? • How to fall back in love with your work and your vision • Allowing your manuscript to transform • Publication—is your manuscript ready to send into the world? • The different stages of “finishing” a manuscript • Self-promotion—are you afraid of rejection? (You’re not alone.) • What’s keeping you from taking the next steps? In this workshop I’ll give you the deadlines you might need, help you structure your writing time into your life, help you transition more easily between creation and revision, and help you become your own best editor. Whether you are planning to submit or self publish, you’ll learn writing tips, editorial and publication advice, how to find and cultivate a readership, how to excerpt and query, and even when to let a manuscript go. And most importantly, you’ll finally rescue your work from the land of obscurity and give yourself the satisfaction of completion. The workshop format will include weekly online instruction, telephone check-ins, and professional line edits (limited). Both fiction and nonfiction manuscripts are welcome. $199 tuition (half due upon registration–payment plans available) *FRIDAY, January 3 at 7 pm MST, join me for a 30-min FREE WORKSHOP PREVIEW. Contact me for registration information or questions at nancystohlman@gmail.com Are you ready?  Here is an old piece from my wandering days, part of my 'Intermission' series from the late-90's. Intermission -New Orleans (1996) And then there’s those times when you’re lonely and horny and walking through the streets of New Orleans by yourself and the freshly fallen rain reflects the street lamps and your own crazed face and puts a slight chill in your body that makes you feel just a bit more like a dying breed and the only comfort you know you’ll receive tonight is your head laying on your backpack somewhere in some dark alley while your bones rattle like Gene Krupa gone mad and your mind, wandering to more important things like the honey-vinegar of freedom and staying alive till the morning light, only partially registers the traffic and the big burly man in black hawking in front of the strip joint around the corner. “Hey man, we got some beautiful girls.” “No thanks, man.” “What’s a matter? You don’t like girls? We got the finest women in this city. Black girls. Blonde girls. We got two Asian bitches who’ll eat each other out, and let me tell ya, it’s something." “Nah, thanks anyway.” “Your loss.” “I’m sure.” And through the night, your mind does wander back to those girls. So incredibly beautiful, so ready and able to trade flesh and illusion, to give those who want what they want, making five hundred dollars a night fingering themselves on a stage in front of fifty strangers caressed in a pinkish glow with AC/DC blaring in the background. Do they know, do they care, if there is more to life than spreading those long legs wide apart and writhing on a metal pole, more to life than plastic breasts and shinny new sports cars, more to life than the table full of married business executives in town without their wives, pumping out fifty bucks a pop to get dragged off into some back room to have some nice smelling, lovely young lady grind up and down on their stiff penis, “Just relax, baby, I’ll take care of you. You can touch me anywhere but between the legs, okay?” “Okay.” And you want to take her by the hand and lead her out of that place, past the mirrored ceilings and the groping eyes, out into the street and say, look around, past the dirt and decay, and the see the beauty and magic, feel it on your skin. You want to drag her into the countryside and say, look around, past the illusion of all you see, and taste the air, feel this harmony. You want to drag her up the mountain, to the very peak, and say, look around, past the veil of humanity and see the blueprint of creation, the majesty and humility. You want to drag her to the foot of God’s throne and say nothing, both of you content to simply sit and wait for the second act to begin.  Chapter Two -
Part Four The Value of Autonomy in Relation to Personal Power - The Origins of Citizen X A Summary of Chapter Two (parts 1-3) In the first three parts of Chapter Two, I have presented two distinct arguments. One, Marina Oshana’s controversial study of autonomy in which she claims that individual agents in the modern Liberal State generally fail to obtain a robust or even basic level of personal autonomy. Two, I have shown Sandra Lee Bartky’s account of the psychological colonization of women as an example of the general mechanisms of oppression in the relationship between State power and Individual power. Bartky has been accused, like Foucault before her, that the level and depth of social construction and systemic oppression she describes leaves little to no room for resistance to its control or to develop an authentic “Self” outside of its influence. Now, in Part Four, I will begin weaving these arguments together in order to explain the necessary existence of the individual Self and its capacity for resistance. Doing this will open the way for the next step of my larger argument, the relationship between what I term “Citizen X” and the Princely Soverign power of the modern capital-based liberal state. For it is in this relationship that we can find, discuss, and critique the true value of power and the possibilities for meaningful revolutionary action. The possibility of resistance to the ‘feminine’ The relationships of power discussed in this blog are of the socio-political kind and this ensures that, if nothing else, all political agents are fundamentally recognized as subjects, regardless of the discursive objectification placed on most by some. Domination, oppression, involves a psychological pressing down, the exploitation of a fragmented picture of the subjective self and its potentials. It is to have the object-hood of ‘other’ stamped on one’s back, be it “feminine,” “black,” “gay,” “transgender,” or “disabled” and to have this complex and contradictory social identity come to define to some degree who or what they are or may be. Bartky reminds us that when men yell at women on the street, they are not merely being objectified, they are being “made to know” they are a ‘nice piece of ass.”[1] This epistemological objectification is an affront to the comfort, dignity, and independence of a subject, a “self.” It is understandable that objects do not need reminding that they are tools or things. Women then, as are all oppressed persons, are fundamentally subjects, otherwise the oppressive discursive power feminist theory is fighting against would not exist. Psychological oppression, claims Bartky , aids in the transmission of oppressive socio-political discursive apparatus. Seeds grow healthy in fertile ground: if one is born to believe she is to serve or submit she will never know to question the logic of such arrangements. The self as grounds for resistance As explained, resistance to the modern feminine is not the resistance of a slave towards a master, it is not a relationship enacted upon mere objects, property or chattel. For the “feminine,” on Bartky’s account, the resistance is against disciplinary regimes that seek to govern a woman’s body. Her sex, her shape, her mind, her presentation; the patriarchal urge to pull her from the assembly line and use her until she is consumed. But how is it possible to resist this power? Even the existence of subjective selves do not justify the claim that the enveloping systemic structure of modern power relations in capital-based society can be thwarted or meaningfully resisted. To understand how political power can be resisted it is helpful to recall where Foucault says modern power exists. He writes: “Let us come back to the definition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain actions may structure the field of other possible actions. What, therefore, would be proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted "above" society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. In any case, to live in a society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible-- and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.” - Foucault, The Subject and Power (1982) pp. 208. Foucault claims that modern power is an action upon actions. This means that resistance itself is part of any exercise of power. Resistance is internal to the exercise of power, found at the point where relations of power are exercised. Resistance is the limit to power, the point of the action where the self-authority inherent in acting agents resolves from the choices available into the actions made. Politically, resistance occurs in the situation where one must act, where one must choose from options fundamentally shaped by social and economic conditions, including access to critical skills, financial stability, and social means. Patriarchal power, as socio-political power, is an action upon actions. This pragmatically translates into a limiting of the actual and perceived options a subject has open to her. Within their interactions, agents must have access to some degree of liberty in choice, options, response, or reaction. If an agent does not have at least this basic autonomy to choose anything, than it is not an exercise of power as it does not involve mutually-acting subjects . In upcoming chapters of this blog series, I will do an in-depth analysis of my understanding of power (personal power and political power) using the ideas of Foucault and Searle to frame my original work. For now, let us simply take the ideas that the Self exists implies a necessary capacity for resistance to oppressive practices, a capacity inner-twined with agential social and cultural conditions and access to decision-making power. The “self” of the female agent, the basic shared humanity of her as we identify with when we speak of human rights or human species, remains complete despite the discursive cannibalism of “femininity” that bonds and devours its perceived fundamental totality. Women, as are all members of humanity, are fundamentally subjects and this necessarily implies a capacity for active resistance to the patriarchal colonization of any and all women’s autonomous “self.” Again, for the time being, I must refrain from speculating on the formal content of this “fundamental self.” That is a subject for future blog entries. Acknowledging its existence and capacity for resistance is enough to decisively move the question forward. For regardless of the ontological underpinnings of the political subject, if we grant that political agents[2] maintain basic and viable “Selves” within their total identity, one question remains: what is the worth of an identity and can or does it matter in capitol-based liberal politics. What does a self matter in the eyes of the world? In my argument above, I claimed that what individuals conceive of as their “self” has socially constructed elements. I then sought to answer if that was all there is. I claimed no, that in able to be politically dominated, that is, socio-politically assumed to be an object, there must be a prior, more fundamentally recognized subjective self, a sum of the parts that we understand loosely as “human,” that is recognized and recognizes itself under most circumstances. I further argued that this “Self” exists and is fundamentally recognized as a political subject by sovereign elements, even while they maintain oppressive, exclusionary practices in the broader scope of the socio-political system and its background discourses and motivations. To resist these enveloping discourses and expectations is to exercise one’s fundamental subjectivity against the actions that would construct one as an object. As this occurs in the active process of any situation, the fulcrum of object-subject is in the day-to-day choices one makes and feels secure could be made. If Bartky’s question is, “How does a woman resist the feminine,” then the answer has to be, “By making choices.” It sounds too simple, but I do not think it is. The value of actual, viable, real, practical choices is something that is perhaps taken for granted. The actual options one has available to them come down to a large degree on ones economic and social stability, not to mention personal disposition, gender, sexuality, and habits; the range of choices agents have open to them vary widely with contingency and circumstance. Foucault writes that resistance to the type of power men and women face in contemporary society is to “refuse what we are.”[3] Refusing what we are, in the context of feminist theory, is to break, to deny, the boundaries, limitations, and oppressive normalizing identity categories imposed on women by the dominant paradigm. Resistance is internal to power and the amount and type of socio-political constraints or opportunities is relative to the social position, status, and identity of the agents involved in any relation of power. Socio-political power is a matter of degree, as differences in economic and cultural status directly influence the available options an agent has open to her. This makes resistance a matter of degree as well. In the end, the authentic Self necessarily exists, though its reality has been fought, denied and obscured by the same political systems that confirm its basic existence. This necessary Self contains the capacity to exercise resistance and to some degree exercises that capacity each and every day, the evidence of which is found in the active results of choices made from existing options. Some types of resistance are more robust than others, just as some actions actively support the oppressive habits and norms, but the fact remains that it is the subjective self of an agent making choices to the best of her ability while blinded by the patriarchal “veil of femininity.” The degree of success resistance may achieve can only be measured in the empirical conditions that obtain in her general culture and society. With the current vibrancy, importance, variety, and growing organization of the contemporary feminist movement, the success of society’s resistance to the domination of women is evident and active. The final release of women from the bondage of “femininity” continues to develop and like all social processes, with every passing day, each discussion, struggle, essay, choice, and action we, as women and men, create its reality. In Part Five of Chapter Two, I will wrap up my defense and discussion of Oshana’s controversial view of autonomy and begin to highlight specific points of political power. References Bartky, Sandra Lee Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression, Routledge, 1990, New York Baumann, Holger ‘Reconsidering Relational Autonomy. Personal Autonomy for Socially Embedded and Temporally Extended Selves’, Analyse and Kritik, Lucius and Lucius, Germany, 2008 DeCew, Judith Wagner ‘Marina Oshana, Personal Autonomy in Society’, Social Theory and Practice, 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6395/is_1_35/ai_n32102786/?tag=content;col1 Foucault, Michel ‘Discipline and Punish’, Vintage Press, USA, 1995 ‘The History of Sexuality’, Vintage Press, USA, 1990 ‘The Foucault Reader’, Pantheon Press, USA, 1984 ‘Power’, Essential works of Foucault, Vol. 3, Edited by James Faubion, The New Press, New York, 2001 ‘Power/Knowledge’, Pantheon Press, 1980 The Subject and Power (1982), Meyers, Diana Tietjens, Feminist Social Thought: A Reader, Routledge, 1997, New York Oshana, Marina ‘Autonomy and Free Agency’, Personal Autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy, Edited by James Stacey Taylor, Cambridge University Press, 2008 ‘How Much Should We Value Autonomy?’, Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation, USA, 2003 ‘Personal Autonomy in Society’, Ashgate Publishing, USA, 2006 Searle, John ‘Making the Social World’, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010 Walzer, Michae ‘Spheres of Justice: A defense of pluralism and equality’, Basic Books, 1983 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP): “Foucault and Feminism” http://iep.utm.edu/foucfem/ Footnotes [1] Bartky, pg. 55 [2] I would like to include both individual persons and social groups (i.e. Brown v. Board of Education) [3] IEP "Foucault and Feminism"  On Being a Writer
by David Edward Wagner Dec. 13, 2013 The Reality of Being a Writer The aim of this blog entry is to give a bit of friendly advice and insight into the mindset and processes of the professional (or honestly, even the non-professional or the trying-to be-professional) writer. The simple question, what is a writer is simply answered, “A writer is one who writes.” The similar question, what does a writer do, is similarly answered, “A writer writes.” But, alas, as we all know, things are seldom if ever so simple. So, with this in mind, I will answer the question as thoroughly and straightforward as I can. In reality, the simple question, what is a writer, is properly answered, “A writer is one who plans and creates through the methods of thought and writing.” And the question, what does a writer do, is accurately answered, “A writer plans, writes and edits.” It is this second question that I will focus on (as the first question is embedded within it). A Writer needs time While simply writing is surely the foundation and prime aspect of a writer’s life and career, it is not the only thing he or she must do and it is, in the end, only of shared importance with the tasks of planning and editing one’s work. In my own life, I have struggled, sacrificed and fought to keep ahold of the one thing most important to the writing process: Time. That is your most valuable asset and tool as a writer. All of the imagination, all of the great ideas, all of the valuable connections or amazing insights you have do not mean a thing if you cannot carve out and maintain the long hours necessary to bring your thoughts from intangible mind to the actuality of words and paper (or sure, digital document). This is a simple truth: a writer needs time. Perhaps the most important question then becomes: how do I use this time I have? Maybe even better, you could ask how do I use this time wisely and efficiently? This is the best question because writers in general (and I am a great example) are known to be some of the world’s most triumphant wasters of time, pissing away the hours with flights of fancy or organizing their bookshelves or cleaning their fingernails or… doing anything but writing. So, do not despair, this is another thing I have at last learned and become comfortable with. A writer, if truly a writer, never truly wastes a second. They are merely fulfilling one of the three aspects of their writerly labor. Perhaps it is best if I just dive into those three aspects and explain each one as fully as I can. To begin, let’s talk about planning, as it is the most vague and easily misunderstood. A Writer Plans At All Times While writing and editing are rather straightforward in their explanations, the various types and levels of planning a writer needs to do in order to be successful are a bit more complicated. To begin, writers need to plan their time properly. Loose but self-regulated weekly schedules are used to keep projects properly juggled and moving forward, with flexible (unless otherwise noted) long-term deadlines for the completion of individual works spread out over the coming months. Even more, basic daily schedules are necessary for carving out the space to give each current project its due and proper focus at specific times. If you want to support yourself with your writing, the odds are great that you will be working on and needing to finish more than one project at any time until it is necessary to focus on completing one, and you need to remind your artistic self that generally, when people want to support themselves or their family, they have to get a job. It’s the modern world still, and you can’t pay the landlord or bank with good intentions. That means you have to get comfortable with the fact that your art is a job and you have to treat it with the same mindset you have when working for wages at the great time-sucking company of your choice. You are a business, your mind and your personal effort, and you have to show up at your job regularly and do your work efficiently and with inspiration. My own example that has truly changed my life and my relationship with my own creative process is as follows: I plan my week day by day, working on one project in the morning until lunch, (sometimes at noon, sometimes at 2pm, sometimes at four pm, depending on my outside responsibilities and level of inspiration). I eat and then switch gears, working on another project for a few hours, always less than the earlier project. Then, I will generally be burned out after four to eight hours of writing, writing, writing. I take a break and spend the final hour or so of my workday on non-creative projects I call ‘busy work:’ updating websites, formatting completed manuscripts, researching online, submitting completed work to magazines, contests, publishers and agents. Then I go to my job or cook dinner for my wife and me, depending on the day. I want to turn my passion into a suitable career and so I treat it like a full time job, giving 30-50 hours a week towards directly working on my ‘product.’ Part time opportunities are also available. But beyond that, you have to plan the work itself. Trace story arcs, plot points, major events. You have to develop compelling characters and keep timelines straight and make sure everything is coherent and cohesive. This takes pages of notes, sometimes charts, as well as research in books and on the Internet. And between the time to work and the work itself, you have to plan the projects in general, keep a running list of the story and time worthy ideas you come up with at random times, crossing them out with each precious ‘The End.’ The more ideas the merrier and as the movie says, “If you build it they will come.” Keep adding to your work, everything you can, different mediums and styles, different genres and formats, just keep writing and stretch your limits and virtuosity. For you non-writers reading this blog entry, or even to you writers reading it, in your defense, I can honestly say that a writer is always planning, always working mentally on that one part, that one character flaw or upcoming cool moment when you can’t quite get your story from here to there in a logical way and you know you can if you can just think of that one missing piece, that one crucial decision… The most intangible parts of planning for a writer are those seemingly blank and lazy times when you are sitting doing nothing to the outside observer, when you feel scattered and lost in your own house or neighborhood while your brain works through some idea. To the outside world it looks like you are idle, spacing out and being weird again, but do not fear, you are working. You are wracking your brain and doing real, honest, roll-up-your-sleeves creative work. Simply because it is abstract does not mean that it is intangible; concrete results come only from such mental endeavors. Planning is an important part of writing and the writer’s life, and it should be remembered and taken seriously. Writers write as much as they possibly can As I mentioned, the idea that writers write and edit their work is a pretty straightforward and logical notion. With this in mind, I will keep the rest of this blog entry mercifully short. Here I will just say that you have to write, write, write. Just get it out, don’t loose your momentum on a project just because that transition from act one into act two doesn’t quite work and doesn’t really make sense. Just power through, keep moving, make a few notes where it feels choppy or poorly paced and just get to the end. Write it all out and type ‘the end.’ Get it completed in any fashion you can. This is the first draft, it's not supposed to be perfect, just finished. This first draft is simply carving the rough shape from the blank white marble of page and mind. You'll never know where you're going if you don't arrive there in some shape. Don’t forget, you have time and you have your third necessary responsibility in your life as a writer: editing. Writers edit like their lives depend on it. The title of this section pretty well sums up the truth of editing. You edit like you life depends on it because it does. If you want to support yourself by writing, you have to be willing to tear your work apart, killing your favorite line or paragraph for the sake of the whole, change and retool everything and anything that suddenly makes you realize you are reading something and not experiencing something. You have to condition yourself to step outside of your own creative ego and wear the separate hat of an objective, non-partial editor. And then when that first draft is more presentable, you need to send it to at least one second pair of eyes, get their feedback and typo findings, and decide what insights you will apply to your further drafts. Do this at each stage until the final draft, but be aware that everybody you are sending drafts to also have lives and time issues, and may not want to or be able to read four drafts of the same novel. So widen your pool of friendly and interested eyes for your own sake. I generally begin each daily session by re-reading the previous few pages and editing and note-taking as I go, sliding gently into the flow of the days work as I near the end of what I wrote yesterday. Then it is only forward towards the ever-shortening distance between here and the end. Editing is vital and the true work of successful writers. It is also the most nerve-wracking and difficult part. But do it. Love it. Know that it is the difference between great writing and plain old everyday schlock. Do it with pride and patience. Conclusion Get to work. And have a good day. |
Website Updated on:
|
RSS Feed