Departing From Practices of Resistance, Towards an Ecology of Resilience?

THIS TEXT AIMS TO EXPLORE the following questions: what is an ‘ecology of

resilience’? Why are we using it as a point of departure? And how does this concept

relate to The Sitting Room University’s contribution to Landmark Seizures? To explore

these questions we must first place this text in its wider context. The questions outlined

here reflect numerous conversations between members of The Sitting Room University

concerning the relationship between art, politics and activism, and the problematic

dynamic of institutional recupertation and self-marginalisation. Contained within this

exercise is a desire to work through, from humble beginnings, the tensions apparent in

thinking politics and social change and doing politics in a practical, pre-figurative and

interventionist sense. There have been disagreements and discomforts within the SRU

regarding the rejection of and adoption of terminologies, as well as disagreements

concerning (non)interaction with the state and its institutions. We realise that certain

aspects of this exploratory operation signal problematic tensions, but we see this as a

positive proposition – a kind of agonistic crowbar employed to prize open a space for

discussion between the many different and often conflicting positions on radical practice

and social change. We are not attempting to layout a programmatic politics, we do not

pretend towards grand revolutionary ideals, we are aware of our individual and collective

position and seek to explore practical possibilities within our enabling constraints. As

with all of our beginnings, these propositions form the starting point for a critical and

self-reflexive enquiry into the nature of what we are proposing. The SRU would like to

explore the notion of an ‘ecology of resilience’ as the promotion of a consciousness that

‘we’ are inescapably part of a political, economic and cultural ecology: one which must

be negotiated with critical reflection and productive cunning and invest in new ways of

saying, making and doing.

To begin to answer the questions posed above, we must sketch out what we mean

by ‘departing from practices of resistance’, ‘ecology’ and ‘resilience’. As each of these

terms maintains a plethora of connotations, clarification is necessary. Firstly, what do we

mean by ‘departing from practices of resistance’? It is in thinking through and discussing

artist/activist projects that have in the past taken an oppositional stance towards

mainstream cultural institutions, resulting in a process of self-marginalisation, that the

SRU began to question the efficacy of a purely oppositional stance1. Before we proceed,

it is important to note that we are not dismissing resistance as a concept and practice, for

where there is power there will always be resistance. We accept that there are many of

instances and contexts in which resistance is the only weapon against capitalist logic and

the SRU places heavy emphasis upon resisting capitalist realism2 through the collective

imagining and pre-figuring of alternative, egalitarian political and cultural spaces. What

we are highlighting is that resistance has become a ubiquitous concept so embedded in

the discourse of the ‘radical left’ that it is often used in a non-reflexive manner, often

caught up in the problematic notion of an authentic-outside-of-capitalism: something the

SRU would like to call into question. Furthermore, the notion of resistance often equates

to a purely oppositional practice, eschewing all contact and negotiation with public (state)

institutions. The SRU would like to interrogate this strategy and ask if this is the most

effective mode of operation; particularly in the context of contemporary cultural

institutions, one of the last remaining public spaces where (although somewhat

compromised) progressive and critical dialogue and practice can occur – are we right to

dismiss these spaces or view them solely as places of attack? Or should we view them as

cracks in the veneer of capitalism in which to sow the seeds of change? Is it possible to

create a practice which maintains an embedded radicality yet forgoes an overtly

oppositional face? And if so, in dispensing with a directly oppositional strategy are we

distancing ourselves from those with which we have the greatest affinity and making to

great a concession to liberal ideology: what, if anything, is lost if the politics inherent to a

practice are not explicitly stated? It should be emphasised here that we mean to

investigate whether it is possible to maintain and promote an intellectual resistance

alongside a more ‘negotiable’ practice.

Secondly, ‘ecology’: we wish to suggest an organic self-multiplying system of

interconnections. This system emerges in a rhizomatic3 fashion and establishes bonds and

1 For a good example see: Disobediance Makes History, a project by The Lab of ii. 2 For a detailed discussion of ‘Capitalist Realism’ see: Fisher, M., 2009. Capitalist Realism. Winchester: O Books. 3 A rhizome is a modified subterranean stem of a plant that is usually found underground, often sending out roots and shoots from its nodes. Rhizomes develop from auxiliary buds and grow perpendicular to the force

affinities between seemingly unrelated practices, practitioners, disciplines and groups.

This emergent formation cannot be reduced to an obvious set of beliefs, but indicates a

shared attitude amongst those contributing to an open and porous system. The term

ecology also presents an unknown proposition to the SRU and serves as a statement of

intent, representing a desire to learn and establish if politico-cultural practices can reflect

ecological systems.

And finally, we must clarify what ‘resilience’ equates to in this context. Unlike

ecology, which harbours predominantly neutral connotations, the notion of resilience

engenders problematic associations. When we learn that the term has been co-opted by

neoliberal discourse and is now firmly entrenched as a political agenda, we can easily see

why any theory of practice that supposes a radical-critical framework and promotes

resistance to capitalist logic, must carefully navigate the problems involved in dealing

with this concept. Writing recently for Radical Philosophy4, Mark Neocleous states that

“resilience is by definition against resistance. Resilience wants acquiescence, not

resistance. Not a passive acquiescence, for sure, in fact quite the opposite. But it does

demand that we use our actions to accommodate ourselves to capital and the state, and

the secure future of both, rather than to resist them.”5 Neocleous points out the different

ways that resilience has become an active agenda in state discourse: from the US military

fitness programme, originally centered on the notion of “Strong Minds, Strong Bodies”

and now repackaged as “Building Resilience, Enhancing Performance”, and the suturing

of national security considerations to a discourse of resilience (to the extent that there is

presently resilience training for sniffer dogs!) with an underlying rhetoric of

preparedness, in which the state “assumes that one of its key tasks is to imagine the

worst-case scenario, the coming catastrophe, the crisis-to-come…” in turn making

resilience “an apprehension of the future, but a future imagined as disaster” – resilience,

therefore becoming “nothing less than the attempted colonization of the political

of gravity. The rhizome also retains the ability to allow new shoots to grow upwards. If a rhizome is separated into pieces, each piece may be able to give rise to a new plant. The association between the term in its more traditional biological sense and its contemporary usage as part of social, political and cultural theory is largely down to the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. 4 Neocleous, M., 2013. Resisting Resilience. Radical Philosophy, 178 (March/April), pp.2-7.5 Although here we are presenting one analysis of the neoliberal resilience agenda, it should be highlighted that there are numerous other critiques of the resilience agenda, and much readily available supporting evidence. This essay has been employed due to its succinct summation of this ideological shift.

imagination by the state”. Through documents generated by the UN, IMF and The World

Bank, emphasising resilience as the method for “growing the wealth of the poor” with

“sustained adjustment” marshalled as the model for achieving this culture of resilience.

To the association of the concept of resilience with state “happiness agendas” mirrored

by the multitudinous self-help manuals designed to promote a citizenship of balanced

wellbeing in the face of the perpetual crisis of capital, something also reflected in the

discourse of psychological associations, through which the key to mental wellbeing is the

adoption of an attitude of resilience in the face of trauma. In short, the concept of

resilience in its neoliberal guise “connects the emotional management of personal

problems with the wider security agenda and the logic of accumulation during a period of

crisis”. What we have then with the ‘resilience agenda’ is a peculiar situation in which

the state and its institutions promote and institutionalise a culture of coping mechanisms

for problems structurally inherent in capitalism that they themselves perpetuate. As

Neocleous puts it: “Neoliberal citizenship is nothing if not a training in resilience as the

new technology of the self: a training to withstand whatever crisis capital undergoes and

whatever political measures the state carries out to save it”. So where does this leave us?

If Neocleous posits a (somewhat crude) dichotomy between resistance and

resilience, the SRU would like to promote a dialectical6 approach to the problem.

Doubtless, Neocleous’ analysis deserves close attention, and the conclusions he draws are

crucial to a clearer understanding of the ideological quagmire upon which we stand, but

is he right to place resistance in complete opposition to resilience? Whilst it is clear that

the “colonization of the political imagination” must be resisted at all costs, when applying

new political imaginations to practical projects, it is common to face difficulties, failures

and undesirable outcomes; we need only think of activist interventions, occupations,

actions etc. and resulting ‘burnout’. A member of the SRU was recently told by a friend

how activists, presenting their experiences of the Dale Farm7 eviction, appeared to be

suffering from post-traumatic stress following the brutal suppression of the resistance; in

6 The dialectic has a long tradition in western philosophy from Plato onwards. We use it here, following Hegel, to point to conceptual development through the resolution of a conflict of forces. 7 Dale Farm was a site in Crays Hill, Essex, owned by a large traveller community (at one point it housed over 1000 people). Following a ten year process, the courts deemed that half of the site was illegally occupied and a clearance order was issued. Activists from various countries gathered at the site to assist in resisting the eviction: this resistance was brutally suppressed.

cases such as this, is resilience not a key factor in the continuation of struggle?

Admittedly, this is an extreme example, but on a more ‘everyday’ plane, practices that

attempt to resist capitalist logic and transform socio-economic relations frequently

encounter ideological, political or socio-economic barriers that can prove thoroughly

demoralising; without an element of resilience, or some sort of coping strategy, how does

one navigate this tricky terrain? It is through thinking mental health issues that this point

becomes clearer: anyone who has suffered, or knows somebody who has suffered, serious

problems with mental health – for example, psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidal tendencies,

manic depression – will know that resistance to these psychic afflictions is often

untenable, one may certainly resist the institutional treatments of the day, but resistance

to the onset of serious mental illness is often impossible: coping strategies are needed,

resilience is required.

The dichotomy presented in Neocleous’ analysis might work in a theoretical

space of pure politics, where resistance equates to some sort of outside-of-capitalism, but

is this outside a genuine possibility beyond the realm of thought? The SRU would like to

suggest that on the practical plane this authentic withdrawal or outside, this space of pure

politics, cannot exist; therefore, consideration must be given to the dialectical coupling of

an intellectual resistance and a pragmatic resilience.

The SRU is not suggesting that we submit to ‘neoliberal citizenship’ and adopt an

attitude of total acquiescence to capitalism and its agents; instead we are suggesting a

rational acceptance that the instability of our current political-economic order will not

magically vanish any time soon. Therefore, if we wish to establish practices with

emancipatory aims, we must develop viable methods of working within this tainted space

and give some weight to negotiating a critical-creative compromise. We are tentatively

reclaiming the term resilience, which could be seen as emptied of its radical potential due

to irrevocable contamination by neoliberal association, in order to attempt to fill it with

an emancipatory and collective creativity: not to “accommodate” ourselves to capitalism

and “secure” its future, rather, to develop new strategies for resisting its logic and

constructing alternatives.

Having outlined our theoretical trajectory it is now time to engage with how the

SRU’s contribution to Landmark Seizures relates to the notion of an ecology of

resilience. The project cannot profess to have grandiose origins since the line of enquiry

that led us here came from the fact that a member of the SRU needed a new laptop but

did not have the funds to replace the old one. This financial conundrum led to

serendipitous discoveries that informed the conception of the project. After a brief period

of research it became apparent that an ageing machine with functional hardware could be

given a new lease of life with Linux operating systems such as Xubuntu and Lubuntu. A

computer that might have easily been discarded is now fully functional. This line of

enquiry also led to the discovery of the Raspberry Pi: a small single board computer

(credit card sized) developed by staff at Cambridge University, which retails in the region

of £25. It was originally created as an educational device in order to encourage a new

generation of computer programmers. However, it is also a computer in its own right, a

capable multimedia hub and word processor with the ability to connect to the Internet.

The SRU considers the myriad of possibilities presented by the Raspberry Pi to connect

with the theme of ‘ecologies of resilience’. We are currently conditioned to spend

comparatively large sums of money on computers that often only have a life span of 4-5

years, wouldn’t it be fantastic if this could be avoided? At a time of potential

technological apartheid, the Raspberry Pi stands as an invention that could further

democratise the Internet and other computer enabled functions to a greater demographic.

Through facilitating a workshop to collectively design and build a media hub for

Landmark Seizures, based around the Raspberry Pi and incorporating commonplace

computer and electronic hardware, the SRU is attempting to provide direct practical

knowledge and skills concerning the circumnavigation of the aforementioned problems

alongside a theoretical discussion relating both to the themes outlined above and the

theme of the overall project: how might an art of use function?

As we have already stated, these are humble beginnings, but beginnings that the

members of the SRU feel are vitally important: a platform from which to ask some

important questions concerning politics, activism, cultural production and the

accompanying attitudes. For the SRU, Landmark Seizures presents an opportunity to

practically engage with what we recognise thus far as belonging predominantly in the

theoretical realm. We view the way this workshop has been conceptualised, the networks

and associations that facilitated its creation and its subject matter as reflecting what might

constitute an ecology of resilience. However, we recognise that there exists a gulf

between our theorisation and its translation into practice. We acknowledge the

importance of a willing inhabitance of this theoretical-practical assemblage by our

collaborators and the notion of an ecology of resilience by no means encapsulates or

hermetically seals the strategy of the SRU. We are acutely aware that we are balancing on

a knife-edge between a radical potentiality and an acquiescence to the dominant liberal

modality, yet we see this edge, as perilous as it is, to be the most fertile ground for

thought and action. We hope this workshop will present a productive environment within

which to engage with these questions, the answers to which are as yet uncertain: we walk

asking8.

8 This is a phrase used by the Zapatistas to outline part of their revolutionary theory and practice.