is it ok to be luddite?

[jbor]

peter:
> Terrorism tends to be a medium practised by those who can see no possible
chance
> of success by any legal means (refer to US  foreign policy for numerous
examples
> of this). The rules of the "system" are designed to perpuate and protect
itself,
> so playing by the "system's" rules will generally result in cosmetic changes
at
> best. That is why revolutions are the only way that societies are radically
> changed.

I don't accept that these are the only two options.

   A medium-sized pine nearby nods its head and suggests, "Next time you
   come across a logging operation out here, find one of their tractors that
   isn't being guarded, and take its oil filter with you. That's what you
   can do." (GR 552-3)

Gandhi. Passive resistance.
The 60s. Conscientious objectors.
Mandela (Nelson, not Winnie).
Greenpeace.

Of course, with Greenpeace some of the activities in which its members
engage verge uncomfortably on terrorism at times, and this is the grey area:
extremism, radicals, riots, mob mentality, a Suffragette throwing herself
bodily under royal hooves et. al. And there is the additional problematic of
mediation: it is how the activities and situations are reported (by the
media, or historical convention, or in popular mythology) which decides
whether any given rebel or uprising or cause is perceived in the civic
imagination as righteous and liberating or despicable and terrorist. (cf.
John Dillinger in GR)

In three apparently reputable reference books I looked at Ned (or "King")
Ludd or Lud was variously described as "a Leicestershire idiot", "an insane
person", or that, indeed, "it is doubtful whether such a person ever
existed." Centuries or even decades hence and Kaczynski will quite probably
be recalled in comparably derogatory terms, and whatever causes his actions
or Manifesto have spawned or are associated with will inevitably be tainted
with the same brush.

It might be true that the
> essay on the Luddite, BTW,  is not really about terrorism, it is about
> "insisting on the miraculous" and affirming life, humanity, and
> "transcendent doings." (J Suete)
I think, if I remember correctly, this is also the article where Pynchon
talks about the "Badass" -- terrorism personified. But it is Frankenstein's
monster and King Kong and Godzilla who are his favourites and exemplars in
this line. In each case, as with the fantastic, magical realist-type pine
tree speaking to Slothrop, the moral imprimatur has been avoided: these are
not human terrorists but forces majeures which are effectively immune to
questions over ethical conduct. Indeed, such creatures are themselves the
victims of human folly and over-reaching, and a type of poetic justice is
enacted in their rampaging. Further, the title is deliberately framed as a
question, and it is a question which remains unanswered in the article. I
think that in the later journalistic forays ('Luddite', 'Sloth') there is a
rather substantial length of (porcine?) tongue planted firmly in one
Pynchonian cheek for much of the time (not 'Watts', though, wherein
sincerity and bitter indictment shine through the prose, as befitting the
young Turk he was at that much earlier, and more idealistic, time.)

I agree that political or Constitutional legitimacy don't affect the
propensity for an organisation or individual to embrace terrorism as modus
operandi (cf. the CIA, and esp. Pynchon's depiction of CIA operations and
operatives in *Vineland*, the bashing of Rodney King, Speight in Fiji), and
that war and military imperialism are really only formalised and balletic
modes of terrorism: the uniforms and protocols mere euphemism.

I think that Pynchon in his literature seeks a middle ground between the
extremes of violent revolt and effete reform from within the system which
you circumscribe -- his texts are elusive and didactic, playful and
revelatory all at once, and ultimately subversive.

best


----------
>From: pporteous at worley.co.nz
>To: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>, pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite?
>Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2000, 12:52 PM
>

>