“Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!”, some random thoughts on our responsibility as intellectuals / poets / writers / researchers / teachers

by Macarena Marey on October 30, 2024

“We live in an age which silence is not only criminal but suicidal”, wrote James Baldwin in his “Open Letter to My Sister, Angela Y. Davis”. The year was 1970. I wonder if there has ever been a time when silence was neither criminal nor suicidal. I would like to live there and then, for sure.

In his poem “A leaf, treeless, for Bertolt Brecht” [“Ein Blatt, baumlos, für Berlolt Brecht”] (published posthumously en 1971 in the book Schneepart [Snowpart]), Paul Celan contended that crime lay in any conversation, not only in conversations about trees, as Brecht suggested in his famous “An die Nachgeborenen“. Without trees, every conversation merely repeats what has already been said. (I have a verse from this poem and the tittle of Celan’s answer to it tattooed in my left forearm).

I always wondered what Celan meant by this short poem. Why did he, who still believed in language after all, say that talking about any subject (saying things in general) was nearly a crime? Was he perhaps saying that once everything has been said, talking and doing nothing is criminal? But sometimes saying things out loud is, in itself, an action, and often a very dangerous one. Take for example Rodolfo Walsh’s “Carta abierta a la junta militar” (“Open letter to the Military Junta” 1977, English translation by Arturo Desimone here):

 

The above are my thoughts on the first anniversary of your infamous government, and I seek to ensure the transmission of my thoughts to the members of this Junta, without any hope of being heard. Although I am certain that I will be persecuted, I am also faithful to the commitment I made a long time ago, the commitment to bear witness in the difficult hours.
Rodolfo Walsh. – Citizen Identity number: 2845022
Buenos Aires, March 24 1977.

 

The next day he was murdered and made disappeared by the mass-murdering machinery put in motion by this same Junta and imported from the French contra-revolutionary methods executed in Algeria.
In an existentialist vein, Baldwin claimed in his letter to Angela Davis that the connection between knowing and acting is normatively necessary:

 

Some of us, white and Black, know how great a price has already been paid to bring into existence a new consciousness, a new people, an unprecedented nation. If we know, and do nothing, we are worse than the murderers hired in our name.
If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own—which it is—and render impassable with our bodies the corridor to the gas chamber. For, if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.

 

Back to poetry. In 1991, Adrienne Rich retook the poetic and militant conversation started by Brecht in 1939 and wrote this poem, “What Kind of Times Are These”:

 

There’s a place between two stands of trees where the grass grows uphill
and the old revolutionary road breaks off into shadows
near a meeting-house abandoned by the persecuted
who disappeared into those shadows.

I’ve walked there picking mushrooms at the edge of dread, but don’t be fooled
this isn’t a Russian poem, this is not somewhere else but here,
our country moving closer to its own truth and dread,
its own ways of making people disappear.

I won’t tell you where the place is, the dark mesh of the woods
meeting the unmarked strip of light—
ghost-ridden crossroads, leafmold paradise:
I know already who wants to buy it, sell it, make it disappear.

And I won’t tell you where it is, so why do I tell you
anything? Because you still listen, because in times like these
to have you listen at all, it’s necessary
to talk about trees.

 

I like the point suggested by Rich: even if everything has already been said, that doesn’t mean it has been heard. What has been said a thousand times may still remain unheard-of. I add: even if there is someone listening, that doesn’t mean that they understand; and even if they listen and understand, that doesn’t mean that they care enough about what they are being told.

It is hard to believe in words but maybe there are a few times when talking about it (whatever this “it” is) is a revolutionary action. And sometimes it is the only thing there is to do.

Here’s a picture of some trees in Buenos Aires I took this morning, while lying on the grass to take a break from the disastrous situation we are living now in Argentina under this far-right government and from my daily militancy. (It is not a good picture in aesthetic terms, just my view from somewhere).

 

 

 

{ 15 comments }

1

Gareth Richard Samuel Wilson 10.31.24 at 1:43 am

If 55.7% of the electorate vote for you, by definition you can’t be “far-right”. At least not in the context of that particular country.

2

David in Tokyo 10.31.24 at 7:51 am

Hey, photographs are important, too!
And since you mentioned 1970, here’s a pic I took in 1970:

https://a4.pbase.com/g3/29/138229/2/119895297.UwTU2d2A.jpg

(Or if that link doesn’t work, to the web page.)

https://pbase.com/davidjl/image/119895297

3

Macarena Marey 10.31.24 at 12:06 pm

wow, thanks! cool pic!

4

Macarena Marey 10.31.24 at 12:07 pm

wow, you really don’t have anything to do, do you?

5

John Q 10.31.24 at 7:31 pm

Lovely post. Worth remembering that bad times have come and gone before, and remembering those who spoke out before us.

6

nastywoman 11.01.24 at 2:24 pm

@ ‘If 55.7% of the electorate vote for you, by definition you can’t be “far-right”.

Does that mean – the German Nazis never were ”far right”?

7

Gareth Richard Samuel Wilson 11.01.24 at 6:30 pm

The highest vote the Nazis got in a free election was 37.3%, so they can reasonably be described as “far-right”, even in the context of 1930s Germany.

8

lathrop 11.03.24 at 2:35 am

‘If 55.7% of the electorate vote for you, by definition you can’t be “far-right”

I would like to think so, but isn’t it possible that a far-right government could be elected under color of convenient (if not carefully staged) circumstances creating salient issue dimensions and partisan electoral advantage?

The United States is vulnerable to this.

9

Gareth Richard Samuel Wilson 11.03.24 at 9:21 pm

That’s true, but the other point is that we know what actual far-right Argentine politics is, and it goes beyond privatisation.

10

bad Jim 11.04.24 at 6:06 am

It’s not unreasonable to assert that assorted American cities, counties or even states could now or then be considered ‘far right’ in a national or international context.

11

MisterMr 11.04.24 at 10:30 am

@Gareth Richard Samuel Wilson

It depends what do you mean by “far right”.

If by “far right” you mean “far to the right of the median” then it is not possible that a party that gets 50%+ of the vote is that far from the median, in fact the median will fall inside that party.

But on the other hand, if by “far right” we mean a specific set of politics, like nationalism, then it is perfectly possible that a party has strongly nationalistic policies, and therefore it is “far right”, even if has 99% of the vote.

Now, for some argument the “relativistic” approach works, but for other it doesn’t: for example, if we say “in the period between 2008 and 2020 the politics in every western country had a shift towrads the right”, this might be true or false if we take an “objectivistic” definition based on some set of policies, but we can’t even pose the question if we use the relativistic definition.

Now in the context of this post, it makes IMHO sense to take the objectivistic definition of “far right”, not the relativistic one.

12

nastywoman 11.06.24 at 7:18 am

“Wirklich, ich lebe in finsteren Zeiten!”,

and we partly blame –
‘a blog, primarily administered by academics from countries like[vague] the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. This blog – lately – has done very liddle against the ‘finstere Zeiiten’ – even as it’s name is inspired by a quotation from philosopher Immanuel Kant,
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made,”

13

J-D 11.06.24 at 9:06 am

Now, for some argument the “relativistic” approach works, but for other it doesn’t: for example, if we say “in the period between 2008 and 2020 the politics in every western country had a shift towrads the right”, this might be true or false if we take an “objectivistic” definition based on some set of policies, but we can’t even pose the question if we use the relativistic definition.

On the contrary. There’s a clear sense in which, just to take one example, the Netherlands moved to the right at the most recent national election (in 2023), purely in relative terms.

14

MisterMr 11.06.24 at 3:48 pm

@J-D 13

If we calculate “to the right” relative to the median Netherlander, then the median Netherlander will always be inside the range of the party in power, otherwise the party would not be in power.

If we calculate it relative to some other parameter then it becomes what I call “objectivistic” approach (for lack of a better term).

I can think of some situation where, e.g. because of gerrymandering, or simply because there are two parties and once une is in power and once the other, the government of a country can move to the left or the right of the median voter of that country, but these are likely to be small and temporary shifts. In general if there is a very pronounced shift it is likely that there is a shift of the Overton window, so that the median voter is also moving to the right or to the left.

15

J-D 11.06.24 at 10:43 pm

If we calculate “to the right” relative to the median Netherlander, then the median Netherlander will always be inside the range of the party in power, otherwise the party would not be in power.

In the Netherlands it’s not meaningful to talk about ‘the party in power’; every government is a coalition of parties, and most of the time each government coalition includes some but not all of the parties which were in the preceding government coalition.

Wherever it’s the case (as it is in the Netherlands) that some parties are to the right and some to the left, there is a sense in which it’s meaningful to say of one particular election result that the voters have shifted to the right (or to the left, as the case may be) relative to the parties. In this sense, for example, relative to the existing available choice of parties, US voters shifted to the right at the 2024 election. I agree that this kind of description is not so meaningful over a longer span of time, as the parties change.

Comments on this entry are closed.