"Against and For"
During Vortis's August, 2003 Michigan tour, members of our audience in Grand Rapids and Lansing raised questions that deserve the more considered reflection; I (FT) shall try to give them here. I thank the questioners for making me think more deeply about Vortis's meaning and message.
I. SYMBOLIC ACTION
Q. Why does Vortis (seem to) condone "evil"?
A. Although nobody raised the question in just that form, I have phrased it that way to generalize a number of particular concerns that were expressed, sometimes with admirable determination: How can Vortis justify condoning the Unabomber ("Unabomber Fight Song")? How can Vortis justify condoning Saddam Hussein ("Desert Storm")? What does Vortis mean by their stage visuals featuring American flags inlaid with swastikas; are you white supremacists?
The summary answer to all those questions is that Vortis is not in the business of condoning or not condoning, that is, we are not in the business of telling anyone what moral beliefs they should hold or what actions they should or should not perform. Vortis does not wield any moral bludgeons, nor does it engage in any moral bullying. Instead, Vortis practices art (rock music) in the form that the American critic Kenneth Burke called "symbolic action," - compounding signifiers (words, images and sound qualities) into compositions (songs, artwork and performances) that are meant to inspire their audience with an attitudinal response (an attitude!), NOT with a set of beliefs.
Take the "Unabomber Fight Song" and "Desert Storm;" Vortis does not expect (or desire) that their audience will act out the deeds of Theodore Kaczynski or Saddam Hussein, or even that their audience will support or condone those deeds. Rather, Vortis is using the cultural symbols of the "Unabomber" and "Saddam" to break through moral pieties and totalitarian thinking.
Almost nobody will question the judgement that the "Unabomber" and "Saddam" signify evil; by making them into symbolic heroes, Vortis allows the "Other" that is repressed by the social system to come into the open. Then the field of public discourse is completed and taboos are overthrown; even the enemies sit at the table, mocking their antagonists and making their points against the dominant system.
Letting enemies be honored presences can stimulate a feeling of release and a liberation of oppositional feelings and thoughts, sometimes leading to an attitude of hearty raucous contempt for the dominant system. That's what Vortis wants to inspire, and if we're successful, people will do what they want to do, if anything, with their raucous contempt. Vortis will not tell them what to do; that's their business. WE ARE AGITAINERS, NOT IDEOLOGUES OR MORAL PUNDITS. We oppose hegemonic power, - call it global capitalism, the new world order, or the new American empire, - but we don't advise about how to oppose it or what cause one should choose to justify opposition. AND we don't even tell people that they should or must oppose the system; we simply invite them to release their oppositional attitudes, if they happen to have them, - we are cheerleaders for opposition. Our lyrics and visual imagery do, of course, contain (diverse) messages; we are pleased if people choose to think about them.
As for the swastika-inlaid American flag, it is meant to alert people that under the present Bush-administration policies of pre-emptive war and suspension of civil rights, America is taking on fascist characteristics. We are using the swastika in its negative connotation (and not at all in any positive way) to resignify the American flag and to make the point that we are losing America as the land of presumptive liberty.
Reversal ("Unabomber Fight Song" and "Desert Storm") and resignification (swastika-inlaid American flags) are two strategies of symbolic opposition to the dominant system, both aimed at inviting raucous contempt for it.
II.OPPOSITION vs. VISION
Q. What if opposition succeeds, the system comes down and something even worse takes its place?
A. No more than Vortis attempts to impose beliefs, moral judgements and strategies on our audience do we offer people a vision of a society that would replace the current system of techno-corporate consumer capitalism overlaid by a security state. It is possible that the replacement for the present system would be worse than what we have, but what we have is in FT's mind sorely wanting and has a significant probability of extinguishing the human race, not to mention the havoc that it wreaks throughout the world every day.
It all boils down to taking a risk. (The reasons for Vortis's opposition are accessible through its lyrics, visuals, manifesto and the original FAQ, and need not be repeated here.) No one knows what comprehensive social change would bring and each individual has the possibility of choosing for or against such change. Why should the burden of proof be on the advocate of change? Maybe it's best not to try to fix something that isn't broken, but I believe that the system IS broken and that we're headed for a crash. One's position, then, depends upon one's judgment about the desirability of the present system. Sure, "we'd all love to see the plan," but there are too may cross-cutting conflicts in today's world to come up with a single one. Instead there are already many contending visions of a better future, maybe even an oversupply of them. Vortis chooses not to add yet another vision to the existing stock, deciding instead to inspire and reinforce oppositional attitudes and impulses on all sides.
The role of cheerleader for opposition is a very specialized one. Vortis does not presume or pretend to offer a solution to any problem; we leave that to others and, again, there is no lack of causists and visionaries. Vortis offers no one a life-plan or a commitment or a utopia; instead, we try to give inspiration to all strugglers. Nobody can do everything; Vortis has its particular and partial contribution to make, and we try to do it well.
It's up to each one to decide whether it's worth the risk to advocate comprehensive social change; Vortis has chosen to encourage those who have decided that comprehensive or more limited social change is worth the risk.
FT SPEAKS
The most enlightening comment that people made to me on our Michigan tour (three different times) was that they had enjoyed our performance as a SPECTACLE. In one case, the person used that term in the specialized sense that it has taken on in contemporary critical theory, - Guy Debord's idea of the spectacle as the cultural form of fascism. Hitler's massive Nuremburg rallies, for example, were grandiloquent displays of power that overwhelmed the audience to such a degree that it could only respond by following the preordained program emotionally and gesturally, and, therefore, could not help identifying itself with the leader.
The model of the spectacle is pervasive in contemporary society; it is the basis of television, mass rock concerts and sporting events, movies, - indeed, of almost all entertainment. The only significant difference from Hitler's rallies is that entertainment is usually directed to selling something rather than to mobilizing a political movement.
The very structure of a rock concert, even in a small club, cannot help but partake of the spectacle as Debord defined it. The audience can, of course, choose to turn off or show its displeasure gesturally, but it cannot change the preordained program: anyone who decides to turn on is caught up in the set, which normally proceeds inexorably, and submits to it emotionally.
In "underground" forms of rock, attempts are made to reduce the one-way flow of the spectacle and its stimulus-response mechanism. The way that Vortis tries to get away from the fascist model is to break all taboos on public expression so that we can open up the audience to possibilities of expression that are repressed in public discourse at large and also in the discourses of the underground subcultures. My major purpose in Vortis is to show people that they do not have to be afraid of thinking of any idea. I want to give people a larger repertoire of expression than they might already have. You can't be free until you entertain the taboos and then choose for yourself where you stand. FT is not only the Fellow Traveler, joining every opposition, but also the complete Freethinker.
Of course, breaking the taboos carries a particular mood and message, which I express at our concerts. On stage, I indulge in the devilish pleasure that I derive from smashing the idols and breaking the taboos, and revel in my feelings of raucous contempt for the system. Those who turn on to the set will share those feelings.
I try to create what the cultural anarchist Hakim Bey calls a "temporary autonomous zone" for myself and invite others to join me. I am not trying to convert people to my oppositional stance; I simply want to allow people the freedom to express whatever oppositional feelings they might have with vibrant pleasure. Devilish pleasure is one way of becoming your own person; society loses its psychological hold over you because you have thought beyond its prohibitions.
My prime goal of awakening repressed possibilities so that people can face them can only be done through an oppositional stance, - opposition to the repressive forces. I am far more concerned that people confront repressed possibilities and then decide for themselves how to live their lives than I am with stimulating opposition. I have made my political commitment; you choose yours or decide to be apathetic or anti-political, - it's none of my business. I just want to fight against the fear of tabooed ideas and give you the opportunity to enjoy the devilish pleasure of symbolic opposition.
THANKS AGAIN TO OUR GREAT MICHIGAN AUDIENCES!!!
-FT
