Emancipatory Aesthetics in the Raw by A. Shahid Stover

The BROTHERWISE DISPATCH, VOL.2, ISSUE#12, JUNE-AUGUST/2014

Defining Art as the manifest assertion of human creativity given form through freedom, intentionality and rigor of technique, brings within its scope all manner of artistic expression while thoroughly extinguishing any supposed hierarchy which privileges ‘fine’ over ‘popular’ art. As such, the philosophical arena of aesthetics engages Art in relation to what it reveals about questions of perception (consciousness, intentionality, imagination) and sensory experience (feeling, passion, emotion) while questioning notions of Truth and standards of Beauty. However, to engage in aesthetic concerns inevitably opens up the horizon for a fundamental interrogation of our lived experience as human ‘being’.

A considerable amount of literature and philosophy already exists in religious devotion to the importance of Art. This is no accident, for even as modernity loudly dispenses with any epistemological loyalty to outward religious truth; religious aims are preserved by Art’s capacity to breach the Divine, as imperatives beyond base human needs, thereby harnessing an autonomy which both resists and transcends the Real. (1) As such, with the imposition of modernity by western imperialist power, an aesthetic frontier of qualitative spiritual autonomy which exists beyond established reality still remains accessible through artistic endeavor.

There is a tremendous discursive effort which congests around an ideological temperament that posits some kind of obvious worth inherent to Art in and of itself. An ideological temperament that enshrines “the temptation of irresponsibility” (2) along with valuations of absolute Truth and self-evident Beauty around aesthetic principles which are necessarily and completely isolated from historical circumstance, social relevance, creative rigor and even the intentionality of the Artist.

It is precisely against this ideological temperament of creative unaccountability and social irresponsibility, which often festers among hyperbourgeois purveyors of ‘art for art’s sake’, well intentioned partisans of social realism and spiritually complacent purveyors of poststructuralist pretense, that the cultivation of emancipatory aesthetics is imperative. (3)

Emancipatory aesthetics poses questions of artistic theory and creative praxis from an existential liberationist dialectic that consciously embraces an unrelenting tension between human agency and structural-inert reality which is altogether avoided by any suggested divorce of cultural criticism from socio-historical totality. Artistic endeavor is tainted by our ‘being-in-the-world’, for it “summons and describes where its energies were gotten . . . But the description is of a total environment. The content speaks of this environment as does the form”. (4) Hence, emancipatory aesthetics provides a vital gateway towards understanding ontological questions about the constitution of human subjectivity, particularly in so far as these questions might inform or contribute towards a dynamic project of human liberation.

Art as generated by human subjectivity is inevitably mediated by the Real of our socio-historical situation and yet this in no way absolves the Artist of an accountability from which there is no easy or decisive reconciliation. For the Artist chooses to live out explicitly in creative works, that anguish of choice and burden of responsibility which implicitly informs the human condition shared by us all. (5)

An authentic work of Art exerts a qualitative spiritual autonomy over socio-historical conditions which both resists and transcends the Real. “The aesthetic form constitutes the autonomy of art vis a vis ‘the given.’ However, this dissociation does not produce ‘false consciousness’ or mere illusion but rather a counter-consciousness: negation of the realistic-conformist mind.” (6) Still, Art is inevitably influenced and mediated by these same socio-historical factors which thoroughly implicate any artistic endeavor, this, in spite of the irreducibility of aesthetics to the Real.

Art is emancipatory-as-resistance when indulging insurgent content which resonates directly with geonational struggles for human liberation against Empire. Art is also emancipatory-as-transcendence when cultivating aesthetic form which breaks through normative cultural paradigms and structures of meaning that have become saturated with oppression through acquiescence to a western imperialist continuum. Whenever these aspects of resistance and transcendence are conceived in tense dynamic unity, the singularity of artistic purpose reaches universal relevance and births immense emancipatory aesthetic potentialities.

This aesthetic rhythm of movement between singularity and universality is the source of all authentically emancipatory Art. Yet the socio-ontological resonance from this aesthetic rhythm originates in that problematic yet fundamental current of artistic endeavor: a qualitative spiritual autonomy which encompasses both aesthetic realization in the work of Art and the aesthetic intentionality of the Artist. For as Wright forcefully elucidates, “the artist must bow to the monitor of his own imagination; must be led by the sovereignty of his own impressions and perceptions; must be guided by the tyranny of what troubles and concerns him personally; and that he must learn to trust the impulse, vague and compulsive as it may be, which moves him in the first instance toward expression. There is no other true path, and the artist owes it to himself and to those who live and breathe with him to render unto reality that which is reality’s.” (7) Thus, the emancipatory bearing of Art in resistance and transcendence diminishes when either insurgent content or aesthetic form appease normative ideological standards of Empire which ultimately erode the “sovereignty” of our own “perceptions”.

Indeed, we are all situated in Empire, a heavily administered world of western imperialist power, permeated by the influence of concentrated capital which deterritorializes colonial dynamics of racist dehumanization through globalized neo-liberal policy and indefinite militaristic expansion. Hence there is no cultural logic independent of Empire and every Artist is thus implicated by their relation to the global scope of established power. Especially in the sense that normative standards of human ‘being’ as constituted by a western imperialist continuum are unapologetically transmitted through cultural means (be it ‘high’ culture associated with the ruling power elite or ‘popular’ culture associated with the rest of us) which continually reach an ever widening audience through global media expansion and burgeoning technological integration.

The ardent search for a priori universally authoritative aesthetic standards from which to comprehensively judge, create or appreciate works of Art is a quixotic adventure without end. For although aesthetic standards do exist in every creative field imaginable, the weight of their authority is merely contingent upon vested subjectivity. These supposedly hallowed standards that are ideologically recycled from generation to generation have no genuine leverage from which to claim any binding universal authority, except in their sanctioned relation to structural-inert global power. Such standards are often mired in the aesthetic residue of dogma, tradition and at times even pure and deliberate mystification generated through an abiding loyalty to a western imperialist continuum.

Therefore, an awareness of the cultural gravity which binds aesthetics to Empire becomes paramount for piercing the normative paradigms of a western imperialist continuum which structures and regulates the creative potentialities of artistic consciousness into an endless repetition of socio-historical mendacity that culminates in commodity-as-art generated by the clone-as-artist.

With the advanced neo-liberal capitalist inversion of the commercialization of Art into positing pure commodity itself as Art, Empire effectively responds to a “critique of the culture industry” which “is no longer innovative but obvious” (8) and shifts ideological emphasis away from needing to concern itself with co-opting whatever residue of emancipatory potentialities remain among both elite and grassroots factions of the postmodern lumpenproletariat. This is achieved by endorsing a cultivated aesthetic laundering of commodity through culture which actually mirrors an even more brazen laundering of unregulated global capital through the Art world and culture industry.

For even the most blatantly commercialized works of Art may exhibit a retention of that unrelenting tension between human agency and established reality (both in affirmation of and negation of the Real) that necessarily invokes an aesthetic frontier of qualitative spiritual autonomy which mediates against its own deliberate exploitation; preserving just enough emancipatory potentialities to trouble the normative gaze of Empire-as-western imperialist power. However, commercial Art’s inversion into commodity-as-art nullifies this tension, closing the gap between aesthetic frontier and the Real. This ‘closing’ effectively seals off access to that qualitative spiritual autonomy: rendering the rhythm of resistance and transcendence ontologically inaudible and transforming the dynamic unity of singularity and universality into a static banality wholly bereft of creative freedom, artistic intentionality and rigor of technique.

Empire, unsatisfied with an already pervasive commercialization of Art, overtakes this blatant commercialization of Art by generating commodity-as-Art (9) which reaffirms a capitalist hierarchy of artistic intentionality that fuels social consumption of cultural products, over and above artistic intentionality which compels socio-cultural dialogue amongst human subjects. This is achieved by inhibiting that aesthetic frontier which realizes imperatives existing beyond base human needs and thus functions as the last bastion of the Divine within the context of modernity.

The clone-as-artist, thoroughly lacking any creative intentionality outside of a “commercial strategy of nullity”, has no artistic vision beyond the demands of the culture industry, has no authentic understanding of artistic rigor and has absolutely no stake whatsoever in any genuine lived experience involved in creating works of Art. (10) Thus, the anaesthetization of artistic culture (both ‘high’ and ‘popular’) colludes with Empire to such a degree that it initiates a potent suffocation of emancipatory potentialities from artistic endeavor by “confiscating banality, waste and mediocrity as values and ideologies.” (11) This usurpation of Art by banality-as-culture effectively eases the necessary tension between aesthetics and the Real, thereby stifling access to that frontier of qualitative spiritual autonomy which is fueled by the creative antagonism between artistic endeavor and structural-inert reality. As such, contemporary Art resumes its historical niche in relation to established power by functioning as an ideological anaesthetic of Empire which revels in a nullity “which means nothing and it none the less exists, providing itself with all the right reasons to exist. This paranoia in collusion with art means that there is no longer any possible critical judgment, and only an amiable, necessarily genial sharing of nullity.” (12) Even a brief perusal of the majority of contemporary cultural criticism reveals just how much this “genial sharing of nullity” is becoming an art form in and of itself.

The socio-historical ebb and flow of geonational insurrection which emanates from the neo-colonial ghetto of western imperialist metropoles, resurfaced with a vengeance during the Los Angeles Uprising of 1992, the Paris Uprising of 2005 and the London Uprising of 2011. These potent spontaneous destabilizing tendencies towards geonationalist ‘insurrection-for-itself’ underscore the persistence of an emancipatory aesthetics cultivated through Hip Hop culture which facilitates a shared unrepentant affirmation of human agency via postmodern lumpenproletariat subjectivity against Empire. (13)

This is not to suggest a causal or deterministic relation between Hip Hop culture and these specific outbreaks of socio-historical uprisings. Rather, emphasis must be placed on the constitutive role of authentic Hip Hop aesthetics in generating modes of rebellious human subjectivity which remain unafraid of cultivating lived cultural potentialities of insurrection as the Return of oppressive structural-inert violence. This, even as Hip Hop culture currently finds itself on the receiving end of an advanced neo-liberal capitalist assault of commercialized attrition which ruthlessly exploits the chronic economic woe and “spiritual instability” (14) of the postmodern lumpenproletariat.

The overwhelming effectiveness of this commercialized attrition has forced genuine Hip Hop culture back underground. However, it is precisely the global Hip Hop underground where emancipatory aesthetics thrive in the Raw of vigorous authentic Hip Hop praxis (B-Boying/breakdancing, Graffitti writing, eMCeeing and DJing/beatmaking) which culturally encourages the overthrow of ideology which cements spiritual subservience to a western imperialist continuum and intellectually enables a radicalization of postmodern lumpenproletariat consciousness. (15) And it is this ‘taking conscience’ which then makes the postmodern lumpenproletariat much more likely to ‘set it off’ and ignite genuine socio-historical upheaval as opposed to just mere protest-as-ritual event.

Artistic endeavor which aims to mount a challenge to the status quo must ultimately confront an uncertainty rooted in the lived tension generated by the exercise of creative freedom within the context of a western imperialist continuum. Tension arises because this exercise of creative freedom is indicative of a qualitative spiritual autonomy which does not necessitate the socio-historical transformation of globally pervasive structural-inert oppression as a condition of its realization. (16) However, it is precisely this qualitative spiritual autonomy from existing socio-historical conditions which ultimately allows Art to function as a cultural reservoir which houses and preserves insurgent potentialities of human ‘being’ against the normative ideological gaze of Empire.

Art provides a gateway towards another domain, an aesthetic frontier which is in constant mediation with structural-inert reality. This aesthetic frontier reveals entire horizons of consciousness, imagination and lived experience from which to inform, refresh and inspire emancipatory praxis or even sedate it. The socio-ontological distance which necessarily exists between an aesthetic frontier which preserves emancipatory potentialities and the Raw of emancipatory praxis, is often exploited by established unjust global power as an end, in and of itself, for the purpose of a lucrative cultural commodification which ultimately reinforces the social stability of an advanced neo-liberal capitalist ordering of the world. As such, “it is self evident that nothing concerning art is self evident anymore, not its inner life, not its relation to the world, not even its right to exist”. (17) The severity of this statement is no less true, and actually even more pronounced for those of us who find ourselves in a socio-ontological underground of modernity by dint of our ‘race’ and the Raw of coloniality, (18) as indicative of the ‘biopolitical danger’ our ascendant humanity poses to Empire-as-western imperialist continuum.

For if the potentialities of composing poetry (19) truly troubled Adorno only after the rational imposition of colonialism on Europe by Nazi Germany (20), how does one square the unproblematic and uninterrupted composing of poetry for generations since the inception of modernity which rationally imposed European colonialism on the rest of the world? Is it not that “political falsehood stains the aesthetic form”? (21) Somehow, the initiating violence of western imperialist aggression doesn’t register on the socio-ontological Richter scale whenever “the abundance of real suffering” that “tolerates no forgetting” (22) is visited upon the wretched of the earth. That which is ultimately acknowledged as unjustifiable violence occurs only whenever Man-as-western bourgeois subjectivity is forced to stare down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun. This occurs often enough during internecine conflicts involving competing imperialist projects or when manifest as the Return through forms of emancipatory praxis against Empire.

Empire is rooted in that peculiar epistemological ground of modernity as ordered according to the socio-ontological precepts of a western imperialist continuum which envelops lived Black experience within a coercive anonymity (23) that renders our humanity invisible and unworthy of consideration before the normative gaze of structural-inert global power. As such, in choosing to rebel, the human condition as revealed through lived Black experience is indicative of an ascendant humanity with a vast reservoir of emancipatory aesthetic potentialities with ready access to a profound depth of socio-ontological upheaval. Indeed, as Marcuse understood, “a far more subversive universe of discourse announces itself in the language of the Black militants. Here is systematic linguistic rebellion which smashes the ideological context in which the words are employed and defined, and places them in the opposite context – negation of the established one”. (24) It is thus no coincidence that in the aftermath of the obvious defeat of Black liberation praxis by Empire-as-western imperialist power; displaced radical Black discourse found epistemological shelter within the aesthetic frontier of our lived historical memory by the postmodern lumpenproletariat purveyors of Hip Hop culture.

For Hip Hop culture cannot be divorced from what Baraka conceptualizes as a Blues continuum, (25) which serves as a vast reservoir of aesthetic rebellion against western imperialist structures of meaning. This Blues continuum is culturally intrinsic to Black subjectivity-as-human ‘being’, and it serves to illuminate that fundamental socio-ontological fault line of modernity: Black dehumanization. The tremors of this Black dehumanization continually threaten to destabilize the relevance of aboveground opposition (26) against Empire as mobilized under exclusively western emancipatory precepts, whenever that struggle is spiritually disunited from an underground insurgency which finds its epistemological epicenter wherever the universality of Man is extolled while the actual murder of human ‘being’ is a rational outcome of globalized structural-inert power. (27)

Empire deterritorializes “the colonial situation” through which any emancipatory aesthetic “dynamism” which awakens our human subjectivity-as-lived universal is “replaced fairly quickly by a substantiation of the attitudes of the colonizing power. The area of culture is then marked off by fences and signposts.” (28) These cultural “fences” and aesthetic “signposts” effectively quarantine emancipatory potentialities of human agency which resist being diluted into normative imperial standards of mass consumerism and “the neutrality of the spectator”. (29)

Emancipatory potentialities thus remain quarantined within a prison of ‘self’, through which human agency is reduced to a regimen of organizing our own passivity. (30) Hence, any claim of permanence or stability grounded in a cultural identity as designated by the “signposts” of Empire-as-western imperialist power is socio-ontologically at odds with the relentless transcendence of our human ‘being’. Advanced neo-liberal capitalist globalization can thus effortlessly endorse any culturally pluralistic claim of ‘identity’ without reserve, for it is achieved at the expense of insurgent imperatives for human subjectivity-as-lived universal which have been abdicated in favor of cloning a plethora of colorful “aesthetic expressions of respect for the established order” which foster a socio-ontological “atmosphere of submission and of inhibition which lightens the task of policing considerably.” (31)

This pervasive abdication of human subjectivity, which cedes its ‘no-thing-ness’ of rational soul for an overdetermined and objective ‘self’, in deference to the normative gaze of a western imperialist continuum, is a socio-historical phenomenon which must be confronted head on. As such, the cultivation of emancipatory aesthetics awakens potentialities of genuine human subjectivity and stimulates constitutive agency against the confines of an imperial hyperbourgeois ‘self’ that functions as if socio-historically immune to neo-colonial police murder, the mass incarceration of humanity, “the continuous surveillance of populations, the labeling of at-risk individuals, legalized torture, psychological warfare, police control of Publicity, the social manipulation of affects” which speak to the Real of an “uninterrupted war, mostly carried on without a fuss” (32) against that ever present ‘biopolitical danger’ to the globalized mendacity of structural-inert oppression: Black subjectivity-as-human ‘being’.

The hegemony of Empire-as-western imperialist continuum overdetermines the ordinary experience of spiritually compliant non-resisting masses by “the total mobilization of all media for the defense of established reality” and “has coordinated the means of expression to the point where communication of transcending contents becomes technically impossible”. (33) This ‘technical impossibility’ occurs when such “transcending contents” oppose advanced neo-liberal capitalist globalization on unreflected ahistorical terms which aesthetically replicate the dehumanizing socio-ontological presuppositions of modernity even while vociferously raising the clamor of protest against the latest oppressive symptom of the Real.

Contemporary artistic endeavor which claims for itself an emancipatory bearing in the face of Empire must overcome any tendency towards satisfaction with even a qualitative indictment of structural-inert global power. For no matter how thorough the condemnation, if Art fails to bear creative potentialities for a new ‘human subjectivity-as-lived universal’ from which to introduce a genuine disequilibrium (34) towards the Overturn of a western imperialist continuum by geonational insurrection, then it falls quite short of what might justly be considered emancipatory aesthetics in the Raw.

The tremendously daunting impossibility of this Overturning should none the less be confronted by an insurgent invulnerability of our ascendant humanity which decimates normative imperialist structures of meaning in its wake. For the Truth of our human ‘being’ and the Beauty of our tireless struggle for human liberation against Empire-as-western imperialist power, though loyal to artistic endeavor, is irreducible to aesthetic form.

(1) “The relative autonomy of the developing Negro Christian religious gathering made it one of the only areas in the slave’s life where he was relatively free of the white man’s domination. (Aside from the more formally religious activities of the fledgling Negro churches, they served as the only centers where the slave community could hold strictly social functions.) The ‘praise nights,’ or ‘prayer meetings,’ were also the only times when the Negro felt he could express himself freely and emotionally as possible. It is here that music becomes indispensable to any discussion of Afro-Christian religion.” Leroi Jones/Amiri Baraka, Blues People, (William Morrow & Company, 1963) p.40.
“Art, since it became autonomous, has preserved the utopia that evaporated from religion.” Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory: Selected Essays, (Continuum, 1968, 1972) p.275.
“Artworks detach themselves from the empirical world as if this other world too were an autonomous entity.” Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, (University of Minnesota Press, 1970, 1997) p.1.

(2) Jean-Paul Sartre, “Introducing Les Temps Modernes”, included in What is Literature? and Other Essays, (Harvard, 1948, 1988) p.249.

(3)“Our espousal of art thus becomes no mere idle acceptance of ‘art for art’s sake,’ or the cultivation of the last decadences of the over-civilized, but rather a deep realization of the fundamental purpose of art and of its function as a tap root of vigorous, flourishing living.” Alain Locke, “Art or Propaganda?”, Harlem, Vol.1 (November, 1928). Included in Voices from the Harlem Renaissance, Edited by Nathan Huggins, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1978, 1995) p.313.

(4)LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka, Black Music, (Quill, 1967) p.186.

(5)“Each age discovers an aspect of the human condition; in every era man chooses himself in confrontation with other individuals, love, death, the world: and when adversaries clash . . . it is that metaphysical choice, that singular and absolute project which is at stake.” Sartre, p.254.

(6)Herbert Marcuse, The Aesthetic Dimension, (Beacon Press, 1978) p.8.

(7)Richard Wright, Letter to Alessandro Franconi – Nov. 1944, Richard Wright Reader, (Da Capo Press, 1978) p.70-71.

(8)Antonio Negri, Empire and Beyond, (Polity Press, 2006, 2008) p.99.

(9)“Therein lies all the duplicity of contemporary art: asserting nullity, insignificance, meaninglessness, striving for nullity when already null and void. Striving for emptiness when already empty. Claiming superficiality in superficial terms.” Jean Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art, (Semiotext(e), 2005)p.27.

(10)“Art now offers career benefits, rewarding investments, glorified consumer products just like any other corporation.” Sylvere Lotringer, “The Piracy of Art”, the introductory essay to Baudrillard’s The Conspiracy of Art, p.11.

(11)Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art, p.27.

(12)Baudrillard, p.28.

(13)“Ice Cube Reflects on How the LA Riots Changed Rap”, Courtney Garcia, (www.thegrio.com), 4-29-2012.
“Uprising, Hip Hop and the LA Riots”, VH1 Documentary which aired 9pm Tuesday night, 4-31-12.
“French Rap Musicians Blamed for Violence”, Sylvia Poggioli, (www.NPR.org), 12-14-2005.
“Should Rap Take the Rap for Rioting”, Joe Muggs, (www.telegraph.co.uk), 12-8-2005.
“London Riots: Is Rap Music to Blame for Encouraging this Culture of Violence?”, Paul Routledge, (www.mirror.co.uk), 8-10-2011.
“The Riots, the Rappers and the Anglo-Jamaican tragedy”, David Goodhart (www.prospectmagazine.co.uk), 8-17-2011.

(14)Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, (Grove Press, 1961, 1963) p.137.

(15)For more on the relation between postmodern lumpenproletariat subjectivity and Hip Hop aesthetics as cultural resistance check out my first book, A. Shahid Stover, Hip Hop Intellectual Resistance, (Xlibris, 2009).

(16)“But what appears in art as remote from the praxis of change demands recognition as a necessary element in a future praxis of liberation . . . Art cannot change the world, but it can contribute to changing the consciousness and drives of the men and women who could change the world.” Marcuse, p.32-33.

(17)Adorno, p.1.

(18)“The Negro is intrinsically a colonial subject, but one who lives not in China, India or Africa but next door to his conquerors, attending their schools, fighting their wars, and laboring in their factories. . . the world’s fate is symbolically prefigured in the race relations of America.” Richard Wright, Conversations with Richard Wright edited by Keneth Kinnamon and Michel Fabre, (University of Mississippi Press, 1947, 1993) p.125.

(19)“I have no wish to soften the saying that to compose lyric poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Adorno, Aesthetics and Politics, (Verso, 1977, 2007) p.188.

(20)“There was no Nazi atrocity – concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood – which the Christian civilization of Europe had not long been practicing against the colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world.” W.E.B. DuBois, The World and Africa, (International Publishers, 1946, 2007) p.23.
“Not long ago Nazism transformed the whole of Europe into a veritable colony.” Fanon, p.137.
“. . . that if he rails against him, he is being inconsistent and that, at bottom, what he cannot forgive Hitler for is not crime in itself, the crime against man, it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and the blacks of Africa.”
Aime Cesaire, Discourse on Colonialism, (Monthly Review Press, 1955, 1972) p.14.
Sven Lindqvist, “Exterminate All The Brutes”, (The New Press, 1992, 1996).

(21)Adorno, p.188.

(22)Adorno, p.189.

(23)“With racism’s permeation of daily life, grandiose assaults on racism – highly public spectacles against exceptional behavior – miss the mark. Racism, as a function of extraordinary individuals conceals the structural dimension of a society that conceals itself from itself through making its noxious values so familiar and frequent that they cease to function as objects of observation and reflection; they, in short, become unreflective and so steeped in familiarity that they become invisible.” Lewis R. Gordon, Fanon and the Crisis of European Man, (New York, Routledge, 1995) p.38.

(24)Herbert Marcuse, Essay on Liberation, (Beacon Press, 1975) p.35.

(25)LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka, Blues People.

(26)For a brilliant example, check out Wilderson’s thorough formulation of how “the Black Subject position destabilizes or disarticulates the categories foundational to the assumptive logic of Marxism”, Frank B. Wilderson III, “Gramsci’s Black Marx: Whither the Slave in Civil Society”, The BROTHERWISE DISPATCH, VOL.2, ISSUE#1, DEC/2009-FEB/2010.

(27)Fanon, p.311.

(28)Fanon, p.236.

(29)Adorno, p.180.

(30)“What kind of prison can be devised for the highly subversive forces of individual creativity? - The rulers last dance here is to turn us all into the organizers of our own passivity.” Raul Vaneigem, Revolution of Everyday Life, (Rebel Press/Left Bank Books, 1967, 1994) p.192.

(31)Fanon, p.38.

(32)Tiqqun, This is Not a Program, (Semiotext(e), 2009,2011) p.92-93.

(33)Marcuse, One Dimensional Man, p.68.

(34)“Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder.” Fanon, p.36.