spam: the other white meat

In a discussion about “Cuddle Parties” a comrade and I had revealed, I think, some of the distinction between reform and revolution in ways that I had not previously seen so clearly.

“Cuddle Parties,” popularized of late as regress for those who lack touch in their lives, serve as a “non-sexual, judgment free space to explore touch, intimacy, affection and choice, where your boundaries will be respected.” Here, strangers meet up for a few hours, hang out in pajamas, cuddle, give massages, laugh and relax together- at least, this is what one easily gleans from the cuddleparty.com website. In my discussions with one participant, it’s a fair description

What I was shocked to learn (and stupid to not have realized) is that there is an entrance fee for cuddle parties.

The argument for cuddling presented by the cuddleparty.com website is both straight forward and acceptable enough: “In today’s world, many of us aren’t getting our Recommended Daily Allowance of Welcomed Touch.” Outside of nuclear, hetero-normative relationships, physical interaction that transcends handshakes or even (gasp!) hugs is clearly not normative in the US. While one can debate about the necessity or desirability of increased physicality in exchanges between people, I think it’s more interesting to accept the premise of the Cudders and instead look at the logic of the argument itself. The problem is that we don’t get a clear perspective of why modern life is experiencing a dearth of cuddling. We do get some vague insights: “Touch in groups only occurs in packed elevators, rush-hour subway cars or crowded movie theaters, but that kind of touch is usually accidental and not necessarily welcomed.” There is some romanticizing of a more cuddlerific past that’s been lost to modern life: “Our society has gotten weird about groups of people touching one another and it’s taking its toll on us… These years of “cuddle oppression” have become explosive. The more pressurized the situation, the more the need to suppress it, and the cycle feeds on itself. The symptoms of this “dis-ease” can be seen in the social and corporate rules, regulations, and stigma surrounding touch.”

There is a sense that modern life has alienated humans so much from one another that physical contact that was once acceptable has been lost from normalcy- a claim that doesn’t strike me as very controversial, though this wasn’t top on my list to address. Nonetheless, it’s worthy of consideration in that understanding the dynamics of what the experience of human alienation is comprised of can reveal characteristics of its relief.

The point of breaking apart alienation by embracing some kinds of desires for closeness and intimacy that don’t hinge on hetero-normative relationships makes perfect sense. The problem is something that cuddleparty.com website doesn’t seem to be very keen on talking about: with whom and how?

To be fair, I don’t think the Cuddlers are suggesting that the one solution to modern alienated life is a cuddle party, yet if I am correct in understanding that the motivation is to break this alienation that we experience in our daily lives is through increased physical encounters, ultimately expanding our concept of intimacy, then it begs the question of who these people are that we are crafting new kinds of relationships with and are the relationships new?

As I and my dozen or so pajama clad cuddlers begin breaking down the “touch-and-snuggle deprived” world around us, the role of anonymity in this space seems most strange in it’s relation to the conditions that give rise to the space. If it is the case that one of the key reasons for cuddle parties is the alienation that we experience in our daily lives, extending intimacy outside of the sphere of our personal lives and instead in an anonymous commercial space raises an eye brow.

The Cuddlers are certainly not claiming that cuddle parties are a replacement for improvement in the conditions of all of the relationships in our lives, yet, as much as the facilitated sessions may be training grounds for experiencing different kinds of relationships, the disconnection this creates from our normal life is every bit as alienating.

Of course, it is easy to imagine this this is a desirable kind of service. Certainly we want to have a society that can meet complex needs for all kinds of citizens. In the same kind of vein, I think we can see sex work as an important and valuable service. What seems troublesome is the commodification of either- not the renumeration for work, but commodification of needs and desires. Here the responsibility is explicitly a social one- if individuals social needs aren’t met, isn’t it society that ought to configure itself in ways that meet that need?

The intrigue of the cuddle party phenomena is it is a commercial response to the experience of alienation. While one can not fault the Cuddlers for this (indeed, what other response could there be in this commodified world?), the interest is too look at it as an attempt to remedy the social experience of alienation. The hetero-normative nuclear world limits options for people to have a variety of kinds intimacy in their lives and the cuddle party provides a way out- provided you have a ticket to play.

Buying your way out is nothing new. Whether we’re talking about class, race, power, gender, there are those who have the position to buy the tickets and those who are political marginalized who are left at the wayside. I’m sure someone is going to argue that those who need cuddle parties are a distinct phenomena of middle class alienation and that those who experience oppression at least have the solidarity and culture of knowing who their oppressor is. While a tempting road to go down, I’d rather accept what seems to be the Cuddler’s position that alienation is more an overarching experience of capitalism in the US. While this maybe incorrect, it is not so important to the argument at hand. The real question is how do you deal with structural issues that you face in a historical moment.

If we accept alienation as a central category , then we have to look clearly at a potential remedy. The sketch of modern life with its fast pace, its “mixed signals and double standards”, its “stigma surrounding touch” has found itself far removed from “one of our primary needs as humans… to touch and be touched!” Here, though the Cuddlers don’t name capitalism or even industrial society, we can see a process of alienation emerging: where once there were a plurality of ways to be with other humans, modern life has constricted those options until we have arrived at our “touch-and-snuggle deprived” state.

By creating a pay-for-cuddle service, the Cuddlers have pushed a notion of expanded intimacy not into the wider world of relationships but squarely into a commodity form. Suddenly what has been lacking from our lives is attainable. For a price. And the process of alienation begins anew. An individual must confront their own alienation, as an individual, by opening their wallet, and then experiencing the pseudo fulfillment of a desire in a semi-anonymous fashion. The “Cuddlemonials” point clearly at this: “Your parties release all the long-stored love..” and “Now I know what I was missing…” articulating that one can not even understand how alienated we are until we experience a cuddle party. Here, individuals claim to have experienced solutions to what are social problems as paying individuals. The pay-for-cuddle model is the perfect solution in the commodified world- if you lack intimacy in your life you have a clear commercial avenue to find resolution to your wanting. This incapsulation of the instrumental logic of capitalism demonstrates it’s ability to produce alienation and then create a new commodity form to serve and then profit from it. The lone individual finds the comfort of other paying lone individuals for a few hours, and then returns to the barren social landscape that refuses to satisfy the individuals needs. No need to worry, there’s a cuddle party next weekend too! It not surprising that they actually say they are willing to sell out to Ben & Jerry’s?

The Cuddlers aren’t revolutionaries. They don’t claim to be. The lesson though, for revolutionaries, is to think deeply about the structural conditions that we face and when we pose remedies to them, that we think through what those remedies are. The structural conditions that the cuddlers are trying to face are caused by alienation. The proposed remedy does exactly what alienation does- it creates another buying and selling relationship predicated on desires and needs that are not being satisfied by society. If we want to address alienation, we’re going to have to do more than cuddle with it. We have to take on the structural conditions that give rise to the phenomena itself. While we may consent to there being circumstances in which commodity relationships exist within the context of this historical moment, we have to at least demand that they point beyond themselves. Here, I think we see the difference between reform and revolution most clearly. With nothing to point beyond the present, amelioration is merely that- the historical conditions that produce alienation incorporate the techniques of remedy.

I’ll be the first to admit that I need a cuddle, but I’d like to cuddle with friends, please.

With the US media finally catching on that there might be a problem with the vigilante border patrol project The Minuteman Project I thought it might be interesting to look at how race is playing itself out in some of their writing.

The Minuteman Project has no affiliation with, nor wants any assistance or interference from any separatists, racists or supremacy groups or individuals of any race, color, or creed. Leave us in peace.

I find it interesting that this graces the top banner of their front page. On some level, it’s reassuring that they are at least cognicant that the position that they are taking is problematic, though even the formulation that they layout here is by itself problematic- there is absolutely no opposition to racist or supremacy groups, only a request that they not join.

From the about us page:
It is a reminder to Americans that our nation was founded as a nation governed by the “rule of law”, not by the whims of mobs of ILLEGAL aliens who endlessly stream across U.S. borders.
Accordingly, the men and women volunteering for this mission are those who are willing to sacrifice their time, and the comforts of a cozy home, to muster for something much more important than acquiring more “toys” to play with while their nation is devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens.

Future generations will inherit a tangle of rancorous, unassimilated, squabbling cultures with no common bond to hold them together, and a certain guarantee of the death of this nation as a harmonious “melting pot.”

This is quite simply, amazing. The understanding of history being put forth here displays both some right wing tendency toward a critique of consumerism, but also some really interesting insights on what counts as citizenship. Here in this formulation, the qualifications are clearly based on assimilation where cultural pluralism (even as problematic as the liberal form of it is) is grounds for alien status.

From the FAQ:
The majority of peace loving Americans are concerned about the ramifications of allowing massive amounts of unscreened, undocumented aliens to just walk right into our country. And of course the greatest fear that lurks in the dark corners of our minds is another 9-11 attack, or worse, a suit case bomb.

This pretty much speaks for itself. The analysis that terrorist attacks come from what is pretty clearly identified as the Mexican border here is remarkable.

Once again, the Free Society Collective website is back in action. While it’s been quite for some time, there’s been a serious effort to start gathering some of the writings of people involved in the project. While the collective has gone through some major changes in the last three years and many of the original members are jointly working on the all volunteer worker collective Black Sheep Books, it seems like some great stuff is going to really start happening again.
Stay tuned!

Josh just wipped out a new plugin for MI that does RSS right- does good caching so MI plays nice with other sites

TT MI::RSS plugin

Chesea Green Publishing has an interesting post about how people on the left tend to forget about book publishers when they talk about media reform. They’re on solid footing to make their argument- the super stars of (for lack of a better term) the progressive/left movement have tonnes of books published by big big publishing houses.

This of course begs the question that all media reform advocates tend side step- is the project of ‘indy’ media to make more space in the media landscape for dissident ideas or is it to tare up the media landscape as we know it?

The danger, I think, is the general assumption by many of the ‘indy’ advocates is the “more is better” argument. My hunch is that this is inspired by Chomsky’s ideas about free speech, but that aside, the question in my mind is not so much who publishes what, but what publishing does.

To be fair, Chelsea Green is totally on target. Watching authors print with the big houses would be like watching Amy Goodman sign up to be on Clear Channel. Of course, there is an argument for this- having better content on these massive media distribution channels means more people might get access to them. And that’s probably what the authors are going to respond with.

Perhaps I’m making a straw person argument, but I think the real question that people who want to change the media landscape have to ask is how this process actually takes place. Merely arguing for more dissident press eschews the question of what dissident press means- it’s fairly easy to imagine a world where Democracy Now is broadcast on Clear Channel, the question is how does that change the world? Yes, access to better information is of course, better, but unless that information becomes synthesized and used in political ways, it remains just that, information.