The United Nations And The Anti-War Protest

The prevalent myth casts the UN as a response to wars that had disrupted the world, and the most special reason for the UN's origination, we are told, was for the prevention of a war such as the second world war. But in fact the UN did not arise to problematize and prevent war. It is clear that war is not being prevented in the world today; there have been numerous wars waged since the UN's inception. Instead, the UN was founded to respond to a particular outgrowth of war: the UN was founded to respond to the act of the anti-war protest. The war was not the issue of concern for the UN, but the anti-war protest was the main outgrowth of war where the UN was to find its true purpose, and thereafter intervene and restore the world to an order.

The UN only intervenes when a particular kind of protest takes place: for the UN to act, the protest must fulfill certain requirements, and thus problematically the UN normalizes the population towards protesting in a certain way. If the protest is outside the boundaries of the UN's requirements, the protest fails to get the scrutiny in the global stage that a “UN-normalized” protest would get. The UN does not just communicate the protest to power, but takes control of the protest and how it progresses, and tries to form itself as the only legitimate link between power and the protesters. Thus it seeks only the normal protest, and if the normal protest seems impossible, it seeks to actively normalize the protest before intervening to stabilize the place.

Protests which are too angry/violent, protests composed entirely of marginalized identities and protests which are “too small” in the number of people involved are all examples of abnormal protests for the UN, which the UN attempts to normalize before publicizing them. By influencing and controlling the types of protests which take place, the UN gets a handle into the problematic region's politics and society, and also mediates the relation between the protesters and the powerful. If a protest does not have a stamp of recognition from the UN, it does not make it to the ears of power at all, and therefore power may be unaware that there is a problem. Moreover, the UN acts not when the power is harmful to the protesters, but rather when the protesters are beginning to become harmful to the way power operates and what power is.

Militarized Zones As Fragmenting A Territory

We tend to think “militarized zones” exist at the borders of a few nations that are suffering from war, but in fact militarized zones exist in and influence the composition of every nation, even peaceful ones. Militarized zones don't exist at the borders exclusively but are bought based on monetary decisions, such as the price of land, the price of fuel to connect one zone with another etc.

Militarized zones used to be clustered around and formed by a single figure. That is how “personal militarization projects” arose, with the personal goal of one single figure dictating the formation of militarized zones. With the submission of land under the monetary system, the military was able to expand its militarized zones simply by purchasing land rather than invading it, that is, the military could act like any business client. Afterwards the size of the purchased land for militarized zones began to dictate such things as the size of the military, its ranks, its activities and the content of subsequent personal militarization projects the higher ranks wished to implement.

As much as the military can be present in many places where it can afford to be present, it can also be absent from a lot of places which need military protection because it cannot afford to establish a militarized zone in there. As a result, paradoxically some populations are overprotected while others more privileged are vulnerable.

Whether it happens because of monetary purchase or by invasion, the building of militarized zones in different parts of the territory causes the people of the different parts to feel autonomy and eventually leads to the fragmentation of the single territory into smaller states. Meaning that, it is the differentiation of one militarized zone from another based on location that causes the single territory to fragment into smaller states. Even in civilians, a “state-making” mentality and initiative forms around a militarized zone. 

Tourism and Urban Sprawl Against the Nomadic Order in the Outskirts of Kathmandu

Urban sprawl is making its presence felt in parts of Kathmandu, with houses now spotted on the hills of the valley which were once pristine. The urban sprawl is a tactic by the city's more powerful authorities to counter the oncoming “nomadic order” where nomads attempt to counter the sedentary lifestyle they are enclosed in and seek paths out of Kathmandu. With urban sprawl, the “closeted nomad” finds little in the way of pristine nature to suggest that there is an alternative to sedentary life, he/she thinks the world has houses everywhere and that there is no place uninhabited to which he/she could travel to.

The suburban trend of “running away from home” may be budding in the youth of Kathmandu's housing developments, for such a trend may come hand-in-hand with suburbia itself. This would have been especially problematic had the hills in close proximity to Kathmandu's suburbs been left pristine and full of possibilities for travel and escape. However the authorities have stepped in to encourage building houses on the hillsides, so that youth from Kathmandu's suburbs do not act on their nomadic impulse to travel to the hills and beyond.

If a nomad bent on leaving the center of Kathmandu does indeed travel to the hills to go beyond it, he/she will find that the houses are especially welcoming, especially warm, especially designed to make the sedentary lifestyle seem appealing as a last effort to counter the nomadic impulse and order. This welcoming attitude is called “tourism,” and the hills looking into and beyond Kathmandu are well suited to become tourist-spots even as their hidden motive is the prevention of a nomadic order. Tourism is another name for the placing of sedentary populations in places that could have been uninhabited and welcoming to nomads. Today the “tourism industry” is a vital arm of the sedentary order to house nomadic travelers within a sedentary lifestyle once again.

The Useful Lacanian Question During a Conflict: “What do you want from me?”

In previous cases of conflict people acted and responded in ways that suggested that they were facing threats to their identities because of that conflict. Invasion was a genuine fear, where a nation could be subsumed in the order of a foreign power, thereby causing the loss of a previous national identity.

The rebellious question “Who am I?” lingered not just after a war and invasion but rather during the war itself. The lack of knowledge of a war's outcome meant that people felt they did not belong to either side in the conflict, and the most pressing “Who am I?” drew from there. People were seeing, sensing, eating and living in the war context but this question remained in their minds, which was the first indication in their lives that there could be a way of life outside of national identity and that a kind of attractive “base-level life” was possible. In other words, the “Who am I?” is not asked when the one posing the question is feeling a loss and wants to get a definite answer (“In two years, you will be a Nepali”), but it is the first moment of the realization of a complete freedom from belonging to any nation or identity (“I don't belong anywhere and I feel free”). This lack of commitment to any nation or cause is what threatened the war-making elements and compelled them to make war in a way that did not elicit this question. This “Who am I?” question was prevalent in an atmosphere where struggles against war were themselves more aggressive; “Who am I?” was still a tactic based on implicitly defeating a certain side after a certain period of time rather than coming to a genuine discussion or contract between the warring parties.

War-making elements have found a way around anti-war outcry and have subdued the feelings of identity-loss. Sophisticated and exciting techniques of warfare have been produced today, so that war itself is seen as giving an exciting answer to the “Who am I?” question; war indeed has become about young people “finding themselves,” and that is how it is “advertised.” People are more geared today to live out their identity in the conflict context rather than feel that war robbed them of their identity; they have grown tough because of war rather than being unable to cope with it. Today war can take its time, be prolonged, get dramatic for the satisfaction and intrigue of the war-making elements, whereas previously there used to be war-making elements that got bored and grew irritated of war rather than singing its praises, and this attitude was an important reason that brought about the end of certain wars.

People have grown accustomed to war, they have grown to build a daily life that is not against the war, or disrupted by the war, but rather utilizes the context of the war, a life that is actively involved in the war context; there is a daily life where offices to deal with conflicts have arisen, the think-tanks have made work of the studying of war daily and so war subsequently became more than an armed struggle but becomes work, a job. “Popular support” for war becomes more than a wave of supporters celebrating war in the streets and becomes a concentrated group of individuals utilizing their intellect and information to justify war, finding the war context exciting as it enables the exercising of their imaginations as much as demanding objective dealing with cold facts. The aura of seriousness to the war-effort makes war very hard to take as a joke or distraction. War used to be considered a distraction in the lower wrung of the social strata, and the higher up one went in the hierarchy the more war was looked at as a joke. Today this model has been outdated by the fact that the higher-up, intellectual class is more engaged in war than before, and hence this higher-up class builds sophisticated wars rather than considering wars to be a joke.

The most effective rebellious question in war is no longer “Who am I?” posed to nature or God, but rather, following Lacan, the more primary question that we all ask as human children to human mothers: “What do you want from me?”. Unlike the “Who am I?” which takes one beyond the people and war, the Lacanian question places two conflicting people in a relationship. The question is not a “What do you want that I have? What do you want from my possessions?” but “What do you want from me?” at once ready to give the most intimate and personal of things, things from me, and not from mine. “What do you want from me?” is essentially a question with no answer because there is no thing that is from me, instead, everything I have is a possession based on a contract. There is nothing except for “me” that “I” can give; and the "What do you want from me?" question itself is all I can give...The only way to preserve Nepali identity is to give it over to the other who will preserve it. The only thing the other wants “from me” is the preservation of my identity just as it is.   

The Inauthentically Exhibitionist Technological Age

Exhibitionism is a key tendency in the technological age today: the technological age involves products that don't just use technology, but actively flaunt the inner technology in use. We have those rudimentary Apple computers which had see-through plastic exteriors that made the wiring and machinery visible. At that point in history, Apple's technology was not so advanced that they would want to genuinely flaunt it, rather, the exhibition of the wiring was done to create the fantasy of complexity. A lot of the sophisticated knowledge about devices today is at the level of wiring and not the 'sub-wiring' level, this is done in order to try and curb the effects of a more intense exhibitionist logic that would not have stopped at revealing the level of the wiring alone. Our impulses to destroy fragile wiring and machines is curbed by a fascinating knowledge of the wiring level. 

The dissection of frogs in biology is not relevant to learn about the frog, but rather we dissect frogs to prepare for the manipulation of the wiring of machines; but it is more a preparation for assembly-line technology-related jobs rather than advanced “bio-tech” jobs. The rise of the technological age has brought about changes in the education system that go beyond simple changes to the subject of "computer science," but impact all other subjects of study, especially all the sciences. Indeed, in an ironic vein, computer science itself seems to fall behind in the technological age.

The real logic of exhibitionism is not content with the revealing of naked flesh, but rather, beyond that, the revealing of the internal organs and ultimately the continuous “cutting up” of the outer layers that serve as clothing to reveal another layer of clothing within. It is “clothing all the way in” when it comes to exhibitionism, there is no truer authentic reality to reveal. The initial fascination with the insides of a computer must therefore be moderated by the understanding of the logic of exhibitionism: that the technology they see is not the more important, more serious, final reality. We are, in other words, inauthentic exhibitionists when it comes to our fascination with wiring.

Perhaps there will come a time when the exhibitionist logic gets so intense that the machines are broken apart, smashed and damaged, when we move beyond the fascination with their wiring and try to go deeper and deeper within the surface. Machines will eventually be seen in this scenario as "damage-prone" as they tempt us to destroy their exterior to look inside. Perhaps this exhibitionism towards the devices will outweigh our considerations of their “use-value.” A post-technological age could then begin.

The Age Of Concern For The Artist

Although today's trend of paying record-breaking prices for art work is criticized as capitalist “commodification” and superficial trade of art, the trend could well be an indicator of the faith in art work that the art world has. But even more so, this expensive trend demonstrates an attempt to “save” or “uplift” the figure of the artist in society. Even if the artist in question is already dead, paying large sums for his/her art work provides him/her with a legacy, a success story and an “ordinariness” regarding his/her relevance in the world today; the attempt is to make the artist feel safe. Paying record sums is part of a wider age in the art world: the age of showing concern for the artist.

One way in which the age of the concern for the artist has come about is through globalization. With globalization, what were previously close relations in the art world have gotten even more intimate. The artist, at the center of the art world of dealers, collectors, viewers and students, is now exposed and revealed to these identities in great detail. The artist is found to be problematic, not because of any specific malady, but because the image of a “problematic artist” can finally be properly employed given the possibility of intimacy and care for the artist. A kind of parental impulse in the art world can be satisfied by the artist figure who serves as the object of concern/attention.

The artist's status becomes more important than the art work he/she produces. The concern for the artist has moved beyond just attention towards him/her to outright scrutiny. In this scenario, the art work completely “hides behind” the artist, the work is deliberately made obscure, and if it happens to be displayed “prematurely” before the artist's “problematic years,” its value is deliberately taken to be small, for it has to be displayed at the right moment so that its trade may prove “therapeutic” for the artist. Today the art world around the artist is too eager to help the artist. 

As the display of the art work becomes the final act for the artist, the art work no longer becomes the point of production of information and knowledge about the artist's life and health. Beyond his/her art work is just silence, with the art work being “deterritorialized” from the art world, with the art work serving as the final statement beyond the communicative and enclosing/“territorializing” function of “art world language.” The art work fosters no communication but brings about a silence, and this silence is a result of complete ignorance towards the art work, because the art world has replaced art work as the artist's therapeutic object, with the artist's safety as top concern over his/her creativity and productivity.

True rebellion in the art world today would be focused on experimenting with the timing of the display of the art work: if the work is displayed “prematurely,” before an artist's “problematic years” or even"creative years," then its value will be lower in monetary terms, but the art work will also be very relevant as an object indicating the condition of the artist's life, and so premature display would produce communication about the artist through the discussion of his/her art work. This would go against having the art work stand as an end-point beyond which there is only an unproductive and awed silence on the part of the art world.  

Globalization And The Refugee Movement From Unprotected Territories

In hopeful depictions, globalization is seen as the movement of laborers or wealth freely across the world. This picture of labor and wealth mobility is inaccurate because it is increasingly becoming evident that globalization will be defined rather as the era of the mass mobility of human beings seeking security and safety. This much is seen in the mass movement of refugees, which increasingly looks like being the symbol which defines what globalization stands for. In the new globalization model, the western world will open its borders further not to invite working-age laborers, but to ensure the security and safety of populations seeking respite from warfare or natural disasters. All movement towards the west is a ultimately "refugee movement," it entails a "becoming refugee" of the moving individual or group. 

Any future policy by safer, western societies regarding the increase in immigrants in their territory will have mostly to do with ensuring that these immigrants are provided security and safety, but not much beyond that. Ultimately, as the securing/protecting of the population becomes the major concern, the progress and development of that population takes a back seat, because for securing powers, it is important that the secured population maintain a fixed character, and not become anything more that cannot be handled. In securing, the population is fixed in its level of development and prosperity; the population remains secure but stagnant.

The paternal, protective function which is supposed to be a standard across all territories is today absent in numerous territories; security is not a given right in many nations, mainly because the western peace project no longer goes outward to “fill in” war-torn territories with broad zones of peace, but rather seeks to invite inward to its shores those singular individuals who seek to live. Today peace is a project of protecting fortunate individuals and not the whole of the group which is being persecuted. Additionally, the militarization of the west does not mean that the whole world is a safer place, even though this is how it is usually thought for comfort, but western militarization only implies the safety exclusively of the west's own borders and territories.

The fulfillment of the Foucauldian idea of “construct live,” where the goal for individuals and societies is the prolonging of life and avoidance of death, increasingly requires that populations move away from their territories and move towards other more secure territories because not all territories are secure even though they have authority in place which continues to relay messages celebrating security. “Construct live” needs to be amended for the globalization age: living a longer life comes only if one's territory is abandoned for the west; living longer is only possible with mobility towards the west, with deterritorialization from one's homeland, a deterritorialization which is long-term, perhaps even permanent, because the west does not always give the chance of a proper rehabilitation/reterritorialization. The west itself will soon seek to be known for its protective function above everything else, protecting the few against weak threats being practically easier than actively developing whole weak societies. To protect oneself is not a “natural” aim which originates in the mind of the individual, rather, the west demands that the individual seek protection and hence travel to the west, but, problematically, protection is all the west will give.