This brought to mind one of the most unrecognised social thinkers of recent times, because he did so much of his thinking on stage and only produced a couple of books – the improvisation teacher Keith Johnstone.
There's a passage I keep coming back to where he describes how playing "status" games in a group workshop, after a few days, there will be a moment of horror, as the scales fall from everyone's eyes. Suddenly, the civilised conventions that avert our attention from our animality aren't there anymore, and you all walk around unable not to see the primate status dynamics animating every human interaction. It's a bleak picture – and it reminds me of what Mary Harrington once named to me as "the theory hole", the kind of nihilism that a bright undergraduate reading Foucault can fall into, where suddenly you're unable to see anything other than power as real.
But then Johnstone asks, so what happens to status between friends? It's not that it's not there, he says, but it's that it becomes something it's possible to play with and laugh about, rather than something played out as if it were a matter of life and death. His example is that you stay the night at your friend's house and when they bring you a brew in the morning, they might give an obsequious bow and announce, "Your majesty, the royal cup of tea is served!" or they might barge open the door and shout, "Get out of bed, you 'orrible little lout!"
There's something here that runs close to what I get from your definition of "pistis" as "relationships good enough to trust". Friendship as what saves us from the grip of law/violence. And the turning upside down of status that brings a liberating foolishness.
Benjamin comes to something like this in the essay mentioned. Roughly paraphrasing from memory: "Is there any form of life available not managed by law and its dormant violence? Certainly there is, wherever people conduct there relationships together in good faith and virtue.."
Improvisation is a key paradigm, I think. It's what we're left with if we stop using the rulebook to regulate every scenario on our behalf and trust our relationships instead.
Your thoughts also highlights to me that power is always at work between people in a complex of ways, but law, in the sense above, is a third party. There's something here about leaning into the primacy of direct relationship against the paternalistic imperative to have a third party that manages life on our behalf
My friend Mike Love has just handed in his PhD on, in part, the politics of friendship as a form of common life that cannot be controlled (otherwise it's failed to be friendship).
I think this describes the kinship limits and protocols that Tyson Yunkaporta was describing. The difference between Natural Law and the law of the State.
Yes, definitely! Have you read Right Story, Wrong Story yet?
I was talking to an interviewer today who said, "So you're saying we need to be more human?" And I said no, "human" includes plenty of dark stuff as well as the good stuff, and the role of culture is to keep the dark stuff within bounds or channel it where it can become something helpful, while creating the conditions for the good stuff to come through. It's not about humans being innately good (or vicious) in the state of nature, it's about the hard work of culture. That's what I catch sight of in the kind of Indigenous law/lore Tyson describes. Though also peeking around the edges of Jewish and Christian theology, when folks like David are working with it.
Well said. I’m thinking on what you highlighted the importance of play in dismantling the power between two individuals. To cheekily subvert the hierarchy between calls into reference the greater sphere that holds us. Not of power but of love. It is only in this remembering that we are able to fully see as tragically ridiculous how the world’s law has convinced us as set apart in worth. I think of the playfulness of Buddhist monks using the humor of zen koans to teach, or how disorienting and uncomfortable it must have felt as a disciple to have Jesus wash their feet. I wonder at ways where I am participating in promoting adherence to the law..where is there an opening for the shift to occur to a connection of love instead of power?
Now you have me thinking about the power I have, and playful ways of emptying it out. It's ironic that the playful ways feel less performative than the serious ones.
Also thinking about my son telling me how awkward people get in drama lessons at school, because they're the only lessons where social codes get routinely broken
I didn’t expect ‘the theory hole’ to be one in which all you can see is power! But I know what she/you mean. It’s easier to get to friendship relationships if your family knows how to joke and love. I’ll look up Johnstone. I’m a Johnston myself and fan of also the Caitlin johnstone. Maybe it’s tribal lol
This brought to mind one of the most unrecognised social thinkers of recent times, because he did so much of his thinking on stage and only produced a couple of books – the improvisation teacher Keith Johnstone.
There's a passage I keep coming back to where he describes how playing "status" games in a group workshop, after a few days, there will be a moment of horror, as the scales fall from everyone's eyes. Suddenly, the civilised conventions that avert our attention from our animality aren't there anymore, and you all walk around unable not to see the primate status dynamics animating every human interaction. It's a bleak picture – and it reminds me of what Mary Harrington once named to me as "the theory hole", the kind of nihilism that a bright undergraduate reading Foucault can fall into, where suddenly you're unable to see anything other than power as real.
But then Johnstone asks, so what happens to status between friends? It's not that it's not there, he says, but it's that it becomes something it's possible to play with and laugh about, rather than something played out as if it were a matter of life and death. His example is that you stay the night at your friend's house and when they bring you a brew in the morning, they might give an obsequious bow and announce, "Your majesty, the royal cup of tea is served!" or they might barge open the door and shout, "Get out of bed, you 'orrible little lout!"
There's something here that runs close to what I get from your definition of "pistis" as "relationships good enough to trust". Friendship as what saves us from the grip of law/violence. And the turning upside down of status that brings a liberating foolishness.
Ha! Yes, the theory hole..
Benjamin comes to something like this in the essay mentioned. Roughly paraphrasing from memory: "Is there any form of life available not managed by law and its dormant violence? Certainly there is, wherever people conduct there relationships together in good faith and virtue.."
Improvisation is a key paradigm, I think. It's what we're left with if we stop using the rulebook to regulate every scenario on our behalf and trust our relationships instead.
Your thoughts also highlights to me that power is always at work between people in a complex of ways, but law, in the sense above, is a third party. There's something here about leaning into the primacy of direct relationship against the paternalistic imperative to have a third party that manages life on our behalf
My friend Mike Love has just handed in his PhD on, in part, the politics of friendship as a form of common life that cannot be controlled (otherwise it's failed to be friendship).
You've just convinced me of something I pretty much already figured out - that I need to have a proper chat with Mike about his research!
Of course, our friend Mike! Where is my mind..
I think this describes the kinship limits and protocols that Tyson Yunkaporta was describing. The difference between Natural Law and the law of the State.
Yes, definitely! Have you read Right Story, Wrong Story yet?
I was talking to an interviewer today who said, "So you're saying we need to be more human?" And I said no, "human" includes plenty of dark stuff as well as the good stuff, and the role of culture is to keep the dark stuff within bounds or channel it where it can become something helpful, while creating the conditions for the good stuff to come through. It's not about humans being innately good (or vicious) in the state of nature, it's about the hard work of culture. That's what I catch sight of in the kind of Indigenous law/lore Tyson describes. Though also peeking around the edges of Jewish and Christian theology, when folks like David are working with it.
Yes! Had it shipped from Australia and read it in a luxury hotel in Panama City. How’s that for irony? And I agree wholeheartedly about David’s work.
I haven't yet read any Tyson Yunkaporta. Where should I start?
He’s got 2 books. Read them both. Start with Sand Talk.
You and he are treading very similar ground from opposite directions.
Well said. I’m thinking on what you highlighted the importance of play in dismantling the power between two individuals. To cheekily subvert the hierarchy between calls into reference the greater sphere that holds us. Not of power but of love. It is only in this remembering that we are able to fully see as tragically ridiculous how the world’s law has convinced us as set apart in worth. I think of the playfulness of Buddhist monks using the humor of zen koans to teach, or how disorienting and uncomfortable it must have felt as a disciple to have Jesus wash their feet. I wonder at ways where I am participating in promoting adherence to the law..where is there an opening for the shift to occur to a connection of love instead of power?
Now you have me thinking about the power I have, and playful ways of emptying it out. It's ironic that the playful ways feel less performative than the serious ones.
Also thinking about my son telling me how awkward people get in drama lessons at school, because they're the only lessons where social codes get routinely broken
I didn’t expect ‘the theory hole’ to be one in which all you can see is power! But I know what she/you mean. It’s easier to get to friendship relationships if your family knows how to joke and love. I’ll look up Johnstone. I’m a Johnston myself and fan of also the Caitlin johnstone. Maybe it’s tribal lol