I think this is a valuable part of the conversation: http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/
And a print-ready PDF pamphlet version for distributing: http://oplopanaxpublishing.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/uncivilisation-the-dark-mountain-manifesto/
For some reason, when I first saw them years ago, I was very turned off. Checking it out again, it feels different to me and I can see the affinity.
I think I didn’t like the word “uncivilization” because its still linguistically framed as “un-doing” something rather than, “doing someone new” or “creating”. I feel the same way about the word “de-colonize”. I feel like what they mean is rewild.
I should add, that the “un” and “de” “anti” sound more like backing away from something, whereas “re” sounds like going toward something. They carry very different feelings.
Semantics is an interesting game sometimes. The “re-” very much sounds atavistic to me, as if we’ll just mimic (an interpretation of) the past. Not that it really bothers me that much, just the way it FEELS.
Yes, I totally agree. Wilding would be even better. Though I think that word is already taken…
Yes, I can vouch for the affinity, having been involved with the DM folks from the second unciv festival. All questions answered to the best of my abilities 
I had similar misgivings about the choice of ‘uncivilisation’ as a banner word, although it did appeal to my darker desires to see (perhaps participate in) an active ‘unraveling’ of the dominant culture. I doubt that was the intent behind it though. Here’s the relevant bit from the manifesto referring to the early 20thC poet, Robinson Jeffers:
Jeffers, as his poetry developed, developed a philosophy too. He called it 'inhumanism.' It was, he wrote:The shifting of emphasis from man to notman: this is the aim of Uncivilised writing. To ‘unhumanise our views a little, and become confident / As the rock and ocean that we were made from.’ This is not a rejection of our humanity–it is an affirmation of the wonder of what it means to be truly human. It is to accept the world for what it is and to make our home here, rather than dreaming of relocating to the stars, or existing in a Man-forged bubble and pretending to ourselves that there is nothing outside it to which we have any connection at all.
(Although typing out that Jeffers quote makes me wonder if he means what the DM authors take him to mean. The ‘reasonable detachment’ part sounds pretty dodgy to me…)
At the end of the day, what’s in a word? Is the point to encapsulate everything the movement stands for or to invite further discussion and elaboration? The Occupy crowd did lots of useful stuff IMO, despite some highly pertinent criticism of their choice of word from indigenous people whose perspective and understanding of ‘occupation’ was much more keenly felt than most of the other participants.
‘Rewilding’ has already turned into a buzz-word meaning hundreds of different things to different people (see here, for example). I think most have little or no understanding of its use in the kind of context employed on this site. What’s the response to that - dump the word and come up with a new one? Make an effort to articulate the different connotations of the word? Struggle to hold onto it and monopolise the meaning? Use it as a back door to slide the philosophy sneakily into the public consciousness? Loads of options, but isn’t it all just PR in the end? Why not simply focus on what makes sense to you & yours in the here & now? A lived philosophy. It can spread by example without the need for a name, and thus hopefully avoid the dangers of co-option.
cheers,
Ian
[font=georgia]I think you have it in a nutshell! [/font]
[quote=“White Raven, post:7, topic:1686”][quote author=woozletracker link=topic=1822.msg17097#msg17097 date=1413719991]
Loads of options, but isn’t it all just PR in the end? Why not simply focus on what makes sense to you & yours in the here & now? A lived philosophy. It can spread by example without the need for a name, and thus hopefully avoid the dangers of co-option.
[/quote]
[font=georgia]I think you have it in a nutshell! [/font][/quote]
agreed. language and terminology are obviously important, though at a certain point, less important than the overall message, and the work being done. there will always be someone who interprets your words differently than you intend.
language and terminology are obviously important, though at a certain point, less important than the overall message, and the work being done. there will always be someone who interprets your words differently than you intend.
Amen. I don’t mean to say PR has no value either, just it’s not the be [sic] all and end all. As the old (Chinese?) saying puts it: Don’t look at my finger, look at the moon!
Possibly of interest: ‘Five years on a mountain’ - DM founders Hine & Kingsnorth give a retrospective talk at the Schumacher College in Devon five years after the publication of the manifesto and shortly after the ‘last’ festival:
Earth Talk: Five years on a mountain - Paul Kingsnorth and Dougald Hine
Or if you’d prefer something to read check out Dougald’s piece, ‘Remembering Uncivilisation’, also published in the 5th DM book. Sample:
Someone said, one Sunday morning, almost embarrassed, that this was the closest thing they had to going to church. All along, it was there, the awkward presence of something no other language seemed fit for, the wariness of a language that so easily turns to dust on the tongue. Here is one way that I have explained it to myself. A taboo, in the full sense, is something other than a reasonable modern legal prohibition: it is a thing forbidden because it is sacred and it may, under appropriately sacred circumstances, be permitted, even required. Now, the space that we opened together, as participants, was a space in which certain taboos had been lifted: some that are strong in the kinds of society we have grown up in, some that have been stronger still in the kinds of movement many of us have been active in. Not the obvious taboos on physical gratification—most of what they covered is now not prohibited so much as required, in this postmodern economy of desire—but the taboo on darknesses and doubts, on naming our losses, failures, fears, uncertainties and exhaustions. In response to our earliest attempts to articulate what Dark Mountain might be, people we knew—good, dedicated people—would tell us, ‘OK, so you’ve burned out. It happens. But there’s no need to do it in public and encourage others to give up.’ Instead, it seemed, one should find a quiet place to be alone with the disillusionment. Perhaps become an aromatherapist. If I have any clue where the power of Dark Mountain came from—knowing that it came from somewhere other than the two of us who wrote the manifesto—then I would say it came from creating a space in which our darknesses can be spoken to each other. (From here, among much else, we may begin to question why the movements we have been involved in seem accustomed to use people as a kind of fuel.) By the second or third year of the festival, though, I found myself wondering if the sacred nature of taboo might not work both ways. If a group of people creates a space in which taboos are lifted, perhaps this in itself is enough to invoke the forms of experience for which the language of the sacred has often been used?
cheers,
I
I found that video to be way more accessible and relatable than the stuff I’ve read. Thanks for sharing!
My pleasure