An Anarchives Play: What is history?

[NOTE: Hey Paul - I forgot to CC you on this.  I imagined it something like a Platonic dialogue mixed with Pozzo & Lucky in a Godot-like setting. - Jez]

What is history?

- Yes let's define it!

Well, what do you think?

- well, it's definitely a story

Most definitely! But is it always a true story?

- well, not all the time…though a lot of people would like it to be!

How does history work?

- hmmm…too complicated.  Next question?

Okay, well how does a story become history?

- Wait a second, I've got a problem with this term history.  Can we step back for a second?

Sure.

- Okay, some people want to point out that the term history has a long history of being defined by men/patriarchs, conquerors, the West…

Also to mention that some of those people (and others) might even question continuing to use this term: history!  How self-righteous!

- You're right.  To question this term history, though it's not necessarily self-righteous to say that.

Why not?  History appears to aim for an objective account of events as they happened.

- Objective, hmmm?  Which is to say, something that is like "the fact of the matter"? 

Yes, like some indisputable set of facts that describe the events of life as they actually happened.

- Wow this seems complicated.

What do you mean?

- I mean, the more I ask questions about this form of history, the less certain it becomes.


So what?

- So let's just consider an example.  'On May 1, 2012, a bee drilled its head into a hole.'  Is that history?

Umm, not sure I follow.

- Okay sorry…more context: On May 1, 2012, Jez Bold saw a bee drill its head into a hole.  Is this history?

Hmmm, maybe.  Did it actually happen?

- How do you mean?

Well, did Jez Bold told you this happened?

- Well, yeah, I guess so.  I mean, he's the one who wrote it down, right!

Okay, so can you confirm that it happened?

- I guess not.

So the story is the following, 'Jez Bold told you that on May 1, 2012, he saw a bee drill its head into a hole.'

- Yes that seems agreeable.

Okay so are there any aspects of this story that remain in dispute?

- Not at this point.

Alright!  There we go, we've got history!


- No we don't.

What do you mean?  We know what the facts are!

- I have to ask another question, do you know Jez Bold?  

Yes.  Obviously.  He's the person who's writing this.

- So do you believe Jez Bold ?

Uh…yeah…I mean, I guess so.  No, fuck it, yes.  I believe Jez Bold .

- But why do you believe Jez Bold ?  Does he not have the capacity to lie?  I mean, let's be honest: he's the one writing this story.  Wouldn't it be nice if all of us just believed that he's a trustworthy person and that people should definitely believe him when he tells them something?

Yes, I suppose so.  But do we have any reason to distrust him?

- Her, actually….I'm just being informed that his preferred gender pronoun is her.  

Wait…what REALLY?

- Yeah, I'm just looking at her Facebook status, which reads: "Bold Jez just updated her Facebook status."

Wait, who is Bold Jez?

- That's the name of her Facebook profile.

So wait, is that really Jez Bold then? 

- Yes, I think so.  I mean I've been friends with her ever since she joined Facebook (although notably, her name here originally was Jez Bold and she was a he so there's always THAT to consider…)


Okay, so…I guess let's move on? 

- Yes!  Moving on…

Wait!  Wait a second!  I see what's going on here.

- What do you mean?

Well, I know Jez Bold personally - he's the one writing this after all - and I know for a fact that he has not biologically altered his gender in any way.  Not only that, but I've been in several meetings when he was asked to identify his preferred gender pronoun and I heard him say "He or Him."  

- So what does that mean?

That means by bringing up this thing about Jez Bold having changed his her preferred gender pronoun, you are suggesting that Jez Bold might not be a trustworthy person!

- Even though that wasn't really my intention, I can see how you might think that now.  It certainly problematizes this situation doesn't it.

Okay, well anyway, it illustrates the point well enough.  Wait a second, why are we talking about this?  What was my position again?

- I asked you if you believed Jez Bold and in response you said, "…yes.  I believe Jez Bold ."

Okay…so I guess…so I guess I'm not really sure what this means now.  I'm confused.

- Right.  Me too.

So where do we go from here?

- Forward.  Or, this way anyway.

Okay, I'll let you take the lead again.


- So I have implied that Jez Bold told me that on May 1, 2012, he saw a bee drill its head into a hole.

Yes.

- But now we have at least one [explicit] reason to question that.  What happens to our view of history?

It gets complicated.

- Yes.  But my question is, now that we know this, does this statement become any less a part of history?

Hmmm…it seems like it should…

- And don't you wonder why it seems like it should?  We've stepped away from some idea of the previously defined objectivity, in the sense that we had established some "fact of the matter" or a story that is not in dispute.  But what would you say we've been sitting here talking about for all this time?

Umm, a story.

- Right.  And we've been engaged in an examination of that story from the perspective of it having actually happened, arriving at least for a moment upon an unresolved question as to whether we can trust Jeremy Bold whether the story actually happened.

Correct.

- So the question is, WHY HAVE WE BEEN WASTING OUR TIME DOING THIS?  This is RIDICULOUS.  Why does it even matter whether Jeremy Bold saw a bee drill its head into a hole?  I don't even think bees have the biological or technical apparatus by which they could be capable of drilling their head into a hole!  The story itself doesn't really matter, in part because it doesn't have context to matter, except in instance in which you (or anyone else) wishes to discuss whether it is objective, actual fact of the matter history.

What's your point?

- Objectivity is a mundane point in this case.  It's a sideshow.  It's almost completely irrelevant except in discussing objectivity.  The pursuit of objectivity is a sport akin to the circle jerk, navel-gazing, and 

So, again, what's your point?

- The point is, if I continue to ask questions, and open up potential "holes" or "problems" with a particular story in order for it to become history.  If this is the context by which we always think about it, history has become something in the space of the future and the idea of the past but never something for the present.  The point is: WHY DO WE PLACE SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVITY when we never completely arrive?

Well, I suppose the pursuit does bring us certain kinds of rewards, material, ethical and otherwise.

- …umm…okay!  That's a good point!  I actually agree with you on that.

But yeah, I guess that's beside the point here.

- I know, isn't it?  We're finding something very interesting here by asking these questions, by questioning the role of how we approach history, by how we approach our role as historians.  These italicized words are masks!  These are concepts which we use to illustrate and examine and entertain ourselves and others and basically play with things!  Play with the WORLD!  Play is so important here!


So what would you like to say next?

- History is never final; it is accrued over people and places and events.  Time itself is only a set of events.  [Feel free to stop reading at any point here and examine one of these other italicized words.  I wish I could, but I've got to go pretty soon…]

So who gets to define history?

- EVERYONE.  ANYONE.  SOMEONE.  You, me, her, him, they.  In fact, THEY often seem to get to define history, but you should always consider that we are someone else's they, and by that fact [not by that fact itself, but certainly it helps justify this] therefore, we are inherently empowered to define what history is.

So why is this important for the Occupy Wall Street Archives?

- Great question.  I think that's the reason that Jez Bold (a.k.a. Bold Jez, a.k.a. www.facebook.com/Jez3Prez) got started on this in the first place.

Great!

- The Occupy Wall Street Archives demands specific critical vision from its participants.  SPECIFIC CRITICAL VISION is the aim of imagining radical alternatives which answer critique(s) of the present situation through specific activities.  Ex. this activity is a necessary step in challenging the Archives working group to consider how it continues to imbue history with a sense of objectivity by trying to control the narrative through an expectation of having the archive.  There is no archive for the Occupy Wall Street movement.  It has no central location, no outside/inside, and the story of Occupy Wall Street cannot be defined by a small subset of narratives however so symbolically empowered they might be by claiming the name of Archives.

Why do you think this needs to be said?

- Because people think that the OWS Archive is some actually-defined set of objects which actually exists somewhere.  Fuck no!  It's everywhere!  All the stuff in the collections of those individuals who have participated in this movement, whether it be cataloged and filed in manila envelopes or stuffed in a drawer or left behind a snow shovel in the garage or hung on a wall in a museum - ALL OF THIS IS HISTORY.

But what happens if we let anyone define what the history of this movement is?  What if we let people take the name of Occupy Wall Street and apply it to things that don't belong?

- How do we enable the ability for this movement to never die?  You never set an end date!  You never even arbitrarily limit the possibility of the collection!  You make it possible for all people to add to the narrative, whether or not they are involved in the work group or not.  

What if a hacker/troll/asshole comes in and fucks with our stuff?

- Don't you see????  Even accidents become history!  Look at Native Americans/Indians/Natives/

indigenous people of North America!  There's a history of a whole collection of people that might be contended don't even really exist!  Are they a racial classification?  Aren't there also Indians who were born in India?  [Oh but those are East Indians, right?  Wait, there's a place called East India (v. West/North/South/etc. India)?]  I was born in America; can I not claim to be a "native" American?

But what if I don't want that history?

- Then don't claim it!  Or try to distance yourself.  When you play with history or play as the historian, we invite you to take the opportunity to justify any attempt at removal.   Accrual is one aspect of the fabrication of history but disposal is also important.


Let's add one last statement.

- Or a couple.

Sure:


1. Challenge yourself everyday to construct history in a different way.

2. Invite people to tell you a story and rather than asking them whether it actually happened, ask them "Why do you think this is important?"  Or "Why do you think we should remember this?"


Is that it?

- Oh yeah, and Occupy everywhere!

Yes.  Occupy is everywhere.  

- And nowhere…



[Photos by Paul McLean, model by Patrick Avice du Buisson]