|
|
to "i", dakle to zbrajanje ne treba shvatiti kao nasumicno nizanje slucajnoga, ciji je cilj da prikrije proturjecja, dakle kao politicko-propagandisticko otvaranje razlicitih socijalnih polja, nego kao raznolikost privremenih saveza, kao produktivno ulancavanje onoga sto po sebi nikada nije glatko pasalo, i sto se je neprestano grubo trljalo jedno o drugo i upravo kroz to trljanje napredovalo ili se takodjer iznova razdvajalo.[14] To "i" odupire se ujedno nestajanju u jednoj velikoj jedinstvenoj fronti, kao sto pruza otpor rasipanju, parceliziranju i frakcioniranju.[15]
|
|
|
As the precarious practices of the Noborder network, the border camps and caravans work to overcome national frameworks, their transversal lines also break through the hermetic of particularist partial public spheres and exclusive subcultures. This means something substantially more than and different from the stale terminology of interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity and the practices that have academized this concept. In the field of art, for instance, it no longer means the dissolution of the boundaries of disciplines in the diverse practices between happenings and performances, but rather cooperations between artists, theoreticians, activists, etc. all across the different fields. As transversal lines tend to transsectorally cross through several fields, they link together social struggles and artistic interventions and theory production and ... This AND is not to be understood as haphazardly stringing together random elements to cover up contradictions, as a political propaganda display of social fields, but rather as a multitude of temporary alliances, as a productive concatenation of what never fits together smoothly, what is constantly in friction and impelled by this friction or caused to evaporate again.[13] At the same time, this AND resists merging into a large unified front and against splintering, portioning and fractioning.[14] In other words, it does not work like the gluttonous inclusion mechanism, which generates a freedom from contradictions in the insatiable apparatuses of political parties through imperatives of conformity, nor in the style of the mainstream of attac, as a hybrid of Greenpeace and unions, greedy for members on the one hand, but on the other very clever in founding sections. The division of the movement into economic policy, agricultural, artistic, feminist, etc. "sub-unions", the limiting of respective specific competencies to the clichés of their subsectors (for instance, the [self-] limitation of artists to illustrations or recruiting celebrities) are exactly the opposite of the additive function of transversality. Contrary to the principle of delegation according to a division of labor, transversal lines pose a praxis of traversing. Contrary to the old strategies of networking, fragmenting and unifying, the concatenation of diversity needs neither fragmentation nor consensus, at most a constantly renewed differentiation between power and resistance.
|
