Before complying with Vermont, we must establish the nature of that movement. Not to say an affinity for the one end sould not be formed wherever possible, but the social and cultural difference between Rhode Island and Vermont is prominent. Therefore, while I think Vermont maintains a good program for agricultural / rural cultural situations, its plan for the urban reality is completely absent. This is understandable. Vermont is not an urban world. However, our contingency exists in this city context and must begin to think practically how this will fit into a free new england.
First, there is the fact of the cultural diversity that has no connection to the traditional notion of New England. It is irrelevant to many. However, this does not mean New England as a Now does not have relevancy. We need to create a language for this nowness so that we are not limited to a particular vision of society that inherently privileges a certain group, such as those affected by the predominant 'hippie' culture in Vermont. Second, regardless of ethnic diversity, there is a cultural schism between city and country. There are many who cite this a fundamental fracture in the current detachment of human culture from the undifferentiated culture called 'earth' or 'nature' as well as various other names. Continuing on, while privileging the country culture for its organic capacity and contingency, this move can easily fall into an idealistic romantic vision that leaves the majority of the population out. If this happens, the movement becomes stabilized as another extension of the bourgeois appropiation of the countryside, which is really the commodification of a lifestyle-culture that is no longer something that can be understood as 'authentic'. Therefore, the dream of an authentic agrarian society is just that, a dream. This is not to say that dreams have no value, but our project is not to whip the world aroud us into a fantasy desire. In this way, Vermont does indeed have a role in the transformation.
What I mean to say here is that while a collaboration with Vermont is necessary, it can only be understood as an affinity and not as a guiding authority. The knowledge of the Vermont movement is not relevant to the context of urban new england, where covered bridges, maple syrup and dairy farms have little immediate significance. These do, however, have a great deal of significance in the culture of their origin. And this is perhaps the most important reason for collaboration for Vermont.
After we confirm that the Vermont group is not really an avant gard that will inevitably commodify that agrarian culture, we will join with it in destablizing the mechanism of the spectacle that reaches into it with long, sticky fingers. This means at once destroying and confirming that fine sensation in us that resonates at the sound of New England.
In commitment,
Delegate White
First, there is the fact of the cultural diversity that has no connection to the traditional notion of New England. It is irrelevant to many. However, this does not mean New England as a Now does not have relevancy. We need to create a language for this nowness so that we are not limited to a particular vision of society that inherently privileges a certain group, such as those affected by the predominant 'hippie' culture in Vermont. Second, regardless of ethnic diversity, there is a cultural schism between city and country. There are many who cite this a fundamental fracture in the current detachment of human culture from the undifferentiated culture called 'earth' or 'nature' as well as various other names. Continuing on, while privileging the country culture for its organic capacity and contingency, this move can easily fall into an idealistic romantic vision that leaves the majority of the population out. If this happens, the movement becomes stabilized as another extension of the bourgeois appropiation of the countryside, which is really the commodification of a lifestyle-culture that is no longer something that can be understood as 'authentic'. Therefore, the dream of an authentic agrarian society is just that, a dream. This is not to say that dreams have no value, but our project is not to whip the world aroud us into a fantasy desire. In this way, Vermont does indeed have a role in the transformation.
What I mean to say here is that while a collaboration with Vermont is necessary, it can only be understood as an affinity and not as a guiding authority. The knowledge of the Vermont movement is not relevant to the context of urban new england, where covered bridges, maple syrup and dairy farms have little immediate significance. These do, however, have a great deal of significance in the culture of their origin. And this is perhaps the most important reason for collaboration for Vermont.
After we confirm that the Vermont group is not really an avant gard that will inevitably commodify that agrarian culture, we will join with it in destablizing the mechanism of the spectacle that reaches into it with long, sticky fingers. This means at once destroying and confirming that fine sensation in us that resonates at the sound of New England.
In commitment,
Delegate White
posted by:
|
United Kingdom
|
-
Unsu...
Re: Regarding the Vermont Collaboration
Wed, December 3, 2003 - 11:03 AMDelegate White,
This was a beautifully and accurately written piece of prose. We have discussed this situation many a time before, but I am glad it is finally in writing and for all to see. I actually just expressed some of these concerns to our friends in Vermont and am awaiting their response. Connecitut and Maine representatives will be in touch shortly, as well.
Maine falls more into the similar niche of Vermont. CT is hard to pin down, because although there are plenty of farms/dairy farms in CT, there are also urban elements to that state. But then again, we knew from the start that CT would be tough.
Where is Massachusetts in all this?
Getting back to your thoughts, the nature of the movement does need to be established. I propose some discussion of this issue from all members and then coming up with some general agreements; loose, fluid agreements, as I think it is unwise to be too concrete right now.
I agree completely it is easy and sometimes tempting to romanticize the whole movement, as it relates to new england and the cultural tradition. Cows, maple syrup, autumn foliage, snow and swimming rivers are easy to succumb to.
These visions, however, though they may be reality for some, are most definitely not for the majority of New Englanders, particulary the Urbanites.
Living in a city, we are aware of these New England "symbols." We see them in pictures, on the television, perhaps we go and visit them from time to time. But our daily lives demand a vision of pavement, traffic, buses, pollution, litter and noise, but also a diversity and richness that is not as prevalent in the northern New England states (though I do have to point out Burlington, VT is much more culturally diverse than say, Augusta or Portland, Maine).
Point being, the agrarian and more "pure" natural worlds of New England are only a part of our tradition and as time moves on, more and more ways of living, habits and "new traditions" are added to our rich history. All of it must be embraced if we are to achieve independence.
So what is it exactly, then, about New England, that we are embracing? We are more than our pastoral farming tradition, Puritan religous background, regional literature and witchcraft. These aspects are a wonderful history of the area, and myth and story play a prominent role in who we are. And more and more is added to this history all the time.
But there is no need to rely simply on these symbols. The urban tradition needs to be embraced, as well. Problems must be pointed out, but good qualities are to be accentuated, as well.
So while, as you say, forming an "affinity" with Vermont is acceptable, we must be very careful as to their own self-vision for their particular state. Each state in New England, as we know, is unique. But what we need to do is draw on our own uniqueness and somehow unite all our different qualities into the one New England we love. Each state is appreciated for its different offerings and states of existence.
When we say "New England," we do not simply want images of farms, cows and maple syrup to come to people's minds. While this may be part of it, we also want images of the world they live in themselves: positive aspects of living in a New England city; what makes Providence and Boston great in the context of its New England locale? How is urban life connected to the farms in Vermont, the suburbs in Massachusetts? I think this is where local economy and production comes into play, because it builds support for each other AND the region.
Perhaps we need to start citing examples of our urban adventures, what makes our New Englad cities great and see where we go from here.
Please, everyone, respond with your thoughts.
Regards,
Delegate Smith
P.S. Perhaps we need to post some thoughts on the upcoming winter storm this weekend on 'Owl Storm.'
