[matilda] Re: Defilding Matina

[Mr Jase Malgod]

I agree with Chris that there is no point having these statements if they 
are not going to be stuck to. There does seem to a movement to try and do 
too much with this definition stuff. I like the visions and introductions 
that have been laid out but wouldn't expect myself to sign up to them 
anymore than I expect to sign up to the glossy brochure advertising where I 
work. There is a rule and an ethos about where I work, but that is not 
'selling' the service. I think there are many ways to present and promote 
Matilda because the space will (hopefully) be different things to different 
people. I don't think we all have to agree how to do that because I don't 
think that will happen. 

I had hoped that the guiding statement be rather short and general. 
Concentrating on particular structures or prejudices both limits our 
perception of the space and other people's. I would suggest, in absolute 
entirity, something like: 

Rejection of all social and economic structures that exploit, repress and 
dehumanise us; 

Rejection of the prejudices which distort our vision, supporting equality of 
freedom for all people; 

Sharing the power that we have amongst everyone so that we all have the 
ability to play a part in creating the lives we want to live; 

Taking action to make alternatives happen rather than waiting for the 
powerful to do something. 


If a short set of rules are the guiding statements for Matilda then I do not 
see the problem. For instance a party should be part of sharing out power, 
or taking action, and so on. A party in the interests of funding Matilda 
would do that, but too many parties would place the space at risk, or take 
away the priority from activities to acheive these aims directly. Direct 
action in all its forms would be fine, but violent direct action would come 
up against the power principle, it would mean a lot of thought about where 
actions were placed in the structure, but a lot of thought should be given 
to such things. 

In other words, there is a risk of being too prescriptive and coming up with 
a statement which is redundant at the next meeting, or bangs its head 
against hard reality. Something short and to the point could act as a 
reminder, a guidance for actions acceptable in the space, without being 
arbitrarily limiting or off-putting to people. Much of what happens in the 
space will still have to be negotiated, the definition should just be there 
to help. 

Jason 

 

Chris Malins writes: 

Just a thought. An email a little while ago (I forget who from) suggested 
that although the World Bank claims 'Our dream is a world without poverty' 
and is manifestly not contributing to such a world, the existence of 
hypocrisy in the mission statements of other bodies is not a reason for 
Matilda not to have a mission statement. The PGA hallmarks are quite a 
profound statement of intent, which I find exciting but also am not 
convinced match the vision and future of Matilda.
We have to decide whether we are going to force the arch-capitalists like D 
amongst us into being part of the same type of hypocrisy we have decried in 
the World Bank - there has certainly been the implication that we should 
expect those who disagree with PGA to graciously accept it. Or 
alternatively, whether we are going to make our commitment to the PGA 
hallmarks a genuinely profound one, and start to really look at what Matilda 
is being used for, with an aim to cropping out such activities as are 
irrelevant or contrary to the PGA hallmarks. Personally, I think that if 
Matilda is to have a mission statement, it should be something that we act 
by, rather than a glossy cover note to put on the internet and impress the 
rest of the movement. But a genuinely meaningful statement of intent is 
bound to question the relationship between the artistic and radical intent 
of the building, and my understanding has always been that (although likely 
to be moderately self-selecting) there was no requirement on artists asking 
for space that their work or intent should coincide with other members' 
political aims. 

The long and short of it is that we should ask ourselves, 'Will the PGA 
Hallmarks change how we act', and if we say no, then we are as hypocritical 
as the WB if we adopt them. 

Chris 

gavin at cyber-rights.net wrote: 

"No, exactly: my point was that, given the perceptions of direct action 
withinand without the movement, we could do with articulating what *our* 
vision of direct action is.  E.g. by saying things like "it can include 
writing your own news stories, about what's going on in your community.""
I hope my point about matilda BEING direct action goes some way towards 
this. I think our presentation of 'what we are' should include this kind of 
'friendly' definition, but can do that by saying matilda is direct action 
(maybe 'direct community action'?), and then defining it in terms like I 
gave? 

At the same time, I think it's important not to get too bound up with 
responding to the mass media's sterotypes of the brick through the window, 
otherwise they've got us playing their game...dancing to their tune and 
obsessed with defending ourselves instead of just SHOWING how we're not 
simply like that by acting positively in our local community, which will 
have a greater effect in demonstrating the essential human decency of direct 
action. 

xxx 


On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:43:53 -0700 dan at aktivix.org wrote: 

Allo again 

*What* Direct action? *What* civil disobedience? 


Well I agree there isn't much happening in Sheffield but
what about the sit down protests on the anti-war and g8
demos, what about things like 9 Ladies etc... 


All true - but I'm still a little puzzled by saying that direct action and 
civil
disobedience is the default MATILDA setting.  It sounds to me like 

 

saying we'll
always use a hammer, regardless of whether we're banging nails in 


or opening a
tin of beans. 

.. contains two totally different strands, as far as I'm
concerned.  I don't want to intimidate, harrass or
sabotage. 


Sure, me neither, but just because it says this on the
Wikipedia it doesn't mean we have to do it does it! 

 

No, exactly: my point was that, given the perceptions of direct action 
within
and without the movement, we could do with articulating what *our* 

 

vision of
direct action is.  E.g. by saying things like "it can include writing your 
own
news stories, about what's going on in your community."
I don't think this is just nit-picking - it could make a profound difference 
to
how MATILDA is accepted within communities around Sheffield.  And *that* 
could
make or break any hopes we have of a long-term future, as well as be vital 
to
getting more people both involved, and accepting and understanding 

 

of where
we're coming from.
If we want the idea of doing for yourself to spread, we need to break the
association in people's minds between direct action and smashing McDonald's
windows.  That really, really, isn't going to get us anywhere. 

I agree with J's idea for MATILDA - it should be doing stuff out there: not 
just
inward-looking.  So we need to be able to convince others, through 

 

both our
actions and words.
Maybe? 

Dan 


_______________________________________________
matilda mailing list
matilda at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda 

 


Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net 

_______________________________________________
matilda mailing list
matilda at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda 


_______________________________________________
matilda mailing list
matilda at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda