I’ve written my master thesis in Contextual Design on the topic of political extremism and have, in the context of my research, made an effort to personally identify and thereby understand what ‘extremism’ is. I’ve analysed cases of so-called extremists such as Anders Breivik, Pussy Riot and Femen and have come to the conclusion that from the ‘extremist’s’ perspective whatever they choose to do comes accross as logical and well-founded while others might perceive their actions as ‘extreme’ or ‘out-of-line’.
On the example of Anders Breivik, who is commonly described as a Norwegian extreme right-wing, islamophobic mass murderer, I’ve read and performed his court statement and have analysed his arguments. I thoroughly disagree with his opinions and his actions but have learned that his argumentation follows rational logic and that his actions were conclusions of his thinking. I will refrain from demonstrating what I mean exactly since I don’t want to reiterate his argumentation but I can say that his logic follows causal chains of arguments. ‘If one thing is the case, then this follows; if this follows, then that is the case.‘ Through an analytical process of reading and re-enacting I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘extremists’ act on their convictions. Thinking and doing are in line.
The cases of Pussy Riot and Femen come from a different political and social sphere: Pussy Riot, a Russian punk band which performed an ad hoc performance in an active Russian church and Femen, a group of female activists who make an effort to stand up patriarchal political and social structures by applying aggressive techniques of demonstrating which originated in the Ukraine. Within their social contexts both Pussy Riot and Femen are regarded as extremists from the perspective of the ‘mainstream’. In the West instead both groups are celebrated as liberating forces. Apparently, ‘extremism’ is a relational term. Depending on the perspective one looks from, the other’s actions are judged. If they’re outside of what ‘the mainstream’ considers ‘normal’ the acting individual is labelled. From the perspective of the mainstream the outsider’s actions might be extreme. From the perspective of the outsider the mainstream’s beliefs and actions might be far from what they consider as ‘normal’.
Another example: A person is thoroughly convinced that the exploitation of animals for consumption is wrong. Their moral standards are firm and the disagreement with industrial mass breeding and torturous exploitation of animals guides their ethics. They actively withdraw from their role within the cycle of consumption tied to industrial parties exploiting animals. From their perspective, a personal casually eating a burger is insanely cruel, given the fact that educational information about food production methods are widely available. From the other’s perspective, the vegan is ‘extreme’ since they act differently than what one has been traditionally educated to regard as healthy nutrition. It depends on the social context one is situated within which makes one or the other belief appear as ‘normal’ or ‘extreme’.
The other day I had a discussion with a friend and an aquainance while having dinner together in the context of a project about dialogical communication and radical criticality. We go into the discussion where each other’s boundaries lay in terms of accepting otherness. The aquaintance asked me how I would react if Adolf Hitler walked into the room. Earlier, I had spoken about making an effort to listen to others and to try and be inclusive in my actions. Then, being confronted with the scenario of a thoroughly hateful person trying to engage with a situation I had been part of, I couldn’t envision myself accepting the presence of this individual. I would have acted in order to make him leave. My friend, instead, said that she would have offered him a plate of the food she had cooked for everyone since she believes that showing this individual love would have a positive effect on his attitude towards others. She’s convinced that her love could make him overcome his hate. People can change, can they?
Later, we spoke about the example I mentioned above, the minority of vegans in a world of meat-eaters and vegetarians. I said that, being a vegan, I can stand the sight of my father eating meat. I don’t hate him for being different than I am. The aquaintance responded: “Then you’re not radical in your beliefs.” Here, things start to be complicated. Which beliefs do I evaluate as more or less important? I am grateful to my father and do sincerely love him but I also believe that animals should be respected equally to humans. I believe in personal freedom but can’t accept hateful behaviours. I believe in complexity.
So, let’s get to the topic of squatting. I’ve discovered the practice of squatting during my studies in London, have started hanging out with friends in squats, participated in workshops and events and curiously learned about the Everyday choices squatters made. A quick Internet search brings up this definition of squatting: Squatting is the action of unlawfully occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building. The law defines what’s ‘normal’ in this case and the mainstream will agree that if one doesn’t own a building or doesn’t have permission to use it, it’s wrong to make use of it. On the other hand, it seems logical to make use of a space if it’s not in use. ‘Not in use’ is the central term here. Or, if one doesn’t believe in ‘individual property’ as such, official owners of a property don’t hold authority. Or, one essentially disagrees with the economical split of society and doesn’t want to accept labels of ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’. Instead of passively accepting their position in minority squatters empower themselves to take action independent of what the mainstream of society might consider ‘normal’.
Again, things are complicated and individuals might act differently in apparently similar situations. Consider: A building has been empty for 5 years, the owners are a company of property developers who are speculating for the value of the ground to increase over time and have left the building to decay. Or: A building has been empty for 3 months, private owners are doing renovation and maintenance work on the building and are actively looking to sell through an agency. In both cases buildings are empty but the second case shows that’s it’s actually still ‘in use’. Practices of squatting which I consider as responsible and ethically acceptable involve a lot of research on a property’s context and sensitivity to one’s position in relation to others. In line with my initial analysis of the term ‘extremism’ I believe that one’s actions should follow one’s convictions but do accept that things are generally of complex nature.
I don’t believe that squatting per se is good or bad just as I don’t believe that anything can be generalised to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I believe in analytical thinking, emotional sensitivity and situational ethics.
Having said this, I feel like it’s of utter importance to further reflect upon the terms of ‘mediocrity’ and ‘radicality’. These are terms which I relate judgement to but so was the term ‘extremism’ before I critically analysed its meaning.
EDIT: I’ve just found this video of Madonna and Steven Klein’s project “Secret Project” which seems to fit perfectly to the topic. Might write a separate piece about this: https://youtu.be/uXfXrl4K2D4
