del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
La société du spectacle célèbre la mort de François Mitterrand. Nous, nous célébrons celle de Jean-Edern Hallier, mort le siècle dernier, un 12 janvier. C’était un spectacle à lui tout seul. Retour sur le dernier grand phénomène de cirque de la littérature française avec François Bousquet, auteur de Jean-Edern Hallier ou le narcissique parfait, paru aux éditions Albin Michel, et qui a eu la chance de travailler avec lui à l’époque du « Jean Edern’s club » sur Paris première, quand l’animateur jetait d’un geste augustéen les mauvais livres dont on l’inondait.
Kinship, gift-exchange, honour and feud in Medieval Frisia and Iceland
In this article I want to say a thing or two about a few interrelated ‘processes’ in the Medieval Germanic society. How groups form and how they are maintained and how ‘mechanisms’ such as honour and feudwork. These at first sight varied subjects will prove to be interwoven.
For this article I have used a few books that you will find listed at the bottom. All authors more or less treat parts of the whole, but from different perspectives and speaking about different societies. It seems as if all of these kinds of works owe a great deal to Willam Miller’s Bloodtaking and Peacemaking which is one of the books that I used. Miller is mostly concerned with Medieval Iceland. Another author I consulted is Jos Bazelmans who dived deeply into the Beowulf story and therefor Anglo-Saxon culture. Another Dutch author, Arnoud-Jan Bijsterveld wrote a book about gift-giving mostly concerning people and the Church in the late-medieval Netherlands, a period in which little empires started to arise and this lord-civilian bond is also very present in Bijsterveld’s book. Further I used two articles and last but not least, the inspiration to start this little investigation came from Han Nijdam’s excellent Lichaam, Eer en Recht which is about Medieval Frisian society, with many references to Medieval Iceland.
The individual
Nowdays we speak of an individualistic society, people are atoms in a society and hardly connected to anybody. This was different in times past. In fact, it is not entirely true nowadays either. When you think of who a person is, you think how that person relates to other people to ‘define’ that person. Han Nijdam says: “a person [is] dividable because it is defined in terms of the relationships that he and other members of the society maintains” (Nijdam 50). He continues with a simple example refering to a short film in Sesame Street in which a boy is the newspaper boy for one person, the grandchild of the next and the little brother of the third. The boy is ‘defined’ by the people he relates to. Or the other way around, who he is, depends on the person who describes him.
“If we could abstract a person’s movements and graph them into a network, we would find that the greatest predictor of the identity of the various households in which he or she gained entry, either as visitor or lodger, would be the presence of kin within that household.” William Miller writes (Miller 139), meaning that the visitor would define the persons in the houses he visits by looking at the other people present. Since it still works that way, one can hardly speak of an individual.
So if an individual is defined by his or her surroundings, what are these surroundings? “Family”, “kin”, “sib” , “tribe” perhaps? Just as with an individual, these terms are not so easy to describe, because they too are dependent on the situation. “The oldest Germanic societies that can be reconstructed using historical sources possessed, according to the most widely held opinion, a relatively stable order that was based on the natural principle of blood-relationship. Relationships of descent, whether fictional or not, gave each person a place within the tribal collective.” (Bazelmans 13) On a smaller scale Miller does not only speak of “regional variation[s] in householding practices” (Miller 113), but he continues with saying “that the precise sense of household might change depending on the context in which it is invoked. A household unit as identified for recruitment to the feud is not the same as the household unit used to determine whether someone qualifies for service on a jury or is required to attach himself to a chieftain for the purposes of Thing attendence.” (Miller 114). “Ego-focused kin groupings of shifting composition [...] were quite important in Iceland in a multitude of social and legal settings, even if these groupings were variously constituted depending on a number of personal, social, and other contextual factors and did not include all eligible members. Kinship mattered, even if not all people related to a person felt obliged to assist him or her.” (Miller 140) Or in the words of Jos Bazelmans: “The tribe consisted of a large number of relatively autonomous elements. These were not descent groups in the sense of lineages or clans, but name-bearing groups of disparate size which recruited their members on the basis of kinship and residence in the same geographical area. Each person was not only a member of such corporate, regional groups, but also of an open network of persons related on the father’s or the mother’s side along with dependents (the kindred). Such networks played an important rold especially in the resolution of feuds.” (Bazelmans 3)
“The extend of the kindred, that is, how genealogically distant two people can be and still count each other kin, is formally set in some provisions in the laws at fourth cousins.” (Miller 145) (addition: a fourth cousin is a person of my own generation with whom I share great-great-great-grandparents, in our reckoning that is an 8th grade kinship! Some texts speak of seventh cousins!!)
“Kinship mattered”. But what is a person’s kin? The people he is related to by blood of course, but both in the old and in the current view of things, blood-relations go in two directions, the father’s and the mother’s side. “Bilateralism, the tracing of relationship through links of both sexes, meant that not all a person’s relatives were related to each other. [...] An important feature of bilateral kinship reckoning is that your kin will not entirely coincide with your cousin’s kin; or, from another perspective, you are by virtue of kinship eligible for membership in several different kin groups with different overlap. [...] The kin group, in other words, was not a closed corporation of determinate membership; it did not constitude itself automatically. It always fell to someone to recruit his of her kin for the particular enterprise at hand.” (Miller 155)
You have family on both your father’s and your mother’s side, but the uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces of either side are probably not related to eachother, their kin is different from yours. Therefor the situation exists in which an uncle of both your father’s and mother’s side are called upon, but when one of these uncles invites (or whatever) his kin, he will most likely not ask your other uncle. With that in mind you can only conclude that kinship differs in different situations.
A similar situation goes for “households”, a group of people living in the same house or on the same piece of land under guard of a “householder”. A household is something quite different from kin, since aunts and nieces do not often live in your house and the servants that do, are usually not related by blood. A household surely is a unit of society to take a look at, especially because often it is said that in governmentless society such as in Medieval times there first were separate households:
“Inevitably the attempt was made to add early Iceland to the number of regions that socialized people in nuclear families within simple households. As we shall see, what the sources tell us about the shape of Icelandic householding must compel a different conclusion. The sources, both sagas and laws, are not without their own special problems in this particular topic. For one thing, the laws take an explicit interest in households and even define what constitudes a household unit. But the “juridical” household does not seem to correspond with what archeological evidence there is, nor with saga descriptions of how the main economic unit, the farm, was populated and managed. Outside passages in the laws directly dealing with the legal household, information on householding must be culled from passing comments in the laws and sagas and inferred from contexts devoted explicitly to other matters. The fact that most of our information is acquired incidentally is in its way quite reassuring. Even the most committed member of the Icelandic school of saga scholarschip would have a hard time giving any reason as to why a thirteenth-century saga writer would want to situate his characters in households that had no basis in reality.” (Miller 112/3)
“While the laws formally imposed kinship out to fourth cousins, kinship in the practical or world depended on more than just biological or affinal connections. Just who would be counted kin was clearly subject to much situational variation and was quite context-specific. A second, even a third cousin with whom one shared common interests and with whom one consequently acted or consulted would be counted kin, while a first cousin with whom one was less involved might cease, for practical purposes, to be counted kin at all. Nor might the people with whom one claimed kinship for the purpose of invitations to feasts and weddings be the same people one counted as kin when it came time to assist in a lawsuit or help pay compensation for their wrongdoings.” (Miller 156) Miller calls this “recruitable kin” (Miller 156) and of course the situation is not different nowadays. I suppose the “common interest” could also be with a non-kin version but a friend.
Earlier we saw Jos Bazelmans speaking of “fictional relationships of descent”. This can refer to the famous, but in the used books little described subject of blood-brothership. “Blood-brothership was a formalized relation undertaken between two or more men in which each vowed to avenge the death of the other, just as if he were his own brother.” (Miller 173) And thus a new member of the kin was a fact.
What might sound strange in our logic is that “[i]n various places in the law a sister’s husband is considered an especially close relation. “He is disqualified for interest from sitting on juries and from judging his affine’s cases just as if he were a blood relative.” (Miller 162) This does not count for a wife’s brother!
“People looked to kin and affines for aid in law and life. They avenged each other’s wrongs; they invited each other to weddings and funerals; they gave each other gifts. They stood surety for each other hired on their poorer cousins as servants.” (Miller 178) This had the result that “[o]ne of the chief activities kin undertook with eachother was mutual consultation. Since the target of a vengeance killing might not be the wrongdoer himself, but one of his kin, there was every reason why kin would want to have some say in actions for which others might hold them to account. [...] Uncounseled deeds were considered reckless deeds.” (Miller 164)
The consulting of kin is very different from how things go today. When I do something to somebody, that somebody in most cases will not know my family and if (s)he does,
“
«E mentre la moglie si stringeva a lui, Tom King cercò di ridere di cuore. Lanciò uno sguardo alla stanza nuda, alle spalle di lei: era tutto quel che possedeva al mondo, più un affitto arretrato, una moglie, due bambini. E ora stava per lasciare tutto e uscir fuori, nella notte, in cerca di cibo per la sua femmina e i suoi cuccioli, non come un operaio moderno che si reca alla macchina, ma nel vecchio modo primigenio, eroico, animale: combattendo per il cibo».
Roberto Perrone, scrittore e firma del Corriere della Sera ha definito così il pugilato: «Non si tratta solo di darsi cazzotti. E' una metafora della vita. Devi ballare e menare, essere leggero nei movimenti e pesante nel pugno. Devi scappare ma anche avere coraggio. Hai paura e non ce l'hai. Mi sa tanto di vita vera, di palestre di periferia. Spesso, a guardare certi pugili che vengono da paesi dell'Est o del Sud del mondo, mi rendo conto che è ancora il solo modo per dare alla propria vita una certa dignità. Questo è tragico e al tempo stesso sublime". Tutto questo si ritrova nelle pagine dedicate a questa disciplina dall'autore de Il richiamo della foresta, come spiega Mario Maffi: «Ora, proprio nella capacità di superare le contraddizioni individuali e di andare oltre le dinamiche isolate, personali o collettive, di un momento, di un tempo o di un luogo, per restituirci invece, potentemente e limpidamente, istantanee e affreschi di tensioni sociali e culturali diffuse e ricoorenti, proprio qui risiede il continuo fascino della scrittura di London. Perché, in fondo e ancora una volta, come succede nelle narrazioni mitiche e leggendarie, e con tante opere di quell'epoca convulsa, "de te fabula narratur": è di te (è di noi) che si parla in queste storie».
I will not explain the argument since you would only need to watch the movie, but, indeed, I can assure you it is not all about women’s evil. May be, it is more about the perception of evil in women that dominated Western culture during centuries –let us not forget that some time in history they were even claimed to lack a proper soul-. We have got clear examples of this in Eve, the first one, the one who succumbed to the Serpent in the Garden of Eden; in witches, burnt alive; in nuns and all the heretic tradition within the Western world. You have got plenty of bibliography about these that you can read on your own.
Von Trier makes an extensive use of elements that appear in Fantasy literature but he sets them within a different context –this is similar to Avant-garde Literature-. One might claim he has not been able to reflect that clearly, but in our current market there is a very thin line separating ethics and reflection from endless benefits. Against the predominance of light stupidisation trough products like Avatar -that aims only at commercially viable ecology– only those with real talent are strong enough to survive. This way, there is not really a need for explanation; the story unfolds itself, this is what postmodernism is all about. But this one takes pleasure from aesthetics and thinks beyond catharsis –feeling good about being in the world-.
Né à Vienne en 1926, d’un père dalmate et d’une mère d’origine juive, et mort en toute discrétion en 2002 après avoir vécu entre les États-Unis, l’Allemagne et l’Amérique du sud; prêtre anticlérical, médiéviste joyeusement apatride, érudit étourdissant, sorte d’Épicure gyrovague, polyglotte, curieux, passionné, insaisissable, et touche-à-tout; critique radical, en pensée comme en acte, de la modernité industrielle, héritier de Bernard Charbonneau et de Jacques Ellul, inspirateur d’intellectuels comme Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Mike Singleton, Serge Latouche, Alain Caillé, André Gorz, Jean Robert ou encore des mouvements écologistes, décroissantistes et post-développementistes; hélas aussi figure de proue d’une certaine intelligentsia des années soixante qui ne feuilleta, en général, que Une Société sans école et ne retint de son travail que ce qui pouvait servir ses mauvaises humeurs adolescentes puis, plus tard, ses bonnes recettes libertariennes, Ivan Illich est sans conteste l’un des penseurs les plus originaux, les plus complets, les plus lucides ainsi que les plus mal lus du XXe siècle. 
Dans le premier, Une société sans école, Illich montre que l’école, comme institution, et «l’éducation» professionnalisée, comme logique de sociabilisation, non seulement nuisent à l’apprentissage et à la curiosité intellectuelle, mais surtout ont pour fonction véritable d’inscrire dans l’imaginaire collectif des valeurs qui justifient et légitiment les stratifications sociales en même temps qu’elles les font. Il ne s’agit pas seulement, à l’instar du travail de gauche «classique» de Bourdieu et Passeron, de montrer que l’école reproduit les inégalités sociales, donc qu’elle met en porte-à-faux, stigmatise et exclut les classes sociales défavorisées dont elle est censée favoriser l’ascension sociale, mais de démontrer que l’idée même de cette possibilité ou de cette nécessité d’ascension sociale par la scolarité permet, crée ces inégalités en opérant comme un indicateur d’infériorité sociale. Par ailleurs, l’école et les organismes d’éducation professionnels agissent en se substituant à toute une série d’organes d’éducation propres à la société civile ou aux familles, délégitimant les apprentissages qu’ils procurent. Elle est donc un moyen de contrôle social et non pas de libération des déterminations sociales. Les normes de l’éducation et du savoir, la légitimité de ce que l’on sait faire et de ce que l’on comprend se mettent donc à dépendre d’un programme et d’un jugement mécanique qui forment aussi un écran entre l’individu et sa propre survie ou sa propre valeur. Ce programme est celui de l’axe production/consommation sur lequel se fonde la modernité industrielle. «L’école est un rite initiatique qui fait entrer le néophyte dans la course sacrée à la consommation, c’est aussi un rite propitiatoire où les prêtres de l’alma mater sont les médiateurs entre les fidèles et les divinités de la puissance et du privilège. C’est enfin un rituel d’expiation qui ordonne de sacrifier les laissés-pour-compte, de les marquer au fer, de faire d’eux les boucs émissaires du sous-développement» (1). 
HET NATIONALISME in Italië kent sinds enkele jaren een zeer vernieuwende militante, intellectuele en artistieke activiteit die zich heel uitdrukkelijk op het fascisme beroept. Precies zeven jaar geleden, op 26 december 2003, beslisten jonge Romeinse neofascistische militanten om een leegstaand gebouw in te nemen volgens de door de Italiaanse revolutionaire rechterzijde ontwikkelde strategie van de zogenaamde "Non-conforme bezetting / Bezetting met het oog op huisvesting" (ONC/OSA). "Non-conformiteit" is de duidelijke eis waarmee ze de politieke correctheid over alle onderwerpen afwijst; een eis verheven tot de rang van ware filosofie. De bezetting was erop gericht om de neofascistische jeugd in Rome te voorzien van een ruimte waar ze het sociale en culturele alternatief zou kunnen organiseren dat ze tot dusver moest missen. 
Op artistiek gebied herneemt Casapound in zijn publicaties en affiches de esthetiek van de Italiaanse futuristen uit de jaren ‘20, toen het esthetische uitstalraam van het nationalisme op het schiereiland. Ruimte dus voor de rechte lijnen, de hoeken, de beweging als evocatie van de actie, de energie en de durf, maar ook voor alles wat kan verwijzen naar het heldendom, voorgesteld als opperste deugd van een dagelijkse levenskunst. De boekenwinkel “Testa di Ferro” biedt de werken aan van de grote intellectuele en politieke figuren van de conservatieve revolutie, van Codreanu over Mishima tot Nietzsche. Er zijn ook meer sulfureuze auteurs als Hitler en natuurlijk Mussolini. Opgehangen aan de theorie van het “mediatieke squadrisme”, d.w.z. spectaculaire blits-acties om de leidmotieven van de beweging te verspreiden en indruk te maken op politieke vijanden. Casapound heeft trouwens zijn eigen artistieke beweging: het “turbodynamisme”. Een van de eerste uitvoeringen van deze alternatieve en non-conformistische kunstschool was een retroprojectie van enorme portretten van Robert Brasillach op de muren van Rome. De affiches van Casapound, die vergaderingen, concerten en andere bijeenkomsten aankondigen, worden ook ontworpen volgens die wil om de fascistische esthetiek bijdetijds te maken met de nieuwe creatieve middelen die door de computer worden aangeboden. De scherpste geometrische vormen worden in zwart-wit geplaatst met de portretten van grote mannen uit de geschiedenis van het nationalisme, terwijl ze vrijheid, verbeeldingskracht, kameraadschap en strijdlust verheerlijken. Deze posters zijn nu gemeengoed in sommige delen van Rome en aanvaard door de bevolking. De term "fascistisch" is er normaal geworden dankzij de propaganda-inspanning van Casapound. De stad van de Caesars knoopt geleidelijk aan weer aan met zijn grote politieke traditie, die opnieuw tot leven is gewekt door de jonge generatie. Verlangend om het hart te zijn van een cultureel alternatief voor het conformisme van de burgerlijke linker- en rechterzijde, biedt Casapound verschillende kunstenaars tentoonstellingsruimtes aan, evenals een kunsttijdschrift. "De droom vernieuwen", dat is de voortdurende motivatie van de militanten die onophoudelijk blijven vernieuwen op alle gebieden. Kunst en muziek zijn de twee machtige instrumenten die deze ontwikkeling mogelijk maken; ze bereiken de meeste mensen, in het bijzonder de jongeren.
Casapound weigert mee te doen met het spel van de partijen. De vereniging ziet die laatste als een rem op elke durf, omdat ze in naam van de verkiezingen verplicht zijn zich gematigder op te stellen. Bevrijd van elke gedwongenheid op dit gebied is haar vrijheid des te groter. De vereniging heeft een maandblad: “Occidentale”. Een van de boegbeelden van dat blad is Gabriele Adinolfi; hij leidt ook het Studiecentrum Polaris, waarmee hij vernieuwende politieke voorstellen ontwikkelt. Hij legt ons uit dat zijn strategie aangepast is aan elke doelgroep. Op zijn site “noreporter.org” legt hij zich enkel toe op de actualiteit, daar waar Polaris liever geschiedenis behandelt – en in het bijzonder die van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar dan wel herzien en verbeterd. In zijn lezingen voor Casapound biedt hij zijn raad aan als ervaren fascistische militant; Gabriele Adinolfi heeft 20 jaar in Franse ballingschap moeten leven vanwege zijn engagement tijdens de “loden jaren” in Italië. De meest veelbetekenende doorbraak is misschien die van het Blocco Studentesco – de studentenformatie van Casapound – dat in 2010 bijna 40% van de stemmen in de Romeinse onderwijsinstellingen verzamelde en dit terwijl het zich openlijk op het fascisme beroept. Het is de gewoonste zaak geworden om jongeren van vijftien en zestien jaar, afkomstig uit de volksbuurten, elkaar de Romeinse groet te zien brengen. Begin december verzamelde het Blocco Studentesco drieduizend betogers in de hoofdstad tegen een hervorming van het openbare onderwijs. De stem van Blocco Studentesco is overheersend geworden tegenover een linkse (communistische of sociaaldemocratische) studentenbeweging die niet bij machte is om de algemene trend te stuiten. De vreugde, de jeugd, de scheppingskracht zijn de basisprincipes van een bijna militair gestructureerde beweging. Door de oranje en okeren straten van Rome stapt voortaan een jeugd die opnieuw fier met de zwarte vlag zwaait en zich beroept op de prestigieuze herinnering aan de Romeinse Republiek en haar geestelijke erfgenaam, die het fascisme is. De snelle en organische uitbreiding van Casapound Italia laat een glimp zien van de spectaculaire ideologische en culturele successen binnen de nieuwe Italiaanse generatie. Zoals Gabriele Adinolfi zegt: “Nooit sinds mijn geboorte is het fascisme zo populair geweest in de Italiaanse publieke opinie”. De oogst zal ongetwijfeld gaan naar diegenen die zich aandienen als de “fascisten van het derde millennium” en aantonen dat de dageraard zal komen met een gezonde, verstandige, hedendaagse en onbuigzame radicaliteit. Lange leve Casapound en de camerati!
, and this icing on the cake makes reading this book have a natural rhythm from the extreme, to the professorial, to the radical yet calming.
