Tag Archive for 'gifting attention'

attention liberation: a commitment, a year of practice

what we give attention to grows. what we pay attention to grows.

i am a commitment to attention liberation and reparations.

i am a commitment to being/shining sunlight on everything i want to see grow.

i am a commitment to divesting from anything that isn’t rooted in love.

*

today i am entering a year-long commitment of putting my attention on what i love and want to grow.

i have been heading this way, but still giving too much of my attention to that which i cannot shape, that which i cannot reach. i want to hold my attention as precious sunlight that i bestow on every practice or person or concept that advances the way i believe things should be. i want to affirm that which is done well, and/or is done bravely.

to have enough attention for this focus, i am intentionally removing my attention from those who hurt humanity or the planet, or hurt movements learning and working to protect either of these.

i will practice:

1. meditation.

each day i will practice focusing my attention on my breath through silent meditation and black feminist chanting.

“i am who i am doing what i came to do.”
“the world needs to hear her voice.”
“my people are free.”
“god is change.”

2. centering daily in the commitment of attention liberation. i am a commitment to being/shining sunlight on what i want to grow.

3. redirecting what isn’t mine. i will direct people to a resource page (link coming soon) for folks learning things that are no longer the best focus for my attention.

i will also disengage from gossip at the interpersonal or ‘media’ level. “Be the boss of your business or be bossed by those that can’t mind their own.” – Chani Nicholas

4. find the people already working on the solution.

Wherever there is a problem, there are already people acting on the problem in some fashion. Understanding those actions is the starting point for developing effective strategies to resolve the problem, so we focus on the solutions, not the problems.allied media network principles

i don’t read the news simply to be appalled and then rant about how appalled i am. i stay informed about the world with my attention on (and material support flowing towards) movements and people i believe in. we are the solution.

5. put my attention on growing transformative justice in conflict and grievance. this one is big. and this level of work doesn’t happen on social media.

while purely punitive measures can feel briefly sayisfying, i know they do not work outside of a transformative justice process, at worst recreating/proliferating harm, shame, repression, and isolation; at best making people act right without healing whatever is broken at the root.

once light is shed on a harm, i will participate in tj processes where appropriate, or support by mediating or connecting those involved to someone who can help get them to and through a process of resolution.

if that isn’t possible (for instance, if both/all parties are not willing to participate in a process in good faith) i will hold and support strong boundaries, wish all parties the sacred work of transformation, and keep it moving.

i will not give attention to continuous case building against people or institutions where i do not see a commitment to resolution and transformation.

6. i will report back on new year’s eve of 2018, on what i learned through this practice.

wish me luck, and/or join me.

bonus: emergent strategy mantras

i am no victim of life; i shape change.
we are not victims of circumstance; we shape change.

i practice what i want to become.
we practice what we want to create.

i am a microcosm of all the possible justice, liberation, pleasure and honesty in the universe, and i act accordingly.

i remember that i exist only in relationship to other people and systems.

i accept that i cannot change others, but i can hold standards for my own life.

i willingly engage in and support transformative justice processes for accountability and getting in right relationship.

i create more possibilities in the face of scarcity thinking.

i act from and towards love.

the will to forget

i am trying to see if i can forget certain things – certain people in history who have been misremembered as being really amazing and worth having their names known. i feel like getting to be known in history is this beautiful thing which certain people shouldn’t get.

at least, not forever.

especially not bad people – i feel like people responsible for great violence either get lauded as evil mastermind geniuses or as heroes because all their secrets are kept.

when there is a bad person, the blame for the violence that humans wreak on each other and the planet under evil reign is sort of delegated to that person. so we don’t have to take responsibility for what happened, what is happening, the way we respond to it, the way we benefit.

and i’m learning through relationship with elders that remembering is an ultimate honoring, it’s what the ambitious among us are trained to long for: to matter in history.

we can’t go back, to my knowledge, but can we just take that away from the genocidal dictators and tyrants of time? can we say – what you participated in was wrong, you don’t get to matter anymore, you don’t get a float with parades, or to be associated with an awesome day off – we are moving forward with our scars, but without you.

who gets the privilege of forgetting?
who has the will?

this is something i am just beginning to think.

but for instance, today is a federal holiday in this country, every year we celebrate a mythology built around a man who got lost and then sparked the genocide of indigenous people of the americas – we celebrate him as an explorer/discoverer. the year before i was born, in 1977, another day was born, indigenous people’s day.

if anything get’s celebrated today, it should be that day.

and/or, rather than lifting up one ignorant man, today could be a day when everyone reflects on how we are still reaping the benefits of the genocidal founding of this country. not to wallow in our shame, but for integenerational accountability, to place ourselves in the context of reality.

i know this genocidal inheritance strategy is not romantic in the way nations like.

and anyway, i also love the idea of just forgetting him altogether, or reducing him. remembering that there were many many colonizers, many people who practiced genocide, and that we are living with the multitudinous results of that. but letting him fade into the masses of that violence, not singling him out as a hero or a villian. letting him disintegrate into history – would that be some transformative justice?

today i made lots of plans for work, with other people. work calls, meetings. and in none of the scheduling, and in none of the calls, did we say the name of this holiday, not even to say, “i don’t celebrate [mythological genocidal hero] day”. we weren’t self-congratulatory or self-righteous, just working hard.

where anything was mentioned, it was indigenous people’s day.

my little world.

this day made me wish that indigenous people had so much more of our collective time and attention and love than (a percentage of some people) reclaiming a day…and that the day they do have was on another day totally unassociated with this one.

it made me long in my bones for the authentic now that will allow us to truly let go of the lies of then, with which we are often building and rebuilding the narrative of our american superiority.

it made me long for the humility that admits mistakes, apologizes for violence, honors elders and heals in community.

it’s connected to gifting my attention. what we give our attention to grows. the choice to remember the politics, the social context, the pain – and to forget the person who did it – is a choice. to stop giving him our attention, to unfurl a massive no that means yes: yes we can have a new story for what this place is, and why, and where we are going as a species, towards connectivity, love, resilience.

i am just beginning to think these kind of thoughts but they come from a long line of recoiling from national holidays and hero mythologies. in real life, i have never seen someone both utterly solitary and successful. we lean on each other, we support each others worst and embrace each others best. we remember each others likes and loves and needs, and we care for each other.

we forget what does not serve us. we forget lost men and remember found communities, found histories, found people.

i’m starting to speak definitively again, from my longing.

what i mean is: is this possible?

love beyond sovereignty: a discussion

(the following dialogue is from a facebook conversation launched by jenny lee, in which micha cardenas and i participated deeply for a night. our friends emi, jon, invincible, morgan and leah were also participating with likes and bravos. i asked permission to repost the conversation here because it was a joyful noise! i only edited out the parts where we went on tangents focused on “you’re awesome and i love you OMG!!!”)

jenny lee posts:
“When we engage in love we abandon at least a certain type of sovereignty. In what ways would sovereignty not be adequate in explaining a social formation that was grounded in love? If we were to think of the sovereign as the one who decides, in the social relation of love there is no one who decides. Which does not mean that there are no decisions but, rather, that there would be a non-one who decides. That seems like a challenging and interesting question: what is a non-sovereign social formation? How is decision-making then arrived at? These are the kinds of things that require modes of organization; that require, if not institutions, customs, or habits, at least certain means of organizing the decision-making process. In a politics of love, one of the interests for me is a non-sovereign politics, or a non-sovereign social formation. By thinking love as political, as somehow centrally involved in a political project, it forces us to think through that non-sovereignty, both conceptually, but also practically, organizationally.” – Michael Hardt on love as a political concept

Micha: So do we not decide whether or not to love, or to “fall in love”? Is there a decision to love?

Jenny: i think so. especially a decision of *how* we love. we’re trained not to exercise our agency in determining whether or not and how to love. it seems important to make that distinction between agency and sovereignty.

Micha: oooh, good point! I think we have a choice to some degree. It makes me think of being polyamorous and the way that you can choose to give more attention to someone and know that will lead you to have more feelings for them, or you can choose to manage those feelings and try not to get swept up if you don’t want to. But I think there is often not a choice to fall in love with someone, but there can still be agency in how you react to your feelings, and that’s the hard part to learn.

Micha: reminds me of Adrienne’s blog post gifting my attention – ‘what we give our attention to grows’

adrienne maree: yes, it also really brings up the idea of impact. in the positive use of the concept of sovereignty I have always seen an assumption that the goal is decisions are made by those who are impacted by those decisions. a sovereign nation is led by the people of that nation, ie, we long for the sovereignty of Detroit. but in truth, interdependence means we are all to some degree impacted by each others’ ‘sovereign’ actions, whether or not we want to be. so in a love politic I think one piece of it is attending to impact, within ourselves, and the impact we have on others. this is not the absence of decisions, but the decentralization of decisions and of holding the impact of those decisions. so that when I say I am in love, I mean my community is holding love through me, with me, and at some point I will hold love for others, as we all grow and decide our futures together. utopia? or just the basis for a survival that feels both thrilling and possible and not boring :-)

Jenny: yes! decentralization feels fundamental to non-sovereignty. if we understand sovereignty as the establishment of a center, around which identity forms and decision-making processes flow (like we are a ‘sovereign nation’ because we invest power in a certain leadership entity who we then expect to act in our best interest). a more participatory model of governance would require an investment in the power of our relationships. when those relationships are authentic and rooted in love, trust, etc. there’s less of a need to abdicate decision-making to a representative.

Micha: hmm, but Jenny, love can also mask when someone is making poor or unhealthy decisions on your behalf…i love what berlant says in this interview (and everywhere else) “I think sovereignty is a bad concept for almost anything. It’s an aspirational concept and, as often happens, aspirational concepts get treated as normative concepts, and then get traded and circulated as realism. And I think that’s what happened with sovereignty. So, in ‘Slow Death’ I say we should throw sovereignty out. But people are so invested in it [so] maybe we can’t because you can’t just decide ghosts don’t exist. You have to find a way to change something from within. There’s another way of going at this that also has to do with a different relation to incoherence. Part of the reason I think that queer theory and love theory are related to each other as political idioms, is that queer theory presumes the affective incoherence of the subject with respect to the objects that anchor it or to which they’re attached… Training in one’s own incoherence, training in the ways in which one’s complexity and contradiction can never be resolved by the political, is a really important part of a political theory of non-sovereignty.” but perhaps her disavowal of sovereignty is a very privileged statement, considering indigenous and latin american struggles for centuries over sovereignty…

Jenny: but in that case is it *real love* ? (in the mary j. blige conception of real love)

Micha: omfg i already heard the song in my head before i got to your parentheses – but it seems to me like part of the value of including love in one’s political organizing is to decenter love from a heteronormative one and only forever kind of love and expand it into a more collective affect. i’m afraid mary’s version is more about one person, “i thought you were the answer to the question in mind”, but maybe it’s radically utopian instead!

Jenny: about that contradiction between the ideal of non-sovereignty and the fact of centuries of violation of indigenous peoples’ sovereignty — Invincible Detroit and i were saying today, it’s nearly impossible to relinquish your need for sovereignty, in the face of someone constantly trying to take your shit. but i guess that’s the aspiration: towards a collective risk-taking that could result in either part’s demise, or the liberation of both.

adrienne maree: I think any time we are talking about love it is a privilege…to me this is because ‘real love’ is fundamentally abundant and abundance is the true privilege (striving for abundance of space and life and growth vs abundance of material decay of course) and also talking love and love politic is incredibly necessary work, one of the ways we are accountable to each other in the realm beyond shared victimhood…another piece to throw in here is related to that normative aspect, our socialization around what is normal…what is normal to dream of, strive for and build? once we see our socialization, can we assess ‘normal’ and embrace or reject it? and how do we practice intentional new form, such as a love politic, in an environment where we are socialized towards sovereignty, isolation and ownership as modes of everything from pets to children to lovers to land? especially without rejecting, patronizing or dismissing the very real emotional investment our loved ones have in the ‘norms’?

adrienne maree: also the real love is all good, but how much can we have? I’m aiming for a series of ‘the one’s. a wise friend recently told me she aims to feel that ‘in love’-ness once a year. really reframed my thinking. decentralizing oneness!