The Time-Space of Tent City | Breaking Free From A Postmodern Stranglehold

bill ottman, 2008 (re-edited in 2011)

the only capitalization used in this essay will be in direct quotations from other writers, and the titles of their works.

this is an evolution of all meanings of capitalization and socialization in order to help adapt society to new, more multi-dimensional concepts and also utilize practical application to integrate lowercase consciousness into the collective psyche. it is not saying one way or the other is appropriate because social capital is hybridizing with itself in a way that transitions into a highly advanced, abundant and compassionate matrix as opposed to the standard us versus them scenario which denies our connections to each other. people can be wealthy and take care of each other. is this not obvious with known breakthrough energy systems coming out? (free energy electromagnetics, cold fusion, anti-gravity, zero point, etc.)

of course capital letters are neutral in their essence, like all other symbols, but the lack of grammatical freedom is significant. it is a protest of both the ‘laws’ of the english language, and unconscious capitalism as a social structure. i hypothesize that the unconscious act of capitalizing letters fuels the global false ego itself by placing great emphasis on individual names, and institutions, thus supplying those names with greater worth, and subliminally injecting the masses with unconscious idolization of capital.

the content of this essay is deeply connected with current interplaying capital models, making it a convenient space for such a protest within a protest, but ideally, i will never capitalize my writing again due to linguistic laws, but rather based on my own desire to emphasize passages. in fact, i can say that i will certainly submit to the rules in the future, however damaging that might be to my character and to society as a whole.

the general question before me is, “what time-space does tent city occupy?” (sentence written in 2008. occupy is not new, but it is rapidly rising) i will answer this question both literally, in terms of where it is physically located on the university of vermont campus in relation to other structures and what the significance of that is, and also in terms tent city’s position both within and outside of this stage of late capitalism that has been labeled as postmodernism by fredric jameson. postmodernism might also be referred to as the system that we are currently operating in. for those new to the field, in jameson’s Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism he states that postmodernism is,
“the force field in which very different kinds of cultural impulses – what Raymond Williams has usefully termed “residual” and “emergent” forms of cultural production – must make their way.” (jameson)

and also that,

“this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout class history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and terror.” (jameson)

as for the main project of this paper, the time-space of tent city is located at the university of vermont, basically every year. as of this moment, it is not physically standing on campus (after being forced down by the administration), but it has been, in the past decades, located on various green spaces around campus, built by students for peace and global justice, and the student labor action project for the purpose of protesting non-livable wages at the university, and eventually the more general irresponsible financial investments of the institution through extended occupation of whatever green space is permitted. the intention here is not to be perceived as ‘socialist’ or ‘anarchist’ or ‘conscious capitalist’ but to provide an interpretation of events and possibilities for a more comprehensive understanding of value, system design and world energetic architecture.

permission is one of the key ideas here when placing tent city either inside or outside of the postmodern totality. the fact that the protestors, as i will label them, have obtained permits for the last three years in order to conduct their programs, immediately places them within the sphere of late capitalism, and not outside. this is not to say that entrance into the system is necessarily negative, but the operation of tent city inside the system has converted it into a product of postmodernism that has been commodified and sold just like any other good. jameson states in his essay,

“What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to aeroplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation.” (jameson)

when we look at tent city, a conglomeration of tarps, ropes, banners, tents, chairs, cardboard, and so on, it is fairly clear that the protestors are not looking to profit financially from the aesthetic production that they created. though, some of the main goals of tent city are to increase wages for all uvm workers and gain community support, which in a sense means that the protestors were, and are aiming to sell their product of protest. this kind of backwards phenomenon where protestors actually become their enemy is interesting, but doesn’t fully work because under this same logic, any attempt to spread an idea turns into the process of commodification. the cycle returns to intention being the key as opposed to brand.

the more obvious conversion of tent city into a commodity, though, is seen through the administration’s use of it as a sale’s pitch to lure in newly admitted students, showing them what a great activist community we have. there is an automatic mechanism in place devouring threatening objects immediately, and wrapping them in the plastic packaging to be put on display with the rest of the stock. after these years of observing tent city, it is apparent that the protest has become institutionalized. the administration uses the protest as a chance to generate more capital for the institution. (we notice how obama and many other mainline democratic groups are attempting to hijack the occupy wall street in a similar manner)

in defense of the protestor’s submission to the permit process, i will say that it was done for the purpose of educating the community about the issues, and also so that the program would be allowed to take place. had students for peace and global justice not obtained the permit, they would have been forced from the premises by police services immediately, and the demonstration would never have happened. this was an unfortunate situation for the protestors, and it is understandable why they submitted, but they do also oppose the permit process and policy in place, meaning that it would be smart, in the future, to more directly address this issue either by attempting to build a camping community without a permit or working within the system to make the policy change to their liking. the chances, though, of convincing the ones in power to abolish their policy is incredibly unlikely.

the university also just built a near $70,000,000 structure called the dudley h. davis center, which directly faces tent city in the library quad. the two structures oppose each other, but also share similar ideals, making it an interesting relationship to examine. before addressing the architecture of this building and tent city, i will quote jameson because his architectural concepts will surely help clarify this discussion. he says,

“It is in the realm of architecture, however, that modifications in aesthetic production are most dramatically visible, and that their theoretical problems have been most centrally raised and articulated; it was indeed from architectural debates that my own conception of postmodernism – as it will be outlined in the following pages – initially began to emerge.” (jameson)

pictured below are three structures that face each other. from left to right and top to bottom they are; tent city, the bailey/howe library, and the dudley h. davis center, more commonly known as the davis center. i won’t be able to delve too deeply into the role of bailey/howe library right now, which stands between tent city and the davis center, almost acting as a type of mediator, but its presence is worth noting. for some orientation, tent city faces the davis center standing in a spot not too far back from the location where the following photograph of the davis center was taken.

the university of vermont even goes so far as to build glass showcases dedicated to older social justice movements initiated by past students protesting against them, furthering this process of commodifcation, but also bringing in this postmodern idea of nostalgia.

these shrines to the past are located in the the davis center, otherwise known as an epitamy of postmodern architecture. when i said earlier that the davis center and tent city share ideals, that is only based on their mission statements, not necessarily in terms of their shown practices or levels of authenticity.

the davis center is far from actually fulfilling its stated values of sustainability and social justice, while tent city is actively working to bring that very that accountability and authenticity about. thousand dollar-a-piece justice signs are about as deep as the social justice goes in the davis center. sodexho, the food provider for the university, operates within the davis center, paying the lowest wages on campus...yes, the building is among the most sustainable for buildings of its size (leed certification), but that doesn’t change the fact that it is an enormous structure constantly consuming excessive amount of energy and resources. it does, though, have the potential, just as uvm does, to radically change its practices and become a truly green and socially just institution.

the nostalgia present in the architecture is pretty obvious from these pictures. i say that in regards to both tent city and the davis center. this feeling only intensifies upon entrance these environments...

one such protest of the past longed for by both tent city and the davis center is that of shanty town. both architectural bodies enshrine this student movement, but at totally different depths, with the level of the davis center’s dedication to student activism being much more shallow.

shanty town took place in the 1980s on another of the main university green spaces, aiming to divest from the south african apartheid regime. students modeled shanty town after the living conditions and communities present in south africa. they remained camped until achieving their goal when the board of trustees finally voted in favor of divestment.

with the idea of use of past images in postmodern architecture, this is now a productive point to intervene with one of the main characteristics that jameson attributes to postmodernism that he calls,

“a new depthlessness, which finds its prolongation both in contemporary “theory” and in a whole new culture of the image or the simulacrum; a consequent weakening of historicity, both in our relationship to public History and in the new forms of our private temporality, whose “schizophrenic” structure (following Lacan) will determine new types of syntax or syntagmatic relationships in the more temporal arts; a whole new type of emotional ground tone – what I will call “intensities” – which can best be grasped by a return to older theories of the sublime.” (jameson)

it is uncanny that the word intensities arises because it is has been a word used by the protestors to refer to their presence in tent city, and the intensity of the experience. here is a short quotation from a poem written by one of the protestors about tent city.

now gathered
in a slap bunker
saw den of students
for peace and glob
al just ice built
by kids in tents
with intents to ease
the tense conditions
of the working class

intense… (anonymous, disorientation guide)

in terms of the protestor’s relationship to history, and the history of tent city, it may be true that they have not learned sufficiently from the forms of protest of earlier movements, but that isn’t to say that they have not studied those forms. in fact, many of the protestors are studying mass movements and social change as intensely as any students in the world. it’s hard to fully gauge the success of the demonstration. it was unsuccesful in attaining either of its main goals, but it generated a great amount of discussion and informed the entire community of the issues. it would be difficult to have no idea about tent city as a member of the uvm community.

thinking of tent city as using the image of shanty town in such a shallow or depthless way is problematic, but that isn’t to say it isn’t happening at all. tent city is operating in a tradition of activism at uvm, and so to call the use of a similar image depthless is taking it too far. there is a significant difference between objects that blatantly rip off the face of some older idea, and an object that meaningfully and rightfully has elements of the older image within it. this same distinction can be found in the relationship between what is tacky and what is tasteful, even though the terms are entirely subjective and based on personal opinion.

if anything, the depthlessness in tent city can be found in its relationship to past tent cities, not to shanty town. one of the most interesting things about the three week occupation this year was that there were only tents there for half of the time. the reasoning for this was a combination of camping policy issues, and also a lack of energy from those hosting the protest. after two weeks, and upon entering the third permit, the protestors voluntarily dismantled their structure and caged all of the contents to symbolically represent the oppressive nature of the policies of the administration. tent city consciousness is undoubtedly a pervasive phenomenon on earth and is constantly emerging and fading in physicality and awareness.

in its history, tent city has been a demonstration for livable wages for all workers at uvm. for the first week of its existence this year, that is what it was, but the permit ended, and no livable wages had come, so slap (student labor action project) decided to join together with students against war (saw) in solidarity, asking saw to renew the permit (because no group is allowed to have consecutive permits). hereafter, the goals of tent city extended out to include divestment from war profiteers such as general dynamics, raytheon, halliburton, lockheed, etc.. there was an increasing demand for tent city to be an open space to bring true social justice to uvm in all different areas. this move marks a break in the meaning of tent city, or maybe it would be better labeled, a point of evolution.

before tent city began this year members of slap, saw,, student government association, labor unions, the faculty, staff, and outside community gathered in none other than the davis center at an event called gathering of the minds. at this event there was near full consensus that the issues of divestment (socially responsible investing) and livable wages are closely connected, both having to do with university spending and its authenticity as a socially just institution. the continuation of events such as these in the space of the davis center is incredibly important because they give the building its legitimacy. social justice meetings and events must occur within its walls. otherwise, the branding is entirely false.

returning, though, to the issue of positioning tent city in the postmodern sphere that jameson describes, much of the previous analysis could fall under his ideas concerning simulacrum and also his interpretation of pastiche. jameson states,

"Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique, idiosyncratic style, the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language. But it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without any of parody's ulterior motives, amputated of the satiric impulse, devoid of laughter" (jameson)

as applied to the davis center, this statement is entirely true. postmodern architecture feels weak, unable to fully grasp feelings of the past. it is an uncomfortable blend of ideas and is definitely not funny. the feeling that one has inside the davis center aligns closely with what jameson is talking about. this next quotation of jameson’s directly applies to the davis center and some of its intentions:

“Of all the arts, architecture is the closest constitutively to the economic, with which, in the form of commissions and land values, it has a virtually unmediated relationship. It will therefore not be surprising to find the extraordinary flowering of the new postmodern architecture grounded in the patronage of multinational business, whose expansion and development is strictly contemporaneous with it.” (jameson)

sure, the davis center has some useful qualities. it could just as easily be a building dedicated to nothing but corporate interest. it could be an all out consumer mall, and while it isn’t, it is walking on a very fine line separating it from one. the underlying motive for profit is fully apparent meaning that the mask of social justice is turning out to be transparent.

as for the pastiche of tent city, i’m struggling to see it in jameson’s light, mainly because i am one of the protestors, but also because, in terms of architecture, tent city was hardly planned or drawn out. of course, the presence of past ideas can be seen in the creation, but is this not true of absolutely everything? there were many old objects in tent city, but it was not made to look old. it is probably true that we are clinging to past protest and social movement like frightened children, but is it necessarily negative in the context of tent city, which is attempting to bring about change within the system? is it a flaw to desire social change and to try to bring it about through occupation of time and space? what other options are there?

ah, i see. i’ve forgotten about our existence in the system, in the permit. that may be the most pressingly called for change, the permit policy, and the refusal to work with the unconstitutional policy.

now, thinking about the space of tent city more in terms of the protestors, where we stand in this whole scheme, and what our ultimate goals are as a part of a movement, joel handler offers some ideas about new social movements in his article, “Postmodernism, Protest, and the New Social Movements.” he says,

“These movements advocate a new form of citizen politics based on direct action, participatory decisionmaking, decentralized structures, and opposition to bureaucracy. They advocate greater attention to the cultural and quality-of-life issues rather than material well-being.” (719, handler)

all of these listed traits seem quite representative of the groups involved in tent city. in fact, his description is almost spot on, but he follows with a critique of these movements,
“There is no comprehensive design of a just order as the necessary and desirable outcome of revolutionary or reformist change.” (720, handler)

when it comes down to it, handler may be right considering the lack of success of these movements. what is the grand design or plan? peace? global justice? are these not comprehensive enough goals? what would be considered a comprehensive design? attempting to get my mind around this, i think handler is saying that the lack of a grand narrative of these groups is what makes them postmodern, and so he advocates moving beyond postmodernism. what is difficult to grasp is how postmodernism can be the totalizing structure and lack of a grand vision at the same time.

patricia ewick, in an article called “Postmodern Melancholia,” written in direct response to handler, says,
“Handler seems open, if not to the possibilities of postmodernity, to the possibilities of getting out of postmodernity.” (756, ewick)

one of the main arguments in his essay is that all of the small acts of rebellion cause the revolution to be dispersed, thus unsuccessful. he suggests that all the energy be channeled into one overarching cause, which may be a useful idea, but it isn’t exactly an easy thing to do to get everyone in the movement on board. here, ewick comments on this perspective of handler’s, turning it around to show how the small acts can often be the most influential,

“It is a distinctive quality of these mundane resistance practices that, if successful, they are likely to elude our gaze. Thus, it would not be surprising if social scientists had, in collecting our data and constructing our theories, been overlooking these subversive practices all along. Indeed, the point of such tactics—what makes them at all effective—is that they are often invisible, silent, or ambiguous. They represent a mode of resistance that does not announce itself as such and, therefore, is less likely to be noticed or avenged by those in power.” (762, ewick)

so where does this leave us? what does all this have to do with tent city’s position in time-space, and most importantly, how are these scholars helping to make this essay a productive project?

ewick and handler are talking about the affectivity of actions by activist rebels acting in a postmodern world, and how those actions should be channeled. they do not directly tie to situating tent city within or outside of the postmodern space that jameson describes, but they do offer advice in regards to protest, which is fully relevant. i wish they spoke more about working within or outside the system, but hmm...maybe they do.

ewick brings in one example of small scale protest about a lady who replaced all the buttons on her uniform with union buttons, and how this action spawned a whole uprising in the workplace. people saw that they would not be fired, and so the revolt picked up. i’d be interested to see what handler would say about that. he dismisses small scale action a little too hastily it seems. but in terms of acting within the system, ewick is advocating it, as in the button example. the lady works in some large factory, which is obviously in the system, but does not abandon small action for the sake of huge collective organizing. does this mean that handler is advocating more of an anti-systemic methodology?

tent city operates within postmodernism, but that doesn’t mean it is fully postmodern. unfortunately, in its history at the university it has always operated within the system meaning that it is a product of it. it simultaneously exists in a much more raw and real ecology eg houseless encampments of travelers and people out of work. it certainly does not adhere to all the postmodern architectural constraints. it is a camp...but a permitted camp. would it be possible for there to be a policy in place that all sides agree on? as of right now it does seem in a way negative that the protestors have been following the policies. it hasn’t helped them or the causes at all with very little real progress being made.

there is an element of timelessness and spacelessness present in the beginning middle and end of this saga. the microcosm of this university battle works on a fractal and holographic scale. what we know is that a great game is being played and the ability to harness well intentioned energy by all players is the key to bursting through old corrupt paradigms.

i hate to feel used and helpless, as does anyone, especially by such an evil force. evil? if they are selling activism, and people are attracted to it, coming to uvm because of it, then is that a bad thing? is it wrong to sell? i’m way off the cognitive map, and i have to say that i need to stop writing this now. the computer has been on my lap far too long, probably radiating countless unknown rays into my lower half, and damaging my dna. as is obvious, this project is not finished, nor will it be for a long time. i left this quote for the end. the camp caught my eye.

“Of some positive moral evaluation of postmodernism little needs to be said: the complacent (yet delirious) camp-following celebration of this aesthetic new world...is surely unacceptable, although it may be somewhat less obvious that current fantasies about the salvational nature of high technology, from chips to robots – fantasies entertained not only by both left and right governments in distress but also by many intellectuals – are also essentially of a piece with more vulgar apologies for postmodernism.” (jameson)

Bibliography:

Anonymous. The Disorientation Guide. UVM Print and Mail Center. 2008.

Ewick, Patricia. “Postmodern Melancholia.” Law and Society Review, Volume 26, Number 4 (May, 1992) pp. 755-763

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke UP, 1991.

Handler, Joel. “Postmodernism, Protest, and the New Social Movements.” Law and Society Review, Volume 26, Number 4 (May, 1992) pp. 697-731