Themes
The Intellectual Core of Aykırı Medya
No colonial order stands by the army alone; it first produces a portrait of a human being in need of being governed. The opposite of domination is not a rupture in which nobody touches anybody, but being able to relate without governing one another.
The home is not outside politics: who cares, who decides and who has the right to be angry are also an order of power. Equality cannot be completed by opening the opportunity to dominate to everyone.
Punishment is applied to a single body; fear spreads inside thousands of people. Authority fears not people without fear but people who do not hide their fears from one another.
When a right turns into a favour, help creates a debt that never ends. A patron's power comes not from the number of problems solved but from problems being unsolvable without them.
There is a decision, but no decider: “Your request has not been deemed appropriate.” Anonymous power is not a power that has lost its face but one that has learned not to show it.
Power does not collapse automatically the moment people stop believing in it; but from then on it becomes more expensive, more coercive and more fragile. Anger alone is not enough; relations that could work otherwise are built before the crisis arrives.
What name we give a problem also determines who may intervene in it and how. Liberation sometimes begins, before we give a new answer, with noticing the words in which the question was put to us.
Difference and hierarchy are not the same thing. When functional coordination turns into a permanent status, the order converts its own outcome into its own justification.
Trusting knowledge is a necessity of shared life; obeying the one who knows is not. The real problem is not that experts are wrong but that they are placed in the office of infallibility.
The impersonality of rules is a real achievement against arbitrariness. But the sentence “that's how the system works” can also be the most advanced form of authority — the one that makes injustice belong to nobody.
One asks “who is interfering with me?”, the other “what am I actually able to do?” When we see both faces of freedom together the word stops being a slogan: can people both say no and live the yes they have chosen?
Thinking without a centre is not dispersing responsibility so that nobody is held to account; it is refusing to squeeze a complex life into the story of a single culprit and a single saviour. Our wish to explain the world from one centre may itself be a habit of power.
Leave your email to hear about new writings.
Cookies. We use cookies to keep visit statistics. You can decline and still read the site in full. Privacy and Cookie Policy