The paradox of life and the exclusion of living situation have necessitated the existence of language and human consciousness; i.e. the fact that human beings are thrown into the world has directed our life towards discovering the residence of language and rootlessness of discourse and demarcated our life as a linguistically-defined being. No invitation or call for human has been provided to conflict with the reality of the world and there is no zero point where the process of life is thought to have begun; rather, mankind has always lived in a context of language and no certain, final destination this constant process of becoming has been set to get at. This ontological condition is itself tied to a linguistic, epistemological status, which means that the emotion and consciousness of man as a social being has been defined within a lingual framework; thus, all riddles and complexities of human life root in the dominance of language and baseless, endless state of being thrown into the world. Language is not the residence of any entity or trans-historical, metaphysical truth, except for human being; thus, language is an Ethos, representing man; it is not supposed to cry calls of nothingness, death, metaphysics, and ghosts; rather, these concepts are constructed through language and the rhythm and syntax give them a certain, exclusive meaning. The history of metaphysics has shown that these relationships have always been interpreted and read differently in one way or another; language functions as the source, residence, and cause of all phenomena and effects, which has created and given them meaning them meaning and significance; thus, language and mythological, classical thinking have castrated and monopolized freedom and salvation of language in an exclusive manner; they have enmeshed creation and dynamic mechanism in the form of an exposed, disciplined bordered framework which is manifested in the form of two main phenomena of ‘center’ and ‘repetition’. These two phenomena have not only dominated the world of literary and artistic craftsmanship, but have also functioned as word powers to delineate and organize social and political figuration in accordance with their own perception of truth and ideology. The history of human life, in general, and Kurdistan, in particular, has been affected by this ontological fundamentalism, directed towards a truth-power, authoritarian policy, and has reproduced a disastrous history through reproduction of sanctity, fear, and violence again and again.
Despite all native and detrimental consequences, the process of modernity has eroded the red lines of critical thinking and challenged the claim to authoritarian, truth-based discourse through introducing fundamental social, political, and economic changes; social relations, which provided the necessary context for innovative creation and interpretation of artistic and literary traditions, declined and this, in turn, caused the disappearance and deterioration of the claim of the originality of a literary work. When the old rules of time-space faltered and public accessibility to artistic objects was provided, the sacred aura and sublime origin of artistic and literary works was said farewell to. Destruction of experience, the primary function of which as a threat put human in confrontation with a sort of anthropic condition and absolute vacuum (passive nihilism), signifies the destruction of all those formulations and conventional values which allowed the creation and interpretation of literary works; such conditions established the potential force for those regressive movements which dreamed of returning to a certain past haunted by the illusion of the dominance of a center and the promise of a second life under the shadow of controversial, hostile nihilism. The negative, endangering dimension of this unbearable nihilism produced a positive perception of active subjectivity in the heart of the individual; thus, what seemed as a radical damage at the onset of the issue turned into a precious opportunity for reconstructing and reproducing values and standards in a novel, modern way. Modernist artists managed to configure the severe shock of the destruction of experience and meaninglessness in new artistic forms and stabilize the boundless energy and power of unbridled Faust of the new chance within artistic rhetoric and aesthetic poetics. The ultimate goal of this decline was a fundamental divorce of and a break from those traditional values and principles which had brutally scarified real human life under the spell of illusive, Platonic world and marginalized human polyphony and various social requirements through the application of a cruel contrapuntal force.
The destruction of experience provided the critical opportunity for the subject to acquire the chance of revolt and expression and a new consciousness to ruminate the realm of being and universe. Concepts of reason, language, time-space, rights, power, knowledge, artist, aesthetics, etc. were reconstructed in the light of modern reflexive sense of style and meaning and, accordingly, an entirely new identity and significance was created for human. All these liberalizations of thought and language, which seemed to be directly related to social and political changes, emerged paradoxically in a context of monopolistic forces, such as repressive Leviathan government, dehumanizing duress of bureaucracy, inequality of capitalist system, and centralizing hegemony of the culture industry. Determining social and historical necessity has created the context of intellectual and artistic liberating movement; thus, the never-ending dialectic and conflict of these forces has manifested itself in the form of objective modernization and subjective modernism which have functioned as the main impetus for progress and change. The modern romance of development and progress has always expected this paradoxical situation, and this dialectical conflict has never been supposed to be resolved through trans-historical synthesis; rather, it gave birth to a trans-historical individual and society free from any symptom of adherence to traditions and clichés.
The modern subject, despite understanding the tragic situation of the paradoxical cycle of defeat and destruction, is never disappointed and never deceives itself with the fantasy of eternal future and the nostalgia of past eternity. Contemporary subject manages to create in a state of impossible innovation and tries to fulfill free will and gain mastery over itself, regardless of cruel systems and structures. Therefore, it experiences life in the heart of impossibility of death and represents loneliness as failure and human misery in literature.
The concept of power is by nature mixed with bio-politics; thus, the boundaries between biological life, civil life , law and violence is removed as a result of this integration; i.e. human life is boiled down to the bare structure and loses its authenticity under the domination of this apparatus. Consequently, modern politics takes the form of Awarte (exception) politics, in which learning and the force of law is realized through suspension and cessation, a halt which sustains the shadow of death and violence against people beyond law and lawlessness. Thus, artistic and literary modernism is activated within the cracks and crevices of such apparatus, a space more extended than commodified, usurped identities where any break from ‘real state of affairs’ and ‘the fantasy of image’ are prevented through sustaining ‘the state of potentiality’ and the continuation of the organic relationship between ‘body and image’ within the industry of propaganda and pornography. Thus, art neither surrenders to stereotyping real world through representation and mimesis, nor, relying on the conservative slogan of ‘art for art’s sake’, remains restricted and passive against selfish and self-censoring circle of solipsism; rather, it represents itself in the form of a mere gesture through revealing the meaninglessness of meaning and boiling down language to the very naked structure. Not political art and literature, which claim being political and put on political masks, but the politics of art and literature has the potential of resisting against, and introducing a new chance into, market dictatorship and bio-politics violence. Only a poetic with a political gesture, which reveals and suspends ideological discourse and constructed identities through means without end and revealing the essence of language, can function as the critical force of the contemporary era.
Although Kurdish community has been historically marginalized and prevented from huge scientific changes and the progress of modernization in a totally different strategic way, powerful contemporary modernization beams have covered all aspects of our world and the process of universalization has thrown us in an unequal and breathtaking competition field. If we move in the orbit of old classic order, remain ignorant of the profundity of a catastrophe which has happened long ago, and stay naïve and optimistic, according to the logic of ‘whatever comes, comes’, in this state of exception, we will share partnership in the vicious disaster of history and drown in a Sisyphus-like destiny, which would ultimately fixate our present and future destiny in a disastrous narrative.
Without a doubt, every society declares its manifesto in historical trends and reveals its meaning within both unwritten action and written works; although this enthusiasm and ferment is constantly marginalized and rarely heard, it has never stopped its attempt at reaching to people’s ears. The present manifesto, as well, is a further attempt to give space to all those critical, responsible voices which have deviated from the right way and revolted against straight path– a manifesto which advocates unrealized politics of composition and the art of failure against the power and the presence of blackmail, propaganda, and capitalist appropriation and prefers to be deemed guilty along with truth rather than be rewarded in its compliance with deceit and falsity. Composition, here, implies all fields in which the practice of radical thinking and contemplation is realized; thus, the spectrum of composition covers a range wider than all genres and intellectual, scientific, and artistic scopes, including philosophy, sociology, politics, aesthetics, etc. Non-place manifesto, in addition to appreciating the necessity of modernization and the deepening of literary and artistic changes, foregrounds the necessity of the development of progressive individuals and modern mentalities in the realms of politics, culture, and society; it believes that classic, degrading politics, which has symbolized the dominance of what that is ancient, tradition, community, leaders, family, geographical location, and masculine, is no longer able to establish drastic changes with Kurdish production mode; it also cannot pave the ground for the democratization of art, literature, and politics and the activation of internal mechanism of Kurdish community. Thus, the politics of composition, as an attempt to ‘say no’ in a context of ‘saying’, surrenders to that fatal contradiction which has openly cried a desire for life and stood against the policy of saying yes, saying too much, resorting to holiness, relying on clichés, saying repeatedly, saying cowardly, and saying without thinking. According to the provisions of non-place manifesto, radical politics in the realm of contemporary thought, art, and literature is the same as the politics of different composition.
۱-Dethroning meaning from its historically transcendental, sacred position and restoring it to its true origin; i.e. territory of ordinary language.
۲-Rejecting any kind of logos or meta-linguistic, non-referential experience derived from pre-lingual continuum and applying language as a means of expression and transmission of ideas.
۳-Negating classical perception of reason and logic which emphasized two concepts of center and repetition and was consistent with teleology, dominance of the author, singularity of truth, and monophony in its prevention of polyphony and pluralism within the context of the text.
۴-An attempt to break away from raw, realistic experience and romantic illusion and expand the range of expression and creation.
۵-The break with omniscient figure and unifying reason which, as patriarchal subjects, imposed their authority on the field of the text and had a saying in all normal and critical points of the text and narrative.
۶-Negating any call for the interrogation or the impeachment of the reader and audience as full, consistent, controlled, and subordinate subjects and developing an indeterminate process of the creation of the identity of the audience.
۷-Negating sanctity and transparency of the text, norm, and character and deconstructing totalitarian and trans-textual propaganda through the implementation of the practice of analysis, criticism, and assessment.
۸-Deconstructing the conventional mode of Kurdish writing and paving the way for the emergence of iconoclastic texts of poetry, story, and other fields; in other words, passing through the politics of tranquility and security of composition, which roots in conservative regulations and evades any possible sort of inconvenience of turbulence.
۹-Transition from the politics of identity which is tied with a traditional desire of dominance and centrality and has caused hermeneutic single-mindedness, out-datedness, and conventionality and moving towards fluidity and indeterminacy of identity which emphasizes freedom of action, multiplicity of definition, and pluralism of interests in a context of various national, sexual, and social interests.
۱۰-Going back to the central role of the reader not as a passive, static consumer of meaning, but as a powerful, reasonable figure who fills the gap and the empty spots of the text with rich imagination and reconstructs the text in numerous new ways during the process of reading.
۱۱-Insisting on the fact that the existence of a text continues through the practice of reading and evaluation and, thus, criticism is the last stop to finalize the life of a text and develop realized potentials of a text.
۱۲-Emphasizing the freedom of imagination, explanation, and interpretation in a creative and critical process. In other words, expanding the concept of criticism and figures of speech from being merely academic towards various fields of sociology, psychology, cultural studies, linguistics, semiotics, and political thinking.
۱۳-Resisting and opposing the foolish desire of composition which tends to simplify complicated aspects of concepts, theories, and techniques in a crude way and present an optimistically superficial solution for all fundamental conundrums of being.
۱۴-Foregrounding the role and position of language in the process of writing in such a way that it substitutes the unchallenged role of the mentality of the writer and giving birth to a written text.
۱۵-Developing the experience of translation in such a way that native language is awakened and experiences new narratives under the spell of another language.
۱۶-Transition from artificial boundaries of writing and criticism and setting out to create chaos within repressive order and the rule of the common text in such a way that any expression or novel narrative paves the ground for freer and broader rules and disciplines.
۱۷-Achieving the fact that the practice of innovation and creation neither follows cause and effect relationship nor gets its legitimacy from ultimate objectives; thus, creation is based on the principle of the dominance of the self and according to the requirements of the composition itself.
۱۸-Negating essentialist, unregistered rules of ‘beauty’; i.e. transition from aesthetics as the cause and goal of creation towards contradictory variety of aesthetics which are viewed not as role models of closure of creation, but as infrastructure and a product of this process.
۱۹-Resurrecting a kind of art and literature the creation, reception, and interpretation of which establishes the possibility of unparalleled new horizons; in other words, denying a single authoritarian reality and opening the possibility of multiple realities and a supernatural plan.
۲۰-Trying to plan and re-read the history, literature, and the politics of the Kurdish community in the mind of the people themselves in such a way that it enables us to transcend master-slave dialectic and slave-like composition, presenting dynamic movements within the realm of language and history by considering universal issues.
By: Dr. Massoud Binandeh
Sine, November, 2016