Capitalizing Sorrow
My internal defiance and acceptance in doing science sensibly
How to not capitalize on sorrow is the first thing that came into mind amidst how devastating the stream of information and news had been. In the context of Afghanistan, fingers were pointed, and debated, some political science experts would deem that what is happening in Afghanistan is a phenomenon that shall be assessed objectively. Dissected into variables and logical trajectory of what, who, when, why that the world is dying to know. How we consume information had greatly changed in the last five years. Moreover during the pandemic, with mobility restrictions the digital world became far more integrated into our lives in ways that I have to say, induce a degree of great anxiety on my part and perhaps for many others. Disruption the said, connect to disconnect, some of the more appealing dictions many would describe as the larger volume and exposure we have do not necessarily make us more fulfilled or knowledgeable, perhaps to a degree affect some aspects within ourselves related to how we emotionally respond to the news or digital contents in any way or form.
Me, coming from a deconstructive school of thought, the one that constructs to reconstruct, I am heavily influenced by my education or ‘training’. To which many of the more robust positivist scholars might say to us that how can we take the first step towards a more tangible result rather than perpetuating these moral and ethically heavy instruments that might not turn us into more ‘effective’ thinkers or scholars because how can you ever take a step, for every time you about to do it you relearn how to take a better step? What is this grand emancipatory or radical deconstructing agenda? But that’s a joke on them, or not, because the conception of what’s effective is subjected, the fuel of ever running capitalistic mechanism that foreseen the world into a transaction. Produce better, then you are more efficient, manage yourself, then you are juggling between resources and skills to come up with the most cost-effective, value-added, and tangible results that will take us from point a to point b, without much repercussion of what are the points or where are the points? Because definitely, despite years of sophisticated work being done by the western imperialist, they definitely took Afghanistan and more importantly the people from point a to point b, for whatever that means. From point horror to point horrendous mega horror and unnerving generational trauma.
This, makes my studies on violence became more of an ethical conundrum than it already is. Survivors of violence and trauma are not projects, and amount of scientific curiosity can stand to approve of that project, knowing more about violence should never be conducted using instruments that perpetuate epistemic violence, a knowledge that actually attained through violence means without empathy, mercy, and most importantly no mean of retribution. Considering how maps, statistics, and its interpretations have been the justification of the various acts of ‘calculated and well thought’ violence in the name of the policy.
Therefore, when I finished my training, it felt like I was stripped away from many things, more importantly, the tools that were once in my shed. Therefore, upon graduation, some thoughts came into mind. One, I obviously rethink how am I going to make money without fancy modeling and research instruments. Two, what the hell. The tools were actually there but I was more hesitant in using them, who am I to act upon these trinkets and a not-so-fancy degree that proves my capability? I would say, deconstructive school is more of a selfish existential experience than a formal institution of its own. The journey or the training did not and will not take place during the lectures or conversation among peers, but more on how it affected our way of thinking, perceiving, and feeling things while retaining some senses of the reality; paying bills, doing administrative works, etc.
To not capitalize on sorrow, again, not to drift away too far. Perhaps more of a response to the overall nuance on how we perceive sorrow, especially of others when it was not ours to observe. The pain of others can be captured, to a degree where we can be empathetic, but scientifically it is not an interchangeable subject to anyone’s training and licenses to appropriate, let alone, capitalize. I remember during my earlier years of doing research, a colleague mentioned “as long as there is conflict, there is work for us.” and 20 years old me rendered speechless, because it made logical sense in the demand and supply scheme that made the world goes round, but what a wicked way of thinking. Quite the impression on me, especially on how science operates.
There is no novelty in deconstruction, as in, it’s not new, it has been developed, debated, taken into the discourse, it interrogated the rigidity of positivist frameworks that taken account social science as something observable in the way of natural science. So when my professor came up with doing sensible science, I for once believe this is my one-way ticket of becoming a bum as I will not be employed anywhere if I were to say I am practicing this hippie stuff. Lately, I try to perhaps negotiate with the terms, by constantly questioning my intentions in inserting myself in any kind of discourse. Maybe, some might think that negotiated terms were just my inability to escape the prevailing modernity contracts embedded in necrotic liberalism. That this is a way to be pragmatic, to keep everything to run its course. But perhaps I either lacked in imagination or also practiced mercy to myself in deconstruction wanted to give myself some time to not prematurely conceived something, not at the expense of any emancipatory agenda from imperial modalities.
I try to reduce noise. At least, if that meant I am doing it just because something has to be said, but might not be done in the best interest of anyone but my own. And this negotiated mechanism reduced my writings greatly because I realized in my 20s most of the things I got to say are just noise, many come without as much sensibility or even mercy. Am I a lesser researcher or writer than I was? If, efficiency and productivity were the indicators, yes. But in a world where efficiency and productivity are the main principles that accumulate dispossession, then I am glad that I am a lesser researcher. When it comes to sorrow, how it slogged in, how it took place in piercing my heart, in ways that are subjective to me, incomparable to any.
But, sorrow inspires, as one might say. In many teaching of piety, suffering and sorrow were the key determinants of one’s faith. Therefore it was scrutinized for various self-serving purposes, including misleading gratitude, on how one’s misery might be greater than ours without questioning whether we might take part in that misery; systemic violence that we refuse to admit, perhaps? Sorrow translated into endless poetries and arts, which in the very logic of productivity a form of one’s way to capitalize. However, those who are in great pain undergoing hardship and sorrow did not capitalize on their conditions, in fact, people are grieving, and that is often mistaken as an inspiration to ‘produce’. To grieve and to heal, the kind of space and response, not reaction, we can try to provide for each other.
