One of the things this book does well is show us the interpersonal relationships behind or maybe I could say that comprise a revolutionary movement. We are often given accounts of the narrator’s first impressions of people. At one point she remarks that a woman she met resent her at first and then grows to love her. Here, we are actually given a lot of information about the atmosphere this revolution takes place in.
When the narrator first discusses Humberto we get a glimpse into the difficulty of positioning ones self into the complex personal relationships that contribute to the success or failure of this movement. She is not fond of him, she even remarks on how he skillfully evades the questions he does not feel like answering and notes the rhetoric that posits ambiguity as an integral part of the revolution and even as a natural. While I would never argue that ambiguity is unnecessary, of course it is in many cases, it is precisely that assumption that allows it to be abused at different times.
Something else I found fascinating was the narrator’s account of second-guessing herself, or questioning her own intelligence when she disagrees with Humberto. When he says, “if shit is what we need to make the revolution happen, shit is what we’ll use,” which is so obviously a horrible thing to say and completely erases all of the harmful things that can and are done in the name of “revolutions” (which often gets defined by so few individuals) the narrator goes so far as to remark, “I even toyed with the idea that his tolerance was the sign of a political wisdom that I lacked.” This reaction can certainly be attributed to an overall sense of insecurity that can affect any person. It is natural to second-guess ones self or to question one’s ability. However, I think my analysis would be lacking if I did not at least acknowledge the fact that often these feelings of insecurity arise from a complex set of social relations. You might second guess yourself because you are the minority in the room, because you occupy a lower rank than the person who disagree with, because you have less experience, and the list goes on. This is, in a sense, what I mean when I bring up intersectionality in class. We do ourselves and the texts we are reading a disservice when we commit to the most cursory analysis we can make.
When the narrator suggests that they should write a letter detailing their specific unease with Humberto’s plan he i told to, “write it herself,” which could be read as evidence of her skill, or it could be read as evidence of laziness on the part of her peers.
I like your idea that ambiguity is an integral and natural part of a revolution. I never looked at it that way. But it is definitely interesting. And I guess this ambiguity is also tied into this insecurity and second-guessing onself you also mentioned in your blog. I guess I see the connection between ambiguity and revolutions in that with revolutions nothing is ever definitive. There is always uncertainty, and anything can happen.
+ (This is a “+” that also reflects some of your other recent blog posts.)
Some astute observations here. Let me just take the first (which also to some extent encompasses the others)…
You talk of “the interpersonal relationships behind or maybe I could say that comprise a revolutionary movement.” I’d like you to push that further… In what ways might interpersonal relationships “comprise” a revolutionary movement?
I guess I think that this is an interesting idea, in that it changes our view of a revolution from something defined in opposition (overthrowing the state, say), or even something that follows some kind of plan (implementing socialism, say), to a more improvisational conception of what a revolution is about.
Not sure I’m expressing myself well. But this is an idea that I think is worth exploring more.
Perhaps, in other words, what I’m thinking about is revolution as *process*, rather than result.