THE INTRODUCTION

The goal of this thesis is to understand, in a broad way, the thoughts, priorities, and methods underlying my practice as a whole. My practice is diverse and digressive; the task is not an easy one. It does not fall into a single category, nor do I want it to. My goal is not to make this passage easy through using recognizable or well-worn formats, but it is to try and elucidate the things that guide me.

I work towards relation that is lateral, without exploitation or advantage, across deep-seated difference. My practice is a gentle one that loops back to this: the trouble of being in the world with other beings, of being both distinct through desire and real through relation. It is a practice of relation.

In trying to find a format that could accommodate for the space and movement that is so central to my work and thinking, I kept coming back to an essay by the science fiction author Ursula K. Le Guin.

The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction, by Ursula K. Le Guin (link)

In this essay, Le Guin identifies the dominant form of story in neo-liberal, North American culture as linear, hero-driven, and conflict-based—exemplified by the image of a hunter shooting and killing something with a straight-flying arrow. Inspired by a theory of evolution that argues that the first human tool was not, as is often assumed[ argued, depicted], a weapon, but instead a bag in which to carry something, Le Guin proposes a rethinking of story. She proposes story as a container with which to hold a collection, instead of as an arrow used to pin something down. Le Guin’s method is guided by intuition and desire, and is comprised of collection, interaction, and communication. This is a move away from a definition of story that is based on a set structure (a story has a beginning, middle, and an end, as I was taught in grade school), and instead moves towards the more interesting question of what a story is for, or even what I want it to be for, and how anyone might better achieve those aims.

I take Le Guin’s essay as a starting point. I use some features of the arrow-story she identifies as points of critique or of response  (linearity, progress, finite-ness, dominance, binary thinking, and a singular narrator), and also features that she points towards (non-linearity, collection and rearrangement, new materialist philosophies, posthumanism, listening/attention, and collaborative, non-heirarchical practices), as sparks to start this thesis burning. Methods I use as possible containers to explore these themes include: alternative publications and approaches to writing, assemblage and installation, improvised performances, and collaborative events. The form of the thesis also attempts to muddle hierarchies of thinking, by using elements of a carrier-bag aesthetic. I present this thesis as a website for its non-linear, non-logocentric potential. I do this as an experiment and with mixed results, I hope that it in some ways disrupts the linearity of an essay while still leading my readers with some degree of clarity. Thank you for accompanying me on this journey.

Why does this stance matter? To break with dominant narrative and a format-reliant structure is also to break with the notion and confines of normalcy, a construct which always entails rules and exclusion. Such a move leaves room for alternate modes of caring, relating, working, romancing, identifying, and structuring both private and public life. This is important work. Within established communities, I see it as recognizing and legitimizing diverse identities, orientations, and lifestyles; I also see it’s potential to account for and better adapt to the ongoing cultural change and interaction wrought by the influx of thinkers and doers from other communities intersecting with established norms (as is the case with online interactions and global migration). Additionally, I see it as welcoming post-humanist possibilities, building receptivity and respect towards other-than-human influence, consideration, and contribution. My aim here is not to discredit a dominant form in favour of another dominant form, dismantling a hierarchy in favour of a new one. Instead, I labour towards an approach to relation that is able to relate laterally, without exploitation or advantage, across deep-seated difference. The dominant story says that to be listened to, to be worthy, to be interesting, one has to follow a specific format. I reject this.

As part of this rejection, I also attempt at points to upturn my own bag, to trouble myself, to let my thinking loose into some kind of swamp. The resonant murk. This is ultimately an aesthetic and an ethos of inclusion. Within my own practice, this leads to a stance that is best understood as being about connection and about openings, and the ways that these two processes interact. I am building a chain. My goal is to be making tunnels and chewing holes, a little rat. To be friends with outcasts, plants, and household objects. To be unafraid of time or love. I am looking for a world where I can be like that.

(I draw a circle...)