Underwater, No One Can Hear You Perform Linguistic Constructions

Joan Slonczewski's A Door into the Ocean takes Feminist Uptopian Literature to new depths. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Having as a major setting a planet (moon) completely covered with water, A Door into the Ocean offers a counter-balance to the well-worn Science Fiction convention of settings of barren moons, rugged craggy landscapes and deserts. (Slonczweski mentions her intent to respond to the desert setting of Herbert's Dune, but must have had no knowledge of Lewis' 1943 Perelandra, which featured an ocean world with floating, fluid land.)

Such a subversion of setting serves well for subversions/interrogations of other conventions in areas such as gender, sexuality, politics, power, and materialism. In her own study guide, http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/books/adoor_art/adoor_study.htm, Slonczewski points out that conventional binaries, such as the conventional view of male/female, can be problematized (deconstructed) by use of language. (It is interesting to note that it is through language that such constructs are reified to begin with.) (I know that sentence ends in a preposition, but I like saying "to begin with" every now and then.)

In her online study guide, Slonczewski ways that "The deconstruction of polarities is mediated in part by the unique language of the Sharers which conflates subject and object. " Indeed, in Door, the language usage does serve to decenter, if not deconstruct, certain ideas ensconced in a current cultural dictionary. Terms like lovesharer, learnsharing, hitsharing, worksharing, share (a walk, a day), unspeak, all serve to make common ideas "new" by nature of de-familiarizing them. In this way, the regularity and ubiquity of common terms lose at least some power to instantiate commonly held ideas.

But language, (especially if it is a tool of the "master,") meets some limitation in its ability to deconstruct. I share a few here, based on Slonczewski's comments on her site...

1. "Sharers literally cannot imagine one human being forcing another to behave against her will. Their own system of governance does not even allow for such. "

But, I want to make someone do something against their will!
No, you can't do that! Be respectful of others.
I don't want to be respectful of others!
You must do it whether you want to or not!

Even though there may be a new sheriff in town - the new language/ideas still amount to a "sheriff" nonetheless. Imagining achieving compliance on the premise that no one can force others to comply is... well, words, again, fail.

2. "The Sharers use this power, enabled by their superior genetic technologies, to maintain their way of life. Their own nonviolent politics overcomes the oppressor."

Describing a Utopian society where egalitarian values preempt contests for supremacy is admirable - but not an easy task. What does it mean to say that the sharers have "Superior" genetic technologies? This seems far from an egalitarian appraisal. But maybe they mean that sharers are equal - but simply better than the Valans. Ouch. Once again, we run into something that smells remarkably similar to what Burke calls "congregation by segregation."
And nonviolent politics "Overcomes"? Isn't that sorta like "beating" the oppressors? Or "winning the war" against the oppressors? Yep, language is a funny thing, huh?

I think that language fails in cases like these because there is a certain unspoken (though I don't contend that it is unspeakable,) missing concept. In Greg Garrard's Ecocriticism, the chapter on "Dwelling" offers an insight into how this mis(non)understanding might occur. Garrard contrasts two views of how the Biblical mandate to "have dominion over" the earth might inform (or disinform) a comprehensive worldview of the environment. He then offers Jeanne Kay's argument that "both positions misread nature's role in the Bible... the Bible is neither anthropocentric nor ecocentric, but theocentric in a way and to a degree difficult for the modern reader to fully accept."

• The unspoken idea.
• The unmitigated binaries of the extant terministic screen.
• The use of language to bridge the gap it, in part, created.

All these elements are involved in such fiction that seeks to challenge what is seen as an oppressive hegemony. (OK, granted, it is usually the Nixon or Reagan or Bush administration, but theoretically, it could be something else...)



(Garrard is pretty hard on Heidegger, pelting the Nazi with berries (Berry) and burgers (Berger). But, alas, this will have to wait for another reflection.)

Neuromancer & Company: Cyberpunk, Cowboys, and Cyborgs

William Gibson's Neuromancer is hailed as the book that brought about a significant change in Science Fiction in the '80's, ushering in what would be known as "cyberpunk." Dr. Elisa Sparks, in her online class notes defines cyberpunk as "* A form of science fiction developed in the mid-80's which envisions a near-future world dominated by information technology. * Especially ways that tech is integrated into human body * usually involves people on the lower end of society who are rebelling against authority..."

Cyberpunk was praised by some critics as being a return to "hard" sci-fi, and an escape from a dark period of sci-fi malaise. What was this period of malaise? Nicola Nixon, in her article "Cyberpunk: Preparing the Ground for Revolution or Keeping the Boys Satisfied?" points out that the sci-fi of the '70's was, in part, feminist utopian literature. She references Jean Pfaelzer as she explains, "the feminist utopian text represents two worlds, the flawed present and the future perfect, which contradict and comment on each other. One world is feminist and egalitarian. The other world is not. And the world that is not utopian derives from the author’s representation of contemporary gender inequality, sexual repression, and cultural malaise."

Nixon goes on to explain that:

rising on the heels of the ’70s feminist SF writers, however, was another SF "movement," one loudly proclaiming its "revolutionary" status: cyberpunk. Cyberpunk—slick, colloquial, and science-based—represented a concerted return to the (originary) purity of hard SF, apparently purged of the influence of other-worldly fantasy, and embracing technology with new fervor.
Sterling’s desire to represent cyberpunk as a radical subgenre within SF... prompts him... to dismiss all of ’70s SF as "not much fun," as in "the doldrums," "dogmatic slumbers," or "hibernation" The political (or even revolutionary) potential for SF, realized so strongly in ’70s feminist SF, is relegated in Gibson’s cyberpunk to a form of scary feminized software; his fiction creates an alternative, attractive, but hallucinatory world which allows not only a reassertion of male mastery but a virtual celebration of a kind of primal masculinity...

So, it would seem that the arrival of cyberpunk, with its re-beatification of the macho cowboy hero, threatened to push aside the feminist political force of earlier sci-fi works. Reflective of the "tiredness" of the age of the '70's - and the embracing of the new silver screen political cowboy hero in the form of Ronald Reagan - a post-feminist zeitgeist seemed to encroach on both the sci-fi and political fronts.

Would this new form totally exclude the socialist-feminist, post-modern impulse form science fiction? Where would such impulses find space for treatment? Dr. Elisa Sparks indicates such a space in her notes on the themes of cyberpunk:

What are the crucial themes (of cyberpunk)?
* A society that is shaped by computers
* A central theme is the relationship between man and machine-- specifically, what makes us human as we interact and depend on machines at a more and more personal level
* cyborg is a central issue here-- humans become part machine

It is the cyborg that gives space for treatment of the issues presumably excluded from the conversation of science fiction. Donna Haraway, in "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century," describes this opening as such:

A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction… The cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience that changes what counts as women's experience in the late twentieth century. The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity. It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence.
an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end. The cyborg incarnation is outside salvation history. Nor does it mark time on an oedipal calendar, attempting to heal the terrible cleavages of gender in an oral symbiotic utopia or post-oedipal apocalypse...

The phallogocentrie origin stories most crucial for feminist cyborgs are built into the literal technologies - teehnologies that write the world, biotechnology and microelectronics - that have recently textualized our bodies as code problems on the grid of C3I. Feminist cyborg stories have the task of recoding communication and intelligence to subvert command and control.

The influences of cyberpunk, and particularly of Neuromancer, can be seen in a number of places in pop culture, ranging from Star Trek:The Motion Picture to TRON to The Matrix. The theme of alternate realities and existences, rebellion against the system, rage against/negotiating with the machine, embracing the "other," re-examination of human identity, in(tro)spection of computers and technology in everyday life, and other themes - these all keep science fiction open to interrogation by many theoretical approaches, including the socialist-feminist approach.

Donna Haraway notes that, "In retelling origin stories, cyborg authors subvert the central myths of origin of Western culture. We have all been colonized by those origin myths, with their longing for fulfilment in apocalypse." Even in such "cyberpunk cowboys" as Neo (in The Matrix), there exists a re-telling of Western culture's muthos, but also, an interrogation of that myth, and the potential for its subversion and, possibly, the establishment of a non-myth (which becomes a myth itself.)

Flasher est mortuus ; porro ago Utopia

Dr. Sparks referred our class to a chapter from Joanna Russ' "To Write Like a Woman: Essays on Feminism and Science Fiction." This chapter, entitled 'Amor Vincit Foeminam: The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction," provides a good grounding to understand James Tiptree's writings, but also to situate the collection of writings that make up the RCID Topias reading list.

I will point out a few things that I found particularly interesting in this piece, along with my reflections and responses.

Firstly, Russ points out that, in much of early science fiction treatments of the battle of the sexes, the situations in such works resulted from a "role reversal" in which the men's "Sacred Objects" (yes, in almost all cases these objects are conflated with the phallus) were commandeered by, or surrendered to, women. Russ sees this approach as "predictable."

Also seen as "predictable" in these works is the resulting dysfunction of women's control of these objects. The lesson, Russ holds, is that "women cannot handle power, ought not to have it, and cannot keep it. This is the natural order of things." (42) These two ideas serve to perpetuate a hegemonic zeitgeist of SciFi plot production.

It is against this hegemony that many of the authors on our list are responding/reacting/answering. It is against this hegemony that Russ particularly alludes to the work of James Tiptree (aka Alice Sheldon) as one which approaches the battle of the sexes differently, "both inverting some of its elements and commenting critically on others." (56) This work by Russ does serve to frame Tiptree for out readings, but also situates the work of our other authors.

Two works which are, in Russ' opinion, decidedly bad, benefit greatly from her scathing criticism. "The Battle against the Yukks," is supposed to be funny, Russ tells us, as if this would take away the appeal. It doesn't. Russ' explanation of the "perpetual blushing at the idea of Strange Thoughts" - and Mother's discovery that the frozen sperm supply had run out - almost beg for a reading. The criticism, in its denunciation, serves to entice - I mean, can it really be this ridiculous?

But Russ' comments on "Yukks" entices far less than her description of "Ecce Feminal." Women bikers juicing? (E9 - not 'roids.) And the leader is "Ripper Jack?" This sounds too bad to be missed! (If you explain movies like "Billy Jack" or "Smokey and the Bandit" well enough, even the most sophisticated film snob will be unable to resist such disasters.)

But - in Russ' criticism of "Ecce Feminal," she overlooks a possible subversion of the previously mentioned hegemony of SciFi writing convention. In this story, the man-killing, castrating, biker Ripper Jack falls in love and becomes a mother. But Russ never mentions any reversion of the Sacred Object to the Milquetoast man who fathers her child. (Unless Russ conflates, without laying any groundwork, either heterosexuality or "flowerprint blouse" with a re-subjugation of Jack as oppressed victim.)

Yes, these two works seem to be so bad as to be irresistible. Almost like a book that had such deliciously bad phrases of polemic overkill as "the only pure test case is a vagina acknowledging a godlike phallus." Oops, never mind, that was Russ herself. My bad.

But my notice of such a broad-brush statement may resonate with comments by Lewis Call in his "This Wondrous Death: Erotic Power in the Science Fiction of James Tiptree, Jr." Call notes that Russ may less than entirely comfortable with "Mama Come Home" because "it does not fit neatly into the theoretical framework of sex war feminism." (65) Hence my notice of the broad-brush treatment and tone of Russ may reflect a totalizing binary that Call hints at in his comments on Russ' either/or categorizations: "She observes that Tiptree's story divides women into two camps... and puts these two camps against one another." (65)

In his more nuanced treatment, Call allows for a complexity of reading (by the reader - and the characters,as well,) that supersedes set categorizations of either/or.

Novel on the Edge of Times

Dr. Elisa Sparks, in her entry on Woman on the Edge of Time for Masterplots in Women's Fiction, describes WET as combining

"a counter-cultural critique of authoritarian institutions with one of the first and most fully realized feminist utopias." According to Sparks, the protagonist's journeys into other worlds "map out humane alternatives to the abuses of power she suffers... These fall into three interrelated categories... 1) a Marxist/ anarchist critique of economically based power hierarchies; 2) a feminist critique of sex roles, gender inequities, and child-rearing practices; 3) a humanist critique of scientific ignorance of and technological disregard for the ecological unity of the human mind and the natural environment."

Piercy's attempt at such a comprehensive treatment is an ambitious one, fraught with some notable difficulties. One example is the attempt to show as "illogical" the "logic" of the oppressive system that reduces and totalizes persons according to the systems own diagnosis of said persons.

M. Keith Booker, in "Woman on the Edge of a Genre: The Feminist Dystopias of Marge Piercy," highlights this particular difficulty:

"By attacking the mental health system through what appears to be a transparent, 'rational' narration of its treatment of Ramos, Piercy runs the risk of subtly reinforcing the ideology of rationalism that makes it possible safely to contain Ramos's potentially subversive energies simply by declaring her mad."

Booker notes that Piercy overcomes this obstacle (and others) "by presenting explicit defamiliarizing alternatives." Booker here indicates the larger elements at work in Piercy's topias, but I would say that she also overcomes obstacles on a smaller scale by the "obtuse" language use of her characters. Per, fuse, grasp, worming, etc. are wonderful defamiliarizing elements, working on an aesthetic level, with socio-political overtones.

P.S. As an additional note, I appreciate Luciente's support of my in-class comments from last week. I voiced my discomfort with a system that has a "set canon" of books that are "good" - leaving the ex-cluded books, by their segregation from the list, to be declared "bad." I question whether such an "establishment" of such views by a Republic of Scholars is not a "closing" of learning, inasmuch as it declares some matters "settled." Luciente agrees as she explains to Connie: "The Powerful don't make revolutions."

When I was seven(not)teen, it was a very good year...

Photo from Mathias Degen, Cologne, Germany
(Wikimedia Commons)

The Novel of the "sixties?"
In his study guide to Dispossessed, Paul Brians identifies Dispossessed as a product of the sixties: "All of these are values much promoted in the counterculture of the "Sixties" (which lasted from approximately 1967 to 1974); and the novel is clearly a product of its time. In many ways, Annares is an idealized hippie commune." (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/science_fiction/dispossessed.html) I mention this quote here, because, curiously enough, the novel was published in 1974, (the end of this era,) and the concurrent theoretical reading was from Michel Foucault's speech given in 1964, (the beginning of this era.) That Dr. Sparks is a clever one to arrange such readings, yes?

There is so much material in the readings to cover, but let me touch on a few items regarding (ana)chronisms that were of interest to me.

Michel Foucault in 1967 - a couple of anachronisms and a flash of prescience:

**The pressing problem is, not time, but space?

"In a still more concrete manner, the problem of siting or placement arises for mankind in terms of demography. This problem of the human site or living space is not simply that of knowing whether there will be enough space for men in the world -a problem that is certainly quite important.... In any case I believe that the anxiety of our era has to do fundamentally with space, no doubt a great deal more than with time."

The sixties were replaced by the seventies and eighties with the "greed is good/time is money" age that saw the invention of the fax machine, the portable phone, and the ubiquitous proliferation of the DayTimer. Seems like the concern for time outweighed the concern for space, just as the concern for personal wealth outweighed the communal concern for the planet Earth.

**Before systematization of deconstructive/postmodern theory:

"These utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces. There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places - places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society..."

Note the use of the words "real" and "unreal." Ah, deconstructionist/postmodern theory in its infancy, before its theology had become systematized. No self-respecting quoter of Foucault would reify social constructs with such terminology today.

**Prescience? The exclusion of the "other?"

"Heterotopias of crisis are disappearing today and are being replaced, I believe, by what we might call heterotopias of deviation: those in which individuals whose behavior is deviant in relation to the required mean or norm are placed. Cases of this are rest homes and psychiatric hospitals, and of course prisons, and ... retirement homes...."

Wow, Michel - the marginalization, exclusion, and expulsion of the different in favor of reifying the status quo of the dominant system. Hit that one right on the head!

Dispossessed, published in 1974, a recurring anachronism, and a flash of prescience:

**Why can;t we get away from Led Zeppelin and the Goodyear Blimp?
The "airship" or dirigible makes an appearance here, just as it does on so many SciFi works from H.G. Wells to C.S. Lewis to Jules Verne to late 20th-century "steampunk" SciFi. But, even with catastrophes like the recent New York stories, we can;t seem to get over "the humanity" of the Hindenburg.

**The ansible - an idea whose time has come!
Since the dawn of (Star Trek) time, we have yearned for teleportation - or what Le Guin's Shevek calls "transilliance." But, alas, what with the tragedy of Jeff Goldblum's failed experiment in The Fly... So, we have settled on a transference, not of physical bodies, but of ideas. The problem as explained in Dispossessed sounds like the pre-telephone era of Earth history - but it's different. Whereas the telephone can carry voice, and the telegraph words, and the fax a duplicate copy - or at least a reasonable facsimile - of a document - we are now using different means than that to communicate. Not quite the transilliance of the physical person from one place to another - but an increasingly media-rich connectivity that includes video, voice, presentation graphics, collaborative real-time tools, and other interactive features. This new connectivity approaches the "ansible" in ways that might have been hard for Le Guin to have imagined in 1974.

The Golden Arches of Good and Evil

In his introduction to The Practice of Everyday Life, Michel de Certeau sees consumption as “another production” at work in society. Even within capitalist, colonizing, totalizing, authoritarian systems – consumption is (almost invisibly, but nearly ubiquitously) an active “making” by the “other” within the dominant system. As de Certeau observes:

For instance, the ambiguity that subverted from within the Spanish colonizers' "success" in imposing their own culture on the indigenous Indians is well known. Submissive, and even consenting to their subjection, the Indians nevertheless often made of the rituals, representations, and laws imposed on them something quite different from what their conquerors had in mind; they subverted them not by rejecting or altering them, but by using them with respect to ends and references foreign to the system they had no choice but to accept. (xiii)

From this observation, I point to the arches. Golden ones. Evil, colonizing, oppressive emblems of capitalist consumerism. And yet… A Business Week book review of Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause paints an amazing picture of contradiction during a scene that resembles post-apocalyptic mayhem:

During the Los Angeles riots of 1992, vandals caused tremendous damage to businesses in the area. Yet not one of the 60 McDonald's franchises there was harmed. McDonald's executives attributed this good fortune partly to its Ronald McDonald Houses, which provide support for families of children with cancer, implying that what a company reaps is ultimately connected to what it sows. (December 3, 2008)

John Hood, in his book Heroic Enterprises, more finely details this incident to the specific area of South Central Los Angeles:

There are some thirty McDonald’s franchises in south-central Los Angeles, but none were torched and few were damaged at all that fateful week in April 1992. Rioters avoided the restaurants, except perhaps to eat in them (along with the police and firefighters) everyday after curfew was lifted. “We were spared – if we can use that term – because of our involvement in the community,” says franchisee Leighton Hull. “The folks know we’re involved in the community. To them, we aren’t just the guys who take the money and leave town.” (pp. 93-94)

What does this mean in relation to de Certeau’s ideas on consumption as production? First, south-central Los Angeles did not invent McDonald’s. Presumably, there no petition for a McDonald’s to be established there. McDonald’s franchises came there via the same commercially imperialistic wave of invasion that McDonald’s franchises go everywhere. And for the same culinary colonizing purposes. But, a funny thing happened as the billions and billions of burgers were being bought by the colonized. The consumption made something new out of the “product.” The consumers (re)created the culture of the producer. (see the two video clips below.) The consumers re-framed the franchises as “ours” rather than as “theirs.” By making the franchise through their “use” of the product, the consumers brought over the franchises into an associative identity of otherness.

McDonald's commercial circa 1986

McDonald's commercial circa 2008

It is also from this same observation of de Certeau that I wish to interrogate another poesis (making) factor in the mis(dys)topic world of John Brunner’s The Sheep Look Up. Let us assume the (postmodern) stock casting of business/capitalism (a la Prosser Enterprises) as the colonizing, dominant, oppressive power – which is a reasonable read for Brunner’s book. I propose that we look within the ranks of the producers themselves for more consumer/makers. I propose that individuals within this dominant system may be viewed as “other” than the producing system itself – indeed, that they may be viewed as a “consumer” of the dominance as a product. I illustrate here by showing the “heart” of the colonizing capitalist employee as voiced by Alan:

Know what I like about my job, Phil? They talk all the time about the businessman, the entrepreneur, being an ‘enemy of mankind’ and all that shit, and it is shit! I mean… I got my chance to be fat… and do I have to be ashamed of how I do it? I do not. Here I am offering a product that people really want, really need, and into the bargain creating jobs for people who’d otherwise be on relief.

Alan may be viewed as a producer, but isn’t Alan also a consumer? A consumer of entrepreneurism as a “product?” Is he any less a cog in the works of the dominant system? Is he any less disposable than the other “consumers?” It is interesting that the individual within the system finds ways to rationalize, justify or otherwise mediate his position as “producer/colonizer” in relation to “consumers/colonized.” Perhaps this betrays his innate understanding of his tenuous position as producer.

Show Me The Bloodmoney! (or, Fun with Dick and Jameson.)

First, Brave New World (revisited) - but not the book "Brave New World Revisited," just a revisiting of Brave New World, you know, the topic...

Let me revisit the topic and answer the unanswered question from last week. (You remember when Anthony asked me to define science? and you remember when I declined? Yeah, that was cool...) Anyway, here is something that approaches identifying my idea of Science & Technology as the object of the uncritical acceptance and obeisance to which I referred. (Such uncritical acceptance, I help, was the root of the "dys" in dystopias of Huxley and Forster.)

The idea of Science & Technology as the new "God" of these ages might be reflected by the comments on the names in BNW (Marx, Ford, Freud, etc.) made by Peter Firchow, in The End of Utopia. Firchow points out that points out that “All these forces share the claims of ‘totality,’ to a final knowledge… All are fundamentally materialist….” So, THIS is maybe what I meant by SCIENCE.
That is basically where I get off proposing that:

These dystopias have enthroned Science and Technology as God and King. The new ruler sets out to accomplish that bureau-lutionary process by which the ruling paradigm insulates itself from other ideas. (This same bureau-lutionary process is what creates “normal science,” and privileges ruling paradigms in theory, politics, and any number of other systems.) This process insures unity in the topia it rules. This unity is what Kenneth Burke might call a “congregation by segregation.” Oppositions to the throne (heretics) are segregated, excluded, marginalized, ghetto-ed, interred, but…. still existing in the ex-stasis, waiting. (from my previous blog)

Now, onto my ponderings on this week's readings...

So much to say - and my last blog was not a blog at all - but rather a "paper" - shiver! Does this reflect the power of the ages of print-centricity as ruling paradigm? You bet you sweet bippie!

This week, a shorter, more focused observation on... Bill. Bill, the "invisible friend" revealed to be invisible only because of his (ex)status/(ex)stasis as homunculus - contained within a more visible, but still marginalized body of a girl - his sister. Jameson's use of the communication grid situates Bill as the "receiver" or the "Other."

In order not to rehash or summarize what you have already read, let me problematize Bill's position as the "Other" in relation to his movement within the narrative of Br. Bloodmoney. For Bill to escape his position of ex-clusion, he must enter the world from which he is ex(oc)cluded, and must move within that world. Readers may see the world from which Bill is excluded as being primarily visual, or perhaps socio-political. Jameson sees the linguistic/communicative dimensions of the world from which Bill is cast outside:

Clearly, Dick's solution of the fundamental politico-existential problems facing humanity is here slanted toward art and language rather than toward an explicit scientific diagnosis which would meet the political problem head on. Nonetheless, Dick seems to realize that the verbal, linguistic or communicational field cannot by itself provide a solution. The playful character of Bill rises therefore, by his at least approximate synthesis of verbal and kinaesthetic powers, of communications and active physical intervention, to the status of final mediator, arbiter and one could almost say saviour in the microcosm of Dr. Bloodmoney. (Jameson, "After Armageddon," Archaeologies of the Future)

“The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.”Audre Lorde's famous quote regarding ruling paradigms (particularly patriarchy) may be challenged by the movement of Bill in Dick's dystopia. Bill's narrative movement depends on access to, and conveyance through, those "within" the master's house (system), even if only marginally "within" and even if the "system" is only marginally a ruling paradigm. Edie was useful, as was Hoppy, both within the dominant system. (Admittedly, so was the owl, but that's another discussion...)

• It seems that the master's tools are always already being used to dismantle the master's house.
  
• In fact, perhaps the master's tools are a NECESSITY to dismantle the master's house.
• And further, perhaps the master's tools are teleologicaly DESTINED to dismantle the master's house.
• OR - is the master's house EVER REALLY dismantled? Can it be? Or is every "revolution" simply a REMODELING of the same house after all?
  

But, to quote Dieter (of Sprockets)

"Yes, Ve are doomed and I am filled with remorse, and it is most delicious. But enough, I have become bored vith this... Now is the time on sprockets ven ve dance!"