Radical: A Returning to the Root

Whenever a tragic event transpires because of an individual’s actions such as the recent Boston Marathon bombing or the terrorist attracts of September 11th 2001 or even a protest held by the Westboro Baptist Church, we tend to talk of these people/groups as radical. We also label them as extremists. Which one is it? Are all radicals extremists as well? Now these two words are different and yet we use them as if they were interchangeable and I’m not too certain they can be used so fluidly. I want to examine these words and use them in right and appropriate ways.* 

The word radical comes from the Latin radix meaning root. This means that when something is radical it is relating to the root or base. Roots are important. They dig deep, the spread into the dark and find things which have been lost. They discover new areas. They also provide nourishment to the rest of the plant.

I have studied many so-called radical groups as a part of my undergrad education. Generally radical groups, or more commonly known as separatist groups, split off from the main-stream because they feel a calling to go deeper (notice I didn’t use extreme though I grammatically could have). Political radicals can be seen all over the spectrum. When Charlotte Bunch and other separatist feminist of the early 1970’s started The Furies Collective, they went in search of political refuge, acceptance, the idea of woman, what it means to be a lesbian just to name a few. They dug deep into the ideas of what it meant to be a woman, where the political process of America was headed, and how to change the culture around them. Marilyn Frye, theorist and lesbian feminist philosopher, says that “A separatist practices separation consciously, systematically, and probably more generally than the others, and advocates thorough and “broadspectrum” separation as part of the conscious strategy of liberation”. In short, she sees a separatist, and I would correlate this with a radical practice, as the willful exorcise of oneself from a community in order to liberate, or free, the self. (Frye) They needed to separate themselves from the over-culture in order to really get into the heart of their experiences as women, as lesbians, and as members of democratic society.

When religious groups becomes radical they are often seeking a more interpersonal experience with the divine as their tradition sees it. This looks different depending on the religion, the tradition, and the power structure of that group. Radical Christians dive deep into the social well-being of their community bolstered by the exemplary life of Jesus. (Fisher 219) Nuns, monks, and hermits of all the worlds’ traditions are radical in that they want to feel their idea of the divine so much that the outside world must be left behind. In terms spiritual anatomy the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Chakras slow down so the heart (4th), mind (5th), and crown (6th an 7th) may be fully open to the experience/imminence of the divine.(Myss) Siddhartha (Buddha) sat under a tree, Jesus went to the garden, Muhammad went to the mountain, Inanna left heaven and earth and went into the underworld where everything she had was taken from her.

And here is the other half of what it means to be a Radical. They must bring back what they learned and experienced to the community. I don’t know if it is the radical’s journey to stay radical forever or if there is a katabatic (to descend and return) cycle. Roots bring nutrition to the rest of the plant; same can be said for a radical person. Once the knowledge, experience, wisdom is found, it is the job of the Radical inform the community. Now wither or not the person with whom the Radical is in contact with is receptive of their message is not the point. The point is there is new wisdom to disperse. There are truths to be absorbed. The wisdom gets transported into the world and watered-down and altered which can disappoint/infuriate a radical. Thus, when faced with difficult and trying times, we humans and turn towards violent and iritic behaviors. I believe that is not the job of anyone, especially a radical, to use violent or corrosive force to disseminate their message. Not only does this give the whole community of which the radical is a part of a bad name but it negatively impacts the community in which we all live.

I hope I have opened your eyes to the idea that we use the label of radical far too often to describe people who act soul in destructive ways. I would say the amount of radicals who commit the hanus acts we hear about in the news is significantly less than we think. After examining the word radical and the whole would actually portray its characteristic, perhaps it is extremists, those who are on the limits of their community, who are the perpetrators of these great crimes. Maybe after reading this, and examining the groups you are a part of, you will find yourself a radical. What is calling you to dig deeper? What is calling you away from the over-culture and towards a more intense study? What lessons have you learned from being so close to a topic it calls in to question everything you’ve known to be true? What called you and you responded with such a fervent yes, every shred of rationality said to go forth? What lessons have you learned there in the deep?

NEXT WEEK: Extremist

*When was examine the words we are choosing to say we slow down and use a more prudent and judicious speech. This means we describe the word more accurately, view it more sharply, and are able to create stronger bonds i.e. our relationship to ourselves and to each other. Example: How do you describe yourself? What is the narrative you are saying about yourself? What do you so casually say you hate/like/want/love and how is that constructing how you view yourself/your actions? How do you label the world (other people, places, and events) and how does that help/hinder the way in which we move forward?

Bibliography

Fisher, Mary Pat. "Women in Christianity." Women in Religion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2007. 188-233. Print.

Frye, Marilyn. "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power." Feminist Theory: A Reader. Ed. Wendy K. Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 275-81. Print.

Myss, Caroline. The Language of Archetypes: Discover the Forces That Shape Your Destiny. Boulder, CO: Sounds True, 2006. Audio.

Skyfall Review: Shadows of the Past

As soon as Mr. bond went over the waterfall and is dragged underground in the opening credits, in which we hear Adele’s brassy and classic bond-themed song Skyfall, I thought Oh. This is going to be a katabasis, a descent and a return. But as we kept going underground, through tunnels, London’s subway system, WWII bunkers, over dark waters, and into the desolate misted hills of Scotland, I was waiting for the return, that light at the end of the tunnel. But it never happens. 

The themes of Skyfall come right out of the seventh house in astrology and the sign of Scorpio: death, sex, additions, ageing, and the past. All of these are played to their fullest and are cast in shadows and the color blue. Even the fight scenes are filled with mirrors, sharp over-the-shoulder angles, and shadows. In a Shanghai high-rise the gun shots and smashing of windows is acted through the dark of night and electric blue projections of fiber-optic tendrils and a luminescent jellyfish. James Bond (Daneil Crige) and his foe Patrice, played by Ola Rapace, are silhouettes of themselves fighting in the dark, lending to an almost theatrical display of armed combat.

Of course what would a James Bond flick be without the women. Judi Dench once again plays the motherly M. She is first and foremost the head of MI6 and plays her stochastic, emotionless self to the T, making the hard decision for the safety of England and the world with every turn. As the film progresses and the plot keeps its metaphoric and literal downward path, her hard-edged resolve is slowly melted away, as if all the films watery filled scenes attempt to wash away at her steadfastness while remnants of the past are reviled. Her performance is great and for being 77 years old and still captivating the audience, I say You go girl!

Naomie Harris (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest) plays second fiddle to bond throughout the film and I wish she would have had I bigger role. She is a strong, graceful, and quick witted agent who acts as flirt and support for bond in several key scenes. She delivered her lines well and held the audience’s attention through high and low parts. I look forward to see her kick ass and hold her own in future films. The lovely and lithe Sévérine, played by Bérénice Lim Marlohe, is perhaps the stereotypical bond girl: Pretty and doomed play a part in the villain’s plans. Sévérine is more a prop than a character. Even her dresses plays up the fluid nature of the films, skin tight and shadowy evening gowns detailed with black curling designs.  

Javier Bardem (Eat Pray Love, No Country for Old Men), is Silva. He’s smooth like a snake and just as cunning. His blond hair and eyelashes and clay like face lean towards the grotesque. He is one good villain with just the right amount of crazy which makes his one step ahead of MI6 plot that more thrilling. Even in the end, with his final encounter with M, his dialogue rips at everything the film has been digging down towards.

Skyfall is classic James Bond, drawing from the old Bond mythos in every way: cars, women, martinis (shaken), bullets, and exotic locations. But all the tropes don’t bore you with the clichés. There are plenty of explosions, car chases, close calls —sometimes all in the same scene—to keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time. Don’t expect to come out on top with waving Union Jacks. This is a darker side of the bond story. It is a ride through the past, through fog and shadows and I highly recommend the trip.