Category: book

„Correction is often heard as complaint: as being negative,assertive, demanding.“ (Ahmed, p. 119)

This quote by Sara Ahmed stuck with me while reading the book, trying to understand the many ways in which complaint works. We learn how complaint is communicative labor because you have to express what your complaint is about, you have to tell your story, making the same points and sharing them with others over and over again: „you have to keep coming out; you have to come out as somebody this happened to, to come out as somebody who is complaining that this happened.“ (p 119). You have to come out as a complainer.
Coming out as a queer person means always correcting peoples presumptions because of how „the world presumes a certain kind of body“ (gender, sex, sexuality etc). Western society presumes only two opposite categories of sex and gender exist. As a non binary person, I therefore do not fit those presumptions and always have to correct them, correcting people using the wrong pronouns or how they adress me, for example. „Correction is often heard as complaint“, as „moaning“ or maybe of just being different, sticking out. (Ahmed, p 119)
Every time, before I correct in those situations, before even expressing my „complaint“, I go through an inner process of questioning myself and contemplating, if I should even correct the person I am talking to or if I should just led it slide. Correcting them means coming out to them, and this means „to reveal something“ (p 119). „When you complain, your own body is turned into testimony, as revealing something about yourself“ (p 144). That something is a sensitive matter, my personal story, the testimony of my trans body. Through complaint, I open myself up to sensitive, often intrusive questions. I read somewhere, that cisgender people, when meeting a trans person, lose their feeling of empathy, of what is okay to ask and what not. That is my experience too. It is quite perplexing what conversations I had with complete strangers, after I unintentionally came out to them, just by correcting them about my pronouns.
Also, in chapter four, Becoming/Unbecoming a complainer, Ahmed talks about how the person complaining becomes the problem: „…as soon as you draw attention to structures you draw attention to yourself, the structures do not come in view; you do.” (P148). When correcting someone about my pronouns, I become the problem, not the constructions society build around gender norms. I am heard as being different, not assimilating to societal norms, I am the one standing out, therefore I become the target of complaint. Complaint, in this case, meaning trans- and homophobia.
Correction is often heard as complaining, therefore as something negative and demanding. I am „demanding“ them to go out of their way to use the correct pronouns, causing them an inconvienience, becoming an inconvenience.I do not want to be an inconvenience, a tiresome complainer who is always correcting. But I have to, because if I want to be seen, I have to complain.

References
Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint! (1. Aufl.). Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2021b, Juni 16). Complaint as Feminist Pedagogy, 06.12.2021 on https://feministkilljoys.com/2021/06/16/complaint-as-feminist-pedagogy/

From complaint, we learn how institutions work and how power structures are formed by reproduction of patterns. Injustice and violence can be patterns. Complaint can be seen as a necessary tool to stop this reproduction. Even if the complaints are dropped or filed away, they still become part not only of the institutions‘ history, but also of the complainers‘ history. The knowledge we take away from the effort of making a complaint becomes our „institutional wisdom“ (Ahmed, 2021). In a blog entry, Ahmed talks about Complaint as a „Feminist Pedagogy“ or „the pedagogy of the oppressed“ (p. 115) and what complaint teaches us about institutions.
„Complaint as feminist pedagogy: to make a complaint within an institution is to learn about how institutions work, what I call institutional mechanics.“ (Complaint as Feminist Pedagogy, 2021)
In chapter one, Mind the gap, she writes about how an institution tells its story is quite different from the story, a complainer tells about the same institution. Ahmed describes it as the gap between what an institution appears to be on the outside and how it actually is experienced. The label of diversity, which many institutions use to present themselves, is more often than not just a word without an action. Written policies that fail to „bring into effect what they name.” (p. 30) are a gap between what is supposed to happen and what is not happening.
In order to get a formal complaint through the system, you need to learn how the system works, you become part of the system. „Policies provide a set of principles and values that are supposed to govern institutions.” (p. 29). They will tell you what to do and point in the direction you need to go, they give you a path. This path can appear lineal, but it is in no way an easy one.
“Complaint as feminist pedagogy: the system is working by stopping those who are trying to stop the system from working.“ (Complaint as Feminist Pedagogy, 2021)
Institutional mechanics are designed to make it hard for complainers to even get a formal complaint through, or in other words, are „designed to make it difficult for people to proceed with a complaint.”(p. 78). They are used as tools to stop complaint. Procedures require you to submit certain forms at certain times, to be at certain places and who to talk to. In Strategic Inefficiency, Ahmed describes how the same system, which is supposed to guide complainers to get their complaint through, does the opposite, by wasting their time and resourcess and tiring them out. Slow processes, strict guidelines, administrative failure, constant change of procedures lead to dismissed complaints on procedural grounds. „Power works by making it hard to challenge how power works.” (p. 125)
We learn how institutions work by learning how complaints are stopped. A complaint which is a tool to stop the reproduction of the same oppressive system, is simply nothing more than the flow of information, that is stopped by inefficiency. It becomes clear who those procedures work for when a student can not meet the deadline to submit a form because of chronic illness. Inequality gets reproduced.
“Complaint as feminist pedagogy: what you are told you need to do to progress further and faster in the system is what reproduces the system.“ (Complaint as Feminist Pedagogy, 2021)
The structures of a system is about what is reproduced. When you become part of an institution, you are expected to reproduce the structure by agreeing and proceeding in the same cycle of injustice and violence. When you are not „willing to participate“ in this system, the violence gets redirected towards you. „Violence is redirected toward those who identify violence“. To challenge the system, we first need to learn how to survive it. Ahmed writes in her book, how she and others interviewed by her, expressed their complaints in different ways and places to not become a target. For Ahmed herself this meant leaving the institution, withdrawing herself and her work and collecting the stories of other complainers. This collection of stories and experiences become resources to other complainers.
Even if our complaints may not seem tangible, what we take away from that effort is what Ahmed calls „institutional wisdom“. That knowledge about institutional structures helps us in challenging and transforming the same structures that oppress us.

References
Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint! (1. Aufl.). Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2021b, Juni 16). Complaint as Feminist Pedagogy. feministkilljoys. Abgerufen am 06. Dezember, 2021, von https://feministkilljoys.com/2021/06/16/complaint-as-feminist-pedagogy/

In May 2012 the first New World Summit took place in the Sophiensaele theater in Berlin. Wooden Constructions hanged with colorful flags framed the circular space which became the stage of many different international political organizations, invited by Artist and founder Jonas Staal. All of those, are autonomous groups, currently listed on the so-called ‚international terrorist lists‘. One of them was Fadile Yildrim, a representative of the Kurdish women movement, an organization, founded on the principles of gender-equality, communal economy and self-governance. Speakers like Yildrim, fighting for a stateless and fundamental democracy, inspired Staal to continue the New World Summit, with the goal, to host every organization currently banned by the ‚Terrorist Lists‘. (Staal, 2012)
In Complaint!, Ahmed collects interviews and testomonies of people, challenging the power structures that institutions are reproducing. Similar to the book, the New World Summit becomes a complaint collective, where the stories of those who where silenced, are told. Through performance art, Staal forms an alternative parliament, where activists, diplomats and artists, otherwise excluded from democratic discourses, could present their work to an audience.
As an visual artist, Staal explores the relations between art, propaganda and democracy. He believes democracy to be limitless, at least in definition. In reality, secret committees like the Clearing House operate in secret, and have the power to single-handedly dismiss political groups as terroristic. Outside the public eye, they decide who gets the right to speak, to participate and who not. An inherently undemocratic practice, which is influenced by diplomatic prejudices and personal gain of nations and governments. But what if the political models, of blacklisted groups „are more democratic than capitalist-democracy itself?“ (Staal, 2019) In that case, Staal argues, „their threat is primarily ideological.“ (Staal, 2019) This ideology of the capitalist-democracy is described by him as „democratism“, a democracy that is stagnant and „ideological of administration and governance“ (Staal, 2013, P. 73). It is a democracy where organizations, fighting for liberation and equality, like the Kurdish women movement, can be silenced by one committee to keep up their status quo. But if we think of the Clearing House comittee as merely a tool for reproducing power structures, the state/nation is the one who builds those power structures. „Power works by making it hard to challenge how power works.” (Ahmed 2021, P 125), Ahmed writes in her book. In her sense, political organizations, like the ones mentioned are, in the eyes of democratism, complainers. By challenging the power structure build by the state, they become the problem, not the structure they were complaining about. Institutions like the Clearing House are silencing complainers by cutting them off from public discourse and from their access to resources. “Power is not simply what complaints are about; power shapes what happens when you complain.” (Ahmed, 2021, P 24) Challenging power structures by not participating in the reproduction of the violence and harassment of that structure, that violence gets redirected towards oneself. ”If escalation can be another method of stopping a complaint, escalation includes not only the increase of force but the denial of force.” (Ahmed, 2021, P 135). The violence directed towards the complainer takes place behind „institutional blinds“ (Ahmed, 2021), away from the public eye, or is justified by declaring the complainer as a thread to democracy. Either way, the complaint is contained or shut outfrom the institution, to protects itself, its reputation and of course, its status quo. Democratism creates it‘s own narrative about a democratic and positive environment, by dividing people into „us“ versus „them“, turning „them“ into threads to the system. The New World Summit aims to „redefine who exactly is “Us” and who is “Them” (Staal, 2019). Staal puts together those alternative parliaments of organizations labeled terrorists, to „structurally oppose a series of monopolies“ that he describes as „the pillars of democratist politics.“ ( Staal, 2013, P 76)In the chapter „Mind The Gap!“ (Complaint, 2021), Ahmed talks about the gap between what the institution appears to be and what the actual experience inside the institution really is. Looking closely, democratism acts against the core principles of democracy, which it is stating to protect, by controlling what information is publicly available and which not, therefore controlling the flow of information. Ahmed also writes about control of the flow of information“ as an „effort to stop a complaint“. (Ahmed, 2021, P 98) Art is a medium to transport information and can therefore be used as a political tool by the institution itself, but also, against it. By using art‘s relative autonomous position in politics and society, the New World Summit brings back the information, hidden and contained by democratism, back into the public eye. Staal opens up spaces for political speakers, in an effort to answer the question. „how, from the perspective of an artist’s practice, to use the discursive space opened by Institutional Critique“. (Staal, 2013, P 76)Art is how we can express complaint, even bypassing existing anti-terrorist laws:
„I propose a pedagogy of fundamental democracy as its counterpoint, aimed at teaching how to liberate democracy from the state, The revolutionary tool called „art“ will be the weapon to bring this pedagogy into practice and fight the representatives of democratism passionatly.“ (Art After Democratism, 2013, P 254)

References
Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint! (1. Aufl.). Duke University Press.
Staal, J. (2012). New World Summit-Berlin. Jonas Staal. Abgerufen am 3. Januar 2022, von http://www.jonasstaal.nl/projects/new-world-summit-berlin/
Staal, J. (2013). Art After Democratism: The Pedagogy Of The New World Summit. In Pedagogies Of Disaster (S. 247–255). Department of Eagles.

In her work, Kit reminds me of the form in the book. ‘Form’ is usually the first object that a complainer encounters. And sometimes it’s the last chance to explain what happened to the complainant. Eventually, at the end of this process, the paper will become a “separated body” and a separate voice, just like the kit in the work of Eliza Schvartz. How is this form being written, which has already been handed over to the institution and is part of an indelible complainer? Can this form properly capture me and my complaints?

Mainly in form, blank spaces had to be filled in an orderly way. which is compulsory. There is no space for ambiguity. After the form was filled out, every case looked flawless and clear. Becoming flawless and simple means that the case is separated from the complainer’s body and voice. Every word from the complaint is separated from the complaint itself.

Let’s go back to the cord, now the meaning of cord could be expanded to form. If you look at the whole process of complaining as a process of weaving a cord, the form should be an important document that distinguishes my cord from others. It should be the only piece of paper that describes my cord.

The ‘form’ could be the life-ring at the end of the cord. When we throw the life ring, it should be the one we can trust and grab. If we already know the end of the form could be the cabinet, then at least we need something more than a case number and boring documentation. At some point, I started to question why we cannot make a more relevant or striking form. The form should not be intended to define clear normative principles. Rather should have the intention of finding ambiguity and contradiction in each case.

So I want to build a form that would allow for ambiguity. For amplifying the complaint, I feel the necessity to re-design the form. Making a form for the complaint could be challenging since every case has different shapes and voices. Maybe the idea of “form” which already has a meaning of “uniform” would not be a perfect way of “hearing” the voice. However, if we agree with the necessity of compiling the complaint’s narrative as a testimony and being a catalyst from hereafter, and not only as a piece of evidence but also as a “discrete body”, I reckon we all agree to the making better form.

Aliza Shvarts’ recent work Anthem (2019-present) is about how the body can be a material/platform to speak and be heard. This work “is a comparison of the different sexual assault evidence collection kits or ‘rape kits’ used in each US state. […] the kits vary in language, content, and form. A kit might contain 7 or 21 steps; it might use legal or medical language (‘victim’ vs. ‘patient’) and gendered or gender-neutral terms (‘panties’ vs. ‘underwear’). As an object, a rape kit is a crucial site where physical experience is transformed into testimony—one that has the power to support or supersede the survivor’s own voice. Viewers are invited to pick up, handle, and compare the reproductions of the kits’ internal contents, which are on display on the shelves in the space.” (“Anthem (2019-present).” Aliza Shvarts, https://alizashvarts.com/2019_anthem.html. Accessed 17 January 2022.) Also In the interview, she mentioned, “[t]he kit, as a discrete body, solves the problem of relation, of the interdependency of the body on larger systems and practices of care.” (After Emily, editor. “A conversation with Aliza Shvartz.” OCTOBER, vol. 176, 2021, pp. 88-110.) So in her work, Kit is an indelible material because it’s a part of body but also a “discrete body”.

In order for us to make a code together, listeners also need to start complaining about the behaviour of the institutions vigorously. Because in this procedure, if the listeners don’t stand up, there is no place for a throwing cord. And Aliza Shvartz’s work came to mind while thinking of institutions claiming “principle” to the complainer about an obscure, unclear problem.

Her first work, Untitled [Senior Thesis] (2008), consisting of a yearlong performance of self-induced miscarriages, was declared a “fiction” by Yale University and censored from public exhibition. When an institution puts forward a ‘principle’ that has the power to enforce an individual, it should be aware that an individual’s complaint is no way to enforce the institution. After 10 years later, she exhibits this documentation in another space (player, 2018). Finally, the “Truth”/ “Story” came out from undersea. In her work, the form of art could be the cord. And this platform “Art” comes out in public with a different kind of power than the principles of the institution. Her work encourages me to contemplate what and how to bring the past to the surface. Especially about the way how it’s through the right form to reveal.

While I research the example for the role of the listener, I found Lawrence Abu Hamdan’s artwork. It draws the role of interpretation and intervention during testimony. In his work, Abu Hamdan represents the historical scene in the Nuremberg trials in 1945–46. This trial was the first trial that uses a simultaneous translation system in the world. In this trial, simultaneous interpreters are nowhere to be seen. Yet their presence was captured by the flashing yellow and red lights built into the witness stand and the prosecutor’s podium, which were used to slow down or pause the speed of the sound flowing into their headphones. (“The witness-machine complex(2021)”, Lawrence Abu Hamdan, http://lawrenceabuhamdan.com/witness-machine-complex) These lights interfere with and control witness statements in many ways.

Lawrence Abu Hamdan mentions “[t]here’s an exchange that begins with a Russian witness named Jakov Gregorvion, […] He’s asked where he comes from, and the follow-up question is “Does that village still exist?,” and the answer is “No, it does not exist.” And then the yellow light goes off. Already, it’s weird, and immediately the judge tells him to slow down. So this strange and frank detail, which contains a huge amount of violence, is immediately kind of overwritten by the light, by the way, the court makes a demand on the voice and what it needs to sound like. When the yellow light flashes a second time, he freezes for over a minute, his testimony entirely derailed. In another instance, Marie Vaillant-Couturier responds to the yellow light by altering her speech to an incredibly robotic staccato […].” (McHugh, Camila. “Lawrence Abu Hamdan on Translation, Nuremberg, and the Juridical Unconscious.” The Online Edition of Artforum International Magazine, 12 Oct. 2021, https://www.artforum.com/interviews/lawrence-abu-hamdan-on-translation-nuremberg-and-the-juridica l-unconscious-86875)

Lawrence Abu Hamdan’s work reveals the violence of being interrupted to testify. If someone’s testimony can be influenced by the light of a machine that’s regarded as neutral and emotionless, then how can a human – regarded as a subjective – tune in to the speaker better? Furthermore, what does ‘neutral’ mean? Should a person who has the power to listen exercise “neutrality” as emotionless? I would say no.

The role of listening should not be an appraiser, also that doesn’t mean they should be a saviour. Instead, it has to be an alliance so that they could pull together throughout the whole process of complaining to protest. This non-vertical relationship is woven and formed based on listening and understanding. Thus, let’s start to imagine a cord that is made of sturdy trust and patience weaved together. Remember, you can’t weave a cord with a single strand. Two strands have to be twisted together. The code that we made together like this could be the last hope we can hold and help the complaint to get out from the bottom of the sea like a rope. Or this code can be the link that allows complaints to reach us.

In her book, Sara Ahmed keeps talking about how the complaint is not conceived seriously and authentically. Likes she mentioned, inside of the cabinet, we can easily find out a dead complaint buried intentionally which is the general end of the complaint. Furthermore, she mentioned “holding the doors” (chapter 6). In this chapter, she depicts the attributes of the complaint itself or attributes of the process of complaint. “I can hold the door for you.” is the same meaning as “I can hold the door for you till I want.” So the meaning of “holding door” or “hearing complaint” is always up to the discretion of the gatekeeper and listener.

During reading her books, I focused on the fact that every complaint has a different narrative and context. But even though it comes from a discrete background, most of the complaints are written in the same form and lose their own story during the process of “hearing”. In a way, keeping the ambiguity of complaints is key to the revival of buried complaints. Eventually, I conclude, AMBIGUITY is only concretized through an individual platform. However institutional systems deny and disregard the exceptional and ambiguous situation exceedingly. Thus, they define all problems in a form.

On the other hand, forcing integrity and authenticity on complainers is another kind of violence. This problem also applies to the form that must be marked ‘compulsory’(*) on one of their designated entry. Most often, the word “genuine” or “truth” is abused and misused. Especially if you are in the position of “hearing”, you’d say “I want to know the truth of the whole story.” Thus, you want to dig the truth. Eventually, it will hurt the person you are facing now despite the truth only existing regardless of the role of “hearing”.

Thus, I started to question how can I let the complaint be exposed to the surface like it was supposed to be without interpretation and intervention. The process of hearing should be distinct from imposing. Then, what can I do for complaint when the time has been passed to expose so it has been stuck down below. Furthermore, as a result, what is the role of the “listener”?

Read it again, and then again. A never ending cirkel.

Hello, you have called Complaint! hotline’s answering machine.
We have run out of answers and all operators are currently busy.
But feel free to leave your message after a short signal.
Rely on artificial
Intelligence sensitivity
No one will stop you
Don’t laugh, don’t cry
And don’t drop the handset
If you want to speak
Press the key number one
If you use uncensored vocabulary
Key number two
If you just want to shut up
Press number three
Your pain will be recorded
For quality improvement purposes