The Infinity of the Silent Strike

by | 18 Jun 2014

image_5_hole-800x847-283x300We know from Burke that it is the noise of the crowd or throng which leads to the expe­ri­ence of the sub­lime. The cacoph­ony of the many, gath­ered in their dis­charged state, draws us like a mag­net. But the crowd in strike has a num­ber of very dif­fer­ent dynam­ics to our open, closed and occu­pa­tion crowds. Let us begin with this ques­tion of the crowd’s noise. The brief spell of rev­o­lu­tion­ary Syn­di­cal­ism in France between 1886 and 1914 pro­vides a use­ful start­ing point for think­ing about the func­tion of noise and silence.1Canetti begins this:

Within the actual strike it is essen­tial that every­one should abide by the under­tak­ing not to work. Spon­ta­neously from within the crowd itself there springs up an orga­ni­za­tion with the func­tions of a state. It is fully con­scious of the short­ness of its life and has only a very small num­ber of laws; but these are strictly kept. Pick­ets guard the entrances to the place where the strike started and the work­place itself is for­bid­den ground. The inter­dict on it lifts it out of its every­day triv­i­al­ity and endows it with a spe­cial dig­nity. In its empti­ness and still­ness it has some­thing sacred. The fact that the strik­ers have taken over respon­si­bil­ity for it turns it into a com­mon pos­ses­sion and, as such, it is pro­tected and invested with a higher sig­nif­i­cance.2

The crowd appears at the picket, gath­ered by a sim­ple refusal to work. While the absence at the heart of the refusal is filled with demands and deter­mi­na­tions, these can never fill the fun­da­men­tal lack. The ‘laws’ which Canetti tells us emerge, cir­cle around the sanc­tity of this absence. The space of work becomes sacred, a cathe­dral emp­tied by the refusal of labour.

The dream is of the city of labour grad­u­ally falling silent, as the fur­naces and machines are unmanned. The cacoph­ony of labour is con­trasted to the silence of the strike. In the early days of syn­di­cal­ism, a sim­ple pic­ture was described.

The rev­o­lu­tion would involve noth­ing more dif­fi­cult than a national agree­ment to cease work on a par­tic­u­lar day. The work­ers would declare a Grand National Hol­i­day…. With one accord they would leave their fac­to­ries, shops and fields, don­ning their Sun­day best for a stroll along the boule­vards or for a pic­nic en famille in the Bois de Boulogne. As the fur­naces died out and the machines ground to a halt, the cap­i­tal­ists would at last real­ize that only labor was truly pro­duc­tive; faced with the man­i­fest deter­mi­na­tion of their for­mer employ­ees not to serve them any longer, they would have no choice but to sub­mit with the best grace pos­si­ble. As paral­y­sis spread, as press, trans­port and other ser­vices failed, the gov­ern­ment would be faced with… iso­la­tion…; they would be forced to capit­u­late.3

The silence of the machines seem to fill the space, welling up to the brim of the fac­tory, before spilling over. Strikes are catch­ing, whether they are sym­pa­thetic or in sol­i­dar­ity, they are con­ta­gious. The silence flows from one site to the next, fill­ing the city with the absence of din and the pos­si­bil­ity of talk. The great plea­sure of walk­ing in the new Boule­vards, the chirpy ‘grand hol­i­day’ with one’s fam­ily clad in ‘respectable’ clothes – this is an every­day utopia of speak­ing with one another.

In this sim­ple image of over­throw, the city in silence becomes a way of imag­in­ing the power of labour. With­out it, even the politi­cians would be left giv­ing orders to no one as their min­ions deserted them. How­ever, the city’s silence is not the absence of noise. Silence, like with­drawal, is a much more com­plex phe­nom­e­non. ‘Rather than being that which thwarts lan­guage, silence is that which opens the way for language’s potency… speech is born from silence and seeks its con­clu­sion in silence…. Silence then is required for the intel­li­gi­bil­ity both of what is said in dis­course and of dis­course itself as dis­course.’4The crowd falls silent before the fiery ora­tor. In the silence of the work­place the voice of organ­i­sa­tion, nego­ti­a­tion and argu­men­ta­tion emerges. Silence opens the pos­si­bil­ity of re-humanising the work­ers. No longer machines, they recover life and lan­guage. But it is not sim­ply a mat­ter silence as the pre­cur­sor to speech. Merleau-Ponty remarks that ‘we should be sen­si­tive to the thread of silence from which the tis­sue of speech is woven’.5 Silence is not sim­ply lack, but like lack it is some­thing which we try to fill in.6 In a group, in con­ver­sa­tion, in a crowd we need to fill silence, to break it and assuage our dis­com­fort. The fac­tory is never com­pletely silent, it is filled with the faint cries of the picket or the echoes of the space itself. What is impor­tant for us here is the man­ner in which the shift of sound from the every­day order of din to the eeri­ness of the workplace-in-strike is a rup­ture. The work-place with­out work, tears the order of neces­sity. In the silence of a strike, life is imag­ined with­out the neces­sity of toil.

The early syn­di­cal­ist image of the arms folded in with­drawal is soon over­taken by a sec­ond more noisy idea. The syn­di­cal­ists saw that the sys­tem of cap­i­tal would not sim­ply roll over. The folded arms gives way to the dichotomy of the picket – Rid­ley remarks that the image of the Commune’s bar­ri­cades in 1871 would still have been a rel­a­tively recent mem­ory to those set­ting up the CGT in 1895. The picket, like the bar­ri­cade, is a bor­der­ing prac­tice. As such it is always in need of polic­ing. The picket man­i­fests the bor­der between the pro­fane world and the place made sacred by its workless­ness (inop­er­a­tiv­ity). The crowd’s pres­ence is man­i­fested there beside but not in the place of busi­ness. The noise and pres­ence at the picket is held in ten­sion with the silence and absence in the space of work. How­ever, it is the absence that holds the strike together. The crowd that gath­ers holds this other-place out as its tal­is­man. It is well estab­lished that a strike that does not gar­ner suf­fi­cient num­bers to prop­erly dam­age pro­duc­tion is eas­ily defeated. The strike can thus be mea­sured in its hush, in its trans­po­si­tion of noise from one form to another – from the noise of labour to the din of voice.

The picket-border sig­ni­fies a divi­sion, but like all bor­ders it is not sim­ply the divide between inside and out­side. The picket is not in oppo­si­tion to the place of labour. Rather the picket, in syn­di­cal­ist thought, is the man­i­fes­ta­tion of the war of work­ers against the forces of cap­i­tal. But we should lis­ten care­fully to Canetti’s diag­no­sis half a cen­tury later. With­draw­ing from the work­place ‘lifts it out of its every­day triv­i­al­ity and endows it with a spe­cial dig­nity.’ This still and silent sacred­ness comes from the ‘fact that the strik­ers have taken over respon­si­bil­ity for it [thereby turn­ing]… it into a com­mon pos­ses­sion’.7 In the every­day course of activ­ity, work is directed and com­manded. In the ordi­nary course of busi­ness, the occu­pa­tion (in the sense of labour) by the work­ers of the work­place is in fact a sig­ni­fi­ca­tion of the owner’s pos­ses­sion of the work­ers, his con­trol and direc­tion. Only by leav­ing the work­place together and thereby refus­ing the owner’s con­trol, do the work­ers take pos­ses­sion of the work­place. This is occu­pa­tion reversed.

One of the cru­cial insights of the syn­di­cal­ists was to refuse the­ory. They defined them­selves against the ‘sci­en­tific’ social­ist who prof­fered a deter­mi­na­tive account of his­tory wherein the pro­le­tariat would come to power by force of his­tor­i­cal neces­sity. Syn­di­cal­ism under­stood that a new world would not just be born because cap­i­tal­ism was already impreg­nated with the seeds of social­ism. In the absence of his­tor­i­cal pre­de­ter­mi­na­tion, they prof­fered the process of edu­ca­tion. How­ever, edu­ca­tion was not the sim­ple trans­fer of knowl­edge from an expert the­o­reti­cian to the une­d­u­cated masses. This is why, aside per­haps from Sorel or de Man,8 in whom we still find a slight dis­dain and dis­com­fort with the masses, there are few ‘the­o­rists’ of this syn­di­cal­ism. The syn­di­cal­ists held that edu­ca­tion came in the process itself. The strike was the man­ner of both shift­ing from cap­i­tal­ism to social­ism or anar­chism, but also the way to learn about this shift. Each strike, with its pick­et­ing crowd tak­ing pos­ses­sion of the silent means of pro­duc­tion, is thus the means and end of the process.

Unlike a nor­mal strike, the gen­eral strike does not make spe­cific demands. Each eco­nomic or polit­i­cal strike is tied to par­tic­u­lar strate­gic gains: The work­ers want to rest for one or two days each week; They refuse to work after eight hours of labour; They want the suf­frage to be extended to all men irre­spec­tive of the quan­tity of pri­vate prop­erty they own. Each strike is thus a noisy affair, wherein demands are addressed and refused. How­ever, the gen­eral strike is silent. It makes no spe­cific demand. It does not address itself to the sys­tem of cap­i­tal­ist exploita­tion, but rather stays quiet.

Par­ties, as a rule, define the reforms that they wish to bring about; but the gen­eral strike has a char­ac­ter of infin­ity, because it puts on one side all dis­cus­sion of def­i­nite reforms and con­fronts men with a cat­a­stro­phe. Peo­ple who pride them­selves on their prac­ti­cal wis­dom are very much upset by such a con­cep­tion, which puts for­ward no def­i­nite project of future social orga­ni­za­tion.9

The silence of the gen­eral strike is the open­ing of an ‘infi­nite’ demand. Sorel insists that ‘all that is best in the mod­ern mind is derived from this ‘tor­ment of the infi­nite’.’10 Infin­ity is some­thing which must be grap­pled with at each moment. The gen­eral strike makes an infi­nite demand.11

The silent void at the heart of the gen­eral strike is a trans­po­si­tion of the sacral­is­ing silence of the work­place which has been taken into com­mon pos­ses­sion. It is born from the real­i­sa­tion that each demand – which is noth­ing other than a symp­tom of the struc­ture as a whole – may be met or nego­ti­ated away. A strike attached to par­tic­u­lar demands sim­ply enters the fray as a nego­ti­at­ing tac­tic, it becomes one among many ways of fram­ing politico-economic ratio­nal­ity. How­ever, a strike with­out demand aside from the utter refusal of the sys­tem of labour itself pro­vides no point of trac­tion. Sorel insists that we must con­sider the infi­nite absence of the gen­eral strike as a ‘cat­a­stro­phe’. The gen­eral strike is not a ratio­nal plan for the shift from cap­i­tal­ism to social­ism,12 but an escha­tol­ogy. In his ‘Let­ter to Daniel Halvey’ which opens the Reflec­tions on Vio­lence, Sorel sit­u­ates this in pessimism.‘The pes­simist regards social con­di­tions as form­ing a sys­tem bound together by an iron law which can­not be evaded, so that the sys­tem is given, as it were, in one block, and can­not dis­ap­pear except in a cat­a­stro­phe which involves the whole.’13 Pes­simism for Sorel is a reflec­tion upon the dire con­di­tions and the pos­si­bil­i­ties pre­sented in the imme­di­ate future.14 In a struc­ture with­out cracks, escha­tol­ogy – the study of the end of days – becomes a pow­er­ful way of gen­er­at­ing imme­di­ate resistance.

But there is a cer­tain roman­ti­cism in all of these reflec­tions. The infi­nite silence at the heart of the strike is itself a reflec­tion upon the roman­tic sub­lime. Burke tells us: ‘All gen­eral pri­va­tions are great because they are ter­ri­ble: Vacu­ity, Dark­ness, Soli­tude and Silence.’15 Infin­ity is itself a source of the sub­lime, for Burke. Even Sorel’s phrase the ‘tor­ment of the infi­nite’ is a reflec­tion of roman­tic ideas of being there before death in anguish. Later in 1911, Barré would use the phrase to dis­cuss Chateaubriand’s 1802 novella René.16 How­ever, we must be care­ful here. An easy asso­ci­a­tion with roman­ti­cism is prob­lem­atic. For one, syn­di­cal­ism under­lined the col­lec­tive nature of power, rather than the lonely roman­tic hero stand­ing sub­limely out against the grey banal­ity of the world. The flip side of this is that this entire dis­course on strikes is marked by a thor­ough roman­ti­ci­sa­tion. Sorel in par­tic­u­lar was not a par­tic­i­pant in the labour which he sought to analyse. Talk­ing about the grey real­ity of strikes and labour in terms of silence and the sub­lime cer­tainly seems to be out of place. The point, how­ever, is not to engage in some sort of descrip­tive soci­ol­ogy of strikes, nor is it to some­how sug­gest their util­ity or oth­er­wise at our cur­rent con­junc­ture. Rather I am point­ing to a cer­tain imag­i­na­tion of the city, of the crowd and of labour.

Details of the Crowded Sovereignty Porject can be found here, along with all previous posts.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Join 4,311 other subscribers

We respect your privacy.

Fair access publisher in
critical law and humanities.

Fair access = access according to ability to pay on a sliding scale down to zero.



Submit your article and get read by the largest community of critical legal scholars, with over 4000 subscribers.