This sentiment that “We are all …” Well. In the midst of the cyblizard, I think it is very useful. It is very useful. Because the use of WE necessarily implies a paradox that is wonderful to plunge into.
If indeed we are all Charlie Hebdo, then we are also all terrorists.
That is to say, we are all courageous and stand up for what we believe in. We believe especially in the urgency and importance of our art, which we would do no matter what, in the face of any danger. Our work and our art are one and the same, and we would do it with passion in the face of any threat, because it is so genuine and true to our intention and such a risk we would not take for work or art that were not so true and urgent and important to speak. (the question begs, individually, does this reflect ME? Can I make it reflect me MORE?)
It is also to say that we are all mentally ill. And we are hurting, and we have rage that boils within us that causes us to lash out and to kill because we are so fundamentally insecure that even words against us could theoretically break our faith.
And perhaps this is where our thinking could rest for more than a moment. Perhaps we could think about the ways in which WE give rise to terrorism and to violence within US. And WE must think of the ways in which the society that we have carved for ourselves on planet earth gives rise to fundamentalist ways of thinking and how we can send water to put out flames of anger and fury that rage. If we do imagine that we are one body, then surely we must take care of ourselves as a matter of course, in a way that we would care for (our)SELF, for our very own heads, if we were depressed or sick or angry or traumatised. We are experiencing a mental illness, one that wants to rage and rush and kill.
And how do we do this, how do we answer to this rage within us?