What are Transgressionists?
A lot of the material on this site is admittedly negative, telling people what we are not. And that is important because there is a massive collection of ideas, and downright idiocy, out there that need to be responded to. But Transgressionism is a positive thing as well. So let me explain what we are.
Transgressionists are into freedom, radically into freedom. Compared to us, Libertarians may be considered statists. We tend to live by the doctrine, “Learn the rules, break the rules.” Because of that we tend to become choleric and often rather ill-mannered in the presence of rule-makers. We just plain don’t like other people telling us what we can and cannot do. And we often work to do something about them, like laugh them out of the scene. By our very nature we see any norm as a target and will work to subvert it if not violate it outright. We tend to react to people who see themselves as the defenders of such things as if they had signs saying “kick me” on their backs and maybe even tape one on them. In fact to many transgressionists, particularly those coming out of the arts and literary worlds, the violation of societal norms is not merely a hobby, it is a moral obligation. This is due to their having been immersed in the Adversary Culture for so long that it naturally carries over into every aspect of their lives.
Transgressionists have no use for hierarchy. 30 or so years ago, the journal Parabola dedicated an issue to the concept of hierarchy and the editor put a story in his opening comments that he had mentioned the issue to a friend who responded to a request for a definition of hierarchy with, “I don’t know what it is but I know I don’t like it.” That pretty much defines us. We are radically egalitarian as far as scene roles go, even though we may be quite elitist with regard to the scene itself. As a group, we are repulsed by the military culture, even though many of us may be ex-military, and we tend to react with a great deal of negative energy when that culture is introduced into the scene. This is the cause of much of our conflict with the structuralists.
Having no use for hierarchy, we reject all notions of place and position. A dom is dom to his sub, not to anyone else. Outside of the relationship, everyone is equal and must be treated according. All formality and protocol based on position is therefore rejected out of hand and never followed except as it involves others relationships. In other words, we respect their right to order their relationships as they want, but reject their right to impose those rules on us. All communication external to a relationship is on a strictly equal basis irrespective of the feelings of the other parties. It is an extreme insult to imply that a sub is inferior to a dom.
Transgressionists are uninterested in the criterion of outsiders. The sub behaving badly in the eyes of the structuralist may be doing exactly as her transgressionist dom wishes. The opinion of the structuralist is of no importance whatsoever. We judge by our own standards without regard for the beliefs of others, especially as it regards our relationships. To imply that the sub meet the criterion of the structuralist is a deadly insult.
Transgressionists are less concerned with time in the scene than with talent and ideas. A young or new person is accorded the same level of respect as a person who has been around for 30 years. We have little patience with those who insist that time served is the one criterion for knowledge.
Transgressionists are not normally communitarian except in extreme circumstances. The individual and his or her needs or desires is always superior in consideration to that of the community. Right always takes precedence over responsibility. No transgressionist will ever subordinate his or her style of play or personal expression to the supposed needs of any community.
Tradition in and of itself is rejected out of hand. We know that all traditions had to be created by someone and none are binding save by consent. If a transgressionist follows a tradition it is because he or she finds something appealing in it, not merely because other people do it. One must never forget that someone, sometime, sat down with a quill pen and wrote out the program for the coronation of the British monarch and that person put his armor on one leg at a time like everyone else. There is nothing sacred about tradition.
Likewise there is nothing sacred about the “lifestyle.” Our lifestyle is what we say it is and it is of no consequence if it fits into other people’s ideas of what it should be or not. We are under no obligation to ascribe to, follow, or even respect another’s definition of their lifestyle.
A lot of the material on this site is admittedly negative, telling people what we are not. And that is important because there is a massive collection of ideas, and downright idiocy, out there that need to be responded to. But Transgressionism is a positive thing as well. So let me explain what we are.
Transgressionists are into freedom, radically into freedom. Compared to us, Libertarians may be considered statists. We tend to live by the doctrine, “Learn the rules, break the rules.” Because of that we tend to become choleric and often rather ill-mannered in the presence of rule-makers. We just plain don’t like other people telling us what we can and cannot do. And we often work to do something about them, like laugh them out of the scene. By our very nature we see any norm as a target and will work to subvert it if not violate it outright. We tend to react to people who see themselves as the defenders of such things as if they had signs saying “kick me” on their backs and maybe even tape one on them. In fact to many transgressionists, particularly those coming out of the arts and literary worlds, the violation of societal norms is not merely a hobby, it is a moral obligation. This is due to their having been immersed in the Adversary Culture for so long that it naturally carries over into every aspect of their lives.
Transgressionists have no use for hierarchy. 30 or so years ago, the journal Parabola dedicated an issue to the concept of hierarchy and the editor put a story in his opening comments that he had mentioned the issue to a friend who responded to a request for a definition of hierarchy with, “I don’t know what it is but I know I don’t like it.” That pretty much defines us. We are radically egalitarian as far as scene roles go, even though we may be quite elitist with regard to the scene itself. As a group, we are repulsed by the military culture, even though many of us may be ex-military, and we tend to react with a great deal of negative energy when that culture is introduced into the scene. This is the cause of much of our conflict with the structuralists.
Having no use for hierarchy, we reject all notions of place and position. A dom is dom to his sub, not to anyone else. Outside of the relationship, everyone is equal and must be treated according. All formality and protocol based on position is therefore rejected out of hand and never followed except as it involves others relationships. In other words, we respect their right to order their relationships as they want, but reject their right to impose those rules on us. All communication external to a relationship is on a strictly equal basis irrespective of the feelings of the other parties. It is an extreme insult to imply that a sub is inferior to a dom.
Transgressionists are uninterested in the criterion of outsiders. The sub behaving badly in the eyes of the structuralist may be doing exactly as her transgressionist dom wishes. The opinion of the structuralist is of no importance whatsoever. We judge by our own standards without regard for the beliefs of others, especially as it regards our relationships. To imply that the sub meet the criterion of the structuralist is a deadly insult.
Transgressionists are less concerned with time in the scene than with talent and ideas. A young or new person is accorded the same level of respect as a person who has been around for 30 years. We have little patience with those who insist that time served is the one criterion for knowledge.
Transgressionists are not normally communitarian except in extreme circumstances. The individual and his or her needs or desires is always superior in consideration to that of the community. Right always takes precedence over responsibility. No transgressionist will ever subordinate his or her style of play or personal expression to the supposed needs of any community.
Tradition in and of itself is rejected out of hand. We know that all traditions had to be created by someone and none are binding save by consent. If a transgressionist follows a tradition it is because he or she finds something appealing in it, not merely because other people do it. One must never forget that someone, sometime, sat down with a quill pen and wrote out the program for the coronation of the British monarch and that person put his armor on one leg at a time like everyone else. There is nothing sacred about tradition.
Likewise there is nothing sacred about the “lifestyle.” Our lifestyle is what we say it is and it is of no consequence if it fits into other people’s ideas of what it should be or not. We are under no obligation to ascribe to, follow, or even respect another’s definition of their lifestyle.