“Deterritorializing Preface” Perspective – A Whirlwind

I have to confess that some of the suggestions that Mentz put forth in his preface made me feel uneasy and uncomfortable to think about. The changes, as he describes in his fourth word “ship,” go so far beyond just a material shift in thinking. What he’s suggesting is a complete turning point for all ways of life, intellectual perspectives, political formats, etc. Going to his sixth word, “distortion,” I could not wrap my brain around why I felt so uneasy with some of these changes. Then, it hit me.

I remembered a point that we made in class last Thursday about how we, as human beings, were not supposed to be in the ocean in the ways that we commonly are. We’re fundamentally land-based, so far as including land as one of our highest central issues in our language, political systems, and ways of thinking. The reason that Mentz’s encouragement to adapt to the “visual distortion” of “any aqueous [environment]” makes me so uncomfortable is that it’s so beyond literally all systems that I was taught.

Mentz writes that “water-thinking makes distortion a baseline condition” and that it “sometimes orients us on the buoyant top and at other times closer to the irresistible bottom.” It’s a change in perspective to focus on flexibility and openness, not a solid interpretation of what’s in front of you. There is a bend and flow of the ocean that Mentz is encouraging us to think about in ways that make our stubborn land-based lifestyles tremble a bit because it’s so different. It’s in this difference between the ways of our lives on land, through “grounded metaphors of the state,” and the movement offshore into the deep blue waters beyond that we find the importance of Melville.

As a reader of this six-page preface, I felt uneasy thinking about the changes that would occur through the “deterritorialization” process, whether it’s through the acceptance of buoyant perspectives or the reformation of something once thought to be so permanent as the horizon. I can only imagine how these changes would feel to someone confined to the oceans and waters. Where I can read about these alterations and try to apply them to my ideological perspectives on my own time, someone like Ishmael was surrounded by them, forced to recognize the movement of the currents and replace the term “progress” with “flow” due to necessity. It’s because of the changes posed by Mentz that I’m even more excited to see if and how the characters of Moby-Dick “[swap] out the old terrestrial language for saltwater terms” and outlooks.

Earth. Ocean.

Long ago, the two territories lived together in harmony. Then, everything changed when the Steve Mentz nation attacked. With seven words, he launched an assault on the old ways of thinking… ideas that relied on ground-based words to help everyone towards true progress, or rather, flow.

His first statement already captures the message, but the rest further supported his claim. It’s understandable: changing “progress” to “flow” would rewire our mindset to keep going. Don’t stop. Just keep going. You can’t stop here. Keep up the momentum, and finish the race.

His idea to change “state” to “ship” is also fathomable. “Ships, as historians, philosophers, and Hollywood movies have long shown, are symbolic unities, heterotopias, and polyglot fantasy-spaces. Perhaps it is time to imagine politics through ship-to-ship encounters—trading, fighting, hailing, sighting—rather than through the grounded metaphors of the state?” I agree, and in fact, I’ve always seen politics as such. Though, I’m not familiar with those grounded metaphors.

However, one splashing statement was when Mentz said, “Our metaphors must float on water rather than resting on ground.” This quote baffles me… why can’t they stick? Are they not the reason we could understand most complicated matters? Just as much as we should use water as a metaphor for innovation, the earth is where we can find a sense of stability. What if we drown in responsibilities? Flooded by relentless ideas?

Water as a metaphor to improve thinking can also rattle our ships of thought. We could swim in a mundane pond, unable to grasp the stone of stability. That very pond could also blind us. Mentz mentioned distortion instead of clarity, but without clarity, would our way of communication be self-contained in our own rivers? Rivers all lead to the same destination, but their origins are never the same.

The soil separates us, and the rivers then converge into the same thinking, yet rivers only flow because of what holds them apart. Mentz wants us to continue thinking, shaping the form of Earth into something different. Even with rivers guiding us, land will always be somewhere. Without land, there is no where we can simply bask in the sunlight. Without land, we would not prevail against the creatures of the sea.

Underwater animals don’t need sight, as Mentz said, but he also said “water bends light.” We are dependent on what we can see. The blind can only “see” because they were able to enhance their other senses. But not everyone can do that.

Out of the seven (or rather six) words he replaced, I would keep Clarity, Landscape, and Ground. What lies below the ocean is ground as well, but we are not for the world below the surface. We are built for above it.