In a world saturated with policy briefs and crisis alerts, Jonathan Rowson offers a radical proposition: that the most urgent work for the future of humanity might not be found in boardrooms or legislative halls, but in the quiet, rhythmic spaces of shared vulnerability. This piece is not a report on a conference; it is a testament to the necessity of "fugitivity"—a deliberate stepping outside the legible systems that govern our lives to find the cracks where hope actually grows.
The Architecture of Fugitivity
Rowson frames the recent gathering in Bangalore, known as Naduve, not merely as a retreat but as a counter-cultural intervention. He describes the event as an "innovative retreat, training and networking initiative for scholars, activists and artists from the global majority," yet he quickly pivots from professional jargon to something far more visceral. The gathering was made possible by a concept Rowson calls "paraphilanthropy," which he defines as supporting "fugitivity, a longing for the non-legible, and support for social experimentation within undercultures of practice." This framing is crucial; it suggests that the current institutional models of funding and organizing are insufficient for the scale of the crises we face.
The author argues that the value of such a space lies in its refusal to be productive in the traditional sense. "Naduve was forty-two participants... Each of us seemed seasoned by the experience of what Joan Baez once famously called 'little victories and big defeats'." Rowson uses this shared history of struggle to build a case for why we need to stop trying to "fix" everything immediately and instead focus on the quality of our presence. He writes, "The spirit of Naduve found us, and moved between us and for us, staying with us at the end, and now I imagine most of us carry it still." This is a powerful assertion: that the outcome of political work is not just a policy change, but the internal state of the people doing the work.
Critics might argue that such gatherings risk becoming echo chambers for the elite, detached from the immediate suffering of the masses. Rowson anticipates this, noting the irony that "one participant joking that it could be seen as an activist/scholar equivalent of Triangle of Sadness that satirises the indulgences of the super-rich." He acknowledges the tension between "progressive therapeutic indulgence" and genuine spiritual innovation, asking, "Did we hug ourselves back into cosmic significance? Were we all just high on oxytocin?" His answer is a resounding no, rooted in the belief that these moments are not escapes from reality, but preparations for it.
Nothing becomes real until it is experienced, and something became real at Naduve.
The Crisis of Knowledge and the Need for Play
Rowson connects the intimate experience of the retreat to a broader, systemic failure he terms "epistemic fatigue." He notes that the event addressed the "crisis of knowledge, particularly in the context of large language models that are now 'in the bloodstream' of the world." In an era where information is abundant but wisdom is scarce, Rowson suggests that the "mind was jealous of the soul," a sentiment that captures the exhaustion of modern intellectual life. The gathering was an attempt to find "where the system is misbehaving and breaking down of its own accord," looking for the "cracks" where insurgency can occur.
He draws a parallel to the film Don't Look Up, referencing a scene where the characters realize, "We really did have everything, didn't we?" Rowson interprets this not as a moment of despair, but as a reminder of what "having everything" can feel like when stripped of consumerist trappings. He links this to the philosophy of Roberto Unger, defining a progressive as someone who wants society reorganized so that "ordinary men and women have a better chance to live to a larger life." For Rowson, this "larger life" is the ultimate metric of success, referring to "a life of greater scope, greater capability and greater intensity."
The author argues that the "fun" of the event was not a distraction but a strategic necessity. He posits that we need to "throw a better party" as an antidote to the metacrisis, creating an "alternative political vision" that is playful and prefigurative. "Naduve was a great party!" he writes, emphasizing that even though it was just "42 people in a protected place, not over eight billion on a precarious planet," it offered a glimpse of the world we are trying to build. This reframing of joy as a political tool is the piece's most distinctive contribution, challenging the grim, stoic tone that often dominates activist discourse.
The Politics of Belonging
Rowson does not shy away from the complexities of identity and belonging, particularly his own position as a white man in a space centered on the "global majority." He reflects on his own "person of Indian origin" card and the "strange experience of changing my name to get into a temple," using this personal anecdote to illustrate the barriers of access that persist even in progressive spaces. He admits, "Decoloniality was a major theme, and though I was warmly welcome, I could not help but occasionally feel implicated." This self-reflection adds a layer of credibility to his argument, preventing the piece from feeling like a self-congratulatory celebration.
The author suggests that the connections formed at Naduve were not just emotional but deeply political. He describes the form of love known as Philia, noting that "if Naduve went well, by the end of it, everyone present would love each other." While this sounds idealistic, Rowson argues that these feelings of "affection and care" are the fuel for the long, hard work ahead. He asks, "Is it not more than enough that such events leave people who carry the weight of the world in their work feeling less alone, reconnected to life, and glad to be alive?" The implication is that burnout is the greatest enemy of social change, and that reconnection is a form of resistance.
Amidst ambient government failure and cultural drift, it is surely necessary to at least try to start from a different kind of place, a different form of feeling.
Bottom Line
Jonathan Rowson's most compelling argument is that the sustainability of social movements depends on their ability to cultivate joy, play, and deep human connection, rather than just strategic efficiency. The piece's greatest vulnerability is its reliance on the reader's willingness to believe that such intimate, small-scale experiences can scale to address global crises like ecocide and authoritarianism. However, the verdict is clear: in a world of systemic breakdown, the radical act of gathering to feel alive together may be the most practical step we can take.
"