|
Post by Feral Wolf on Jun 3, 2012 7:24:44 GMT -7
The following is a recent text by our friend Scott Crow:
Conflict, Safe Spaces and Removing People
by Scott Crow May 30, 2012
To all of us engaged in groups in general. If you will allow me for a minute. I haven't paid attention to all of the chatter and conflict etc . of your particular group, but I bet it is similar as to most places. I wanted to take a moment to address anarchism and open groups in brief. I believe our spaces have value to them and we have all learned and shared things over their existence. Flame wars have happened since the dawn of the interwebz and personal conflict has happened at least since we could open our mouths. But sometimes we have to say Ya Basta!(Enough!)
I have been an anarchist in the real world for a long time and I do not believe in large open groups for much more than short term organizing. They always fall into trouble over the long haul due to not having enough cohesion ,collective input and shared power . I actually mostly only work in small closed collectives with people I can develop intimate shared ideals, principles and actions.
Our Spaces , Our Places
Anarchism is not about all of us getting into one big boat and heading towards the horizon--and all getting along singing Kumbaya. This is the mess we are in now. This 'boat' is filled with the lowest common denominator of ideal/principles of all the participants. The way I see it is that the horizon is the goal (follow me on this for a minute). And instead of all getting into one big stupid boat, we call get into our own boats, rafts, ships or whatever and head towards the horizon without sinking each others boats. Some will get there faster, and some will not make it, some will go in armadas. But the key is we get there individually or collectively how we can--without sinking each others boats.
I also believe and practice protecting the spaces we have carved out within groups, workplaces, meetings, housing etc. I am not a liberal who believes we have to , or can accept everyone. It's why I am an anarchist. We need multiple small accountable groups that can federate , network--or not. If we can't get along then we form other groups and don't try to sink the others boat. We don't have the capacity to deal with everyone's personal issues--whether its drugs, alcohol, mental health or they are just assholes looking for a fight. There is plenty of pie to go around for all of us, plenty of problems to solve and lots of disagreements to be had with people we like or love without the added stress . Find the place that fits and work in it.
Conflicts will happen and can be constructive, but if they are damaging we must weed people out or the groups will falter and everyone suffers.
That said. If people are assholes KICK THEM OUT of your group. It's ok. At my work we fire them! We all have enough trouble getting along with those who are committed to the same values and beliefs, why make it harder?Its not easy, but is necessary for all of us.
Some Guidelines for taking action
Here are a few things we have used in guidelines for our political training camps over the years in dealing with infiltration and disruptive unaccountable people:
*Be clear internally that you have created a safe political and social space in all you communications with everyone there.
* Recognize you have the moral, social and political right to remove ANYONE who is disrupting that space. Do not be afraid to use it. Democracy takes practice and doing the dirty work of removing people is also part of that.
* Don't be dramatic/over hype infiltration- It happens ALL the time, all over the place. Treat it like you would a medical malady with clear reasoned, measured steps. If they disrupt us they win. They are flies on the windscreen. Have an accountable security team that investigates and keeps watch of unusual stuff.
*Remove people- I cannot emphasize this enough. These are OUR events we have the duty to remove those who are disruptive--even those from our same ideological spaces i.e. wingnuts. This is healthy for the group. That said remember a couple of things. Do NOT be hasty in the decision OR do not lag in process too long either.
* Also when removing people do not call them out as cops--because they may not be. They could just as well be corporate lackeys, private security or misinformed people. To be clear when we are at this stage it is NOT a debate with them they ARE leaving our site. We never accuse them of being 'cops' or whatever we tell them that we are "removing them because their interests and intentions are not the same as ours" and that it is disruptive to our event and it is time to leave. Then we assign people from the security team to go with them to gather their stuff and we watch them until they are gone.
Lastly
Just and sustainable worlds are going to be built by tight and trusting relationships not bigger groups. Challenging ideas and debating them is one thing. Destructive conversation is a waste of everyone's energy and time--and we only have a little time on this planet lets make the best of it.
These are just some thoughts. Take what you want and leave the rest.
scott crow 06.12
|
|
|
Post by Feral Wolf on Jun 3, 2012 7:33:34 GMT -7
As food for thought, attached is the online reading version of "WE ARE ALL SURVIVORS, WE ARE ALL PERPETRATORS // WHAT TO DO WHEN SOMEONE TELLS YOU THAT YOU VIOLATED THEIR BOUNDARIES, MADE THEM FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, OR COMMITTED ASSAULT (a start)": “To broach these questions is not to deny that there is such a thing as sexual assault, nor to defend it as acceptable behavior. On the contrary, it is to demand that we acknowledge that we live in a rape culture: a culture in which sexual assault is pervasive, as are the forces and dynamics that promote it. Sexual assault is a part of all of us who have grown up in this society; we cannot ignore it, or pretend that because we ourselves have been assaulted or because we work to live anarchy in all aspects of our lives that we are not capable of sexual assault. The only way to rid our lives of sexual assault is to open the issue up. This means we must make it safe enough to come out as an assaulter, so that each of us is able to address, openly, honestly, and without fear, everything from the most minor acts of inconsideration to the most serious boundary violations. We are all survivors; we are all perpetrators.” Imposed download for printing can be found at zinelibrary.info/we-are-all-survivors-we-are-all-perpetrators-what-do-whenAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by Feral Wolf on Jun 3, 2012 7:35:13 GMT -7
by Angustia Celeste
I was asked by a dear friend to write this piece about accountability within radical communities- offer some insight in light of the years we've spent fighting against rape culture. Except I don't believe in accountability anymore. It should be noted that my anger and hopelessness about the current model is proportional to how invested I've been in the past. Accountability feels like a bitter ex-lover to me and I don't have any of those... the past 10 years I really tried to make the relationship work but you know what?
There is no such thing as accountability within radical communities because there is no such thing as community- not when it comes to sexual assault and abuse. Take an honest survey sometime and you will find that we don't agree. There is no consensus. Community in this context is a mythical, frequently invoked and much misused term. I don't want to be invested in it anymore.
I think its time to abandon these false linguistic games we play and go back to the old model. I miss the days when it was considered reasonable to simply kick the living shit out of people and put them on the next train out of town- at least that exchange was clear and honest. I have spent too much time with both survivors and perpetrators drowning in a deluge of words that didn't lead to healing or even fucking catharsis.
I am sick of the language of accountability being used to create mutually exclusive categories of 'fucked up' and 'wronged.' I find the language of 'survivor' and 'perp' offensive because it does not lay bare all the ways in which abuse is a dynamic between parties. (Though I will use those terms here because its the common tender we have.)
Anarchists are not immune to dynamics of abuse, that much we can all agree on but I have come to realize more and more that we cannot keep each other safe. Teaching models of mutual working consent is a good start- but it will never be enough: socialization of gender, monogamy- the lies of exclusivity and the appeal of "love" as propriety are too strong. People seek out these levels of intensity when the love affair is new, when that obsessive intimacy feels good and then don't know how to negotiate soured affection.
That's the thing about patriarchy its fucking pervasive and that's the thing about being an anarchist, or trying to live free, fierce and without apology- none of it keeps you safe from violence. There is no space we can create in a world as damaged as the one we live in which is absent from violence. That we even think it is possible says more about our privilege than anything else. Our only autonomy lies in how we negotiate and use power and violence ourselves.
I really want to emphasize: there is no such thing as safe space under patriarchy or capitalism in light of all the sexist, hetero-normative, racist, classist (etc) domination that we live under. The more we try and pretend safety can exist at a community level the more disappointed and betrayed our friends, and lovers will be when they experience violence and do not get supported. Right now we've been talking a good game but the results are not adding up.
There are a lot of problems with the current model- the very different experiences of sexual assault and relationship abuse get lumped together. Accountability processes encourage triangulation instead of direct communication- and because conflict is not pushed, most honest communication is avoided. Direct confrontation is good! Avoiding it doesn't allow for new understandings, cathartic release or the eventual forgiveness that person to person exchanges can lead to.
We have set up a model where all parties are encouraged to simply negotiate how they never have to see each other again or share space. Some impossible demands/promises are meted out and in the name of confidentiality lines are drawn in the sand on the basis of generalities. Deal with your shit but you can't talk about the specifics of what went down and you can't talk to each other. The current model actually creates more silence- only a specialized few are offered information about what happened but everyone is still expected to pass judgment. There is little transparency in these processes.
In an understandable attempt to not trigger or cause more pain we talk ourselves in increasingly abstracted circles while a moment or dynamic between two people gets crystallized and doesn't change or progress. "Perps" become the sum total of their worst moments. "Survivors" craft an identity around experiences of violence that frequently keeps them stuck in that emotional moment. The careful nonviolent communication of accountability doesn't lead to healing. I've seen these processes divide a lot of scenes but I haven't seen them help people get support, retake power or feel safe again.
Rape breaks you- the loss of bodily control, how those feeling of impotence revisit you, how it robs you of any illusion of safety or sanity. We need models that help people take power back and we need to call the retribution, control, and banishing of the current model for what it is- revenge. Revenge is OK but lets not pretend its not about power! If shaming and retaliatory violence is what we have to work with then lets be real about it. Let's chose those tools if we can honestly say that is what we want to do. In the midst of this war we need to get better at being in conflict.
Abuse and rape are inevitable consequences of the sick society we are forced to live under. We need to eviscerate and destroy it, but in the meantime, we can't hide from it- or the ways it affects our most personal relationships. I know in my own life an important process in my struggle for liberation was making my peace with the worst consequences of my personal assault on patriarchy. Dealing with being raped was an important part of understanding what it meant to chose to be at war with this society.
Rape has always been used as this tool of control- proffered up as a threat of what would happen if I, in my queerness and gendered ambiguity, continued to live, work, dress, travel, love or resist the way that I chose to. Those warnings held no water for me- in my heart I knew it was only a matter of time- no matter what kind of life I chose to live because my socially prescribed gender put me at constant risk for violation. I was raped at work and it took me a while to really name that assault as rape. After it happened mostly what I felt, once the pain, rage and anger subsided was relief. Relief that it had finally happened. I had been waiting my whole life for it to happen, had had a few close calls and finally I knew what it felt like and I knew I could get through it.
I needed that bad trick. I needed a concrete reason for the hunted feelings that stemmed from my friend's rape, murder and mutilation a few years back. I needed to have someone hurt me and realize I had both the desire to kill them and the personal control to keep myself from doing it. I needed to reach out for support and be disappointed. Because that's how it goes down- ask the survivors you know most people don't come out of it feeling supported. We've raised expectations but the real life experience is still shit.
I was traveling abroad when it happened. The only person I told called the police against my wishes. They searched the "crime" scene without my consent and took DNA evidence because I didn't dispose of it. Knowing I had allowed myself in a moment of vulnerability to be pressured and coerced into participating in the police process against my political will made me feel even worse than being violated had. I left town shortly thereafter so I didn't have to continue to be pressured by my 'friend' into cooperating with the police any more than I already had. The only way I felt any semi-balance of control during that period was by taking retribution against my rapist into my own hands.
I realized that I also could wield threats, anger and implied violence as a weapon. After my first experience of 'support' I chose to do that alone. I could think of no one in that moment to ask for help but it was OK because I realized I could do it myself. In most other places I think I could have asked some of my friends to help me. The culture of nonviolence does not totally permeate all of the communities I exist in. The lack of affinity I felt was a result of being transient to that city but I don't think my experience of being offered mediation instead of confrontation is particularly unique.
In the case of sexual assault I think retaliatory violence is appropriate, and I don't think there needs to be any kind of consensus about it. Pushing models that promise to mediate instead of allow confrontation is isolating and alienating. I didn't want mediation through legal channels or any other. I wanted revenge. I wanted to make him feel as out of control, scared and vulnerable as he had made me feel. There is no safety really after a sexual assault, but there can be consequences.
We can't provide survivors safe space- safe space, in a general sense, outside of close friendships, some family and the occasional affinity just doesn't exist. Our current models of accountability suffer from an over-abundance of hope. Fuck the false promises of safe space- we will never get everyone on the same page about this. Let's cop to how hard healing is and how delusional any expectation for a radical change of behavior is in the case of assault. We need to differentiate between physical assault and emotional abuse- throwing them together under the general rubric interpersonal violence doesn't help.
Cyclical patterns of abuse don't just disappear. This shit is really really deep- many abusers were abused and many abused become abusers. The past few years I have watched with horror as the language of accountability became an easy front for a new generation of emotional manipulators. It's been used to perfect a new kind of predatory maverick- the one schooled in the language of sensitivity- using the illusion of accountability as community currency.
So where does real safety come from? How can we measure it? Safety comes from trust, and trust is personal. It can't be mediated or rubber stamped at a community level. My 'safe' lover might be your secret abuser and my caustic codependent ex might be your healthy, tried and true confidant. Rape culture is not easily undone, but it is contextual.
People in relation to each other create healthy or unhealthy exchanges. There is no absolute for 'fucked up', 'healed' or 'safe'- it changes with time, life circumstance, and each new love affair. It is with feelings of unease that I have observed the slippery slope of 'emotional' abuse become a common reason to initiate an accountability process...
Here is the problem with using this model for emotional abuse: its an unhealthy dynamic between two people. So who gets to call it? Who gets to wield that power in the community? (And lets all be honest that there is power in calling someone to an accountability process.) People in unhealthy relationships need a way to get out of them without it getting turned into a community judgment against whomever was unlucky enough to not realize a bad dynamic or call it abuse first. These processes frequently exacerbate mutually unhealthy power plays between hurt parties. People are encouraged to pick sides and yet no direct conflict brings these kinds of entanglements to any kind of resolve.
Using accountability models developed all those years ago to deal with serial rapists in the radical scene has not been much to help in getting people out of the sand pit of damaging and codependent relationships. Emotional abuse is a fucking vague and hard to define term. It means different things to every person.
If someone hurts you and you want to hurt them back- then do it but don't pretend its about mutual healing. Call power exchange for what it is. Its OK to want power back and its OK to take it but never do anything to someone else that you couldn't stomach having someone do to you if the tables were turned.
Those inclined to use physical brutality to gain power need to be taught a lesson in a language they will understand. The language of physical violence. Those mired in unhealthy relationships need help examining a mutual dynamic and getting out of it- not assigning blame. No one can decide who deserves compassion and who doesn't except the people directly involved.
There is no way to destroy rape culture through non-violent communication because there is no way to destroy rape culture without destroying society. In the meantime let's stop expecting the best or the worst from people.
I am sick of accountability and its lack of transparency. I am sick of triangulating. I am sick of hiding power exchange. I am sick of hope.
I have been raped. I have been an unfair manipulator of power in some of my intimate relationships. I have had sexual exchanges that were a learning curve for better consent. I have the potential in me to be both survivor and perp- abused and abuser- as we all do.
These essentialist categories don't serve us. People rape- very few people are rapists in every sexual exchange. People abuse one another- this abuse is often mutual and cyclical- cycles are hard but not impossible to amend. These behaviors change contextually. Therefore there is no such thing as safe space.
I want us to be honest about being at war- with ourselves, with our lovers and with our "radical" community because we are at war with the world at large and those tendrils of domination exist within us and they affect so much of what we touch, who we love and those we hurt.
But we are not only the pain we cause others or the violence inflicted upon us.
We need more direct communication and when that doesn't help we need direct engagement in all its horrible messy glory. As long as we make ourselves vulnerable to others we will never be safe in the total sense of the word.
There is only affinity and trust kept. There is only trust broken and confrontation. The war isn't going to end anytime soon Let's be better at being in conflict.
--------------------------------------
If you would like a copy of the zine please email downtothis@riseup.net
|
|
|
Post by Feral Wolf on Jun 6, 2012 8:16:49 GMT -7
|
|