One narrative that pisses me off until my eyelid twitches is when privileged leftists dismiss concerns of oppression, imperialism, etc. with shit like "after the revolution, there'll be no X". After the Revolution, there'll be no sexism. After the Revolution, there'll be no racism. After the Revolution, there'll be no imperialism. And so on.
The thing is though, that they have it totally backwards. While it is true that a fully Marxist system (in the opinion of, well a Marxist) is one without any oppression or social class distinctions, the entire point of the Revolution (whatever means you think are acceptable there, democratic change, direct action, violent resistance, etc. you can't really be a leftist and not think it's necessary) is to try and end oppression. It's a trivial truth that in a fully Marxist society sexism will not exist, for example, because eliminating sexism is required to have a fully Marxist society. You can't have a fully Marxist society and not have gotten rid of your racism, sexism, imperialism, anti-queer oppression, etc. It's not that we will have the Revolution and then all oppression will magically end, the Revolution IS the struggle to end oppressions. Any Revolution that does not seek to and fully strive to end all forms of oppression is not a fully Marxist Revolution, any end state that could be reached while still allowing oppression and class distinctions is no Marxism.
So don't you privileged leftists dare say that oppression will be over after the Revolution to dismiss concerns of other leftists in regards to specific types or systems of oppression. That is so absolutely backwards. Ending all oppression is the goal of the Revolution, it is the aim of the Revolution. Marxism is at its very core supposed to be a theory for dismantling oppression. Any way that you fail to do so is a failure to achieve total Revolution and total Marxism. Ending sexism, racism, imperialism, cissexism, anti-queer oppression, classism, etc. are necessary parts of the Revolution, not potential fringe benefits.
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privilege. Show all posts
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
On "Safe Spaces"
There are some debates around the notion of "safe spaces" and here are a few of my thoughts:
A space cannot be safe for oppressed people and, to some lesser degree, their supporters if it does not have a general atmosphere and understanding of working towards not engaging in oppression against them. A safe space for a queer person must be a non-homophobic space, a safe space for a trans person must be a non-transphobic space, a safe space for a black person must be a non-racist space.
Can any place with privileged people (especially with them in the majority) be a completely non-oppressive space? We all internalize and participate in oppressions, but this is especially true for privileged people, as they benefit from the oppression. Yes, there are privileged people who work on trying to stop engaging in oppression/combat oppressive systems, but this is often a hard issue with a lot of struggle.
However, if you make it an exclusive space, you end up risking having to police the boundaries of the oppressed class. Also, it's obvious that even without that issue, you can't just set aside issues of making safe groups which will be mixed by their nature, as well as the issue of multiple axis of oppression. If I can only have a group of low income (or low income raised), disabled, queer, genderqueer, atheist, etc. people for any activity, that's going to make it really hard to organize any groups at all.
That's not to say that I think there's never any value in exclusive spaces, I just don't think they are an ideal solution in many situations.
I tend to feel that "safe space" like coalition, is something that you build as a part of an ongoing process. You can't just declare that something is safe, or tell someone something is safe if they express concerns about things going on.
Maybe it would be better to try and work on building safer spaces rather than declaring safe spaces.
A space cannot be safe for oppressed people and, to some lesser degree, their supporters if it does not have a general atmosphere and understanding of working towards not engaging in oppression against them. A safe space for a queer person must be a non-homophobic space, a safe space for a trans person must be a non-transphobic space, a safe space for a black person must be a non-racist space.
Can any place with privileged people (especially with them in the majority) be a completely non-oppressive space? We all internalize and participate in oppressions, but this is especially true for privileged people, as they benefit from the oppression. Yes, there are privileged people who work on trying to stop engaging in oppression/combat oppressive systems, but this is often a hard issue with a lot of struggle.
However, if you make it an exclusive space, you end up risking having to police the boundaries of the oppressed class. Also, it's obvious that even without that issue, you can't just set aside issues of making safe groups which will be mixed by their nature, as well as the issue of multiple axis of oppression. If I can only have a group of low income (or low income raised), disabled, queer, genderqueer, atheist, etc. people for any activity, that's going to make it really hard to organize any groups at all.
That's not to say that I think there's never any value in exclusive spaces, I just don't think they are an ideal solution in many situations.
I tend to feel that "safe space" like coalition, is something that you build as a part of an ongoing process. You can't just declare that something is safe, or tell someone something is safe if they express concerns about things going on.
Maybe it would be better to try and work on building safer spaces rather than declaring safe spaces.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Phrases I Hate, Example #1
"Giving voice to the voiceless"
Why do I hate this? Because it is denying that oppressed and marginalized people already have voices and opinions. It is very, very paternalistic. Rather than pointing out that these people are not being listened to, are not fairly being given access to platforms, are harassed when they speak, etc. it pretends that the people at issue have nothing to say for themselves and no opinions of themselves and need a privileged person to tell other privileged people what the oppressed people's needs are in order to "rescue" them.
This phrase is almost never appropriate, so I decided to try and think of times when it would not actually be used in a foolish privileged way:
1) Talking about non-human animals
"Hey, everybody, I'm totally giving a voice to these voiceless bees!"
2) Fictional Characters
"The new writer gave that wizard a voice where before the series had made the character rather voiceless."
3) Autotune
"Autotune gives a good voice even to those who have no voice at all."
4) Hallucinations about inanimate objects
"That acid I was tripping on gave a voice to the voiceless stuffed animals."
Why do I hate this? Because it is denying that oppressed and marginalized people already have voices and opinions. It is very, very paternalistic. Rather than pointing out that these people are not being listened to, are not fairly being given access to platforms, are harassed when they speak, etc. it pretends that the people at issue have nothing to say for themselves and no opinions of themselves and need a privileged person to tell other privileged people what the oppressed people's needs are in order to "rescue" them.
This phrase is almost never appropriate, so I decided to try and think of times when it would not actually be used in a foolish privileged way:
1) Talking about non-human animals
2) Fictional Characters
3) Autotune
4) Hallucinations about inanimate objects
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)