In my experience, it is common, if not encouraged, for people to "call out" folks for doing "fucked up" shit in their organizing. For example, men who take up too much space or white folks who reproduce white privilege in organizing are (and should be) taken to task for their inability to recognize that their behavior is oppressive. I will make myself very very clear here. This is a very important and very necessary aspect of organizing.
That said, when does it go too far? The phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" sticks out in my mind. I think that it's a load of shit. Unless one is an infiltrator, people who are doing the hard hard work of organizing and activism are well-intended. The nuances of their behaviors and intentions are important to scrutinize, yes. At what point, however, does scrutiny fracture the movements themselves? Do activists spend too much time tearing one another apart that they forget who the real "enemy" is? Can we forgive one another for our steep learning curves given that most of us have internalized the subtle fucked up aspects of white supremacist capitalist heteronormative ableist speciesist patriarchy? Is trying enough?
There is another kind of balance here and this one is going to be a little bit more difficult to tease out and will no doubt invite more scrutiny. The gal that I was chatting with last night said something to the effect, "There are people in real crisis, people whose lives are being ruined by the policies and practices that we are fighting. I can't expect already overworked core members of the group that I am a part of to deal with my shit of feeling like I am not being treated nicely or expect people to put their already overtaxed energies toward helping me learn how to organize better. I need to learn how to be called out in order to work on myself and I don't expect that it should be done gingerly."* And she's right. When one sees the atrocities unfolding all around them, how can it be justified that the privileged movement actor who is coming from a comfortable place needs coddling in order not to feel bad about herself in the process of trying to become involved in the world in a meaningful way? But then, how does that mindset push people out of movements and lend to burnout?
I'm of two minds about this and this is why I am writing this blog. I think it's true that those with little to lose, those with a lot of privilege aren't the ones who are being served by these movements. But, many people engaged in these activities often give huge parts of themselves over to them, develop intense relationships with their "comrades", and because they are often so busy, begin to rely on these networks not only for their political but emotional needs.** And because we are human, we need nurturing and support from those around us. I don't think it is wrong to expect that. At what point, then, does the scrutiny become a detriment to the emotional well-being of activists and lend to people dropping out of the movement, getting burnt out, or even getting pushed out? And if we are trying to undo the oppressive practices of the larger world, wouldn't that begin with compassion?***
All this is to say, what are activists' responsibility to one another's emotional well-being? I don't know, I really don't.
*I know for a fact that "gingerly" is not a word that came out of her mouth.
**Upping the Anti published an editorial along these lines in their most recent issue. I don't fully agree with it's conclusion but friendship in activist circles is certainly something to think through.
***And this is where I get muddled because there are certainly limits to my compassion. I could easily name names.
I have a few thoughts, none of them terribly coherent. But it strikes me that to be an effective activist, you have to really tap into your righteous indignation. And righteous indignation is one of those tenacious emotions that's REALLY hard to turn off. I've had lots of activist friends who seem to either have trouble getting out of fight mode, or who are exhausted from the emotional drain.
ReplyDeleteAlso, relative privilege doesn't mean you're immune from unhappiness. Is the world a completely fucked up place full of injustice and misery that must be fought? YES! Are you going to run into people every day who make you feel guilty for complaining about anything when you have a house and food and a family who loves you? YES! But you're still allowed to get your feelings hurt. You're still allowed to be unhappy. You're allowed to want things to be better for yourself. And you need to take care of yourself, because if the caretakers burn out, no one wins.
There's no theory behind this, mind.
I agree completely, Sarah. To be completely academic about it, David Graeber an anarchist anthropologist who writes about movements says that the tension that privileged activists is characterized by the struggle against others' oppression vs. the struggle against one's own alienation. And those two urges often come to a head in activist spaces. In my opinion, it results in a further alienation of the privileged movement actor (both from the larger world and activist communities) and lends to burnout and apathy. Furthermore, as relative beneficiaries of this fucked up world, the privileged are often denigrated for having those feelings. It's a really tricky dynamic.
ReplyDelete