the personal is political

[sophiaserpentia]

Originally published at Monstrous Regiment. You can comment here or there.

At Boston Pride i tabled for the Network La Red for a couple of hours. A Latino fellow came by at one point and said he’s against domestic violence too — and hinted (i don’t remember his exact words) that he was obliquely referring to INS raids and similar anti-Latino actions of the US Government.

But it’s all connected, really. Oppression of a minority by a government is much the same thing on a bigger scale. The mechanisms in prevailing ideologies and institutions which make it easier for someone to get away with battering their partner also enable and justify official racist violence. These webs of abuse interweave, for example when a woman is brought into the United States as a domestic worker and then turned into a sex slave; the people holding her threaten to reveal her undocumented status to the INS as a way to keep her compliant.

Personal, first-hand experience can be unreliable; but it’s also the only thing we have that cannot be taken away from us. The messiness of our lives under oppression, the various survival strategies which “coincidentally” do not fit on religious moralistic laundry lists, make it more difficult for anyone to sympathize with us. That we live in a society that teaches us to compare other peoples’ lives to ideological checklists makes it easier for us to stay divided as well.

Understanding the way the world works, the way our laws and doctrines and “common sense” and logic and language have been constructed in order to maintain privilege for those who have it, is an important part of working for justice. But, just as “upholding the law” is taught to us as the way we know justice has been done, upholding ideology is taught to us as the way we know we’re right.

Which is why it’s significant and subversive to say “the personal is political.” Those of us who live, inconveniently and untidily enough, outside the lines like a stray crayon mark can give direct personal testimony to the wrongness (or at least incompleteness) of an ideology. This is true even when the ideology is radical; and the results can be disastrous for the unity of the radical community.

For example, during the 1970’s and 1980’s a prevailing ideology throughout much of the feminist movement was that “women are good and nurturing while men are bad and abusive.” (For the record, it’s worth noting as an aside that Andrea Dworkin, often cited as a gender essentialist, took a lot of grief for taking a vocal public position opposed to the idea of “natural female superiority”.)

In that climate, women who came forward seeking shelter because they were being abused by their lesbian partners were quite often silenced. Battered women’s shelters had been set up on a “female victim, male abuser” model and women who had been beaten by women were inconvenient and unwelcome.  When they did gain admittance to shelters they had to deal with homophobia from staff and other survivors.

Lesbian abusers, like battering husbands, used prevailing misogyny to frighten their partners. But they could use the threat of outing to keep their victim in line. They could use their partner’s lack of knowledge about lesbianism to keep them in the dark about the abusive nature of their relationship (”This is what lesbian love is like,” etc.) They knew, too, that their partners would not find sympathy within the women’s shelter network. Ideology, institution, and abuse woven together in a web keeping women down — and the experience from the survivor’s point of view is quite similar whether their batterer is a man or a woman.

Lesbian (and gay) abuse survivors were also silenced by the gay and lesbian activist community, seeking to establish an image of our community as “clean and upright.” They were afraid that seeing us discuss things like gay or lesbian partner abuse would place ammo in the hands of homophobes. Abuse survivors would just have to “take one for the team.”

Now, fortunately, there is some recognition of the issue, and movement in some areas, even though it is still largely uphill.

The thing is, anyone who silences another person on the basis of a prevailing ideology is doing the work of domination. Why is not as important as what. That is a part of what we are saying when we say the personal is political.

I think we should make it a kind of radical oath that we must resolve to hear what people say about their experience before ideology. It’s hard — it’s very hard. I see myself violating this all the time.

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"In that climate, women who came forward seeking shelter because they were being abused by their lesbian partners were quite often silenced."

I know even among mainstream feminists this was happening well into the 90s. I shouldn't say anymore about the situation here but I think I may have told you about it.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes, you told me. I understand the need for confidentiality but it is certainly a part of the pattern.

[ineffabelle]

very good post!

[ineffabelle]

"Why is not as important as what." - exactly

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

:) Thank you.

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

I have to ask on this one. since it sounds a little off in logic.

You said:
"But it’s all connected, really. Oppression of a minority by a government is much the same thing on a bigger scale. The mechanisms in prevailing ideologies and institutions which make it easier for someone to get away with battering their partner also enable and justify official racist violence. These webs of abuse interweave, for example when a woman is brought into the United States as a domestic worker and then turned into a sex slave; the people holding her threaten to reveal her undocumented status to the INS as a way to keep her compliant.

Personal, first-hand experience can be unreliable; but it’s also the only thing we have that cannot be taken away from us. The messiness of our lives under oppression, the various survival strategies which “coincidentally” do not fit on religious moralistic laundry lists, make it more difficult for anyone to sympathize with us. That we live in a society that teaches us to compare other peoples’ lives to ideological checklists makes it easier for us to stay divided as well."

My question:
Is it the government's fault for the actions of its populace? Do you blame the government of a body because someone shot someone? Or because it lets the shooting happen without consequences?

I look at the above statement and think that a statement as such can be construed to say that it is a governing body's fault for everything. Much like requesting a commanding officer to step down since someone in their company did a wrong. As if the governing body should be at fault for all crimes, whether it creates laws against the crimes or not. This is an unusual case granted. But i would hate to think there are people who actually believe that any one group of people can not only "know" everything but can also "control" everyone. Besides thinking that a government should "control" or "know" everything/everyone kinda scares my perception of privacy.

Just my 2 cents :)

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

What concerns me is the way the stated neutrality of the law and of the government so easily becomes endorsement of racism and other prejudice.

Say you have two families. In both families the father drinks a lot and the mother works two jobs and doesn't have time to do adequate child care. Say both fathers go out one night and get into a fight. One family sees this happen: the father is arrested and jailed, and then CPS rules that the children are being neglected or abused and puts the children in a foster home. Second family sees this: the father is given a stern talking-to by police. The CPS orders counseling for the parents. The difference? Would you be surprised if you heard all this and then learned that the first family is black and the second is white?

It's not that the "government" is to blame, but the fact that it so easily becomes the tool of racism. Too often what happens is that laws which proclaim equal access to due process are enforced by people who have prejudices they are not even aware of after sensitivity training. And this is with a neutral government! It wasn't so long ago that prejudice was written into the law.

Government can be a tool for good, and it can be a tool for bad. For those on the butt end of racist or classist prejudice, it is a mixed bag.

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

ok. So I still see the government as not at fault. I do however see the person using the governmental laws subjectively as at fault. However unless you have a government of robots written by a robot the human element can not be taken out.

The issue I still find with the statement is that the government is seen as at fault. I know it is nit picking at the subject, but I think verbiage is very powerful. If I say the government is at fault I blame everyone in it. If I blame the A-hole who is being prejudice and jailing people because of race, then I am being just. All too often do I notice people grouping others when blame is to pointed. Sure point to EVERYONE when you are praising people, selecting people out when you want to mention specific awesomeness. Everyone should be complamented all of the time. Makes people feel human (IE loved). But to blame a totality, unless it was off the cuff and in rage (which means you have no logic and only emotion), seems a bit harsh. I find it does nothing but piss people off and discredits the point.

It is the exact same reason I would be angry at someone for saying "black people suck". They put everyone in the same boat and they do not point out the real problem. "That person sucks, who happens to be a black male, 5'2", green eyes, and has a peg leg." It is reverse discrimination. Double edge sword if you will. I want people to be nice to me, so I will be nice to people. (not that the golden rule actually works)

but yeah. I agree with you. I think some people suck. And that is why we have rules that are made by the majority. So if people suck they can be held accountable for disrupting the way the majority wants to play. "Fairness" is non-existent, but "agreed upon fairness" is.

Ok I am stopping now as I can tell I am rambling.
Thanks for the response. Made me think and concrete my ideas further. :)

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

The government is not at fault for the actions of the bigoted.

The government is, however, completely at fault for placing easily-abused tools into the hands of the bigoted, in the absence of functional checks, balances, controls, and functional consequences for abuse of those tools.

Callously multiplying the power of abusers is a grave sin, even if you are not the one doing the abusing.


Does that clarify things?


"[...] reverse discrimination [...]"

Many writers dismiss the entity of "reverse discrimination" as being a tool of denial. The rationale for this is stronger than it might first appear; the idea is that personal bigotry, which is near-universal, is almost insignificant as a social force without the multiplying effect of institutional power. The bigotries generally described as "reverse discrimination" generally do not have access to the multiplying effect of institutional power; as such, they are relatively insignificant as a social force, and are of concern primarily when describing individual or idiosyncratic issues, and not when describing social trends.

This ties back into the earlier idea; although we tend to focus on the wrongs of the individual, the fact is that the quantity and quality of institutional power given that individual (e.g. the presence or absence of effective impunity for abuse) is actually much, much more important than the individual factors that tend to preoccupy us.

"Is he a bigot?" is trap and red herring on multiple levels.

Another related phenomenon is the degree to which "good" people routinely do wrong when placed in problematic frameworks- cf. Zimbardo's prison experiment etc.

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

Yes. I see what you are saying. but I still disagree. But maybe I am not disagreeing and maybe we are actually thinking of two things.

"The government is, however, completely at fault for placing easily-abused tools into the hands of the bigoted, in the absence of functional checks, balances, controls, and functional consequences for abuse of those tools."

The government is not at fault. The person hiring this person, should review their hiring process. and the person who did the wrong, is at fault.

IE:
I get my driver's license. I hit someone and kill them. Is the government at fault? It gave me the power/privilege.

though in areas of higher responsibility there is a need for more strict enforcement of responsibility.

IE:
Staff sgt orders 3 soldiers of that hill. They die. the hill was filled with land mines and the staff sgt knew it. (totally hypothetical, since it really makes no since.) The Staff sgt is held responsible, to a greater degree, over his soldiers.

So still, no. I have to say the government is not responsible. The person running that area of that department inside that government is though. Because if we were to send the blame all the way up the system would fail. And we need the system, as it lets society function.


But I still hear what you are saying, just think we are agreeing, but misunderstanding what each other is commenting on.
:)

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

We do have broad areas of agreement, but I have some more examples that may shed further light on my preoccupation.

A policeman inappropriately beats a suspect who dies.
A government eliminates review boards and cuts police training programs and 50 more suspects die per year.

Is it more important to focus on the action of the policeman, or on the government?


A bad teacher victimises ten children a year. Under scrutiny, he moves to a different district with looser oversight; in his new home, he victimises fifty children per year. Which factor is more important in improving the lives of the children in the second district; the teacher, or the system of oversight?


Governments and architects of governmental systems bear responsibility for the results of their choices, especially since those effects are much greater, for better or worse, than the effects of a single individual acting directly.

This does not in any way reduce the responsibility of the direct actors. Responsibility shared is not actually responsibility diminished.



Systems must take people into account; but people must hold systems responsible for their effects. Focusing on individuals to the exclusion of systems almost eliminates the possibility of true change.


You mention the word disagreement; but what aspect of my position do you actually feel to be wrong, and why?

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

hmm. ok step by step :)

Policemen. they are at fault. regardless. If the training helps, and is deemed necessary, then it should be given more of the money that was cut from it. this also assumes that money did not go to something that serves a better purpose, like saving 100 people from dying a year. I dont hold the government responsible for the death, but I do hold the government responsible in misappropriation of funds or not considering the possible outcomes. But I would not send them to jail, as it is a learning experience. Even in death people have to learn. like a doctor who accidents kills someone.

Bad teacher. Bad teacher's fault. Different school boards... not so much.

That question hits more of a state vs federal law. Do you want one law to rule them all... or do you want every area to make laws for their area. Monarchy, Dictatorship, Socialism, etc... All depends on what you want. In our law system we have state and federal laws, and to some degree county/parish specific laws, like curfew. If you want both school boards, no matter where they are, inside the US to have the same laws and same process, then you need to make it a federal law or system, and then so would the funding and so property tax and school funds come into this as well. Sorry dont mean to dive into that one too much. But trying to show that one issue can be more complicated. So, no matter what specific circumstances you have with your state or community, the school would be exactly the same. I think this would be good and bad, but I couldnt think of all the ramifications in one day. so we can get back to that later. :)

Yes. The Government does bear the responsibility of the community in which it holds. But, the whole government and its system should not be blamed/changed for one error. Or maybe it should...

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

Case in point. New Orleans.
When I became 18 I could buy lottery tickets. then someone (a child, 16yrs) snuck into a casino. Outrage and stupidity, IMHO, caused a backlash and increased the age limit to 21. So I could gamble for 6 months, then had to wait 3 years to gamble again.

So what happened here? Someone did something wrong. a 16yr old, who is legally an adult. The person who checked age of people coming into the casino and/or the person who created the system for making sure the person didnt break the law.

(which I think is retarded as Europe seems to do fine with the honor system over trivial things as such. As if someone should be held responsible for someone else's bad behavior just because they could not device of a sytem to replace the legal system and police force.)

The action taken? Well the government is at fault. Since it is always at fault for anyone breaking the law (that is already a law). So the law is faulty! it obviously failed. So lets increase the age.

Well was that the real problem? Was it the age that was the problem, or the security, or maybe the child's parents, or the 16yr old, or gambling, or what? so who's fault is it and what is the solution.

I hear about all sorts of people complaining that someone is wrong. But I never hear that the person who did the crime is wrong. What about that person? They should take responcibility for their actions. But instead I usually hear that the government is wrong, or not doing enough. Why arent people doing more. Since when did the Human race depend on the government to solve all of its problems? Like a welfare system for my conscience. Why do I need the government telling me I have to get carded at the store for a can of spray paint? Why can't I buy alcohol at the grocery store? Why? cause someone broke the law?

If someone breaks the law then the law should be allowed to work and put that person to the legal system. We should not try to "patch" the legal system to make it "harder" for people to break the law. People should be aware of themselves and their surroundings. I dont want the government holding my hand nor do I want them telling me what rights I have been taken away since my neighbor couldn't control themselves.


Wow that was long! sorry.

As far as disagreement, I think I said it up there. I disagree with accountability being placed on a system when: someone breaks a law.

Sure if there is no law and someone does something we all dont like, then we make another law! but why quadruple laws when the real problem was awareness. People getting lazy protecting themselves and others. Lack of communication and concern about your fellow Human.

:) I really hate talking like this, sounds like I am a fanatic. Hope I didnt go too off topic.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Wow. You don't sound like a fanatic, but I do think I have much clarifying to do.

Your criticism of my position actually simply does not apply. One major problem is that you incorrectly assume that "holding governments responsible for their decisions" implies "a necessity for 'more laws'".

The converse is actually true. "More laws" is a kneejerk, unconsidered reaction that results from an absence of real responsibility and accountability.

Nowhere did I call for more laws, either directly or indirectly.


I'm actually not an American, so this "state versus federal" thing is totally off the map for me. I understand it's an issue for Americans, though.


Accountability is a simple thing, logically and ethically The difficulty in untangling practical issues belies the simplicity of the theory. Once an action is deliberate and has predictable results, the actor is morally/ logically responsible. Governments make deliberate decisions, so they should be held responsible for the predictable results of those actions. This does not imply jail; jail is not an appropriate response to all wrongdoing- that's another peculiarly American error. The USA has a higher proportion of their populace in jail than any- other- country, partially because that error is a common one.

Another problem lies with my use/your interpretation of the term "government". The use of the term does not imply universal governmental responsibility for localised governmental misdeed. Responsibility follows power, and sections/ actors within government can only be held responsible for actions over which they had actual power.

So I understand your points, and even agree with them to a degree, but see them as refuting odd American warpings of my point, and not actually addressing my point at all.

I hope this clarifies,

adrian.

P.S. I share your affinity for precise communication; but normal, routine differences in idiom mean that such affinity can increase misunderstanding if we are not careful!

P.P.S. Don't take my references to America as constituting anti-Americanism; America is a country of unusual error as well as unusual virtue; her virtue is, however, outside the scope of this response. :-)

[thumper-montoya.livejournal.com]

oh! yea, totally get it now, lol. sorry for the rants. :)

and America is its own beast. :) Though I love it!

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

:-)

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I think we should make it a kind of radical oath that we must resolve to hear what people say about their experience before ideology. It’s hard — it’s very hard. I see myself violating this all the time.

Many years ago I read something which I feel applies to this. I do not remember the author. It may have been Asimov. He claimed that Homo sapiens (the thinking man) is incorrect. For most humans are "attern seeking" rather than thinking. We look fpor rules and guidelines which can be applied forever without actually thinking about the question at hand. Fundie Christians are well known for this. But so are Democrats who "would never" vote for Ron Paul (a Republican), no matter how bad/corrupt/evil the Democrat candidate might be. Some sacred cows are just too sacred for many folks to dare question.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes -- the brain is not an all-purpose blank-slate thinking machine. Most of what we call cognition is performed by a collection of faculties which evolved to solve one particular kind of problem or another. A lot of what we think of as "higher thought" is actually the use of specific survival mechanisms which are being bent from their evolutionary purpose a bit.

Higher math, for example, is largely done by the motor and spatial orientation parts of the brain.

Learning a new way of doing something actually involves changing the hardware *and* software of the brain. New synaptic pathways have to be grown, a process which takes weeks or months.

We're getting better at all this, but sometimes it's amazing that we're as open minded as a species as we are.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Things are further complicated by the role of emotions/ emotional thinking, which are both more useful and more dangerous than most of us assume. The tendency is to dismiss or to demonise emotion in the role of judgement and problem-solving; both dismissal and demonisation are inappropriate.

Re: Dworkin

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Her position warned that the idea of biological superiority was dangerous, while reinforcing her view of the inferiority of men historically. I suppose she felt the inferiority was sociocultural rather than biological.

Hardly exemplary, though I'm sure it would be emotionally evocative reading for some.

Re: Dworkin

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I think it's violent behavior and intimidation she felt was inferior, no matter who was doing it. It's interesting that she chose to start that essay about denying the biological superiority of women by recounting a time when she felt deeply intimidated by the women around her.

Re: Dworkin

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. That doesn't actually deal with the problem of unfortunate generalisation from "violent behavior and intimidation often seen among men" to "male behavior", an unfortunate generalisation to which she seems prone.

Forgiving, sympathetic/ empathetic reading reveals much that is positive about Dworkin's work.

The problem with such reading is that most of us are biased in our application of it. Is it right to read Dworkin with careful understanding when we scrutinise others for the slightest sign of bigotry in their words?

Not that the converse is any better, of course.

Re: Dworkin

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I think it is right to read everyone with careful understanding.

It's only human to fail to do this 100% of the time. But it is a worthy goal.

Re: Dworkin

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I think that it's a worthy goal, but I don't think that we should even aim to do it 100% of the time.

Careful, sympathetic understanding may reveal that bigoted words were not aimed with bigoted intent, as in the case of some of Dworkin's writings; but I strongly believe that, layered with our sympathetic understanding, there must be accountability for the simple flat literality of what was said.

Sympathy should not destroy accountability.