|
Back to index of Nerve 24 - Summer 2014 Unsafer SpacesBy
David Routley It struck me that I've got two choices: I can equip myself with the necessary skills, love and confidence to successfully navigate that vast sea of humanity that lies outside my door, accepting all the risks, embracing all the conversations, differences and surprises that await me. Or, I can help to build a small castle, a place where me and my friends can be safe, where our opinions are written on the walls and can be pointed at. This will be a microcosm of the way we want the world to work. Unhindered by cynics, provocateurs, the hopelessly uncivilised other things that threaten my vision of a free, non sexist/racist society. In a town where every block, shop and pub is compromised by the dominant capitalist culture, where even a small political squat is unsustainable and an unauthorised sapling is quickly mowed down - how could you resent me wanting a breathing space? Once it's there why not go all the way and write down exactly how we want each other to behave, identifying all the subtle expressions of the oppressor culture: patriarchy, individualist capitalism etc? A space where we can be ourselves, uncontaminated and SAFE. First of all what does that mean to be uncontaminated? Some deny that we can ever be clean, that the best we can hope for is to be - like a Christian - aware of our own corrupted soul and to constantly check our behaviour. This is the basic idea of 'privilege theory' which is sometimes mentioned when a 'safer spaces' policy is being devised. It deals thoroughly with sexism and racism. As applied to race it basically says: a white person cannot help but benefit from the historical ascendency of whites, that their outlook will always be at least slightly racist and they must constantly compensate, checking their behaviour, assumptions and language. A black person on the other hand is born with moral credit. With respect to all hard working, idealistic people and those who have suffered much, it was during such a 'safer spaces' discussion that I found myself dreaming of something else. I dreamt of a clean slate, a room where people meet free from history, prejudgement and the expectation of anything other than a good attitude; a place as free from baggage as the place monkeys go to screw (if they even bother going anywhere). A place where each person is an undiscovered world, a precious mix of genes and experience which cannot be simplified, suppressed or labelled, which cannot be dismantled by another's ideology. I realise there'll never be such a place. Not in this country/century, unless perhaps it's a friendly scouse pub where, on a Friday night, people are utterly committed to having a nice time and not remembering it. (The voice in my head says: getting pissed on a Friday is just a way of coping with wage slavery and letting off steam that could be put to revolutionary use. I reply: no it's you that makes me want to drink.) The thing is, this voice in my head, this radical left-feminist social conscience is always at least partly correct. That's why the search for a safe space is an honourable one and if it was easy we wouldn't still be talking about it. I'd like to suggest though, that it isn't just a difficult task but an impossible one. Safer is as good as it gets and on the way to it we find about 99% of the population gets excluded for a number of reasons, some purely practical, some political, some intensely 'I don't want to talk to you again' personal. I don't need to remind you that in our police-free spaces people will often emerge to take on that job. With the best will in the world rules will always give someone the chance to feel the buzz of being a rebel and meetings will always divide us between those that go to them and those that don't. Hardly anyone I meet is prehistoric enough to really believe in an institution like a political party. Most are wary of anything that ends with an 'ism'. This anti-sectarianism might be our best hope if we can figure out how to use it. Here's a radical idea: the Black Panthers (who had their own problems, granted) met the people where they were and responded directly to their needs; self defence and food. This inspired Stokely Carmichael to say: Don't worry about ideology, I always say my work is my ideology. You will find that after you get going, your ideology will develop out of your struggle. So to recap: everyone is partly right, the world is a confusing place and email discussion lists are breeding grounds for conflict. I haven't yet found a person who is just like me - they all exasperate me with their contradictions, obsessions, perfections etc. If I cling to anyone long enough they will let me down somehow. If I meet someone who is perfect for me, I will only go and screw it up by changing. If I want a truly safe place where no one will offend ME I will have to make a room for one person. If I have good neighbours that's an unwritten contract subject to ongoing negotiation. I am not a post-modernist in the sense of 'there is no truth, only subjectivity'. I have some convictions so real they could conceivably get me killed. Individualism is a trick that strips us of our culture and leaves us alone and naked in the face of the global super culture. BUT I emphatically reject a purely materialist analysis that doesn't respect the soul of each human being. That's why I'm looking for allies one at a time, not a party, mob or a collective bigger than about ten people. In my experience five or six works well. Such a group can be allied with any number of others - long term or for the pursuit of short term goals and will base its internal relationships on trust. So... give me a safe room for one person with my principles written on the walls and good allies next door. Then take away the walls and the safety. That's not a dream. That's option one. That's real life.
Comments:Comment left by Paul Lovatt on 5th July, 2014 at 19:40 Comments are closed on this article |
||||||||||