post-discourse-blog

[post-discourse-blog]

On Creeps

So this post made it to my...facebook, of all things, the other day: http://realsocialskills.org/post/86218358771/a-post-for-men-about-creepy-men

And I want to talk about a specific point set of claims that it makes:

If you like the [alleged creepy] guy and have no idea what they’re talking about, that means that what he is doing is *not* innocent awkwardness.

If it was innocent awkwardness, he wouldn’t know how to hide it from other men

Men who are actually just awkward and bad at understanding boundaries also make *other men* uncomfortable

If a man is only making women uncomfortable but not men, that probably means he’s doing it on purpose

This presents a dichotomy between well-meaning, unintentionally creepy men, and machiavellian, conscious creeps.  Which is ridiculous; and the criteria this poster is present for distinguishing the two seem obviously inadequate.

They’re claim seems to be that, if someone is uniquely creepy around women, then they are doing it intentionally, because they know to hide it from men.  But if their percieved creepiness is coming from them not having a solid grasp on social norms around flirting specifically, then of course they’re only going to be creepy around women.

But more critically, I think this dichotomy of “well-intentioned social awkwardness” and “malicious creepiness” is harmful to everyone involved; partly because (and this is apparently a point of disagreement between me and OP), I don’t actually think that most instances of creepiness are intentionally malicious.

But I also think that group leaders are just going to be hesitant about taking action against individuals as if they were intentionally malicious - and I think this is a good thing.  It should be possible for group leaders to take action with respect to some individual being creepy to another or a group (especially of women), in a way that doesn’t shoehorn them into an ‘actively and intentionally malicious’ role.

[post-discourse-blog]

On Tyranny

I have a sort of cautious respect for anarchism. I'm fond of the ideal, but there a lot of of details and object-level concerns that I've never had addressed - but then, I've also never really engaged with the literature on it

And since a lot of people I consider to be smart identify as anarchists or with anarchy, I've always assumed that there were convincing responses to all of my presumably obvious objections that I simply hadn't been exposed to.

One of those objections, incidentally, is articulated by Jo "Joreen" Freeman, in her influential essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness":

If the movement continues deliberately to not select who shall exercise power, it does not thereby abolish power. All it does is abdicate the right to demand that those who do exercise power and influence be responsible for it.

You can read the full article here and I highly recommend doing so. It uses the women's liberation movement of the seventies as a medium for talking about structure and organization of activist groups, and does so very (in my opinion) effectively.

If it has any flaws, it would be that it makes a couple of fairly concrete and falsifiable claims about group dynamics without providing much evidence beyond an anecdotal assessment of the efficacy of the feminist movements it was contemporary with.

So, when I came across a post on my facebook feed praising Cathy Levine's response, I was expecting a discussion of why those assumptions about group dynamics are wrong, maybe with evidence drawn from the current body of sociological research. At the very least, I was hoping Levine would be able to articulate why the "obvious flaws" with anarchy (at least in the context of activist groups) are less problematic than Joreen (and I) assumed.

This was, unfortunately, insufficiently pessimistic, as Levine's article is more of a temper tantrum marinated in the impenetrable language of academic feminism than anything resembling an "argument".

Joreen's thesis is essentially that "unstructured" groups are not actually structureless - they in fact have an implicit, informal structure, in which there do exist individuals who hold more power than others; but because of the nature of the group's superficial structurelessness, these power structures can neither be directly challenged (because no one acknowledges they exist), nor held responsible for the welfare of the group (because they were not given their power voluntarily by the group).

She concludes with a list of seven principles "essential to democratic structuring and are also politically effective", which are briefly:

Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures.

Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them.

Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible.

Rotation of tasks among individuals.

Allocation of tasks along rational criteria.

Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible.

Equal access to resources needed by the group.

Joreen elaborates on these in her article, providing detail and justification for each of them. Again, I recommend that you read them for themself, to get a clearer idea of where she's coming from.

In short, despite the fact that Joreen is arguing for explicit, formal, structures, she clearly has in mind something fluid, democratic, and egalitarian. Certainly not a hierarchal beaurocracy.

So what does Levine have to say about this?

Well, there's

A large group functions as an aggregate of its parts — each member functions as a unit, a cog in the wheel of the large organisation. The individual is alienated by the size, and relegated, to struggling against the obstacle created by the size of the group — as example, expending energy to get a point of view recognised.

(which she contrasts with

Small groups, on the other hand, multiply the strength of each member. By working collectively in small numbers, the small group utilises the various contributions of each person to their fullest, nurturing and developing individual input, instead of dissipating it in the competitive survival-of-the-fittest/smartest/wittiest spirit of the large organisation.

and

The origin of the small group preference in the women’s movement -and by small group I refer to political collectives — was, as Joreen explains, a reaction against the over-structured, hierachical organisation of society in general, and male Left groups in particular. But what people fail to realise is that we are reacting against bureaucracy because it deprives us of control, like the rest of this society; and instead of recognising the folly of our ways by returning to the structured fold, we who are rebelling against bureaucracy should be creating an alternative to bureaucratic organisation.

and

...well, that's it. I encourage you to read the article for yourself - it's entirely possible that I've missed, misread, or misinterpreted parts of it - but as far as I can tell, to the extent that Joreen's thesis is "structure is a useful and underused tool (in feminist activism)", this is the totality of Levine's response.

And it's kind of absolute garbage. It caricaturizes Joreen's lucid, compassionately democratic structure as a crushing beaurocratic machine, - and even then doesn't have any deeper argument then "structure is bad".

I want to also point out the subtle shift in focus from the first excerpt - Joreen is talking primarily about structured and unstructured groups, not large and small groups. She does bring group size up; but it's largely to make the point of activists wanting to mobilize larger groups to meet more ambitious goals, and formal structure serving that purpose. Levine reducing this to "big beaurocracies v. small friendships" is a gross mischaracterization of what Joreen is saying, serving more to leverage emotional connotations than actually make a point. This will be a recurring theme in Levine's writing.

Oh, I actually lied about her not having any deeper argument agains formal structure. She makes lucid, englightening claims as

A central problem Of women determining strategy for the women’s movement is how to relate to the male Left; we do not want to take their, Modus Operandi as ours, because we have seen them as a perpetuation of patriarchal, and latterly, capitalist values.

and

when a meeting of a Leftist group becomes indistinguishable in style from a session of a US Senate, we should not laugh about it, but re-evaluate the structure behind the style, and recognise a representative of the enemy.

That's right. God forbid feminism incorporate any techniques that men use.

That's not entirely fair, she also has this to say:

Contrary to the belief that lack of up-front structures lead to insidious, invisible structures based on elites, the absence of structures in small, mutual trust groups fights elitism on the basic level — the level of personal dynamics, at which the individual who counters insecurity with aggressive behaviour rules over the person whose insecurity maintains silence. The small personally involved group learns, first to recognise those stylistic differences, and then to appreciate and work with them; rather than trying to either ignore or annihilate differences in personal style, the small group learns to appreciate and utilise them, thus strengthening the personal power of each individual. [...] But in the meantime we should guard against situations which reward personal style with power.

This echoes something Levine says earlier in the article,

Friendships, more than therapy of any kind, instantly relieve the feelings of personal shittiness — the revolution should be built on the model of friendships.

This appears to be directly contradicting Joreen's subpoint - that groups modeled on friendship fundamentally fail to "guard against situations which reward personal style with power"; and that replacing personal dynamics with explicit structure, groups are made more inclusive. I'll let her speak for herself:

So if one works full time or has a similar major commitment, it is usually impossible to join simply because there are not enough hours left to go to all the meetings and cultivate the personal relationship necessary to have a voice in the decision-making. That is why formal structures of decision making are a boon to the overworked person. Having an established process for decision-making ensures that everyone can participate in it to some extent.

The characteristics prerequisite for participating in the informal elites of [an unstructured] movement, and thus for exercising power, concern one's background, personality, or allocation of time. They do not include one's competence, dedication to feminism, talents, or potential contribution to the movement. The former are the criteria one usually uses in determining one's friends. The latter are what any movement or organization has to use if it is going to be politically effective.

It is unfortunate that while Levine apparently disagree with Joreen's claim, she fails to provide any reason or justification. As someone whose beliefs, prior to entering the discussion, were more aligned with the latter's, I can't say I'm very persuaded by an argument whose content amounts to little more than "nuh uh".

Levine also argues at great length (six paragraphs, beginning with "Contrary to Joreen's assumption, then, the consciousness-raising phase of the movement is not over"), that, Contrary to Joreen's assumption, then, the consciousness-raising phase of the movement is not over.

This seems largely irrelevant, because, while Joreen does strongly imply that she believes this, the thrust of her point is coming not from "we are done raising consciousness", but "we want to beging doing other things as well". Regardless of how much you romanticize posting feminism memes to facebook, there in fact continue to be other activist goals.

So, that's the extent of Levine's response to Joreen's actual point. What is the rest of her article saying, then?

Well, there's

The question of our lost humanity brings up the subject that vulgar Marxists of every predilection have neglected in their analysis for over half century — the psycho-sexual elements in the character structure of each individual, which acts as a personal policeman within every member of society. Wilhelm Reich began to describe, in narrow, heterosexual, male-biased form, the character armour in each person, which makes people good fascists or, in our society, just good citizens.

Which I find pretty much impentrable. I have only the barest idea what Levine is actually claiming here, let alone how it relates to the discussion of group organization. Of course, in the interest of full disclusure, I graduated university with a mere undergratuate degree (in the humanities), so perhaps I'm simply unqualified to participate in a discussion of this academic caliber.

That being said, I think it's elucidating to compare this to Joreen's lucid, clear, and concrete writing. I won't claim that Levine is using the opaque language of ivory tower academia to obscure the fact that she does not have a real point, at least one that pertains to the object-level world - I think her writng implies it strongly enough on its own.

We also have an absolutely delightful collection of fnords:

capitalist, imperialist, quasi-fascist Amerika perpetuation of patriarchal, and latterly, capitalist values. in the absence of feminist activity, women take to tranquillizers, go insane and commit suicide. a post-technological, military/industrial bulldozer translate their personal dissatisfaction into class-consciousness The psychic crippling which capitalist psychology coerces us into believing is the problems of the individuals, is a massive social condition which helps advanced capitalist society to hold together. post-neo-Freudians and the psycho-surgeons For the umpteenth time, let it be said that, unless we examine inner psychic shackles, at the time we study outer, political structures and the relationship between the two, we will not succeed in creating a force to challenge our enemy; in fact, we will not even know the enemy. The tyranny of tyranny is a deeply-entrenched foe. revisionist tyranny among the Bolsheviks that the new Left would come to deride with sophomoric callousness Marxist-Leninist dogma Housewife for the revolution or prostitute for the proletariats

But that's not the worst of it.

Men tend to organise the way they fuck — one big rush and then that “wham, slam, thank you maam”, as it were. Women should be building our movement the way we make love — gradually, with sustained involvement, limitless endurance — and of course, multiple orgasms.

(Male over-involvement, on the other hand, obviously unrelated to any sex-linked trait of self-sacrifice, does however smell strongly of the Protestant/Jewish, work/ achievement ethic, and even more flagrantly, of the rational, cool, unemotional facade with which Machismo suppresses male feelings.)

The polarisation between masculine and feminine roles as defined and controlled by male society, has not only subjugated women, but has made all men, regardless of class or race, feel superior to women — this feeling of superiority, countering anti-capitalist sentiment, is the lifeblood of the system.

There's subtler language throughout the entirety of the article, but these excerpts capture the point most saliently. Levine seems to see feminism not as a movement to solve specific, concrete problems centered around gender, but as a grand war between the sexes, with Women on the white light side, and the Male sex acting as their evil foil. (Though did you notice the casual antisemitism?)

(I'm also not even going to touch the other ways that that first excerpt manages to be terrible, on the axes of sexism (against women as well as men, if that's all you care about), sexuality, transphobia, and ableism at least. I'll leave enumerating precisely all the ways Levine's language, rather than subverting, reinforces oppressive power structures, as a fun game for the readers.)

Interestingly, Levine also has this to say:

The aim of feminist revolution is for women to achieve our total humanity, which means destroying the masculine and feminine roles which make both men and women only half human. Creating a woman’s culture is the means through which we shall restore our lost humanity.

The first sentence here is a goal that I basically share! I am just baffled as to how "creating a women's culture" is a means to achieve that goal at all; let alone an effective one.

Levine concludes her article by segueing into a discussion of anarchy proper - and ultimately it is the most disappointing section as well, as she begins:

Like masturbation, anarchism is something we have been brought up to fear, irrationally and unquestioningly, because not to fear it might lead us to probe it, learn it and like it.

And continues in that style through the final paragraphs. The best defense Levine makes for anarchy is that people only oppose it because it is taboo.

As someone with very positive feelings about the anarchist eutopia aesthetic, and primarily only concrete, mundane concerns about what the details of its implementation would look like, and how it would deal with certain specific problems, I find this incredibly disappointing. At least I can say that Levine has inspired me to finally do the research I really should of the anarchist ideology.