#and many many instances of me treating all of my personal traumas as a spectacle to behold like a fictional story to gawk at | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

the-face-in-the-mirror · 5 years

Text

Stranger Things 4 Theory/Prediction: The Clocks Symbolize Memories

Well shit, here we go again.

So obviously everybody has been going off about the recently released Season 4 announcement, with that crazy heckin’ video with the Upside Down, and the clock, and the light in the distance, and all that good stuff. And naturally, people have been making theories, so I decided to make one of my own, using evidence and clues from the announcement trailer, and evidence from previous theories (about the current three seasons) made by other theorists in the fandom.

So, obviously, the most prominent theory in the Fandom at this point (concerning Season 4) is that there’s going to be a time travel element. And I can see how some people would think that, especially with the clock in the trailer, the Twitter account posting the tweet with the clock, Back To The Future in Season 3, and Hopper’s speech mentioning that he wishes he could “turn back the clock.” However, I myself don’t see how this could make any sense, and time travel would inevitably serve to only make the show more unnecessarily complicated and filled with holes, as time travel is not an easy thing to get right and can be portrayed poorly without very careful planning.

My theory, on the other hand, is that Season 4, and all the clues about clocks and turning back the clock, has nothing to do with time travel, but rather Will’s plotline and his relationship with Mike.

Hear me out:

First, let’s examine this still from the announcement trailer.

Obviously this isn’t the best quality, but there are a few key things that we can single out: the clock, the Welcome To Hawkins sign, Will’s bike (in the iconic position that everyone has known since Season 1), and what appears to be a newspaper strewn across it. There’s also the light in the distance which could either be Hopper’s cabin, or Hopper himself, but I’ll refrain from talking about that since that’s not what this theory is about.

So the clock is obvious, and it’s been hinted that we are directly supposed to focus on the clock and that clocks and time have something significant to do with this season, primarily due to this tweet:

Now let’s talk about this tweet.

Again, there’s the clock - this clock coupled with the other clock shows that they’re important somehow, which is obvious by this point. But there’s one thing from this tweet that I never see anyone talking about, and that’s what is placed right next to the clock: an upside-down smiley face.

The announcement trailer takes place in the Upside Down, where we already know time to be somewhat skewed. Mr. Clarke even said himself in Season 1 that the Gate can affect magnetic fields (the magnets and compasses), the environment (the dying crops), gravity, and even time itself. This is very subtly touched on in Season 2 when Will sees the Mind Flayer at his house for the first time, where the clock on the wall is shown to be ticking rapidly - much faster than it should be.

This could possibly be in relation to what has been happening with Hopper and his time in the Upside Down, but again, that’s not what this theory is about.

Now, this is all well in good, but I think it means something else aside from that. And sure, Time Travel theory is slightly plausible, but, personally, I don’t think that’s what these clues are hinting towards at all - or at least not in the traditional sense. So here’s my theory: the clock and all the hints of turning it back have nothing to do with literal time travel, but rather a way of “turning back the clock” that is far more intimate and relevant to Stranger Things itself - memory.

Ever since Season 2, and even in elements of Season 1, memory has played a big part in fighting against the Mind Flayer. While he was in the Upside Down, Will sung Should I Stay Or Should I Go to himself for comfort, clinging to the memory of listening to it with Jonathan to keep himself sane. When Will was possessed by the Mind Flayer it was the memories of his childhood from Joyce, Jonathan, and Mike that allowed him to continue fighting the Mind Flayer as much as he did. The same method is applicable to Billy, who is able to break free of the Mind Flayer’s control when he is reminded of his happiest memory with his mother. Not to mention that El is able to actively look into peoples’ memories, as she does with both Billy and her own mother.

Memory plays an important part in this show, and it especially plays a key role with Will and his relationship with Mike, and how it’s going to develop in Season 4.

Let’s start with my first point: memories being important to Will’s storyline.

Warning: Mentions of abuse and sexual assault ahead.

For the purpose of this theory, I’m going off of @kaypeace21‘s theory that the Mind Flayer represents Will's dad, and that a grand majority of the events on the show represent the past sexual abuse that Will can’t remember due to dissociative amnesia. You can read more about that here and here. Kaypeace does an amazing job on it and goes super in-depth into details I wouldn’t have noticed otherwise, so I would definitely suggest reading it if you haven’t.

Throughout season 2 Will constantly references what he says are “like old memories, in the back of [his] head,” and that his Now Memories from the Mind Flayer are “like when you have a dream” and “you can’t remember it unless you think really hard.” This is quite common with survivors of sexual assault, especially if the abuse occurred when they were children. I don’t think I even need to point out the r*pe parallels of Will getting possessed at this stage, so we’ll move on. The point is that Will’s memories of his abuse are there, he just can’t remember them properly - he’s “forgotten” them, in a sense; stored them so deep in the back of his psyche that he can’t bring them back up - and they’re represented with the Mind Flayer who abstractly plays out scenarios that parallel abuse; abuse that Will has gone through in the past.

So in terms of memory, here’s what I theorize is going to happen:

El - likely with her powers returned - is going to end up looking into Will’s memories, just as she did with Terry and Billy, and he’s going to end up remembering everything he repressed.

This definitely isn’t a pleasant idea, not in the slightest, especially with how that will affect Will in the long run; however, recovering repressed memories through clinical hypnotism is an actual method used by therapists for treating people with dissociative disorders. It definitely isn’t the best method of therapy, and is even known to be controversial due to the possibility of creating false memories, but, at times, it still helps people with dissociative disorders to come to terms with what happened in their past and begin to heal from it. Hypnotism is even slightly related to the show with the concept of MKUltra, even if we never directly see it. You can read more about Dissociative Amnesia and treatments for it here.

And why do I think this will happen? Because of another thing I haven’t yet seen people talking about in their posts concerning the announcement teaser: Will’s bike.

Will crashing his bike in Season 1 marks a moment where everything changes - where he’s dragged into the Upside Down, representing his own trauma as a whole along with El’s. And when his bike is found, that changes everything for both his family and his friends - to realize that something happened to him, that he didn’t just skip school or run away. The (what seems to be) newspaper strewn across it is representative of Will’s life changing as well; suddenly everyone in Hawkins knows who he is. He’s the boy who died in the quarry, and then the boy who came back to life, and people are paying attention to him (both good and bad) whether he likes it or not. He’s the most interesting thing that has ever happened in Hawkins, a mystery, a spectacle, and it’s clear that he hates it. Hawkins has never been welcoming to him, and with the Upside Down and everyone looking at him like he’s even “more of a freak” due to his disappearance, Hawkins is the last place he wants to be welcomed back to.

Will’s bike being in the Upside Down in the trailer shows us that, as hard as he is trying to recover and move on, he’s still stuck in that moment. He’s still between the View-Master slides, both in the Upside Down and not, and as much as he’s trying to move on he can’t, not until he’s finally able to face his abuser (the Mind Flayer/his dad).

This leads to my second point:

How memories are important in Mike and Will’s relationship.

Of everyone that shares memories in the shed in Season 2, Mike’s memory of when he first met Will is the one that really gets through to him, allowing him to break free of the Mind Flayer’s control just enough to send a message. From the camera angles, the lighting, and the acting of it alone, it’s obvious that it’s a very intimate moment between the two of them,

where Mike is at his most vulnerable

to bring Will back -

he’s sharing the most personal memory he has, the one that means the most to him.

And that is significant.

That scene gives us insight into how long Mike and Will have been friends, an indication of

how deep their story goes

, how close they were with each other. It’s not a memory that includes Dustin, or Lucas, or even any of their family members - it’s just them. The scene itself reflects that. They’re close, and they always have been.

And it isnt just that scene either; there are many instances, from Mike going through Will’s drawings after they pull the fake body out of the quarry to a photo - a tangible memory - of the Party (with emphasis on Mike and Will) being what makes Mike realize that El could be the key to finding Will.

Their memories are important to them - their past and their story are important to them; and, therefore, they’re important to the show. Crucial to the show.

Now fast-forward to Season 3, where Mike has done almost a complete 180 and focuses all of his time on El due to his perception that that’s what he has to do - he has a girlfriend now, he’s grown up (in his own eyes), and that’s all that matters. Mike’s main theme in the season is “we’re not kids anymore,” which he says to Will in the carport - Will, who wants to go back to their younger days; Will, who wants to relive a little bit of what he lost due to his trauma; Will, who wants to turn back that clock, who misses playing board games every night, who doesn’t want things to change.

Hopper, in his speech, wishes he could go back to a simpler time where he and El were closer than they are in Season 3 - when they spent more time together, weren’t distant from each other, talked to each other. And that’s what Will wants, too, throughout the entirety of the third season. He wants to go back to a simpler time where he wasn’t distant from everyone, and didn’t have to worry about the Upside Down or the Mind Flayer, or his friends - Mike - leaving him because they’re getting girlfriends and growing up and he’s stuck by himself - the lonely little gay kid in love with his best friend.

And it’s Mike’s words, and Will looking at the picture - the memory - of them from Halloween when Mike promised that he and Will would “go crazy together,” that finally send Will past his breaking point, causing him to rip the picture directly in half, symbolizing the rift between him and Mike.

With all this damage done, Mike and Will are a tattered reflection of what they used to be - what we were told about in Season 1 and what we saw in Season 2 - and Season 3 never truly takes the time to amend it. The end of the season shows that they’re clearly on good terms again (what with Will’s flirting and Mike’s fond smile towards him), but that’s not good enough. Not after that catastrophic fight that led to the destruction of Castle Byers and a clear rift in their friendship - that’s not something you can resolve offscreen.

Therefore, I believe that Season 4 will see the proper reparation of Mike and Will’s relationship.

Finally, they’ll talk. They’ll talk about everything - growing distant from each other, barely talking to each other, and the feelings that both of them, Mike especially, have been trying to ignore for years. They can fix the picture, fix the tear between them; the picture will never be exactly the same, but it’ll still be there, and Mike will retell the memory of when he first met Will, paralleling the scene in the shed, but without the Mind Flayer, and without the impending doom. And through this, they can turn back the clock, go back, in a way, to how things once were. They can recreate a time when they were closer, when it was just the two them sitting on the swings, and they can bring back what was so special about their relationship to begin with.

And with the two of them back together and stronger than ever before, Will can finally fully accept himself as he is, for his past and his present, and face the Mind Flayer (his father) once and for all.

This was a really long theory, and one that took me a bit to fully put together myself, but after a lot of research and rereading of multiple theories from Kaypeace, I think I’ve got something pretty solid here. It’s a lot, especially considering that I’m going off of a singular tweet and a 30-second announcement trailer, and there are a couple things that might be a reach, but I think it still has some weight to it.

Obviously it’s way too early to tell if any of this could be true, so we’ll have to wait for more content, but after all of the theories I’ve read from some of you guys I have no doubt that it’s entirely plausible for some of this theory to be true. Now let’s just hope the Duffers don’t screw us over (which they might, but I will choose to believe they still have half a braincell between them), and pray that we’re on to something. Which, inevitably, we are.

#Stranger Things #Stranger Things Theory #Stranger Things 4 #Stranger Things 4 Theory #st4 #Byler #Byler Theory #Byler Is Endgame #Long Post #Allie Has Thoughts #Allie Has Coherent Thoughts #Look you guys I actually put my braincells together to come up with a thing!#And a thing that even makes sense!#This took me three days to write I'm not gonna lie #You cannot imagine what I went through trying to write and post this it was a fucking mess #Here is the fruit of my struggles!

231 notes · View notes

enchantedzuyorker · 4 years

Text

Setting Fire to Social Justice

Call-out culture refers to the tendency among progressives, radicals, activists, and community organizers to publicly name instances or patterns of oppressive behaviour and language use by others. People can be called out for statements and actions that are sexist, racist, ableist, and the list goes on. Because call-outs tend to be public, they can enable a particularly armchair and academic brand of activism: one in which the act of calling out is seen as an end in itself.

What makes call-out culture so toxic is not necessarily its frequency so much as the nature and performance of the call-out itself. Especially in online venues like Twitter and Facebook, calling someone out isn’t just a private interaction between two individuals: it’s a public performance where people can demonstrate their wit or how pure their politics are. Indeed, sometimes it can feel like the performance itself is more significant than the content of the call- out. This is why “calling in” has been proposed as an alternative to calling out: calling in means speaking privately with an individual who has done some wrong, in order to address the behaviour without making a spectacle of the address itself.

In the context of call-out culture, it is easy to forget that the individual we are calling out is a human being, and that different human beings in different social locations will be receptive to different strategies for learning and growing. For instance, most call-outs I have witnessed immediately render anyone who has committed a perceived wrong as an outsider to the community. One action becomes a reason to pass judgment on someone’s entire being, as if there is no difference between a community member or friend and a random stranger walking down the street (who is of course also someone’s friend). Call-out culture can end up mirroring what the prison industrial complex teaches us about crime and punishment: to banish and dispose of individuals rather than to engage with them as people with complicated stories and histories.

It isn’t an exaggeration to say that there is a mild totalitarian undercurrent not just in call-out culture but also in how progressive communities police and define the bounds of who’s in and who’s out. More often than not, this boundary is constructed through the use of appropriate language and terminology – a language and terminology that are forever shifting and almost impossible to keep up with. In such a context, it is impossible not to fail at least some of the time. And what happens when someone has mastered proficiency in languages of accountability and then learned to justify all of their actions by falling back on that language? How do we hold people to account who are experts at using anti-oppressive language to justify oppressive behaviour? We don’t have a word to describe this kind of perverse exercise of power, despite the fact that it occurs on an almost daily basis in progressive circles. Perhaps we could call it Anti-Oppressiveness.

Humour often plays a role in call-out culture and by drawing attention to this I am not saying that wit has no place in undermining oppression; humour can be one of the most useful tools available to oppressed people. But when people are reduced to their identities of privilege (as white, cisgender, male, etc.) and mocked as such, it means we’re treating each other as if our individual social locations stand in for the total systems those parts of our identities represent. Individuals become synonymous with systems of oppression, and this can turn systemic analysis into moral judgment. Too often, when it comes to being called out, narrow definitions of a person’s identity count for everything.

No matter the wrong we are naming, there are ways to call people out that do not reduce individuals to agents of social advantage. There are ways of calling people out that are compassionate and creative, and that recognize the whole individual instead of viewing them simply as representations of the systems from which they benefit. Paying attention to these other contexts will mean refusing to unleash all of our very real trauma onto the psyches of those we imagine to only represent the systems that oppress us. Given the nature of online social networks, call-outs are not going away any time soon. But reminding ourselves of what a call-out is meant to accomplish will go a long way toward creating the kinds of substantial, material changes in people’s behaviour – and in community dynamics – that we envision and need.

How do you begin to say, “I think we’ve been going about this all wrong?” Howdo you get out of a dead-end without going in reverse? It seems like in the last fifteen years, rape has gone from being an issue that was only talked about by feminists and downplayed in other radical communities, to one of the most commonly addressed forms of oppression. Part of this change might be owed to the hard work of feminist and queer activists, another part to the spread of anarchism, with its heavy emphasis on both class and gender politics, and another part to the antiglobalization movement, which brought together many previously separated single issues.

Despite all the changes in fifteen years, its just as common to hear the sentiment that rape is still tacitly permitted in radical communities or that the issues of gender and patriarchy are minimized, even though in most activist or anarchist conferences and distros I know about, rape culture and patriarchy have been among the most talked about topics, and it wasn’t just talk. In the communities I have been a part of there have been cases of accused rapists or abusers being kicked out and survivors being supported, along with plenty of feminist activities, events, and actions.

All the same, every year I meet more people who have stories of communities torn apart by accusations of rape or abuse, both by the shock and trauma of the original harm, and then by the way people have responded and positioned themselves. One option is to blame a passive majority that toe the line, giving lip service to the new politically correct doctrine, without living up to their ideals. In some cases I think that is exactly what happened. But even when there is full community support, it still often goes wrong.

After years of thinking about this problem, learning about other people’s experiences, and witnessing accountability processes from the margins and from the center, I strongly believe that the model we have for understanding and responding to rape is deeply flawed. For a long time I have heard criticisms of this model, but on the one hand I never found a detailed explanation of these criticisms and on the other I was trained to assume that anyone criticizing the model was an apologist for rape, going on the defensive because their own patriarchal attitudes were being called out. After personally meeting a number of critical people who were themselves longtime feminists and survivors, I started to seriously question my assumptions.

Since then, I have come to the conclusion that the way we understand and deal with rape is all wrong and it often causes more harm than good. But many of the features of the current model were sensible responses to the Left that didn’t give a damn about rape and patriarchy. Maybe the biggest fault of the model, and the activists who developed it, is that even though they rejected the more obvious patriarchal attitudes of the traditional Left, they unconsciously included a mentality of puritanism and law and order that patriarchal society trains us in. I don’t want to go back to a complicit silence on these issues. For that reason, I want to balance every criticism I make of the current model with suggestion for a better way to understand and deal with rape.

When I was in a mutually abusive relationship, one in which both of us were doing things we should not have done, without being directly aware of it, that resulted in causing serious psychological harm to the other person, I learned some interesting things about the label of “survivor.” It represents a power that is at odds with the process of healing. If I was called out for abuse, I became a morally contemptible person. But if I were also a survivor, I suddenly deserved sympathy and support. None of this depended on the facts of the situation, on how we actually hurt each other. In fact, no one else knew of the details, and even the two of us could not agree on them. The only thing that mattered was to make an accusation. And as the activist model quickly taught us, it was not enough to say, “You hurt me.” We had to name a specific crime. “Abuse.” “Assault.” “Rape.” A name from a very specific list of names that enjoy a special power. Not unlike a criminal code.

I did not want to create an excuse for how I hurt someone I loved. I wanted to understand how I was able to hurt that person without being aware of it at the time. But I had to turn my pain and anger with the other person into accusations according to a specific language, or I would become a pariah and undergo a much greater harm than the self-destruction of this one relationship. The fact that I come from an abusive family could also win me additional points. Everyone, even those who do not admit it, know that within this system having suffered abuse in your past grants you a sort of legitimacy, even an excuse for harming someone else. But I don’t want an excuse. I want to get better, and I want to live without perpetuating patriarchy. I sure as hell don’t want to talk about painful stories from my past with people who are not unconditionally sympathetic towards me, as the only way to win their sympathy and become a human in their eyes.

As for the other person, I don’t know what was going on in their head, but I do know that they were able to deny ever harming me, violating my consent, violating my autonomy, and lying to me, by making the accusation of abuse. The label of “survivor” protected them from accountability. It also enabled them to make demands of me, all of which I met, even though some of those demands were harmful to me and other people. Because I had not chosen to make my accusation publicly, I had much less power to protect myself in this situation.

And as for the so-called community, those who were good friends supported me. Some of them questioned me and made sure I was going through a process of self-criticism. Those who were not friends or who held grudges against me tried to exclude me, including one person who had previously been called out for abuse. In other words, the accusation of abuse was used as an opportunity for power plays within our so-called community.

For all its claims about giving importance to feelings, the activist model is coded with total apathy. The only way to get the ball of community accountability rolling is to accuse someone of committing a specific crime. The role of our most trusted friends in questioning our responses, our impulses, and even our own experiences is invaluable. This form of questioning is in fact one of the most precious things that friendship offers. No one is infallible and we can only learn and grow by being questioned. A good friend is one who can question your behavior in a difficult time without ever withdrawing their support for you. The idea that “the survivor is always right” creates individualistic expectations for the healing process. A survivor as much as a perpetrator needs to be in charge of their own healing process, but those who support them cannot be muted and expected to help them fulfill their every wish. This is a obvious in the case of someone who has harmed someone else it should also be clear in the case of someone who has been harmed. We need each other to heal. But the others in a healing process cannot be muted bodies. They must be communicative and critical bodies.

The term “perpetrator” should set off alarm bells right away. The current model uses not only the vocabulary but also the grammar of the criminal justice system, which is a patriarchal institution through and through. This makes perfect sense: law and order is one of the most deeply rooted elements of the American psyche, and more immediately, many feminist activists have one foot in radical communities and another foot in NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). The lack of a critique of these NGOs only makes it more certain that they will train us in institutional modes of thinking.

The current method is not only repulsive for its puritanism and its similarity to the Christian notions of the elect and the damned; it is also a contradiction of queer, feminist, and anarchist understandings of patriarchy. If everyone or most people are capable of causing harm, being abusive, or even of raping someone (according to the activist definition which can include not recognizing lack of consent, unlike the traditional definition which focuses on violent rape), then it makes no sense to morally stigmatize those people as though they were especially bad or dangerous. The point we are trying to make is not that the relatively few people who are called out for abuse or even for rape are especially evil, but that the entire culture supports such power dynamics, to the extent that these forms of harm are common. By taking a self-righteous, “tough on crime” stance, everyone else can make themselves seem like the good guys. But there can’t be good guys without bad guys. This is the same patriarchal narrative of villain, victim, and savior, though in the latter role, instead of the boyfriend or police officer, we now have the community. The term “survivor,” on the other hand, continues to recreate the victimization of the standard term, “victim,” that it was designed to replace.

One reason for calling someone a “survivor” is to focus on their process of overcoming the rape, even though it defines them perpetually in relation to it. The other reason is to spread awareness of how many thousands of people, predominately women, queer, and trans people, are injured or killed every year by patriarchal violence. This is an important point to make. However, given the way that rape has been redefined in activist circles, and the extension of the term “survivor” to people who suffer any form of abuse, the vast majority of things that constitute rape or abuse do not have the slightest possibility of ending someone’s life. This term blurs very different forms of violence.

Hopefully, the reader is thinking that an action does not need to be potentially lethal to constitute a very real form of harm. I absolutely agree. But if that’s the case, why do we need to make it sound like it does in order to take it seriously? Why connect all forms of harm to life-threatening harm instead of communicating that all forms of harm are serious?

As for these crimes, their definitions have changed considerably, but they still remain categories of criminality that must meet the requirements of a certain definition to justify a certain punishment. The activist model has been most radical by removing the figure of the judge and allowing the person harmed to judge for themselves. However, the judge role has not been abolished, simply transferred to the survivor, and secondarily to the people who manage the accountability process. The act of judging still takes place, because we are still dealing with punishment for a crime, even if it is never called that.

The patriarchal definition of rape has been abandoned in favor of a new understanding that defines rape as sex without consent, with whole workshops and pamphlets dedicated to the question of consent. Consent must be affirmative rather than the absence of a negative, it is cancelled by intoxication, intimidation, or persistence, it should be verbal and explicit between people who don’t know each other as well, and it can be withdrawn at any time. The experience of a survivor can never be questioned, or to put it another way an accusation of rape is always true. A similar formulation that sums up this definition is, “assault is when I feel assaulted.”

I don’t want to distinguish rape from other forms of harm without talking about how to address all instances of harm appropriately. One solution that does not require us to judge which form of harm is more important, but also does not pretend they are all the same, would have two parts. The first part is to finally acknowledge the importance of feelings, by taking action when someone says “I have been hurt,” and not waiting until someone makes an accusation of a specific crime, such as abuse or rape. Because we are responding to the fact of harm and not the violation of an unwritten law, we do not need to look for someone to blame. The important thing is that someone is hurting, and they need support. Only if they discover that they cannot get better unless they go through some form of mediation with the other person or unless they gain space and distance from them, does that other person need to be brought into it. The other person does not need to be stigmatized, and the power plays involved in the labels of perpetrator and survivor are avoided.

The second part changes the emphasis from defining violations of consent to focusing on how to prevent them from happening again. Every act of harm can be looked at with the following question in mind: “What would have been necessary to prevent this from happening.” This question needs to be asked by the person who was harmed, by their social circle, and if possible by the person who caused the harm.

The social circle is most likely to be able to answer this question when the harm relates to long-term relationships or shared social spaces. They might realize that if they had been more attentive or better prepared they would have seen the signs of an abusive relationship, expressed their concern, and offered help. Or they might realize that, in a concert hall they commonly use, there are a number of things they can all do to make it clear that groping and harassing is not acceptable. But in some situations they can only offer help after the fact. They cannot be in every bedroom or on every dark street to prevent forms of gender violence or intimate violence that happen there.

In the case of the person who caused the harm, the biggest factor is whether they are emotionally present to ask themselves this question. If they can ask, “what could I have done to not have hurt this person,” they have taken the most important step to identifying their own patriarchal conditioning, and to healing from unresolved past trauma if that’s an issue. If they are emotionally present to the harm they have caused, they deserve support. Those closest to the person they hurt may rightfully be angry and not want anything to do with them, but there should be other people wiling to play this role. The person they have hurt deserves distance, if they want it, but except in extreme cases it does no good to stigmatize or expel them in a permanent way.

If they can ask themselves this question honestly, and especially if their peers can question them in this process, they may discover that they have done nothing wrong, or that they could not have known their actions would have been harmful. Sometimes, relationships simply hurt, and it is not necessary to find someone to blame, though this is often the tendency, justified or not. The fact that some relationships are extremely hurtful but also totally innocent is another reason why it is dangerous to lump all forms of harm together, presupposing them all to be the result of an act of abuse for which someone is responsible.

If their friends are both critical and sympathetic, they are most likely to be able to recognize when they did something wrong, and together with their friends, they are the ones in the best position to know how to change their behavior so they don’t cause similar harm in the future. If their friends have good contact with the person who was hurt (or that person’s friends), they are more likely to take the situation seriously and not let the person who caused the harm off the hook with a band-aid solution. This new definition is a response to the patriarchal definition, which excuses the most common forms of rape (rape by acquaintances, rape of someone unable to give consent, rape in which someone does not clearly say “no”). It is a response to a patriarchal culture that was always making excuses for rape or blaming the victim.

The old definition and the old culture are abhorrent. But the new definition and the practice around it do not work. We need to change these without going back to the patriarchal norm. In fact, we haven’t fully left the patriarchal norm behind us. Saying “assault is when I feel assaulted” is only a new way to determine when the crime of assault has been committed, keeping the focus on the transgression of the assaulter, then we still have the mentality of the criminal justice system, but without the concept of justice or balance. At the other extreme, there are people who act inexcusably and are totally unable to admit it. Simply put, if someone hurts another person and they are not emotionally present in the aftermath, simply put, it is impossible to take their feelings into consideration. You can’t save someone who doesn’t want help. In such a case, the person hurt and their social circle need to do what is best for themselves, both to heal and to protect themselves from a person they have no guarantee will treat them well in the future. Maybe they will decide to shame that person, frighten them, beat them up, or kick them out of town. Although kicking them out of town brings the greatest peace of mind, it should be thought of as a last resort, because it passes off the problem on the next community where the expelled person goes. Because it is a relatively easy measure it is also easy to use disproportionately. Rather than finding a solution that avoids future conflict, it is better to seek a conflictive solution. This also forces people to face the consequences of their own righteous anger which can be a learning process.

Finally, the most important question comes from the person who was hurt. The victimistic mentality of our culture, along with the expectation that everyone is out to blame the victim, make it politically incorrect to insist the person who has been hurt ask themselves, “what would have made it possible to avoid this?” but such an attitude is necessary to overcoming the victim mentality and feeling empowered again. It is helpful for everyone who lives in a patriarchal world where we will probably encounter more people who try to harm us. Its not about blaming ourselves for what happened, but about getting stronger and more able to defend ourselves in the future.

I know that some zealous defenders of the present model will make the accusation that I am blaming the victim, so I want to say this again: it’s about preventing future rapes and abuse, not blaming ourselves if we have been raped or abused. The current model basically suggests that people play the role of victims and wait for society or the community to save them. Many of us think this is bullshit. Talking with friends of mine who have been raped and looking back at my own history of being abused, I know that we grew stronger in certain ways, and this is because we took responsibility for our own health and safety.

In some cases, the person who was hurt will find that if they had recognized certain patterns of dependence or jealousy, if they had had more self-esteem, or they had asserted themselves, they could have avoided being harmed. Unless they insist on retaining a puritan morality this is not to say that it was their fault. It is a simple recognizing of how they need to grow in order to be safer and stronger in a dangerous world. This method focuses not on blame, but on making things better.

Sometimes, however, the person will come to the honest conclusion, “there was nothing I could have done (except staying home / having a gun / having a bodyguard).” This answer marks the most extreme form of harm. Someone has suffered a form of violence that they could not have avoided because of the lengths the aggressor went to in order to override their will. Even shouting “No!” would not have been enough. It is a form of harm that cannot be prevented at an individual level and therefore it will continue to be reproduced until there is a profound social revolution, if that ever happens.

If we have to define rape, it seems more consistent with a radical analysis of patriarchy to define rape as sex against someone’s will. Because will is what we want taken into the realm of action, this idea of rape does not make the potential victim dependent on the good behavior of the potential rapist. It is our own responsibility to depress our will. Focusing on expressing and enacting our will directly strengthens ourselves as individuals and our struggles against rape and all other forms of domination.

If rape is all sex without affirmative consent, then it is the potential rapist, and not the potential victim, who retains the power over the sexual encounter. They have the responsibility to make sure the other person gives consent. If it is the sole responsibility of one person to receive consent from another person, then we are saying that person is more powerful then the other, without proposing how to change those power dynamics.

Additionally, if a rape can happen accidentally, simply because this responsible person, the one expected to play the part of the perfect gentleman, is inattentive or insensitive, or drunk, or oblivious to things like body language that can negate verbal consent, or from another culture with a different body language, then we’re not necessarily dealing with a generalized relationship of social power, because not everyone who rapes under this definition believes they have a right to the other person’s body.

Rape needs to be understood as a very specific form of harm. We can’t encourage the naive ideal of a harm-free world. People will always hurt each other, and it is impossible to learn how not to hurt others without also making mistakes. As far as harm goes, we need to be more understanding than judgmental. But we can and must encourage the ideal of a world without rape, because rape is the result of a patriarchal society teaching its members that men and other more powerful people have a right to the bodies of women and other less powerful people. Without this social idea, there is no rape. What’s more, rape culture, understood in this way, lies at least partially at the heart of slavery, property, and work, at the roots of the State, capitalism, and authority.

This is a dividing line between one kind of violence and all the other forms of abuse. It’s not to say that the other forms of harm are less serious or less important. It is a recognition that the other forms of harm can be dealt with using less extreme measures. A person or group of people who would leave someone no escape can only be dealt with through exclusion and violence. Then it becomes a matter of pure self-defense. In all the other cases, there is a possibility for mutual growth and healing. Sympathetic or supportive questioning can play a key role in responses to abuse. If we accept rape as a more extreme form of violence that the person could not have reasonably avoided, they need the unquestioning support and love of their friends.

We need to educate ourselves how systematically patriarchy has silenced those who talk about being raped through suspicion, disbelief, or counter accusations. But we also need to be aware that there have been a small number of cases in which accusations of rape have not been true. No liberating practice should ever require us to surrender our own critical judgement and demand that we follow a course of action we are not allowed to question. Being falsely accused of rape or being accused in a non-transparent way is a heavily traumatizing experience. It is a far less common occurrence than valid accusations of rape that the accused person denies, but we should never have to opt for one kind of harm in order to avoid another.

If it is true that rapists exist in our circles, it is also true that pathological liars exist in our circles. There has been at least one city where such a person made a rape accusation to discredit another activist. People who care about fighting patriarchy will not suspect someone of being a pathological liar every time they are unsure about a rape accusation. If you are close to someone for long enough, you will inevitably find out if they are a fundamentally dishonest person (or if they are like the rest of us, sometimes truthful, sometimes less so).

Therefore, someone’s close acquaintances, if they care about the struggle against rape culture, will never accuse them of lying if they say they’ve been raped. But often accusations spread by rumors and reach people who do not personally know the accuser and the accused. The culture of anonymous communication through rumors and the internet often create a harmful situation in which it is impossible to talk about accountability or about the truth of what happened in a distant situation.

Anarchists and other activists also have many enemies who have proven themselves capable of atrocities in the course of repression. A fake rape accusation is nothing to them. A police infiltrator in Canada used the story of being a survivor of an abusive relationship to avoid questions about her past and win the trust of anarchists she would later set up for prison sentences. Elsewhere, a member of an authoritarian socialist group made an accusation against several rival anarchists, one of whom, it turned out, was not even in town on the night in question. Some false accusations of rape are totally innocent. Sometimes a person begins to relive a previous traumatic experience while in a physically intimate space with another person, and it is not always easy or possible to distinguish between the one experience and the other. A person can begin to relive a rape while they are having consensual sex. It is definitely not the one person’s fault for having a normal reaction to trauma, but it is also not necessarily the other person’s fault that the trauma was triggered.

A mutual and dynamic definition of consent as active communication instead of passive negation would help reduce triggers being mislabeled as rape. If potential triggers are discussed before the sexual exchange and the responsibility for communicating needs and desires around disassociation is in the hands of the person who disassociated then consent is part of an active sexual practice instead of just being an imperfect safety net. If someone checks out during sex, and they know they check out during sex, it is their responsibility to explain what that looks like and what they would like the other person to do when it happens. We live in a society where many people are assaulted, raped or have traumatic experiences at some point in their lives. Triggers are different for everyone. The expectation that ones partner should always be attuned enough to know when one is disassociating, within a societal context that does not teach us about the effects of rape, much less their intimate emotive and psychological consequences — is unrealistic.

Consent is empowering as an active tool, it should not be approached as a static obligation. Still, the fact remains that not all rape accusation can be categorized as miscommunication, some are in fact malicious.

There is a difficult contradiction between the fact that patriarchy covers up rape, and the fact that there will be some false, unjustified, or even malicious rape accusations in activist communities. The best option is not to go with statistical probability and treat every accusation as valid, because a false accusation can tear apart an entire community make people apathetic or skeptical towards future accountability processes. It is far better to educate ourselves, to be aware of the prevalence of rape, to recognize common patterns of abusive behavior, to learn how to respond in a sensitive and supportive way, and also to recognize that there are some exceptions to the rules, and many more situations that are complex and defy definition.

The typical proposal for responding to rape, the community accountability process, is based on a transparent lie. There are no activist communities, only the desire for communities, or the convenient fiction of communities. A community is a material web that binds people together, for better and for worse, in interdependence. If its members move away every couple years because the next pace seems cooler, it is not a community. If it is easier to kick someone out than to go through a difficult series of conversations with them, it is not a community. Among the societies that had real communities, exile was the most extreme sanction possible, tantamount to killing them. On many levels, losing the community and all the relationships it involved was the same as dying. Let’s not kid ourselves: we don’t have communities. In many accountability processes, the so-called community has done as much harm, or acted as selfishly, as the perpetrator. Giving such a fictitious, self-interested group the power and authority of judge, jury, and executioner is a recipe for disaster.

What we have are groups of friends and circles of acquaintances. We should not expect to be able to deal with rape or abuse in a way that does not generate conflict between or among these different groups and circles. There will probably be no consensus, but we should not think of conflict as a bad thing. Every rape is different, every person is different, and every situation will require a different solution. By trying to come up with a constant mechanism for dealing with rape, we are thinking like the criminal justice system. It is better to admit that we have no catch-all answer to such a difficult problem. We only have our own desire to make things better, aided by the knowledge we share. The point is not to build up a structure that becomes perfect and unquestionable, but to build up experience that allows us to remain flexible but effective.

The many failings in the current model have burned out one generation after another in just a few short years, setting the stage for the next generation of zealous activists to take their ideals to the extreme, denouncing anyone who questions them as apologists, and unaware how many times this same dynamic has played out before because the very model functions to expel the unorthodox, making it impossible to learn from mistakes. One such mistake has been the reproduction of a concept similar to the penal sentence of the criminal justice system. If the people in charge of the accountability process decide that someone must be expelled, or forced to go to counseling, or whatever else, everyone in the so-called community is forced to recognize that decision. Those who are not are accused of supporting rape culture. A judge has a police force to back up his decision. The accountability process has to use accusations and emotional blackmail.

But the entire premise that everyone has to agree on the resolution is flawed. The two or more people directly involved in the problem may likely have different needs, even if they are both sincerely focused on their own healing. The friends of the person who has been hurt might be disgusted, and they might decide to beat the other person up. Other people in the broader social circle might feel a critical sympathy with the person who hurt someone else, and decide to support them. Both of these impulses are correct. Getting beaten up as a result of your actions, and receiving support, simply demonstrate the complex reactions we generate. This is the real world, and facing its complexity can help us heal.

The impulse of the activist model is to expel the perpetrator, or to force them to go through a specific process. Either of these paths rest on the assumption that the community mechanism holds absolute right, and they both require that everyone complies with the decision and recognize its legitimacy. This is authoritarianism. This is the criminal justice system, recreated. This is patriarchy, still alive in our hearts.

What we need is a new set of compass points, and no new models. We need to identify and overcome the mentalities of puritanism and law and order. We need to recognize the complexity of individuals and of interpersonal relationships. To avoid a formulaic morality, we need to avoid the formula of labels and mass categories. Rather than speaking of rapists, perpetrators, and survivors, we need to talk abut specific acts and specific limitations, recognizing that everyone changes, and that most people are capable of hurting and being hurt, and also of growing, healing, and learning how to not hurt people, or not be victimized, in the future. We also need to make the critical distinction between the forms of harm that can be avoided as we get smarter and stronger, and the kinds that require a collective self-defense.

The suggestions I have made offer no easy answers, and no perfect categories. They demand flexibility, compassion, intelligence, bravery, and patience. How could we expect to confront patriarchy with anything less?

0 notes