đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș words-to-fire-press-betrayal.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:56:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Betrayal Author: Words to Fire Press Language: en Topics: rape, accountability, rape culture, sexual assault, abuse, interpersonal violence, consent Source: Retrieved on 4.30.17 from https://libcom.org/library/betrayal-critical-analysis-rape-culture-anarchist-subcultures
Weâre fucking sick of disclaimers. We resent having to provide apologies
and justifications for our words before we even speak them. Weâre bitter
about how specialized discussions of rape, sexual assault, and abuse
have become. We feel insulted and embarrassed that we have to constantly
point out that we arenât speaking on behalf of all survivors, as though
that were even possible. Sure, we appreciate a well placed trigger
warning. Itâs just good etiquette. But when fanatical attempts to avoid
triggering each other serve as tools to relegate discussions of
interpersonal violence to the margins, to wrap the issue in a neat
little box which is only brought out on special occasions, when an
illusion of âsafetyâ can be guaranteed, wellâŠthen we start to get
pissed. If we only speak of our oppression from the position of safety,
weâll be forever silent. If we canât learn to work through being
triggered amongst friends and comrades, weâll be ill equipped to work
through it in their absence. An atmosphere of nervousness permeates the
discussion, and we confer to the advice of specialists partly out of
fear of saying the wrong thing. But all weâre talking about are our own
experiences, a topic on which we are all experts. So we long for the day
when we wonât need to place ourselves under disclaimers, or any other
banner for that matter.
But at the same time we recognize that weâre not there yet. These topics
are still so charged, and the support available still so sparse, that
our words hold the tremendous potential to do harm. So in the meantime
we must take care when we speak, so as to not become inadvertent allies
of the forces we mean to oppose. With that in mind, we offer a few
clarifications before we beginâŠ
Some of the authors of this piece are survivors, others are reflecting
on their own role as people who have been abusive in the past, but they
all share a commitment to the struggle against a Culture of Rape. When
we say âweâ, we are not referring to âsurvivorsâ, or even to the
authors, but to everyone who agrees with the statement made, and perhaps
more broadly, to everyone who sees themselves a part of this struggle.
There are surely survivors whose experiences will seemingly contradict
the arguments made here. But of course the examples cited throughout
this text are not meant to be exhaustive or all encompassing. We do not
see our own experiences as exemplary of the experiences of all
survivors, or even most survivors. They do, however, provide examples of
how Rape Culture has materialized in our own lives, a point we thought
worth sharing.
We would be rightly criticized for focusing so heavily on the anarchist
milieu, which of course most survivors will not identify with. But we
saw little use in trying to extend ourselves beyond our own experiences
in the hopes of becoming more ârelevantâ. It is also our hope that an
anarchist analysis of both Power and struggle provide a useful framework
for deconstructing the functioning of Rape Culture, and could perhaps
provide insight even to those who are unfamiliar with the anarchist
subculture. It is our belief that the dynamics we described will be
echoed in other milieus as well.
Our gentle reader will also notice that we have chosen to use gender
neutral language throughout. Of course the majority of survivors are
women or people who donât conform to patriarchal gender identities,
whereas the majority of perpetrators are cis gendered men. The
neutrality of our language obscures the systemic nature of not only
this, but also the way that interpersonal violence has consistently been
a tool of colonial invasion, imperialist occupation, and the maintenance
of white supremacy. It obscures the way in which organizing against
interpersonal violence has historically been co-opted by white
middleclass feminists, leaving women of colour, poor women, queer and
trans folk with less access to support resources. It was not our
intention to depoliticize the nature of interpersonal violence with
language that is gender neutral (certainly, when it comes to gender, we
are not neutral!). But having said that, we also wanted to recognize
that people of all identities, from all walks of life, can be both
survivors or perpetrators, or even both at the same time. We didnât want
those whose experiences donât fit neatly into oppressive binaries to
find themselves even further marginalized here.
Finally, we offer a few definitions, not so that we can dictate how
these words must be used, but so that it can be understood how their use
was intended here:
Rape Culture â A culture which seeks to excuse, condone, normalize and
encourage interpersonal violence.
Interpersonal Violence â A catch all term commonly used to describe
different forms of violence which are inflicted on an interpersonal
basis, yet have their roots in expansive systems of power. Rape, sexual
assault, sexual harassment, as well as sexual, physical and emotional
abuse within relationships are all examples of interpersonal violence.
Survivor â A person who has experienced or is experiencing interpersonal
violence, as defined by the survivor themselves.
Perpetrator â A person who has inflicted interpersonal violence onto
another person or persons, as defined by the survivor(s).
Survivor Autonomy â The theoretical foundation upon which most radical
support work is based. Survivor Autonomy is the concept that a survivor
should be given the power and autonomy to decide for themselves how to
deal with their own trauma, and that the role of supporters is to
empower and encourage this autonomy. This stands in contrast to other
approaches which do not see the survivor as having the best
understanding of their own needs or recognize each survivors needs as
truly unique and different, but instead seek to impose the âproperâ way
to heal upon them.
Apologist â Those who, through action or inaction, seek to uphold either
the power of a perpetrator(s) and/or the disempowerment of a
survivor(s), thus reproducing Rape Culture.
Accountability process â A process through which a perpetrator attempts
to be accountable to the people theyâve hurt, and engages in self
reflection with the ultimate goal of making long term changes in
behaviour.
It would seem that throughout the anarchist milieu, wherever you turn,
there is a community being ravaged by rape, by sexual assault, and by
abuse. These cycles are neither new nor unique to anarchists. At first
glance it seems surprising that our communities find themselves at least
as vulnerable as any other to interpersonal violence. After all, donât
we begin from the starting point of opposition to domination, without
which interpersonal violence could not exist? And yet, the one thing
that ties these communities together, a supposed shared politics or
political analysis, is often the weakest point in anarchist responses to
interpersonal violence. Despite being a community which is explicitly
political in nature, anarchists often depoliticize interpersonal
violence and divorce it from its roots in systemic power. For instance,
the need for good consent practices becomes confused with the belief
that informing people about consent will transform our communities, as
though rape were the result of ignorance and misinformation, rather than
deeply entrenched structures of power. Strategies that anarchists have
adopted, such as the accountability process, more often than not fail to
address the interpersonal violence in our midst.
The apparent failure of the accountability process to transform our
communities is usually viewed outside the context of that failure,
without examining the broader social forces that contributed to it. This
oversight is a result of the accountability process and also a precursor
to it. The accountability process narrows our focus; it both confronts
us with expansive systems of power while reassuring us that dealing with
individual instances will deconstruct them. We speak of patriarchy,
colonialism, heterosexism, but we deal only with a perpetrator. In our
casual conversations, we agree âpower concedes nothing without the
threat of forceâ, yet our attempts at accountability usually take the
form of moral suasion, relying on liberal-bourgeois notions of choice.
As if our choices were more than a calculated reaction to the material
conditions we find ourselves in. Of course a perpetrator chooses to
pursue or reject accountability, but what makes this choice possible?
What conditions fostered their feelings of entitlement over another
person? It is these conditions that, when viewed from the terrain of
struggle, must be recognized as what they are: enemy territory. It is
from this realization that we attempt to launch our attack.
The insistence that interpersonal violence is perpetuated by more than
just the actual perpetrators is not meant to shift accountability away
from those perpetrators. On the contrary, itâs a recognition of the many
factors that entitle them to sidestep accountability. Just as the
suburban yuppie requires a vast and complex social system to mask the
negative consequences of their destructive lifestyle, a perpetrator who
refuses accountability is often enabled by a similar social network.
Such networks arenât only comprised of those who explicitly defend a
perpetrator, but of all those who ensure the balance of power remains
tipped in their favour. What this looks like in practical terms will
vary. Silencing, repression, recuperation, or most often combinations of
several of these methods are used against survivors and their struggle.
The defining factor will always be what most effectively reproduces Rape
Culture.
âIn the end, it wonât be the words of our enemies we remember, but the
silence of our friends.â
The term âsilencingâ has been popularized in our communities, but only
with a limited definition. Calling a survivor a liar, conjuring their
sexual experiences, deviancies, or style of dress to shift blame, or
otherwise insinuating that they were âasking for itâ, are all behaviours
most anarchists would frown on, though they rarely bother confronting
them. This hypocrisy hints at a larger problem, revealed by a closer
look at our conception of what is âsilencingâ. The aforementioned
examples only apply to the survivor who has called out their
perpetrator, or else talked openly about their experiences. But of
course many survivors never get even this far.
So what silences them? Is it the other members of their affinity group,
who maintain a false separation between the struggle against the state
and the struggle against other systems of Power (especially the ones
they benefit from)? Is it the roommates who never acknowledge fucked up
dynamics for fear of âtriggeringâ someone, as if an offer of support
would be more triggering than total isolation? Is it the other show
goers who write off the struggle as petty, too personal, or mere
âdrama,â as if a survivor who struggles against their oppression is
being dramatic? Is it the fellow collective member who regrets that they
are ânot in the placeâ to offer support, while still being in the place
to hang out with a perpetrator on a regular basis? Is it the
acquaintance who claims to be in no position to confront a perpetrator
because they are not even friends, or is it the acquaintance who claims
the same because they are? Is it the people who organized that event,
the ones who say they know nothing about the situation, while doing
everything in their power to make sure they never do? Is it the band
mate who claims they can see âboth sidesâ, or eschews sides altogether,
as if this wasnât a fucking war? Weâve even seen rape apologists turn
survivor autonomy on its head, claiming that theyâd received no explicit
instructions from a survivor, so of course they had no choice but to
carry on a completely uncritical friendship with their attacker! Perhaps
it is not the silence of survivors, but of those around them, which is
truly revealing. With no one to say otherwise, a survivor can only
assume that they will be given the same treatment as every other
survivor before them.
If we broaden our definition of what is âsilencingâ to mean everything
that works to maintain silence, then we arenât merely defining a few
grossly insensitive remarks. Instead, what weâve implicated is the
totality of our culture.
So what then, of accountability? Abuse, assault, a total lack of
accountability; all are business as usual in the world as we know it.
But normalcy is more effectively maintained through the complacency of
masses than through the brutality of their masters. While violence
provides the foundation upon which Rape Culture reproduces itself, it
also poses certain risks; that itâs shared experience can create bonds
of solidarity, that lines of conflict will be drawn more clearly, that
people will fight back. The process of normalization seeks to undermine
these risks by making violence invisible. The obvious apologists, the
goons who say âslutâ like itâs a bad thing and think the perpetrator is
the victim, donât do nearly as much to further normalization as their
more subtle accomplices, the ones who maintain complete silence on the
subject. These more sophisticated apologists share space with the
perpetrator; they march alongside them at demonstrations and dance
alongside them at parties, without ever uttering even a single word
about interpersonal violence. When forced to speak on the subject, they
sigh and say âitâs complicatedâŠâ They may even claim to be disgusted by
the violence, though mostly theyâre sad that you had to disrupt their
event to confront it. They lament, âIf only I had known!â, while keeping
their heads planted purposefully in the sand.
This conspiracy of silence seeks not only to end a survivors struggle
before it even begins, but also to provide the back drop for what will
happen to the few survivors who refuse to be muzzled. For a survivor to
speak openly of their experiences in such a climate can only be
understood as an act of resistance, and as with all acts of resistance,
repression is a likely outcome. This repression is more nuanced than the
clubs of police officers or the guns of soldiers, though these too have
been turned on survivors. The repressive forces are more likely to be
mentally and emotionally devastating. The agents of such repression are
not familiar to us through uniforms or badges, but as our supposed
comrades and former friends. Many of us are accustomed to seeing only
the police in this repressive role[1], and of course they have their
part to play in the reproduction of Rape Culture as well. But in our own
radical communities, the stateâs role in this reproduction seems
downplayed. After all, thereâs little point in the state expending the
resources while so many self-described anarchists are willing to do the
job for free.
Those who doubt the brutality of this internal repressive apparatus have
likely never been on the receiving end. The âcommunitiesâ that are so
often turned to with the expectation of support are more often mobilized
against the survivors on behalf of their perpetrators in a stunning
counter attack. Itâs difficult to properly illustrate what so many
survivors have had to endure at the hands of their supposed anarchist
comrades. To call it a smear campaign hardly does it justice. Of course
speaking generally will never fully encompass all the complexities of a
personâs experiences, but there are many patterns we can identify within
the anarchist milieu, all of which faithfully reproduce the patterns of
the broader culture.
One glaring example is the character assassination of the survivor. No
aspect of their life is spared from scrutiny, all in search of any
detail that can be used against them. These details, whether genuine or
fabricated when necessary, are often used towards invalidating their
experiences of violence and valorizing the perpetrator. Few will be so
clumsy as to blatantly accuse a survivor of lying, though there are more
self described anarchists willing to do this than even we care to admit.
Instead, most will utilize any number of slight variations as a way of
saying the same thing. Perhaps a survivor gave no clue of abuse as they
endured it, perhaps they consented to certain sexual activity but not
all of it, perhaps they felt the need to disclose certain experiences
and withhold others, perhaps they needed time to process their trauma
and only revealed it gradually, perhaps they have their own issues with
power or boundaries. We could go on, but of course whatâs important is
not the details themselves, but how they can be twisted, taken out of
context, or else used to undermine a survivors credibility. Past
histories, addictions, coping mechanisms, debts, insecurities, even a
survivorâs political identity, all are fair game[2]. When this strategy
is successful, survivors are villainized and their attackers are recast
as the victims of lies and manipulation. But even if the apparent
objective of discrediting a survivor in the eyes of community fails, the
process itself can still be effective at forcing survivors out of that
community. Knowing that simply walking into an anarchist space means
that nearly everyone there has discussed your personal life at length
creates a tremendous barrier, regardless of the conclusions people may
have reached. Survivors may feel compelled to pre-empt this dynamic by
engaging their critics. Often, this plays into demands for âproofâ or
details of assaults or abuse. The retraumatizing aspect of this is yet
another further attack on the survivor, and often feeds rather than
undermines the conflict.
As tensions grow, it begins to spill over into new arenas. Previously
uninvolved parties who may not even know the survivor or perpetrator
become caught up in the mounting bedlam, and organizing becomes
disrupted. Of course, at this point normalization has been broken, and
the repressive apparatus no longer has anything to lose by not holding
back. Anarchists who would otherwise scorn the politics of liberals now
turn to their ideology for reinforcement. âThese divisions are hurting
us!â they cry. Of course, such divisions are never blamed on the
perpetrator or their actions, but on the survivor for insisting that the
trauma theyâve experienced cannot go unanswered. They are blamed for
tearing the community apart and ultimately for undermining âthe
struggleâ. The importance of this last point cannot be overemphasized.
The previous dismissals of the broader community, which hinted that âthe
struggleâ merely excludes survivors and their needs, are now clarified
to reveal that in fact these struggles are diametrically opposed. To be
perfectly clear, anarchists who feel their struggle is undermined by a
survivor are in fact engaged in a struggle against survivors, they are
active defenders of a Culture of Rape. They will often liken the
survivorâs struggle to a âwitch huntâ, when they themselves share more
in common with the executioners than with those who burn at the stake.
As mentioned earlier, if a survivor can be silenced, and their
experiences normalized into a culture of Rape, repression will become
redundant. It follows that the lack of such outright repression, when
paired with a lack of support for survivors and a lack of accountability
for perpetrators, is not indicative of an absence of Rape Culture, but
the opposite; it reveals a Culture of Rape that is totally ingrained,
like an occupation that has become so entrenched as to render the tanks
and soldiers unnecessary.
As alluded to earlier, these repressive measures can actually split the
ranks of the more moderate rape apologists, undermining the common front
against the survivor. At the same time, repressive measures are deemed
necessary at the very least when the usual process of normalisation is
broken. This points to one of the biggest contradictions within Rape
Culture: that the very violence it relies on to reproduce itself also
reveals its true nature for all to see. This contradiction is resolved
by recuperative forces within radical communities which seek to co-opt
support for survivors and redirect it against them. Many will claim to
support a survivor while actually undermining their autonomy. This is
usually done by limiting the possible scope of a survivorâs response to
exclude anything that might further upset the social peace. These false
supporters work to uphold the image of a supportive community, and in
the process prevent any truly critical engagement with community. Their
tools are the language and organizing frameworks which were forged by
survivors and their supporters, appropriated for the purpose of
disempowerment and twisted to usurp the survivorsâ struggle.
Initially, the creation of words and new frameworks to use them was
necessary, as the language for survivors to even talk about their
experiences did not exist. Unfortunately, words are easily recuperated,
and we can now see the inevitable limitations of relying on them so
heavily. Once upon a time, radicals championed the use of the word
âperpetratorâ as an attempt to sidestep the stigma of harsher words. The
once prevalent framework of Restorative Justice emphasised a personâs
ability to change. âRapistâ or âabuserâ hardly underlined these values,
and many felt it kept the rapists and abusers locked in those roles,
just as referring to survivors as âvictimsâ potentially kept them locked
in a moment of subjugation rather than underlying their strength and
perseverance. Of course now we are faced with a new wave of
anti-violence activists, who lament the stigmatized nature of the word
perpetrator, and now advocate the even more watered down term âperson
who causes harmâ. Perhaps itâs time to realize that if a perpetrators
capacity to change is not broadly recognized, that is a result of their
own actions more so than the words we use to describe them. This is not
to say that we should not choose our words strategically, or that we
should not use them with strong intention, but only that our apparent
obsession with language has serious drawbacks. At best, it leaves us
caught in a never ending loop to find the right words rather than
addressing our more meaningful shortcomings. At worst, it preserves the
power dynamics of Rape Culture by attributing fault to survivors and
their supporters rather than perpetrators and their apologists.
This bizarre reversal, where a perpetrators refusal of accountability is
viewed at least partially as a result of flaws in a survivorâs response,
is a common pattern seized upon by the recuperative forces of Rape
Culture. Zines and pamphlets list strategies towards accountability
which seek to avoid making a perpetrator defensive, which are perhaps
better understood as strategies towards accountability which seek to
accommodate a perpetrators defensiveness. The only thing such an
approach avoids is a recognition that being defensive is not something
forced on a person by others, but a reactionary response which must be
realized and worked through for any genuine accountability to be
possible. Many will use the term defensive without ever asking, âin
defence of what?â
Of course many survivors who anticipate defensiveness and the repressive
apparatus activated by it have made good use of such strategies in the
short term to initiate dialogue, or else to make demands concerning
immediate safety without the goal of transforming a perpetrator. We have
no interest in questioning the choices survivors make or discouraging
the dissemination of potentially useful strategies (because, of course,
how useful any given approach might be can only be decided by survivors
themselves). Our concern is when the accommodation of defensiveness or
the strategies implied by it become a tool of false supporters to limit
the possible choices available to survivors, or to criticize those
choices they disapprove of after a survivor has made them. Discussions
of how to call out a perpetrator rarely centre on the survivorâs needs.
âAvoiding defensivenessâ provides the pretence to shift the discussion
back to the needs of the perpetrator. Once a perpetrator has been called
out, a similar framework is used to undermine support for a survivor.
The false supporters endlessly reassure us that they are not angry that
a perpetrator was called out, itâs only the way they were called out.
The fact that a survivor would speak openly about their experiences is
seemingly taken as more violent and controversial than the violence of
those experiences themselves, which warrant very little discussion by
comparison. How a survivorâs public response might reflect their needs
does not seem to occur to the false supporters as they are so
preoccupied with their need to preserve an artificial social peace.
Again we see liberal tendencies rearing their head, as the false
supportersâ insistence on denouncing the resistance of survivors, on
claiming to also despise the Culture of Rape while simultaneously
diminishing any fight against it, is reminiscent of liberals who claim
to agree with the grievances of protesters and yet condemn any actions
they might take to address them. The liberal complains that intensity
and ferocity sabotages the struggle, but of course the anarchist knows
the real problem is that we havenât gone far enough.
As mentioned earlier, this is all part of a larger pattern to maintain
the power dynamics that Rape Culture relies upon. There are countless
other examples. The accountability process itself can be a double edged
sword. Radical communities often divorce the accountability process from
its place within the broader Restorative Justice framework, offering it
as the sole response to intimate violence while simultaneously avoiding
any further attempts at pre-empting violence before it happens. This
false support places the needs of the survivor secondary to the question
of how to deal with a perpetrator, once again prioritizing the needs of
the perpetrator and maintaining the pattern of domination. What little
support is offered survivors often replicates this same dynamic. One of
the most common models of support used, that of making demands of the
perpetrator[3], once again leaves all agency in the perpetratorâs hands,
especially when there is no contingency plan if the perpetrator should
refuse. Survivors who become emotionally invested in such models as a
path for healing are often devastated when the demands yield nothing, or
worse, when they incite a new barrage from the perpetrator and the
repressive forces. In the anarchist milieu, where it is widely
recognized that demands are mostly useless when not accompanied with the
threat of force, it is quite revealing that such models prevail.
In addition to its role in the wider context, the internal workings of
the accountability process itself have the potential to be hijacked and
used against a survivor. The concept of Survivor Autonomy, which once
formed the theoretical foundation of the accountability process, is
often discarded, transforming the process into a toothless form of
liberal conflict resolution. Without being informed by a clear analysis
of the power dynamics at work, of course the default power of the
perpetrator is upheld. The goal is still the rehabilitation of the
perpetrator, and most likely their continued participation in the
community, but the false supporters who have hijacked the accountability
process can now do so at the expense of the survivor, selfishly defining
the perpetrators ârehabilitationâ in any way that is convenient for
them. In the most extreme cases, accountability processes will be
initiated against the explicit wishes of survivors, as an attempt to
legitimize the perpetrator in the eyes of others. The pretence of making
it a âcommunity issueâ[4] allows the false supporters to not only take
control out of the survivors hands, but also to portray survivors who
refuse to cooperate with their own disempowerment as a barrier to
accountability. The embarrassingly common farce of false supporters
informing a survivor that actually, their perpetrator has âworked on
their shitâ stems from this or similar dynamics.
In less extreme cases, the survivorâs participation will be permitted
but only so long as it falls within parameters set by their false
supporters. Reprisals against a perpetrator, physical or otherwise, are
completely off limits. Even questions of immediate safety, such as
sharing space with a perpetrator, are subject to the discretion of false
supporters. Again we see radical language turned against survivors, as
their demands for space within their community are twisted by false
supporters and likened to the prison system (for not making
rehabilitation the only goal, or âpunishingâ a perpetrator) or openly
referred to as an attempt to âbanishâ the perpetrator.
Of course the insincerity of these concerns are revealed as they provide
the pretext to banish the survivor from the community instead.
The perpetratorâs role in the hijacked accountability process[5] also
reproduces their power. In some cases they are allowed to make demands
of the survivor or else place criteria on their own participation.
Perpetrators, or their apologists, all too commonly respond to being
called out by making defensive âcalloutsâ of their own. As discussed
earlier, they will accuse the survivor of any wrongdoing they can think
of, or else make some up when actual misdeeds are not forthcoming.
Rather than recognize these pathetic attempts at slander as the
manipulative transgressions they are, the false supporters usually join
the perpetrator in absurd calls for âaccountabilityâ from the
survivor[6]. From this newfound position of righteousness, and with the
complicity of the false supporters, the perpetrator is free to alter the
very character of the accountability process. What began as a callout
becomes more like a negotiation, as a perpetratorâs cooperation becomes
contingent on the survivor addressing their concerns. Perhaps some of
these concerns might even be valid, but of course whatâs important is
not their validity but their role in undermining the survivorâs
struggle. The survivor must now earn not only the accountability they
get from the perpetrator, but also the support they get from the
community. Those survivors who are unwilling or unable to jump through
all the hoops will be written off. In a final perversion of the
accountability process, the survivor will be the one blamed for its
failure, the one who was unwilling to âwork things outâ. By this point
the so-called âRestorative Justiceâ framework has been so distorted that
it succeeds only in ârestoringâ the power dynamics of a Rape Culture
which had been otherwise compromised by the survivorsâ struggle.
In radical communities especially, apologists will not always rally
behind a perpetrator. In certain cases the contradiction of doing so
would be so blatant that even their own self image as âanarchistsâ would
not survive it. Once again, liberal ideology comes to the rescue. Just
as apologists for police brutality will insist that it results only from
a âfew bad applesâ as a plea to avoid any structural analysis of the
police or their role in society, the Rape apologist will attempt to
scapegoat the individual perpetrator, sacrificing them to the altar of
Rape Culture. They may reference their own disgust with a perpetrator,
or brag that they no longer talk to them, as though these things were
proof of how âsupportiveâ they are. Of course, disapproval of a
perpetratorâs actions does not automatically equal support of a
survivor. In some instances vilifying the perpetrator will contradict
the survivorâs wishes, while in others the perpetrator and survivor can
be ostracized simultaneously, as the repressive apparatus carries on the
patterns of domination in the perpetrators absence[7]. The mere
ostracization of perpetrators as the only response has been heavily
critiqued elsewhere, but weâd like to emphasize that such an approach
serves to protect Rape Culture by avoiding direct confrontations with
it. In doing so, apologists can externalize the negative aspects of Rape
Culture as something separate from themselves. By projecting everything
onto a lone perpetrator (or perhaps all perpetrators) the apologist can
deflect any analysis of the social relations that produce perpetrators,
especially their own role. By singling out a few bad apples, they
distract from the fact that the whole bunch is rotten.
Of course this also avoids the whole question of support for a survivor,
and seeks a resolution (for example, getting rid of the perpetrator)
that does not address the needs of the survivor. This is revealing of
Rape Cultureâs true priority, as scapegoating a few perpetrators will
still leave oppressive social structures intact, whereas survivors who
are able to struggle successfully against those structures threaten
their very foundation. The Culture of Rape values the perpetrator about
as much as any imperialist army values its foot soldiers. It will
happily sacrifice them if necessary, because of course it is the
subjugation of the survivors, their perpetual state of victimhood, which
must be maintained at all costs. Just as with Empire, it is only through
this subjugation that the Culture of Rape can reproduce itself.
The functioning and reproduction of Rape Culture is too complex to be
fully explained or documented. The crude generalizations and caricatures
weâve laid out here are too simple to faithfully recreate the dynamics
we experience in our daily lives. While weâve tried to categorize and
define for the sake of clarity, to assign shape to oppressive structures
with the hope of making them recognizable, in reality most individuals
will oscillate between roles. Even those who at times may step outside
social confines to provide genuine support may in other instances serve
as Rape Cultureâs most brutal shock troops. Even survivors themselves
can take on repressive roles towards each other, seduced by the prospect
of being one rung higher on the social hierarchy rather than offering
solidarity to their peers. Peopleâs roles are not static and systems of
oppression are not congealed. The interplay between the silencing,
repressive and recuperative forces of Rape Culture is not
conspiratorial. These sometimes separate but always collaborative
elements do not meet to strategize or divvy up the tasks. But of course,
collaboration is not so contingent on actual associations as it is on a
shared interest. Those with shared interests will reach similar
conclusions or else work towards similar goals without ever having to
interact. Through this Rape Culture is revealed as being not merely a
vague concept, but the concrete material conditions which lead people to
conclude, consciously or not, that their interest lies in silencing a
survivor, in being complicit in their continued subjugation, or in
actively countering a survivors struggle.
The complaint that people âjust do the easy thingâ partially articulates
this problem, but also attributes it only to moments of moral weakness
amongst individuals. This sidesteps the more obvious question; why are
our radical communities still structured in such a way that supporting a
survivor is not âthe easy thingâ? What makes it difficult? A more
materialistic view of our responses to interpersonal violence, one that
looks not to someoneâs politics or sense of decency, but instead to
material conditions such as their social dependencies (for example, who
are they close with, who do they live with, who do they organize with,
what are their support networks, what do they depend on and how would
these things be affected by genuinely supporting a survivor?) could
provide more insight into how our own interests are controlled and
shaped by a Culture of Rape.
Perhaps the most significant mitigating factor of these conditions is
Power. Both the power a survivor holds in the community as well as the
corresponding power of a perpetrator are key to shaping that communityâs
response. When a perpetrator holds very little power in comparison to a
survivor, or when the perpetrator is not even part of the community, a
token show of support costs little and helps maintain the benevolent
veneer of Rape Culture. Of course, this is rarely the case. It has
commonly been urged that support of a survivor should not be hindered by
a perpetratorâs position of power in the community, but the position of
power itself receives little scrutiny, as does any possible correlation
between that position of power and interpersonal violence (which is
itself a brutal expression of power). The failure to establish this link
is like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg, and then
insisting that the chicken and the egg have nothing to do with each
other. This blind spot is especially curious amongst anarchists, who
claim to oppose all forms of hierarchical power.
It follows that a genuine analysis of the functioning of Rape Culture
must also include an analysis of the relationships of Power that govern
our lives. This implicates not only the hierarchies, formal or
otherwise, which persist even in anarchist spaces, but also the larger
systems of power which inform them, such as Patriarchy, White Supremacy,
Colonialism, Ableism and so on. We must acknowledge Rape Cultureâs
rightful place within Capitalist society. Through this we can recognize
Rape Culture as a mechanism for social control, as it reinforces these
systems of Power and domination which in turn reproduce it as well. It
then becomes necessary to undermine the hierarchical divisions which
serve to both facilitate interpersonal violence itself as well as shape
the interests of those in a position to respond to it. Many anarchists
rightly reject the navel gazing of identity politics, but a sharp
analysis of systems of Power, the ways in which these systems offer
privilege to some of us, yet oppression to others, and the ways in which
our experiences of these systems of Power influence the ways we fight
against them, is crucial to genuine resistance. To successfully attack a
Culture of Rape, we must strike at the roots of this Power.
Many anti-violence activists begin from the precarious presumption of
community; that a survivor has a social base they can turn to for
support, or else a support network that escapes the influence of the
Power we just discussed. Here community is defined rather nebulously or
not at all. Is your community a geographic space, such as the
neighbourhood you live in? Is it a shared identity or experience, such
as being queer or black? Is it the people you spend your time with, such
as your family, coworkers or friends? A community may be a combination
of all these things, yet none of these things point to an inherent
position of support.
What is often referred to as âthe anarchist communityâ is perhaps more
accurately described as a youth subculture[8]. Itâs transient and
temporal nature make it ill equipped for the long term project of
healing from trauma. Furthermore, both the reliance and the
reinforcement of Rape Culture by other systems of Power pose a
particular challenge to the predominantly white, middleclass and often
male dominated anarchist communities of North America. Itâs not uncommon
for such communities to be so compromised by their own positions of
privilege that they end up far too subservient to various systems of
Power to risk any meaningful attack against them. In such cases, the
anarchist âcommunityâ is revealed not as a radical space from which to
attack, but as a reactionary body meant to squash these attacks. It is
âanarchistâ and a âcommunityâ in image only.
Many anarchists do not even realize the importance and interconnections
between building community and attacking systems of oppression, and
those of us who do rarely make use of this realization beyond our
rhetoric. And, perhaps more to the point, we often make the mistake of
assuming that the targets of our âattackâ only lie outside ourselves.
Here, attack is not understood as the near militaristic approach that
relies solely on the destruction of property and physical battles, a
position put forth by many anarchists. Rather, attack is the process
through which we recognize the forces which oppress us and seek to
destroy them. The question of violence, of what it will take to destroy
systems of Power, is largely out of our hands. Capitalism, with its
standing armies and myriads of prisons, has made its own position on the
matter perfectly clear. Those comrades amongst us who inevitably carry
the baggage of white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonialism, those who
find themselves in the position of the apologist, can hopefully exercise
a wider range of choice. They can choose to join with us. They can
choose, as we have, to attack those aspects of themselves which recreate
the old world, and to bolster the attack against those who choose
otherwise. It should be this choice that defines the anarchist, which
sets us apart from our enemies and guides us to our comrades. It is from
this choice that all genuine struggle becomes possible.
âDamaged people are dangerous. They know they can surviveâ
wordstofire@riseup.net
[1] Amongst most anarchists, at least, the police are a faceless enemy.
We donât have to see them tuck their kids in at night, they donât tell
us jokes over beers, they do not confront us with the contradiction of
their own humanity. This is not the case for those who are called out
for assault or abuse within anarchist circles, a reality which many
perpetrators use to their full advantage.
[2] This same process is often extended to a survivorâs support network
as well. In fact, focusing mainly on supporters sometimes allows the
agents of repression to continue posturing as being supportive of the
survivor, while at the same time sabotaging any genuine support. Such
thinly veiled attacks, though possibly devastating to supporters, must
still be understood primarily as attacks on the survivor, however
indirect. In worst case scenarios, such attacks result in a degenerated
conflict between the accomplices of Rape Culture and a support network,
once again leaving the survivor sidelined and disempowered.
[3] In some instances demands are made of the broader community as well,
often to the same effect.
[4] This is not to say that issues of intimate violence are not
community issues, but that a genuine community will seek to empower its
survivors and encourage their autonomy. Aspects of a community that find
their own interests in conflict with that of survivors are revealed to
not be part of an anarchist community at all, but of an enemy garrison
in our midst.
[5] Of course once hijacked it is no longer a process towards
accountability, and whatever words the false supporters use to describe
it, whether itâs a mediation, a conflict resolution, or a healing
circle, the result will not be accountability.
[6] Meanwhile, the repressive forces are not so conciliatory, and
instead use the defensive allegations solely to attack the survivor.
Perhaps this explains why so many survivors engage with the charade of
the false supporters, if only because they donât seem so bad by
comparison.
[7] That being said, sometimes survivors will want their perpetrators
ostracized. This is both a valid and understandable response and should
be respected. Thereâs nothing mutually exclusive about analyzing power
systems and rejecting perpetrators.
[8] That is, if we are willing to describe it as it actually exists,
rather than defining it according to our fantasies.