on 7 september 2009 raw nerve books announced that the edited collection "Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality" (2008) was out of print alongside a correction and apology to infamous white gay activist peter tatchell. tatchell, for those who dont know, has long been criticized by queer activists of colour and other anti-islamophobic individuals and communities for his liberal human rights discourse which continually demonizes islamic values and practices. for a quick peek go to www.islamophobia-watch.com and search 'tatchell.' in short, tatchell has warned against "...the muslims'...grand plan to promote fundamentalist Islam in Britain. The Islamists want to undermine liberal humanitarian values, which they see as corrupt and decadent". of course tatchell will be the first to point out that he qualifies his claim by asserting that, "Not all Muslims support fundamentalism. Many share our human rights agenda" (www.petertatchell.net).
according to tatchell, muslims - both "fundamentalist" and "moderate" - need to be ushered into the enlightened place of western liberal values. tatchell propagates and extends imperialist islamophobic groundwork by constructing islam as an unchanging, monolithic, homophobic, sexist, and distinctly barbaric worldview. for tatchell, discrimination is inherent to muslim ontology. as a result, muslims are hopelessly backward and need the saving hand of a gay white human rights activist to show them the way towards freedom offered through united nations charters and annual pride parades.
but tatchell is not my point of focus here.
raw nerve books describe themselves as "...an independent, not-for-profit feminist press publishing controversial, under-represented and experimental work." they published the book and then issued it "out of print" after tatchell cried wolf over content in one of the chapters which characterised him as islamophobic. in an apology that could only have been written by tatchell, raw nerve disgustingly retracts such allegations (made by the authors) and then re-frames tatchell as distinctly anti-racist, listing a smattering of work he has done in "africa" (ignoring the 'public statement of warning' written by african lgbti human rights defenders about working with tatchell) and with anti-fascist groups in the uk. might i just say, great "anti-racist" work there tatchell, actively silencing queers of colour who dare challenge your politics.
some have claimed that raw nerve was in a tricky position because of the potential threat of possible legal action* which, if they had had to fight, could have cost them the press itself due to their meager economic positioning. this argument supports raw nerve's decision as a strategic way of ensuring the longevity of other alternative publications that the press will continue to print long after this whole "nasty" affair has blown over. as a result, what we see here is not the "publication of controversial work" but the publication of work that is distinctly not controversial - work that fits the mold of the established white liberal feminist and queer movements. moreover, this is not just the come-to-be-expected institutionalized publication scheme that continually publishes largely white middle class feminist academics. raw nerve actively hung these authors out to dry. and unfortunately for those hoping this will all just go away, this episode stands as a poignant analogy for the close relationship between racism and contemporary queer and feminist politics. dissenting voices of queers of colour are silenced for what is always characterized as the "larger" goals of the "movement". the argument that defends raw nerve books in their decision is part and parcel of a technique of white racial solidarity building.
i started writing this post with the view to discuss the importance of publishers who understand the significance of standing by their authors and of feminist and/or 'alternative' independent publishing for the dissemination of critical dissent. raw nerve claims to operate on these principals but buckled when push came to shove. of course, some may say that we shouldnt expect institutionalized publishers to be anything other than a state apparatus, bowing down to the threat of legal action or monetary pressure in the service of state-endorsed dissent (aka tatchell's liberal human rights discourse). but if we believe in "asking questions that might indeed touch a 'raw nerve'" - which might include challenging white racial solidarity building practices of queer and feminist movements - we must demand it to be so.
for a great response to the censorship, read xtalk's statement.
* tatchell has publicly claimed that he did not threaten raw nerve with libel but merely "objected" to the contents of the chapter in question. the possibility of legal action was purely speculation on these commentators' parts.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
harper's doing good work these days
on september 26, 2009, canadian prime minister steve-o harpsies announced to the rest of the suits at the g20 conference in pittsburg, and the AFP who were listening at the door, that canada has "no history of colonialism". he continued, "we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them" (Calgary Herald, 26 Sept 09).
as you can imagine, this has resulted in a few polite letters to the editors of history, penned by folks who would like to diplomatically draw monsieur harper's attention to the few hundred years or so of complex, overlapping, violent, and - significantly - ongoing, colonial history that really is quite quintessentially 'canadian'. but i say, don't censor the poor man - let him speak!
no, this is not a libertarian defense of freedom of speech, bemoaning the waning of individual liberties in the name of political correctness. i stand by the fumbling national mascot for different reasons.
harper's blatant disregard for history and especially for diplomatic relations between communities and individuals who call for institutional attenuation of the legacies (including the ongoing project) of colonialism, exposes the gap between capitalist liberal-democratic promises of good governance and "justice". his outrageousness is a potential catalyst, of which we could use many, in galvanizing a public - or at least a portion of the public - into thinking seriously about the limits of our current social and political organization. maybe his shocking lack of self-awareness and outright denial of history, will drive people into revolt. perhaps communities and individuals will decide they've had enough and dismantle themselves from the current civic terrain, bringing the nation state crashing down with it!
of course, i am giving little stephen jo-jo too much credit. people have been organizing their own social and political communities for a long time now. indeed, they have long-since given up on their faith in those of monarchical lineage and their respective promises. however, i make this point here because as many of us interweb-addicted info-sharers get our little html panties in a knot about harper, we miss out on pointing out that his words have stirred up more discussion about colonialism in canada than we can say about our do-gooding friends (myself included) at say, softer nationalist institutions like the cbc. critiques of harper's outlandishness have a latent republicanism undergirding them that i want to be suspicious of - what exactly are we whining about? would we like him to have a better speech writer so he can poetically avoid mentioning the little blip of bloody violence that is the foundation of the canadian nation-state?
let's face it, harps, or whoever is wearing the crown for the day, is never going to be able to address the history and ongoing project of colonialism outside of a language of liberal-democratic state-talk. so isnt it better that what he does say garners it a little more attention than whatever status-quo settler speak we've come to expect from the state and its colonial apparatuses?
as you can imagine, this has resulted in a few polite letters to the editors of history, penned by folks who would like to diplomatically draw monsieur harper's attention to the few hundred years or so of complex, overlapping, violent, and - significantly - ongoing, colonial history that really is quite quintessentially 'canadian'. but i say, don't censor the poor man - let him speak!
no, this is not a libertarian defense of freedom of speech, bemoaning the waning of individual liberties in the name of political correctness. i stand by the fumbling national mascot for different reasons.
harper's blatant disregard for history and especially for diplomatic relations between communities and individuals who call for institutional attenuation of the legacies (including the ongoing project) of colonialism, exposes the gap between capitalist liberal-democratic promises of good governance and "justice". his outrageousness is a potential catalyst, of which we could use many, in galvanizing a public - or at least a portion of the public - into thinking seriously about the limits of our current social and political organization. maybe his shocking lack of self-awareness and outright denial of history, will drive people into revolt. perhaps communities and individuals will decide they've had enough and dismantle themselves from the current civic terrain, bringing the nation state crashing down with it!
of course, i am giving little stephen jo-jo too much credit. people have been organizing their own social and political communities for a long time now. indeed, they have long-since given up on their faith in those of monarchical lineage and their respective promises. however, i make this point here because as many of us interweb-addicted info-sharers get our little html panties in a knot about harper, we miss out on pointing out that his words have stirred up more discussion about colonialism in canada than we can say about our do-gooding friends (myself included) at say, softer nationalist institutions like the cbc. critiques of harper's outlandishness have a latent republicanism undergirding them that i want to be suspicious of - what exactly are we whining about? would we like him to have a better speech writer so he can poetically avoid mentioning the little blip of bloody violence that is the foundation of the canadian nation-state?
let's face it, harps, or whoever is wearing the crown for the day, is never going to be able to address the history and ongoing project of colonialism outside of a language of liberal-democratic state-talk. so isnt it better that what he does say garners it a little more attention than whatever status-quo settler speak we've come to expect from the state and its colonial apparatuses?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
marxism2009 - zizek/callinicos part one
i havent actually listened to this talk yet. i purchased the cd after missing the lecture on saturday night. i have heard that, despite my recent endearment to him, zizek has gone and made me have to re-re-reconsider why i continually listen to him, by making - and subsequently defending - a joke about rape during this talk. apparently someone makes an intervention during the question period but zizek's response is - again, this is liminal-space gossip - somewhat lacking.
i think it is important for sympathetic feminists to be at zizek and other machomachine rockstar talks to offer some interventions when all the rallying boys are about to cream in their pants over whoever is orchestrating the international that day. i am also not about to totally write him off...i like a lot of his work and disagree with other parts...i just wish that in some of our discussions about 'communist culture' and 'socialism for the 21st century,' that we could have some hard discussions about the failings of past movements in a gesture towards a better future marxist project.
i used to think that picking the right academics was part of an overall academic aesthetic - me, get caught at a zizek - or worse yet, david harvey - talk?! of course, swimming in the red sea does require a lot of critical interventions to unsettle the unspoken white straight male subject and its dichotomistic trappings (when the subject is troubled it is always through essentialist feminism), but i appreciate the disagreements so much more now. just like i can finally admit to myself that i disagree with some of my old and new feminist icons...and it feels so much smarter and politically relevant to disagree. of course, i recognize that some disagreements are welcomed and even fostered in feminist spaces while beefs about transphobia or secular imperialism at marxist events are often not...and that my white, gendered-bodied privilege is maintained and fostered as some critical discussions - esp. on race and trans issues - are sidelined.
for me, the most productive and rewarding parts of a lecture are the interventions, the disagreements, and the contestations - without which, the substance of the material sits comfortably in a monologic cavity. this is not to privilege the reductionistic conception of 'dialogue' which i think is ultimately a false sense of mutual engagement that fails to consider hierarchical social, political and economic conditions between conversants. further, the notion of 'dialogue' falsely reduces the conception of a conversation as ultimately between two parties, actively erasing the presence of multiple other actors (especially non-human) from the social sphere. nor do i promote the act of disruption for disruption sake. i definitely do not mean to contribute to the ever-growing anti-intellectual demonization of academic talks that - drawing on dangerous structuralist readings - over-emphasize the supposed 'violence' of the unidirectionality of conventional lectures. these requiems for the 'lost experience' of dialogic encounters include a strong aura of structuralist sentimentality that exhault an essential experience of listening, hearing, and engaging.
what i do mean to say, however, is that it can be useful to guard against the pressure of agreeing for the sake of aesthetics. for me, it has lead to an increase in intellectual stimulation and creative academic pastiche. besides an aesthetics of disagreement is so much hotter.
alas, without much further ado about nothing...
i think it is important for sympathetic feminists to be at zizek and other machomachine rockstar talks to offer some interventions when all the rallying boys are about to cream in their pants over whoever is orchestrating the international that day. i am also not about to totally write him off...i like a lot of his work and disagree with other parts...i just wish that in some of our discussions about 'communist culture' and 'socialism for the 21st century,' that we could have some hard discussions about the failings of past movements in a gesture towards a better future marxist project.
i used to think that picking the right academics was part of an overall academic aesthetic - me, get caught at a zizek - or worse yet, david harvey - talk?! of course, swimming in the red sea does require a lot of critical interventions to unsettle the unspoken white straight male subject and its dichotomistic trappings (when the subject is troubled it is always through essentialist feminism), but i appreciate the disagreements so much more now. just like i can finally admit to myself that i disagree with some of my old and new feminist icons...and it feels so much smarter and politically relevant to disagree. of course, i recognize that some disagreements are welcomed and even fostered in feminist spaces while beefs about transphobia or secular imperialism at marxist events are often not...and that my white, gendered-bodied privilege is maintained and fostered as some critical discussions - esp. on race and trans issues - are sidelined.
for me, the most productive and rewarding parts of a lecture are the interventions, the disagreements, and the contestations - without which, the substance of the material sits comfortably in a monologic cavity. this is not to privilege the reductionistic conception of 'dialogue' which i think is ultimately a false sense of mutual engagement that fails to consider hierarchical social, political and economic conditions between conversants. further, the notion of 'dialogue' falsely reduces the conception of a conversation as ultimately between two parties, actively erasing the presence of multiple other actors (especially non-human) from the social sphere. nor do i promote the act of disruption for disruption sake. i definitely do not mean to contribute to the ever-growing anti-intellectual demonization of academic talks that - drawing on dangerous structuralist readings - over-emphasize the supposed 'violence' of the unidirectionality of conventional lectures. these requiems for the 'lost experience' of dialogic encounters include a strong aura of structuralist sentimentality that exhault an essential experience of listening, hearing, and engaging.
what i do mean to say, however, is that it can be useful to guard against the pressure of agreeing for the sake of aesthetics. for me, it has lead to an increase in intellectual stimulation and creative academic pastiche. besides an aesthetics of disagreement is so much hotter.
alas, without much further ado about nothing...
Sunday, May 3, 2009
alibi baby, in the treetop
i posted a tirade about book burning in december 2008. this week i posted a flyer and announcement about a dj gig i recently acquired at the kenton pub in hackney. four months have passed in between these two events. for some reason i am compelled to account for that time.
i am not compelled to testify to some imaginary audience that might be reading this blog but i am compelled to testify to myself. i would like to reflect on the time that has passed as 'productive', or 'directed', or at least not as a total write off. and so i write frantically, attempting to excavate something from the silence that has pervaded my blog - and this certainly part of a larger pattern of simultaneous silences and supernovas in other parts of my life - for the past 16 weeks. making it public lends it some legitmacy that i need. permit me a bit of self indulgence here.
court is in session.
after a long trip home to canada in december and january, i returned to be completely swamped with preparation for upcoming conferences and a relocation of my long lost lover to london for march 1st. add one move to london and another trip to america for yet another conference, stir, and that almost brings us to the beginning of may. and yet, although i can submit this evidence in support of my unannounced virtual absence for the last third of a year*, i sense there is something else that has kept me away. or rather somethings.
#1. lack of inspiration or lack of perspiration?
i think this is either as a result of not sitting still long enough to develop a coherent thought (don't you just hate how transcontinental travel stifles your creative processes?), or because my engagement with ideas has been changing over the past half of a year. both my interests and my method of critique is morphing into a much more contemplative, dare i say stoic, approach. i have always been critical of my tendency to snarl my way in and out of debates, but recently i am much more (philosophically) interested in considering the limitations of such hostile, self-righteous techniques. and it is not a patronizing performace of tolerance that i am edifying here, but a genuine realization that i have been caught in a self-woven web of moral righteousness that offers intellectual security through intellectual stagnation. in other words, me and my brain have just signed up for a one-year subscription at the local YMCA. i hope they have rowing machines.
#2. fear?
some cliche deep inside me made me write this.
#3. time?
both time passing and not enough time. by 'time passing' i refer to that often referenced fear that 'too much time has passed' and now it is impossible to go back and set things right (i.e., rather than post four months late, it would be easier to just start a new blog, or to move to dubai, change your name, and when asked, refuse to ever acknowledge the existence of anything called 'the internet'). and, of course, there is the jessie spano syndrome, that not only speaks but sings, all of our deepest anxieties about never having enough time to devote to 'extra-curricular' activities.
all of these alibis are, of course, bogus and yet the stronghold they have on my inclination to write is fantastic. my explanations are fundamentally limited by the language i have to make sense of thoughts and feelings and as a result, will inherently be misrepresentative. this however, is inadmissable reasoning at a trial and so i will stick with my original alibi and hope that the performance of this ritual will clear the air of any bad feelings between myself and myself. besides, it is the ritual - not a hopeless attempt to define a genuine truthfulness behind my lack - that i need.
*converting months into their relative relationship to the overall year is a sure way to induce heart-stopping panic attacks.
i am not compelled to testify to some imaginary audience that might be reading this blog but i am compelled to testify to myself. i would like to reflect on the time that has passed as 'productive', or 'directed', or at least not as a total write off. and so i write frantically, attempting to excavate something from the silence that has pervaded my blog - and this certainly part of a larger pattern of simultaneous silences and supernovas in other parts of my life - for the past 16 weeks. making it public lends it some legitmacy that i need. permit me a bit of self indulgence here.
court is in session.
after a long trip home to canada in december and january, i returned to be completely swamped with preparation for upcoming conferences and a relocation of my long lost lover to london for march 1st. add one move to london and another trip to america for yet another conference, stir, and that almost brings us to the beginning of may. and yet, although i can submit this evidence in support of my unannounced virtual absence for the last third of a year*, i sense there is something else that has kept me away. or rather somethings.
#1. lack of inspiration or lack of perspiration?
i think this is either as a result of not sitting still long enough to develop a coherent thought (don't you just hate how transcontinental travel stifles your creative processes?), or because my engagement with ideas has been changing over the past half of a year. both my interests and my method of critique is morphing into a much more contemplative, dare i say stoic, approach. i have always been critical of my tendency to snarl my way in and out of debates, but recently i am much more (philosophically) interested in considering the limitations of such hostile, self-righteous techniques. and it is not a patronizing performace of tolerance that i am edifying here, but a genuine realization that i have been caught in a self-woven web of moral righteousness that offers intellectual security through intellectual stagnation. in other words, me and my brain have just signed up for a one-year subscription at the local YMCA. i hope they have rowing machines.
#2. fear?
some cliche deep inside me made me write this.
#3. time?
both time passing and not enough time. by 'time passing' i refer to that often referenced fear that 'too much time has passed' and now it is impossible to go back and set things right (i.e., rather than post four months late, it would be easier to just start a new blog, or to move to dubai, change your name, and when asked, refuse to ever acknowledge the existence of anything called 'the internet'). and, of course, there is the jessie spano syndrome, that not only speaks but sings, all of our deepest anxieties about never having enough time to devote to 'extra-curricular' activities.
all of these alibis are, of course, bogus and yet the stronghold they have on my inclination to write is fantastic. my explanations are fundamentally limited by the language i have to make sense of thoughts and feelings and as a result, will inherently be misrepresentative. this however, is inadmissable reasoning at a trial and so i will stick with my original alibi and hope that the performance of this ritual will clear the air of any bad feelings between myself and myself. besides, it is the ritual - not a hopeless attempt to define a genuine truthfulness behind my lack - that i need.
*converting months into their relative relationship to the overall year is a sure way to induce heart-stopping panic attacks.
Monday, April 27, 2009
radio rebelde.
a live dj night at the kenton pub.38 kenton road, hackney, e9
first friday of every month.
www.kentonpub.co.uk
*electronic*newindiesounds*feminist
Mayday!Mayday!
FRIDAY MAY 1st
8 to 11pm
Finish off the day-long celebration of workers’ struggles with us at the Kenton.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
out of her senses like a dog she barked
this week i listened to someone give a presentation of a book review. the book was what you might call an obviously orientalist text, complete with uncomplicated universalizing of western christian values as global values, and tokenistic reference (one chapter) to 'other' worldviews such as those homogenous cultures in 'india' and 'china' that are just so darned easy to summarize. the book was presented to a group of students, myself included, as a text that would be worthwhile for new scholars and their teachers in the field in which the book was immersed - ethics.
as the book sat silently on the table beside its puppet, i was shocked at the amount of violence such a tiny little thing could carry - the book, i mean. while of course the book is only significant in the context of multiple other influential sites of orientalist meaning-making, the innocent looking little paperback of not more than 200 pages sitting before me allowed its reviewer to read the story of contemporary western ethical principals as simply passively inherited. according to my gracious interlocutor, religious wars and longstanding principled regulations launched in the name of christianity, are apparently rendered insignificant to the current ethical frameworks of the west. i take issue with this because as these culture-shaping events are ignored in the book, they further erase the extensive histories of imperial cultural domination through which the contemporary moral foundations of the west are stabilized. some examples of these textual omissions include, enduring legacies of islamophobia (from varying scales of christian cultural domination such as the crusades and including canonical literature such as dante's inferno), gendered violence (the eradication of pagan and feminized medicinal practices through the practiced burning of so-called witches), and colonialism (if enlightenment taught us anything, it was that the civilized know better than the savages). indeed the sanctity of modern ethical frameworks in the christian world, including western legal traditions, rests on these historical practices of active suppression. although the christian moral foundation of the west as often (mis)taken as an acquiescent invisibility, it is certainly not a set of values that simply 'came to be.'
as the reviewer concluded by reiterating the great pedagogical value of the text, my levels of anger reached their boiling point. there, in that university classroom, i found myself thinking an unthinkable thought...'i would like to burn that book.' pause. 'i would like to burn that book?' pause. if i burned the book, people would call me a fascist. granted, if i burned the book, i would call myself a fascist. im sure i could never bring myself to burn a book. but this got me thinking, what is it about burning books in the west that is so evocative?
certainly, the books of iraq, palestine, and afghanistan have been recently burned - and continue to burn as i write - by the hand of allied forces' bombs and airstrikes. certainly, poorly funded individuals and organizations who collect archival materials necessarily subject their collections to unsafe environments because they cannot afford secure storage. these practices can result in the loss of years of documents and ephemeral materials from minority cultures due to things like basement flooding, or violent eviction measures. moreover, the foundational structure of the publishing industry itself is such that there are certain types of knowledge, certain languages, certain subjects, and certain ways of communicating, that are (pardon the pun) bound to be published. the industry itself thereby regulates the fundamental concept of what can be considered 'a book.' do these examples, not also represent forms of, albeit in some cases more subtle, 'book burning'?
of course, the burning of books conjures up images of dangerous, alarming scenes - with particular historical reference - where freedom of speech is under attack and ideologies have gone to such extremes that textual forms of dissent cannot be tolerated. however, do the less-prescriptive forms of exterminating books not also embody the same fundamental issues that we are fearful of when we think of infamous public book burnings such as freedom of speech, and ideologically informed censorship? why is it okay to burn some books and not others? whose practices of book burning get labelled fascist and whose are exempt from criticism due to insitutionalized excuses such as 'collateral damage' or a normalized capitalist private property ownership model that systemically discriminates against those who cannot, or refuse to, engage with it?
my deeply entrenched liberal values urge me to guard against a reading of my words here as an endorsement of book burning, but actually, im not sure what that i would be defending. the moral value attributed to the sanctity of 'freedom of speech' is not a passive right or inherited foundational principal of freedom divorced from historical and political context, but a device that actively legitimizes some kinds of 'freedom of speech' over others'.
as the book sat silently on the table beside its puppet, i was shocked at the amount of violence such a tiny little thing could carry - the book, i mean. while of course the book is only significant in the context of multiple other influential sites of orientalist meaning-making, the innocent looking little paperback of not more than 200 pages sitting before me allowed its reviewer to read the story of contemporary western ethical principals as simply passively inherited. according to my gracious interlocutor, religious wars and longstanding principled regulations launched in the name of christianity, are apparently rendered insignificant to the current ethical frameworks of the west. i take issue with this because as these culture-shaping events are ignored in the book, they further erase the extensive histories of imperial cultural domination through which the contemporary moral foundations of the west are stabilized. some examples of these textual omissions include, enduring legacies of islamophobia (from varying scales of christian cultural domination such as the crusades and including canonical literature such as dante's inferno), gendered violence (the eradication of pagan and feminized medicinal practices through the practiced burning of so-called witches), and colonialism (if enlightenment taught us anything, it was that the civilized know better than the savages). indeed the sanctity of modern ethical frameworks in the christian world, including western legal traditions, rests on these historical practices of active suppression. although the christian moral foundation of the west as often (mis)taken as an acquiescent invisibility, it is certainly not a set of values that simply 'came to be.'
as the reviewer concluded by reiterating the great pedagogical value of the text, my levels of anger reached their boiling point. there, in that university classroom, i found myself thinking an unthinkable thought...'i would like to burn that book.' pause. 'i would like to burn that book?' pause. if i burned the book, people would call me a fascist. granted, if i burned the book, i would call myself a fascist. im sure i could never bring myself to burn a book. but this got me thinking, what is it about burning books in the west that is so evocative?
certainly, the books of iraq, palestine, and afghanistan have been recently burned - and continue to burn as i write - by the hand of allied forces' bombs and airstrikes. certainly, poorly funded individuals and organizations who collect archival materials necessarily subject their collections to unsafe environments because they cannot afford secure storage. these practices can result in the loss of years of documents and ephemeral materials from minority cultures due to things like basement flooding, or violent eviction measures. moreover, the foundational structure of the publishing industry itself is such that there are certain types of knowledge, certain languages, certain subjects, and certain ways of communicating, that are (pardon the pun) bound to be published. the industry itself thereby regulates the fundamental concept of what can be considered 'a book.' do these examples, not also represent forms of, albeit in some cases more subtle, 'book burning'?
of course, the burning of books conjures up images of dangerous, alarming scenes - with particular historical reference - where freedom of speech is under attack and ideologies have gone to such extremes that textual forms of dissent cannot be tolerated. however, do the less-prescriptive forms of exterminating books not also embody the same fundamental issues that we are fearful of when we think of infamous public book burnings such as freedom of speech, and ideologically informed censorship? why is it okay to burn some books and not others? whose practices of book burning get labelled fascist and whose are exempt from criticism due to insitutionalized excuses such as 'collateral damage' or a normalized capitalist private property ownership model that systemically discriminates against those who cannot, or refuse to, engage with it?
my deeply entrenched liberal values urge me to guard against a reading of my words here as an endorsement of book burning, but actually, im not sure what that i would be defending. the moral value attributed to the sanctity of 'freedom of speech' is not a passive right or inherited foundational principal of freedom divorced from historical and political context, but a device that actively legitimizes some kinds of 'freedom of speech' over others'.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
facebook walls' inexhaustibility are exhausting
on tuesday, november 11th i became aware of a facebook group called the "york anti-strike group." intrigued by the provocative name, i visited the group's page only to be (i suppose unsurprisingly) berated by an onslaught of anti-union and anti-strike sentiments, expressed through such enlightened statements as "The [strike] may not be illegal but it is immoral" and "Some of my friends are TAs and they are against the strike. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they decided to work as TAs."
i joined the group and tried to enter into these discussions via the group's facebook wall. naively, i thought that by using a little irony - a la steven colbert - that i might highlight some of what i saw as the direct outcome of mike harris' common sense revolution...youthful minds moulded by the incessant rhetoric of law, order, and above all, neoliberal economic reforms at the cost of workers' rights. of course, 2, 300 members, 82 pages of wall postings, and 3 days later, i withdrew from the battle, tired and hopeless. although there were a lot of people trying to make intelligent, poignant pro-union interventions in the anti-CUPE discussions, the easy-to-post, visual interface of the facebook wall meant that these affective ruptures were continually lost to the backlogged pages of the group's wall. since it's such a shame that more people couldn't have been privy to some of the highly entertaining discussions on this site, i pasted some highlights below.
however, my infiltration did not prove totally useless. while fishing around on the group's wall i found a post from the policy chair of the york ndp group which read:
PP:
um, what? about one week and 40 impassioned exchanges later from multiple people (members and non-members alike), the group decided to change their position and support the striking workers. however, my experience in conversing with these folks has really shaken any lasting belief I had in what kind of alternative political potential the ndp can offer if they continue to attract members who believe in "staying out of labour disputes" or think that the party offers a place for a whole spectrum of ideologies, including being a Liberal: "Even within the NDP there are those at centre of left (if that make any sense) and those of left left (or further left). One can think of centre of left, closer to centre (LIBERAL)." Yikes.
____________
from the "york anti-strike" facebook group
some highlights
nov. 11-13th, 2008
SD:
i just hate unions. weekends, safe working conditions, power against an increasingly powerful ruling class of bosses and managers - how dare they try to make the lives of working people better. what a bunch of dicks!
now the administration, that's who i'd like to see come out of this one on top. they're the ones who are really being hurt by all this. i mean, just think of all the extra money they have to spend on gas for their new ford explorers as they wait to cross the picket line. and it also means getting back to their 2 car garage home in vaughan a few minutes later then normal. this is all not to mention all the extra work that this strike is causing for them...handling media phone calls to maintain the university's reputation, dealing with uninformed, ignorant undergraduates (and their parents) who think education is about consumer rights...honestly, those TAs are just plain rude!
why dont the TAs see that they alone have the power to end this thing?
AJ:
I don't think unions are the problem Stacy, it's how they are misused. I personally have no quarrel with what the TA's are doing in principle, I'm sure if I was in their position I'd probably be concerned too, however I cannot condone their methods. I refuse to accept that the best way that they can think of making their point needs to negatively affect 50 000 plus students (and that's just the people who actually take classes in York University.)
SW:
Seriously, Stacy? This is the students' education our "educators" are putting on hold and inconveniencing. And you know what? Maybe these TAs deserve more money, maybe they don't, the point is that I AM PAYING their wages, regardless of the digits. MY TUITION is what goes into all their pockets whether they strike or not. Their inconvenience to me is not earning them any sympathy from my wallet. I don't agree or disagree with the terms or reason for the strike, my disagreement is with the inconvenience to my education. I'm so glad other students have also realized this. I was afraid I was the only one who realized this.
Jay, I had no idea the union provided those busses! I did, however, think it was ridiculously irresponsible and ironic that the YFS would support the CUPE strike and the drop fees rally on the same day. Sometimes, I get the feeling the YFS has no idea what they're arguing, they just like to argue.
I, for one, just want to get back to school. This is my LAST semester, and I'm not even a York student. I'm a visiting Western student studying 2 half courses because it was cheaper for me to move back in with my parents than to spend another semester in London. If this strike goes on too long for me, I miss out my timeframe to apply for graduation at Western and I know the admin will not be sympathetic to York's strike.
PM:
I thought the YFS represented undergraduate students?????
SD:
yeah, that stupid YFS president - doesnt he know that the vast majority of us consumers, i mean undergraduate students, will be in positions as TAs in the future if we pursue an academic career? who does he think he is, having an intelligent analysis of labour and foresight into struggles that might affect us in the future?!? like i said before, i think it makes a lot of sense to be attacking the TAs and union organizing when the administration has absolutely no power in the situation! i mean, its not like my tuition fees pay the administration's salary as they continue to refuse to meet the union's demands and run an effective PR campaign that turns our attention away from their role in the dispute and onto the underpaid workers (aka. us in the future).
SD:
forgot to add: union = a bunch of dicks!
...
BM:
I busted through the picket line today at Chimneystack Rd on my motorcycle, man were they pissed!! Definitely worth it tho
SH:
the administration has already agreed to binding arbitration. now it's up to the union to go to the table. as far as im concerned the union is holding students hostage!
SD:
Yes, if we use binding arbitration, we can force them into a corner without any rights!
"As an alternative to judges or courts settling disputes between consumers and businesses, binding arbitration works out a deal through a third party body. The arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be disputed or appealed. Businesses prefer to resolve claims through binding arbitration because it is more private, avoiding possible bad publicity that could erupt in a trial. They are also not bound to certain legal requirements, such as "discovery" whereby the persons involved in the claim have access to otherwise private information. A consumer has basically waived their constitutional right to sue when they sign a mandatory binding arbitration clause as part of a contract. Consumer advocates point out that many people do not know they have denied themselves that right. Nor are they aware that the independent arbitrator may have an interest in siding with a corporation for financial reasons."
...
BD:
I assume the members of this group are not thinking about graduate school at York in the future. Otherwise, they would be supportive of the strike and their financial future as a graduate student.
NM:
U know what they say when assume...
Actually I AM thinking about Grad and law school. Why would I be out striking in the cold? I happen to like what I would be getting if I were to become a TA.
It's the contract faculty who have the raw deal.
SD:
actually, it's the administration who are getting the raw deal! the president of york is only making a measley $500, 000! if anyone should be on strike it should be the president and vps who are especially hard hit by the global financial crisis. and those TAs and contract faculty have the audacity to ask for higher wages - i mean the cheek of it all!
read all about how little ontario university president's are getting paid here:
http://www.thespec.com/article/396776
i joined the group and tried to enter into these discussions via the group's facebook wall. naively, i thought that by using a little irony - a la steven colbert - that i might highlight some of what i saw as the direct outcome of mike harris' common sense revolution...youthful minds moulded by the incessant rhetoric of law, order, and above all, neoliberal economic reforms at the cost of workers' rights. of course, 2, 300 members, 82 pages of wall postings, and 3 days later, i withdrew from the battle, tired and hopeless. although there were a lot of people trying to make intelligent, poignant pro-union interventions in the anti-CUPE discussions, the easy-to-post, visual interface of the facebook wall meant that these affective ruptures were continually lost to the backlogged pages of the group's wall. since it's such a shame that more people couldn't have been privy to some of the highly entertaining discussions on this site, i pasted some highlights below.
however, my infiltration did not prove totally useless. while fishing around on the group's wall i found a post from the policy chair of the york ndp group which read:
PP:
New Democrats at York University are officially NEUTRAL on this strike.
um, what? about one week and 40 impassioned exchanges later from multiple people (members and non-members alike), the group decided to change their position and support the striking workers. however, my experience in conversing with these folks has really shaken any lasting belief I had in what kind of alternative political potential the ndp can offer if they continue to attract members who believe in "staying out of labour disputes" or think that the party offers a place for a whole spectrum of ideologies, including being a Liberal: "Even within the NDP there are those at centre of left (if that make any sense) and those of left left (or further left). One can think of centre of left, closer to centre (LIBERAL)." Yikes.
____________
from the "york anti-strike" facebook group
some highlights
nov. 11-13th, 2008
SD:
i just hate unions. weekends, safe working conditions, power against an increasingly powerful ruling class of bosses and managers - how dare they try to make the lives of working people better. what a bunch of dicks!
now the administration, that's who i'd like to see come out of this one on top. they're the ones who are really being hurt by all this. i mean, just think of all the extra money they have to spend on gas for their new ford explorers as they wait to cross the picket line. and it also means getting back to their 2 car garage home in vaughan a few minutes later then normal. this is all not to mention all the extra work that this strike is causing for them...handling media phone calls to maintain the university's reputation, dealing with uninformed, ignorant undergraduates (and their parents) who think education is about consumer rights...honestly, those TAs are just plain rude!
why dont the TAs see that they alone have the power to end this thing?
AJ:
I don't think unions are the problem Stacy, it's how they are misused. I personally have no quarrel with what the TA's are doing in principle, I'm sure if I was in their position I'd probably be concerned too, however I cannot condone their methods. I refuse to accept that the best way that they can think of making their point needs to negatively affect 50 000 plus students (and that's just the people who actually take classes in York University.)
SW:
Seriously, Stacy? This is the students' education our "educators" are putting on hold and inconveniencing. And you know what? Maybe these TAs deserve more money, maybe they don't, the point is that I AM PAYING their wages, regardless of the digits. MY TUITION is what goes into all their pockets whether they strike or not. Their inconvenience to me is not earning them any sympathy from my wallet. I don't agree or disagree with the terms or reason for the strike, my disagreement is with the inconvenience to my education. I'm so glad other students have also realized this. I was afraid I was the only one who realized this.
Jay, I had no idea the union provided those busses! I did, however, think it was ridiculously irresponsible and ironic that the YFS would support the CUPE strike and the drop fees rally on the same day. Sometimes, I get the feeling the YFS has no idea what they're arguing, they just like to argue.
I, for one, just want to get back to school. This is my LAST semester, and I'm not even a York student. I'm a visiting Western student studying 2 half courses because it was cheaper for me to move back in with my parents than to spend another semester in London. If this strike goes on too long for me, I miss out my timeframe to apply for graduation at Western and I know the admin will not be sympathetic to York's strike.
PM:
I thought the YFS represented undergraduate students?????
SD:
yeah, that stupid YFS president - doesnt he know that the vast majority of us consumers, i mean undergraduate students, will be in positions as TAs in the future if we pursue an academic career? who does he think he is, having an intelligent analysis of labour and foresight into struggles that might affect us in the future?!? like i said before, i think it makes a lot of sense to be attacking the TAs and union organizing when the administration has absolutely no power in the situation! i mean, its not like my tuition fees pay the administration's salary as they continue to refuse to meet the union's demands and run an effective PR campaign that turns our attention away from their role in the dispute and onto the underpaid workers (aka. us in the future).
SD:
forgot to add: union = a bunch of dicks!
...
BM:
I busted through the picket line today at Chimneystack Rd on my motorcycle, man were they pissed!! Definitely worth it tho
SH:
the administration has already agreed to binding arbitration. now it's up to the union to go to the table. as far as im concerned the union is holding students hostage!
SD:
Yes, if we use binding arbitration, we can force them into a corner without any rights!
"As an alternative to judges or courts settling disputes between consumers and businesses, binding arbitration works out a deal through a third party body. The arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be disputed or appealed. Businesses prefer to resolve claims through binding arbitration because it is more private, avoiding possible bad publicity that could erupt in a trial. They are also not bound to certain legal requirements, such as "discovery" whereby the persons involved in the claim have access to otherwise private information. A consumer has basically waived their constitutional right to sue when they sign a mandatory binding arbitration clause as part of a contract. Consumer advocates point out that many people do not know they have denied themselves that right. Nor are they aware that the independent arbitrator may have an interest in siding with a corporation for financial reasons."
...
BD:
I assume the members of this group are not thinking about graduate school at York in the future. Otherwise, they would be supportive of the strike and their financial future as a graduate student.
NM:
U know what they say when assume...
Actually I AM thinking about Grad and law school. Why would I be out striking in the cold? I happen to like what I would be getting if I were to become a TA.
It's the contract faculty who have the raw deal.
SD:
actually, it's the administration who are getting the raw deal! the president of york is only making a measley $500, 000! if anyone should be on strike it should be the president and vps who are especially hard hit by the global financial crisis. and those TAs and contract faculty have the audacity to ask for higher wages - i mean the cheek of it all!
read all about how little ontario university president's are getting paid here:
http://www.thespec.com/art
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
