re: discussion about war
It is really
dangerous rhetoric to state that those who have not directly exprienced a
social issue (e.g., war) cannot speak out against a social issue. What would
have happened to apartheid in South Africa if those who had no direct experience
of apartheid felt that they could not speak out against apartheid? If you feel
the need to self-destructively acquire some existential privilege in regard to
war, you can burn (irreversibly) a few of the horrors of war into your scull
by visiting Robert Fiske's website where he carries uncensored photographs
of the human costs of war .
In any case,
I believe we should focus on all, not some, systemic patterns of violence - not
just those that involve a fight between B-52 bombers and AK47 rifles. Annie
reminds us how this is powerfully captured by Cathy McCormack's idea of 'the war
without bullets'. Let's not get seduced by arguments that 'being shot down by a
comment on a discussion list is petty compared to being shot down by a gun'. If
you start trying to calibrating pain in that way you do nothing more than
advocate a system of arbitrary judgements on other people's social experiences
(who has got the deepest scar) and you risk falling into problematic sets
of xenophobic discourses (e.g., ask the homeless of Birmingham to
acknowledge how lucky they are compared to the homeless in Dafur), that do
nothing more than censor discussion of oppression within our own communities and
displace reflection on the horrors we live with onto the horrors of imagined
others. 'We' are not safe in so many ways. We live in a country with: high
levels of crime/criminality (including corporate crime); high levels of
socio-economic inequalities; a rampantly individualistic contemporary
culture; and a cultural history/legacy scarred by ethnocentricism, colonisalism
and deep seated xenophobia.
War is just
one highly visible form of violence. To focus on war in isolation of other forms
of coporate and state sponsored violence deflects attention away from the
killing spree such sponsors are engaged in our own and others' communities
(death and injury caused by mass industrialisation, urbanisation, environmental
degradation and so on). Being anti-war can be a rallying point to talk about all
forms of violence, not just about one.
Now, the
point about being critical with one another as something that is negative and as
more to do with members negotiating their positions of power within the network
than anything else. Sychophancy (showing unconditional, positive agreement
with others) could be charged similarly if we chose to conceptualise our
interactions in individualistic ways. I still think that a list like this
is a good place to engage with ideas, not with the individuals expressing those
ideas or individualistic ways of reading the dynamics of the
list..
In fact I
find sycophancy is more of a problem than criticality because at least the
latter causes us to question our thinking (though admittedly to find ouselves
fawning for Bush/Blair can also lead us to question our thinking or at least the
sincerity of theirs!). We cannot assume that because we are a collective who
have subscribed to this vague notion of community psychology that we will share
similar politics and express our values in similar ways and that therefore we
need not critically scrutinse each other's beliefs and actions. For example,
members in both the European Association of Community Psychology and in the
Society for Research and Action (USAmerican community psychology organisation)
have talked positively about the prospect of securing future sponsorship from
the World Bank. Of course, some on this list might think this is a postive step
forward also (not me!). I have no problem in seeking, at certain times, to
paralyse action through critical thinking (though to stop an action, is still an
action e.g., the 'STOP the War coalition are active about their passivism!). In
fact, I would like to botox vast areas of psychological practice. I would also
want to be stopped in my own actions if I did decide to embark on a World Bank
sponsored tour of Birmingham showing homeless people Robert Fiske's pictures of
dead bodies on the streets of Baghdad and tell them to 'count their blessings'.
And, I would not want someone to give me a hug for having a
go.
For me, the
web of deceipt that has been woven by the corporate world and their state
sponsors is so complex, nebulous and sticky that it takes a lot of work to
get unstuck from the ways such sponsors would like us to think
and act. It also takes a lot of work for some of us to grasp the thread and then
rethread the ways we relate towards and think about each other so that we
might regain a semblance of justice in the world. It is also a web of
deceipt that connects us all directly with the horrors of the world, whether we
convince ourselves that we feel those horrors or not. I would like us to engage
in more active passivism and seek to paralyse the sources of systemic violence
through critical thought and action.
p