The left’s consent problem
Lisbeth Latham
The left has a problem with consent – by this I mean that
spaces that we would associate with “progressive” or even “revolutionary”
groups tend to have cultures that make it difficult for individuals to act in a
way that upholds their right to have autonomy over themselves.
While this is problematic in terms of these groups achieving
their stated objectives it is more troubling with the extent to which these
spaces are unsafe and create spaces where sexual violence particularly towards
women is enabled. In our society where violence towards women is endemic any
space can be unsafe. We are all exposed to sexist ideas which normalise the
objectification of women’s bodies. To believe that a space can be simply be
declared safe or progressive and that it would remain outside the impact of
broader society is both naive and arrogant. If people are successful in the
first instance of creating a safe space – it will only remain so as a
consequence of permanent struggle against the incursion of sexist ideas.
The right to control our own bodies and to have autonomous
control of our own bodies is one of the most basic of democratic rights. Whilst
there would be few organisations which would reject the formal rights of
individuals to control their own bodies the test of democratic rights is not
whether we have the formal right, but the extent to which we are able to
exercise those rights and the way others respond to efforts made to exercise
those rights. The extent to which an organisation can be considered to
democratic can be measure based on a range of factors. The most obvious is the
formal democratic rights that exist in an organisation – particularly the
formal right to raise differences or to stand for leadership positions.
At this level most left organisations, allow individuals to
raise differences albeit this right may be constrained within the practice of
democratic central¬ism as understood within the specific organisation. For
example when can differences be raised? Do these rules apply only to older
“decided” questions or to newly emerging issues as well? How are leadership s
elected? Can factions be formed? What are the requirements/regulations around
faction formation? Who decides when and where factions can be formed? How can
members, particularly those located in different cities communicate with each
other? The answer to these questions are a basis for judging formal democracy
within an organisation more important is people’s experience of the culture of
raising differences in an organisation and how this culture legitimises or
delegitimises the raising of differences.
Anyone who has attended a left meeting will tell it can be a
weird experience. A lot of new members will notice that there is a lot
unanimity in meetings (if you try you can find lots of talks at left conferences
about how the unanimity is a strength and a reflection of political
homogeneity)-which can be intimidating if you don’t agree with the things being
said in the meeting. It can get weirder if you articulate your differences. You
can expect to have it explained to you why you’re wrong at least once, possibly
several times in increasingly incoherent terms as other members attempt to
demonstrate their understanding of the unveiled truths of Marxism. While these
explanations will occur in the meeting you might be lucky enough to button
holed af¬ter the meeting to be set straight and if you are lucky enough your
objection or disagreement will end up as the basis of an educational and/or an
article in the organisations publication.
Moreover the apparent unanimity in meetings is often false
as the leadership bodies of most left organisations act as closed caucuses,
which intervene into the body they are elected from as a block. In my
experience it is very unusual for any differences in these bodies to be aired
with the broader membership, while there are generally no written rules to this
effect, and so it-is often a consequence of self-censorship it is also a
culture that be reinforced by an unwillingness when people indicate they intend
to disagree, I can think of contentious issues that were never taken to the
branches I was a member of because I made it clear that I intended to speak
against and vote against the motion in the branch meeting.
This culture has two impacts; it creates an environment in
which raising differences inside the organisation is not the norm and,
importantly, where doing and saying things you don’t agree with is normal.
While this is a core aspect of democratic centralism this culture reduces the
capacity for real democracy and importantly acts to undermine the ability of
members to say “no”. Adding to this negative culture is the way a disagreement,
whether internal or external, is handled. People’s right (and even capacity) to
remain in the movement is questioned. Whether this relates to allegations about
their class background, people’s positions on disputed reflect their “petty
bourgeois” or “middle class backgrounds”, a position reflects some error
(opportunism, sectarianism, bureaucraticism or movementism), or their
confidence is questioned (person is demoralised). While all of these statements
could be accurate they are often deployed without any real explanation as to
why, but simply based on self-referential arguments – “we are Marxists or left,
this means we are correct, you disagree, this means you are wrong and thus you
must be right-wing, anti-Marxist (this is particularly bizarre when deployed
against a person who doesn’t claim to be operating within a Marxist framework)
and are thus wrong or petty bourgeois etc. This also reflects problems with
empathy that are cultivated in many groups where you are not supposed to care
about a person or campaign once they have been given a pejorative name – so the
pain they suffer doesn’t matter, but in building people who can switch off
their empathy you are also building people who will start to have no empathy.
Importantly in many organisations in the rare instance where
there is a falling out within the leadership, then this is seen as a way in
which newer younger members can prove their loyalty / commitment, which makes
for a seriously unpleasant and toxic internal life-which allows members to know
what members can expect if they raise differences. This erodes and dam¬ages the
ability of members genuinely give consent and acts to normalise non-consensual
behaviour. Exacerbating this inability to find non-consensual behaviour
problematic is the culture that exists around party loyalty.
The idea “my party right or wrong” extends to not only the
actions of their organisation but to the actions of individual members. Where
problematic behaviour is initially denied (because it’s like problematic and we
could never do something wrong) but once the denial doesn’t work then the
behaviour is excused in other ways, such as trivializing it, or insisting that
it was actually the right thing to do. Obviously this is not always just about
excusing the behaviour of-the organisation in the eyes of others, but sometimes
people’s way, of justifying to themselves to their membership. In both
circumstance it speaks to a culture of members who are confident political
people who are able to take a firm stand for what is right - which is what we
need to achieve a better world. Instead the internal culture teaches people to
go with the flow and to blindly follow the lead of others.
Left-wing organisations are not safe places. They are not
nourishing the people of tomorrow capable of acting in the interests of the
oppressed. Instead they create environments in which compliance is rewarded and
critical/independent thinking is denigrated and crushed. Thus these are
environments where predators can prosper. If we are to build a better world
then we need to build a new culture new culture in the left that celebrates and
build the capacity of participants to say “no” and be respected in saying “no”
and takes action against anyone who seeks to victimise and prey on others.
Posts
