Posts Tagged ‘ authority ’

We need to talk about the police

These days, there is absolutely no doubt among many people where the police stand. They stand for the protection of elite-driven laws (whether or not they are just). They stand for privileging the rights and freedoms of a very select group of people (usually rich white men). They stand on the side of property. A friend of mine from the USA explained passionately about the growing police brutality and growing numbers of (predominantly black) deaths that occur at their hands. He said that for every person they protect and serve, there is another who they are brutalising – to protect one is to necessarily dehumanise the other, and vice versa.

This is all absolutely correct and the growing distrust towards the police in much of the Anglophone world can only be a positive thing. The police as an institution originated as an army of private thugs for hire to the highest bidder, protecting the rich and powerful against the transgressions and resistances of the majority. At the same time, for a while now I’ve been increasingly realising that we, as anarchists, need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the police in relation to the future world we want to create. Now I know what this sounds like, but don’t sharpen your knives just yet…

One of the most recurring points that people (even other radicals) make about anarchists and our attitudes towards the police is that we only see the bad stuff. So the argument goes, they do a lot of good work and are just nice people trying to make life better, even if their good intentions can end up fuelling negative dynamics. This is of course a very one-dimensional understanding of the police that reduces their political impact to an individual scale of care, ethics and civic responsibility; a convenient smokescreen for overlooking their active role in fostering division, imposing coercive state violence, and ‘outsourcing’ social solidarity to a group of undemocratic specialists with axes to grind.

However, we cannot deny that it also has an element of truth in it. One of the most powerful developments in policing in the late 20th Century was to blur the lines between ‘attack dog of the state’ and ‘friend of the community’. The police force is not just about committing a range of spectacular and ‘ordinary’ violences against transgressive groups and individuals (ethnic minorities, radicals, working class communities), it also performs other roles that are actually socially useful, e.g.

  • Managing large events
  • Disaster relief
  • Emergency support (e.g. car crashes, collapsed buildings)
  • Regulating / diverting the flow of people or traffic in crowded areas
  • Addressing conflicts and disagreements
  • Acting as figureheads of civic duty and responsibility

What anarchists often seem reluctant or afraid to articulate to a broader public is that all of these things, and more, will be necessary in any post-revolutionary society in which the monopoly of violence held by the state (and exercised by the police) no longer exists. Since general, if critical, support for (or acceptance of) the police in many circles is so hegemonic, it is easy for us to always see the police as always doing bad stuff – it is our responsibility to expose the injustices that they commit and are complicit in. But sometimes, outside of their core role as the protectors of state and capital, they are socially useful, and some of the specialist skills and techniques that they have developed can be applied to society in ways that stretch beyond their violent underpinnings.

What is needed is a rearticulation of the police that continues to push back against their violence but also recognises that in any society there is a need for a group of specially trained people to deal with public situations related to circulations, conflicts and emergencies in a future anarchist world. Examples of community self-management and forms of what we might call ‘popular security’ are plentiful, but it’s all too rare that anarchists link these examples to people’s fears about a world without the ‘protection’ of the police. Presenting this message in relation to anarchist principles of self-management, participatory forms of democracy, accountability and solidarity is therefore an important step to take.

[PS. I wrote this a while ago – a few days before the Hillsborough inquiry’s findings came out. In hindsight, it probably isn’t the best timing to make this kind of call so please don’t read this as some kind of ‘provocation’ against the absolutely correct and throughly deserved rage against the lying, cheating, smearing scum of the South Yorkshire Police!]

Advertisements

Career suicide

I wrote the below email today to the Principal of Queen Mary, after a horribly patronising email was sent around about impending cuts. It probably wasn’t a very good idea, but it was one of those situations when i was absolutely fuming and couldn’t stop myself.

Have a read – I might put it on the gravestone that I’ve ordered…

Dear Ms A**** – FAO Prof Gaskell,

Many thanks for this email. I am especially grateful for this email as it confirms a
number of suspicions held by myself, but I suspect also widely held among us staff,
postgraduate students, and the undergraduate students whom we teach and support.

First, that the strategy of UUK and its affiliates (including QMUL) is chiefly to
patronise and belittle the intellect of our workforce and students, claiming that we do
not understand our position in relation to the economic conditions that we currently
face. This approach is, presumably, in the vague hope that we might just be persuaded
that HE (and education more broadly) is about to hit free-fall as a result of the chums
and business partners of university leaders.

Second, that university senior managers have swallwed wholesale the vacuous “we are all
in this together” rhetoric that has dribbled wetly from policy-makers’ mouths since the
first days of the current government. It is a sad day when an entire industry based on
rigorous thought and research for the furtherance of society’s wellbeing becomes subsumed
within the whimsical fantasies of this peculiar brand of right-wing ideology. Many of us
HE staff are also complicit in this but many more continue to expose and confront it as
it is – an ideological construct opportunistically using recession as a means of
strengthening itself and its privileged supporters.

Third, that management of universities around the UK actually think that they can get
away with their unquestioning compliance with these draconian cuts without some sort of
active opposition from those whose livelihoods depend on this broken education system we
inhabit. On the contrary, do not expect that the job of Principal will be an easy one in
the coming months. Sadly, for university leaders, you are presiding over a workforce and
student body that – despite the best efforts of policy makers and managers alike – has
developed critical and creative intellect sufficient to develop new structures; new forms
of learning and sharing that could quite easily be undertaken in a self-managed way
beyond the confines of the education factory we now find ourselves in. In many places, in
the cracks between the pavement, this is already taking place.

Fourth, that managers believe this crisis of HE has somehow happened in a space out of
the reach of university leaders. UUK and senior management at universities around the UK
have, for years, been complicit in the war waged against the latent possibilities of an
education system based on rigorous intellectual and practical development, accessibility,
critical pedagogy and democratic practice. This cannot have come as a surprise to
so-called leaders who have followed sheepishly the whims of each government as it has
proactively built on the commodification of the education system in progressive steps.
Had university leaders wanted to confront the clear dangers of this process, they were in
a perfect position to do so, but instead they remained silent, safe in the knowledge that
their compliance would retain for them a lofty and comfortable seat among the elite
minority which cannibalistically feeds off the sweat of the rest of us.

Fifth, that QMUL management would like us to believe that Queen Mary staff and students
need only worry about the financial health of our own college. Sadly, as much as we would
like to think that our own wellbeing is the only thing that matters (cf. “there is no
such thing as society,” as our current Prime Minister’s idol once said), this parochial
misrepresentation of the interconnectedness of the education system – especially HE – is
disingenuous at best. We are not just facing tough times here in Mile End, but
everywhere, and our wellbeing is intimately entwined in the wellbeing of all other
education institutions across the UK and beyond. Denial of this fact is tantamount to
sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALALALA” in the hope that what you
ignore will go away. If only it were that simple.

Please do not take this as a personal attack, Prof Gaskell. On the contrary, the
landscape that universities inhabit is one that is reproduced at a much bigger scale and
in a much deeper sense than that which we are experiencing in HE. The Browne report is
small fry in comparison with the bigger picture across the UK and elsewhere, and, as I
have said, is just the most recent manifestation of a much longer process stretching back
many years that university leaders failed (or refused) to address. However, the active
complicity of universities in this market-led and state-approved eating-away of education
as an a priori good is something that cannot be ignored, not even when the very poorest
students are thrown a few crumbs from the table as a stunt to appease the moral dilemmas
of wavering observers.

One can only hope that the mess that will be caused by these cuts will help us rebuild a
truly liberatory system of education from the rubble of the old.

Kind regards,

Quoting Kate A***:

Dear Students, 

You will no doubt have been aware of the announcement last week of the
outcomes of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review, following
the release the previous week of the Browne Review of Higher Education
Spending and Student Finance. The latter was produced independently of
government but was clearly informed by an understanding of the economic
environment and the government’s headline spending plans.  The
government is reserving judgement on whether to implement all of
Browne’s recommendations, and on what time scale.  Nevertheless, we can
be clear that a number of changes will take place:

* The overall resource budget for higher education, excluding
research funding, will reduce by 40% from £7.1 billion to £4.2
billion by 2014-15.

* As it is now, a university education will be free to students at
the point of delivery.  The fee-based payment method will be
supported by loans.  Where a student applies for a loan to cover
the cost of fees, the government will pay their university the
fees on their behalf. The idea of a graduate tax has been rejected
by the Government.

* Fees will increase.  It is estimated that an average fee of £7000
pa would be required (in the absence of cost savings) to replace
the reduction in teaching grant from the Higher Education Council
for England (HEFCE).  Browne proposed that there should be no cap
on fee levels, but that universities should be charged an
increasing levy the higher the level of fees above £6000 pa.       Comments late
last week from David Willetts, the Minister for
Universities and Science, indicated however that the government is
undecided on whether or how to enact these changes.

* The current zero rate of interest paid by graduates will be
replaced by a rate reflecting the government’s cost of borrowing,
thereby substantially reducing the cost to government of the loans
scheme. Students who fail to graduate will not be exempt from
repayment.

* The threshold for graduate earnings at which repayment will begin
will rise from £15,000 to £21,000 and will be linked to average
earnings; the maximum repayment period is to be increased from 25
to 30 years.  Payments of 9% of income over £21,000 pa will be
collected through the tax system.

* Part-time students devoting at least a third of their time to
study will be entitled to the same loans as full-time students to
cover the cost of their fees.

* The arrangements for maintenance grants and loans have become
slightly more generous.

These are huge changes for the funding of teaching in higher  education institutions in
England and their implications require  careful examination. This has been in progress
for some time at  Queen Mary (in anticipation of the Browne proposals and the funding
reductions), but more detailed modelling is required.  The  £4.6million government
allocation to universities for research will  be maintained in cash terms over the next
four years.  Whilst in  real-terms this represents a cut of approximately 9% over this
period, it is better news than was feared and suggests that  arguments put forward from
Queen Mary and elsewhere for the  fundamental economic importance of its research have
been heard by  government and at least partially understood.  The “dual support”  system
will be maintained, whereby government funding for research  is channelled partly
through HEFCE and partly through the Research  Councils.  Both the mechanism and the
magnitude of research support  are important to Queen Mary be
cause of our commitment to research-led teaching and our education of
postgraduate research students.

The reductions in government spending create enormous challenges for
all universities in England.  As we face them at Queen Mary, however,
we should recall our particular advantages.  We enter this period in
sound financial health, the result of recent successes and careful
husbandry of resources.  To complement a talented and dedicated staff,
we have teaching and research accommodation of a generally high
quality, including some striking new, or newly refurbished, buildings.
Our increasingly elevated position in national and international
rankings means that we are an attractive destination for talented
students from the UK and abroad.  And finally, we have in our recently
published Strategic Plan a clearly articulated set of core values and
ambitions, providing a clear direction of travel in difficult times.

I have every confidence that the coming months and years will see Queen
Mary continue to develop its twin missions of knowledge creation and
knowledge dissemination, and build upon its fundamental commitment to
the provision of the highest possible quality of education, across a
broad academic range, to those students most able to benefit,
regardless of their background.

Simon J Gaskell
Principal
25 October 2010

Counter/mapping Queen Mary

This is a shameless shout-out to the wonderful, erudite, intelligent and artistic people at Queen Mary college who have put together the QMUL Counter/map. In their words, their intention was to “map the ways in which migration, border technologies, surveillance and monetary flows intersect with the university as our place of work and study”. Their project was inspired and supported by the Counter-Cartographies Collective over in the US of A, who have pioneered these counter-maps since the mid-2000s.

This was a project I got very excited about when it first got going, but – alas – i was too busy finishing my PhD to be involved. Please do take a peek and pass it on. They have hard copies of the map and the accompanying board game, so get in touch with them if you want a few.

Well done to all involved.

Paul Stott on Punk Islam

I just came across yet another interesting entry on Paul Stott‘s blog.

In it, he discusses Taqwacore, a novel, film and small but growing movement that unites Islam with punk values and aesthetics. It seems to be an interesting V-flipping manoeuvre by disenchanted Muslim youth, rejecting the authority of both Islamic leaders and Western governments and forging an irreverent and life-affirming form of religious and cultural identity in this third space. Mr Stott deals with the subject – the film in particular – with his typical style and panache, so I will leave you to peruse the original entry…

Anti-/election resources & projects – out of the shadows at last?

Anarchists have often had a pretty poor record of doing much remotely useful aroudn the time of elections. Electoral politics is, as any anarchist worth hir salt knows, vacuuous, lacking in substance, largely useless and ultimately the ultimate example of authoritarian forms of so-called democracy. However, as always, the anarchists have tended to sell themselves short, with mumbling and passive critiques or inarticulate sloganeering.

This year, however, there have been a few interesting things coming from the anarchist milieu that I feel are relatively positive. Firstly is this beautiful and well written poster from the guys at Last Hours zine. Rightly, Last Hours argues that a key element of electoral politics is the specialisation of political action. Related to this is the spatialisation of specialised politics. The poster seems to intimate that electoral politics sucks politics (or at least people’s perceptions thereof) out of everyday life, where it originates, and into Whitechapel, Downing Street and other halls of power. It is a disempowering force that removes real decision making power from our hands and into the hands of a tiny minority of elites and professional bureaucrats.

I don’t know about distribution of this poster, and it would be a shame to see it go unused and undistributed. They are selling the posters for £1.00 for 10, which aint bad, so in the absence of more co-ordinated plans, order a few and stick them up around your area.

Another worthwhile project is The Other Campaign, spearheaded by Liverpool Solidarity Federation. Rather than regurgitate passive critiques of electoral politics which, arguably, Last Hours is doing (admittedly in a very good way), LSF are embarking on a project to build a broad left-libertarian network of groups and individuals to systematically promote key principles in their communities: direct action, working class anti-fascism, mutual aid, solidarity, and non-hierarchical community and workplace activism.

This sounds like a great plan, and hopefully it will blossom. There is, however, a danger of these sorts of networked proejcts being too loose, too decentred and either disinitegrating or simply doing nothing. This is not a criticism of the proposal; rather, it is a concern with the organisational form that they propose to use. I’d be interested to hear how Liverpool SF hope to use this network as it develops, and how they plan to ensure a decent level of longevity. Perhaps i’m being too negative, though. Very rarely do anarchists come up with constructive, practical responses to electoral politics and this must be applauded loud and clear.

In the coming weeks, there will no doubt be a tidal wave of spin, baby-kissing, photoshoots and bland debates. The majority of people will either vote for the least bad option, or not vote at all. However, this isn’t a crisis of this current era, or a swipe at the brave women and men who fought and died for the vote. As Last Hours remind us, it is about the system itself that, even if it worked perfectly and 100% of voting-age citizens went to the polls, would still strip us of the vitality of the streets; the everyday knowledge and experience that institutionalised politics belittles; and the passion for something more than just putting an X in a box once every four years.

Thoughts on catering work and gender roles

Well who wouldn't be this happy on £6 per hour?!

It’s been a while since I’ve had a ‘proper’ job. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever had one, if a ‘proper’ job is a permanent, full-time, career-focussed job. It’s always been service sector work, like waiting tables, washing dishes and looking after kids.

PhDs are usually funded for three years, and i was lucky enough to get funding. It’s not much, but still enough to live on. However in September last year my three years was up and i needed to get some other income. What i found was a job as a waiter for a catering company. This company specialise in corporate events, usually bankers, insurance brokers, lawyers, and so on. They are subcontractors to events companies who are subcontracted out by companies to organise flashy parties, events and ceremonies for them; part of a huge pyramid that makes up the events industry for the nouveau riche.

From very early on, i was struck by the gendered division of labour within the company. The women (or ‘girls’ as they are usually called) serve and clear food and canapes. This is hard work, physically difficult, non-stop and utterly mindless. There is very little skill, inventiveness or joy in this role. For the men (or ‘boys’ as we are known) serve wine or work the bar. This involves pretending to be authoritative and knowledgeable about wine and making polite and slightly flirty conversation with guests.

This gender division of labour is itself a practice that is fundamentally based on old-fashioned gender stereotypes of the (knowledgeable and outgoing) man and the (drone-like, domesticated and homely) woman. Management routinely emphasise the importance of being the role; of living it, even in the kitchen and on the rare occasion when we get a break.

This is what you would expect from the nouveau riche so-called ‘high’ society, desperately clinging to antiquated norms dredged from the stagnant canal of middle class pretensions to unobtainable grandeur. The absurd idea that practising (nay, insisting that your servants practice) outmoded, reactionary normative codes somehow elevates you to the level of those who instituted them (i.e. aristocracy, gentry, etc.) is not really a major problem; after all, this isn’t exactly something specific to the catering industry. There is also another level to this, and i want to discuss it briefly.

One particularly notable dynamic within the workers is that this gendered division of labour creates gendered dynamics among the workers. There is of course a spatial division – chiefly between the food prep area and the drinks store – but also an insatiable tendency to exaggerate one’s masculinity/femininity, as you might expect. If you’re being told that you must inhabit the body of a confident, masculine, knowledgeable wine waiter, then – so the logic goes – you submit to authority and the conditions and practices of your working life, and perform that role as best you can.

However, this exaggeration of gender does not take place in a way one might expect. Relations are awkward, like a school disco, and the women are definitely in control for the most part. The matriarchs are chiefly young, look after the other women, and spend a great deal of time and effort belittling the professional capabilities of the Alpha males (very successfully, i might add!). Men, in turn, spend a lot of time and effort affirming their masculinity to each other through telling dirty jokes, attempting to carry fifteen chairs at once, and so on. They seem genuinely lost and child-like at times, far from the authoritative wine connoisseurs that they are supposed to be.

So these gendered categories take on characteristics that go beyond the simple male-authoritative/female-homely roles that are given to them. It’s one of those ways in which the dynamics of (in this case, patriarchal) structures in everyday life simply don’t work in the way one might expect. Although the situation remains, of course, horribly patriarchal at its root, the way these roles don’t conform to what is expected makes me feel a little more optimistic about the power of authority to structure our relations. Clearly it doesn’t always work.

I wish i could say something more profound, but it’s getting late, i’ve already rambled on for long enough, and i’m not the most articulate or experienced blogger yet. Onwards and upwards…