Out Now: Special issue of Sexualities on Anarchism & Sexuality
Deleuze spoke of "the indignity of speaking for others." Resisting any clear distinction between the personal and the political, this panel aims to explore the dignity of listening to others speak for themselves(and of being listened to). Although not usually set out in these terms, listening can be understood as a key ethic/practice of anarchist(ic) traditions. For ecological anarchisms, including primitivist, permaculturist, pagan and those inspired by deep ecology, this is expressed through listening to the land, to acknowledging the connection between human and more than human worlds. In the Zapatista's Other Campaign, it is demonstrated through a focus on listening to the struggles of others and supporting their capacity for autonomy rather than electoral campaigns to become representatives. In anarcha-feminisms and radical psychologies, learning to listen to oneself, to acknowledge one's own emotions and needs, is crucial to unlearning a patriarchal hierarchy of the rational over the emotional and to resist individualising pathologisation. Listening is also central to anarchist cultural politics, and political culture, in areas such as music and storytelling. Proposals for papers and other forms of presentation on any aspect of listening in relation to anarchism are welcome.
For further information or to submit titles or abstracts of proposed contributions, please contact: Jamie.Heckert@gmail.com
Entering the room, participants were greeted by the sounds of John Coltrane's Love Supreme. Anthony welcomed everyone and invited each of us to take a few moments to bring our awareness to the room we were in and to the others we were sharing it with. After the third repetition of this invitation, as people continue to join us slowly filling every available space in the room, Anthony's ring tone offered comic relief and we continued.
I spoke for about 15 minutes, I think, on anarchism as an ethics of relationships following fairly closely to the abstract I submitted (see below). I suggested that others might also find benefit in thinking of anarchism in this way: to overflow supposed divisions between the personal and political (or lifestyle and social), to stay in connection with the everyday challenges/opportunities of working/playing with others, to take inspiration from feminist, queer, poststructuralist and other traditions.
Anthony followed, after an extended pause, letting go of much that he had intended to speak on (see below) and instead offering an engaging narrative of his developing politics of gentleness. The key elements that I took from this were that politics is never somewhere else -- that we are always, already doing politics because we are always, already in relation with others. Power itself is banal, it's everywhere; it's _effects_ are interesting. Anthony emphasised how efforts to eliminate uncertainty necessarily involve the use of violence in order to control. A politics of gentleness, on the other hand, involves, in part, an acceptance of uncertainty.
Following our talks, I invited all of us to take three minutes of silence to breathe, to consider what we'd heard, or simply to rest. I loved the gentle sound of raindrops falling outside the room. Gently easing back into speech, I announced that we had no an interest in having a Q&A, having already spoken more than enough. I then proposed that we break up into small groups to discuss particular topics of interest. A request came to stay together, to appreciate the space we had already created together. My impression was that many agreed, so we stayed.
I had no idea how much would come out in this session. Here are just a few of the subjects that arose.
A major theme was the gendered (and racialised) dynamics of the conference where approximately 90% of the participants were male (and more white). Specific dynamics in the conference had triggered powerful emotions for many people and some of them were expressed here in a room where the gender balance was much more equal. One of the first was the way in which gentleness and listening can be aspects of women's subordinate roles. One woman found herself feeling angry saying, I don't want to be gentle anymore. Another said she really appreciated hearing two men talk about and practice listening and gentleness.
Specific questions arose about how to engage with men who had been trained to be brutal, whose training was a form of brutalisation. Discussion of military/police shifted to domestic violence, spoken of, at first, in distant terms. This triggered more emotionally open discussion and expression of lived experiences of domestic violence and a frustration with political abstraction. Violence is not just an example to support a theory.
One man spoke of how his experiences of particular working class masculinities when he was growing up demanded that he either bully or be bullied. He had bullied others and has since been practicing otherwise. Others spoke of particular listening & gentleness practices they found helpful in their own efforts to connect with themselves and with others: non-violent communication, co-counselling, yoga, chi gung and listening to the diversity of voices within oneself.
Expressions of naked emotion further broke through many of the dominant academic patterns of relating, for which several of us expressed appreciation. One man said, thank you, the conference has finally come alive for me. This led to space for folk to express their frustrations about the organisation of the conference and their desires for patterns of relating that had more in common with their experiences of anarchist organising. One woman cited An Open Letter to Men in the Movement, subtitled Shut the Fuck Up, encouraging those with privilege to speak less and listen more. This led to further discussion about how to take responsibility for desires for change at the conference and the emotional challenges involved. One woman said, I'm a direct activist. I don't worry about being 'rude' when I'm locking on to a power station. Why do I worry about interrupting oppressive behaviour in the university?
What is it about the University, or rather our individual and collective relationships with the spaces called 'University,' that make it so easy to fall into patterns of silencing, of obedience? I was incredibly nervous about doing it differently, organising a session on listening when every other panel at the conference was focused on Politics. Anthony and I spent two hours meeting before our session, carefully thinking and planning ways of inviting different possibilities. We drew on our experiences of other spaces (workshops, knowledgelabs, yoga classes, the anarchism & sexuality conference, non-violent communication classes, and more) to craft a different kind of space. We did this because both of us were weary of frustrations experienced in standard conferences and had desires for a more profound sense of connection with others.
Still, I found myself wanting to create structure. With half an hour or for remaining our allotted time, conversation drew to a halt. I suggested a variety of possible listening exercise as we might do, when someone else suggested we just have a break. I felt relieved and suggested five minutes. After resting, I decided to suggest that folk break into informal discussion groups or rest or whatever and then realised that this had already been self-organised. Ah, anarchy! Five minutes before the end of session, most of us spontaneously regrouped for a closing which included various expressions of appreciation and possibilities for carrying on to engage with the rest of the conference differently.
Jamie Heckert, 22nd October 2008
Jamie Heckert, 'Listening, Caring, Becoming: Anarchism As an Ethics of Relationships'
Anarchism is frequently considered to be alternatively a political ideology, a social movement or a form of political culture. Drawing on queer and feminist writings as my own experience both in anarchist politics and in sex education, I suggest that thinking of anarchism as an ethics of relationships is consistent with key elements of the tradition as well as offering fruitful insights for everyday relationships. Anti-state, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, anarchism and other forms of radical politics are criticised for being anti-everything, begging the question, what is anarchism for? While on one hand offering utopian visions of life after capitalism, the anarchist tradition is also firmly grounded in everyday practices of relationships. In anarchist critiques of speaking for others and in practices of collective organising, I see a radical commitment to listening. In offering challenges to institutionalised competition and in demonstrating the benefits of mutual aid, I see a radical commitment to care. In undermining the 'false futures' of neoliberalism and stories of the 'end of history' and in practices of individual and collective empowerment and transformation, I see a radical commitment to becoming. As an ethics of relationships, anarchism might not only evade criticism as utopian or nihilist, it may provide a profound source of inspiration for the everyday challenges of our relationships with ourselves, each other and the earth.
Anthony Mc Cann, 'Listening as a Methodology: the possibilities of gentleness in the social sciences'
In this paper I will offer a discussion of 'listening' in ways that might inform methodologies in the social sciences, in particular the disciplines influenced by anthropological ethnography. Is 'participant observation' unnecessarily limiting as an epistemological stance within disciplines that allow us to privilege context? In light of recent work in the anthropology of the senses, might 'sensitive presence' be a more appropriate way to think about the epistemological aspirations of anthropological fieldwork? What might be some political consequences of holding to either 'participant observation' or 'sensitive participation'? To what extent might models of action research provide us with helpful thinking about the possibilities of helpful sensitivity in research relationships? What thinkers in nursing, healthcare, and social work might be helpful in providing a more systematic role for notions of presence, listening, respect, and sensitivity in methods and methodologies in the social sciences? If listening or 'sensitive presence' were to be foregrounded in the social sciences, what might be the consequences for our understandings of power, and for understandings of our power?