|
Lee Maracle wrote on the subject of organization and leadership - her stories about the movement back in the 60's and 70's and a phenomenon she saw happen again and again, that being the dominance of the various groups by white males and the imposition and enforcement of a style of organizing and leadership that is the style of the rulers, masters and colonizers. This then gets dressed up in fancy radical rhetoric, and supported and justified by their supposed superior knowledge and theory, and we don't ask if the way we organize, the way we see leadership is not itself having a more profound effect on the group than the goals and actual content of the discussion are. In order to "move forward" then, people either emulate the behavior of the dominant ones, or meekly submit to them. Rather than inclusiveness, exclusivity becomes the rule as all are driven out who will not respect the hierarchy and balance of power, or who try to express themselves in any ways at variance with or contradictory to the model for leadership and organization being imposed by the dominant few. Those dominant few are almost always white males, or people aping the aggressive, swaggering and bullying behavior of white males.
Here are some quotes from Maracle on this issue -
"For Native people, the ridiculousness of European academic notions of theoretical presentation lies in the inherent hierarchy retained by academics, politicians, law makers and law keepers. Power resides with the theorists so long as they use language no one understands. In order to gain the right to theorize, one must attend their institutions for many years, learn this other language, and unlearn our feeling for the human condition. Bizarre."
...
"Academicians waste a great deal of effort deleting character, plot, and story from theoretical arguments. By referring to instances, and examples, previous human interactions, and social events, academics convince themselves of their own objectivity and persuade us that a story is no longer a story."
...
"What is the point of presenting the human condition in a language separate from the human experience, passion, emotion and character? By presenting theory in a language no one can grasp, the speaker (or writer) retains authority over thought. By demanding that all thoughts (theory) be presented in this manner in order to be considered theory (thoughts), the presenter retains the power to make decisions on behalf of others."
It is white men who are dominating the boards, and the "winning" traits are swaggering macho male superiority. I hold that it is more white male privilege at play than it is radical or socialist politics there, and that people are cowed and intimidated by this, and that the attacks on people for emotionalism, personal stories and anecdotes, feelings and the like are part and parcel of a rigid and domineering white male persona and that this does more to support the ruling class and the dominant social group than anything else ever could, no matter how steeped in radical politics these leaders may be, leaders who bully their way to the top and pull rank with "radical cred." Macho brutality then gets its expression legitimatized as being more radical, more confrontational, and therefore more to be taken seriously, emulated and followed. So we admire, follow and emulate the very traits that are inseparable from the methods and manners and behaviors of the ruling class, the colonizers and the bosses and their henchmen, and therefore inseparable from colonialism and Capitalism itself.
This is why the movement doesn't grow - people hear radical talk but "smell" the same old bosses using the same old tactics and rhetoric. The dominant group at any board will not "go there" - feelings and community and relationship are rejected, the whole person cannot speak or be spoken to, because that would be "crap" (feminine and not masculine.) Hierarchical structure and divison of labor is insisted upon rather than consensual and democratic organizing, cerebral and academic approaches are used to the exclusion of all other human qualities. Anything that varies from the WASP approach, we are told would not "move us forward" (would not support and reinforce the hierarchical organization of the group and the authoritarian leadership model) and would "waste time" (would delve into areas that make the dominating ones very uncomfortable and challenge their control of the discussion and the group.) "I worked hard to be top dog, by studying Marx" is really no different than "I worked hard to be on top, by running a successful business and making a fortune." The qualities to be prized are macho and brutalized, arrogant and domineering, coldly calculating and cerebral.
Any talk of community, about friendships or relationships, about feelings, anything personal, any talk of personal struggles, any attempts to bring political theory down to the everyday struggles of real people, any talk about gender or GLBTQ issues, are mocked and ridiculed, characterized as "crap" that is "wasting our time" and keeping us from getting to the important stuff. The "important stuff" is lectures imposed on us by our presumed superiors.
Many of us have been pushing for years about talking more about racism - most recently the plight of the immigrants - we have been calling for social criticism along with political theory, and have been defending people for expressions of emotions or talk about community and friendship or for expressing political naivete on matters of theory and doctrine. Some of us have been talking about farming issues because this is a counterpoint to the urban-centric attitude of the dominant voices, who were raised in the urban stomping grounds of the dominant white males. It is clear reading Marx that the expropriation of farm land was the first stage of the rise of Capitalism, and also the cutting edge today for capitalist domination of the world as the land grab and corporate control over agriculture accelerates. That means that it is imperative that we discuss agriculture, colonialism, racism and sexism and homophobia, since these areas are where Capitalism directly impacts people's lives. Some have been trying bring environmental issues into the discussion and doing some great work there. Yet these subjects are ridiculed or dismissed - with great contempt and finality by some members.
It is no accident that gender issues, GLBTQ issues, environmental issues, farming and food issues, talk about community and relationships, about art and culture are the flash points. Those subjects challenge the dominance, the style and methods of organization and leadership of the urbanized white males.
It just cannot be a coincidence that in every group, and on every board, a handful of swaggering white males run the show, and always in the same way and with the same results - "get rid of the stuff that makes me uncomfortable or annoys me or that would lead to people questioning my power." This always causes splintering, disaffection, alienation, and shrinking participation, and robs us of the broad range of views we need and that foster points of connection and expanded communication.
More from Lee Maracle:
We didn't think much about the demands of the intellectuals...we assumed the intellectuals were smarter than we were, and, even more dangerously, that they embraced common desires. The words of the intellectuals came alive for us, breathed new life into our bent and tired bodies, and gave us the power to think thoughts and dream dreams. We loved them. We followed the direction that they alluded to - right down one blind alley after another. But we learned.
We found that intellectuals preferred the truth with its clothes on. They preferred polite discussions about abstract ideas and not the challenge that characterized our old ways. They preferred peace - at any price - to the inevitable consequences of social resistance.
...
The American Indian Movement began as a street patrol, fashioned after the Black Panther party, in much the same way that other Native militant groups were. Even the concepts of local chapters, national chairmen and mass recruitment into the organization were similar to the Black Panther Party's style of organizing. The politics were no different either. Culturally, the worst most dominant white male traits were emphasized; machismo and the boss mentality were the basis for choosing leaders. This idea of leadership was essentially a European one promulgated by power mongers.
...
Inherent in a people's philosophy is the sense of logic that allows them to see the internal relationships governing them. That logic guides their conduct, their governing structures, and their mode (way) of organizing far more surely than their vision of the future. We may all have a common goal, but the way we organize to achieve that goal will determine the results more surely than the goal itself.
...
I confess that I am an intellectual. I was at one time dismissive of this class but have since realized that, stuck within it as I am, alone with but a half-dozen "radicals" who are also attacked by this class, I am lonely. I want to be seen, heard, remembered.
...
There is nothing worse than being a woman who is dark, brilliant and declasse. Darkness is the absence of natural (normal?) class polish. Admit this, all of you. I laugh too loud, can't hold my brownie properly in polite company, and am apt to call shit "shit." I can't be trusted to be loyal to my class.
|