on authenticity
on authenticity – Theorizing Intersections of Race and Class in Consensus Process and Beyond (2024) by erica lagalisse via 24 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/erica-lagalisse-on-authenticity]
notes/quotes:
5
One of the “engaged universals” (Tsing 2005) that in some way *defines the “anarchist world” is “consensus process” (see e.g. Lagalisse 2017, ch. 1). In Graeber’s ethnographies of the “new anarchist movements” (2002, 2009, 2013) for example, he emphasizes at length how practices of consensus decision-making vs. voting are related to anarchist belonging. In his ethnographic imaginary and that of many of our contemporaries (Maeckelbergh 2009; Juris and Khasnabish 2013), anarchist collectives (“nodes”) are egalitarian by virtue of the fact that they use consensus process to make decisions, whereas the “network” (of “nodes”) is egalitarian in turn since it is a decentralized, and therefore non-hierarchical, web of these same collectives. I concur as to this broadly shared ideological position, yet in my ethnography I focus on how features of “consensus process” interact with local cultural codes, styles of speech, body language and emotional expression, unspoken rules about eye contact and laughter, place-based ideas around whose voice(s) matter more, and even culturally distinct notions around what counts as “agreement.” **Anarchist subjects involve complexes of desires, manners, ideas, aspirations and embodied values that betray both where and how they grew up, and which inspire them to interpret and practice “consensus” in different ways. The common claim that anarchists most everywhere reject the majority vote is fair (Graeber 2004, 2009; see also Lagalisse 2017, ch. 1), yet it is also true that in no two places is “consensus process” actually the same — there is no global, cross-cultural consensus on consensus.
*nothing to date has gotten to the root of problem.. to legit authenticity.. brown belonging law.. meadows undisturbed law.. et al
ie: public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. [again].. for (blank)’s sake..
**not to mention maté trump law et al
8
As early as the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999, anarchist activists across North Amer-ica were debating *whether the consensus processes of the anarchist movements de-scribed above were exclusive and elitist, or served to perpetuate white power within social movements. “When labor people or African American people have to organize within the consensus model they are uncomfortable with it and the culture that comes with it,” said Paul Engler (in Tarleton 2001). Rajah (2000) pointed out that “the reality is that certain individuals play roles (whether by choice or not) that are similar to **de facto traditional leadership roles.” Other critics observed that the longer hours involved in consensus process means that working people and people of colour are indirectly excluded (e.g. Treloar 2003). For her part, Larimore-Hall (2000) pointed out that consensus-decision-making, along with veganism and “not raising your voice in meetings,” are white cultural norms that alienate people of colour. These critiques are just a few of those found in print. Anyone who has participated in these social movements has also witnessed many similar live arguments. In 2011, David Graeber and I even participated together in one at an “Occupy Anthropology” assembly at the “Triple-A” (American Anthropology Association Annual Meeting) in Montreal.
*yep.. any form of m\a\p does that..
**et al.. cancerous distractions
10
In sum, the performance of objectivity and emotional restraint that is unmarked in bourgeois sociality is highly esteemed in North American anarchist social movement spaces, which are dominated by university student participants. Whether in workshops, meetings, assemblies or spokes councils, participants are *encouraged to suspend their personal interests and consider the common good, as are they discouraged from betraying feelings of anger or frustration in the interests of maintaining a “safe space” for the exchange of ideas. Joking, sarcasm and other forms of humour are discouraged for the same reason. In recent years (beginning ca. 2015), requests for advance “trigger warnings” attached to statements add a further need for speech to be reflexive and premeditated, yet it is nothing new for facilitators to encourage participants to be succinct, clear and “efficient,” effectively expecting participants to speak in thesis statements, nominally to not “waste time,” apparently without knowing that this is a specific classed genre.
*the meeting/assembly ness itslef does this.. keeps spaces unsafe.. again.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making..
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
To complexify matters further, the highly-codified nature of activist meetings, governed by speakers-lists, university-educated facilitators, “vibes-watchers,” minute-takers, formal agendas and well-contained, formalized body language, itself tends to stir up negative feelings among non-elites.[10] Many feel uncomfortable or frustrated in this context because they realize they will not be seen to speak properly or taken seriously; they know they lack the authority to speak in public (see e.g. Bourdieu 1984; Charlesworth 2000; as well as Habermas 1989; cf. Fraser 1992). Graeber (2013) points out that “the power to block is like giving the power to take on the role of Supreme Court… to anyone who has the courage to stand up in front of the entire group to use it.” His intended point is that the “block” is not often abused, wherein my rejoinder is that the children of lawyers may be more likely to make use of “blocks” while the children of janitors may be more likely to not have the courage to speak at all, much less “block” a proposal (the ones that try may easily be cast as “wing nuts”). *These discrepancies in participation are exacerbated rather than resolved by introductory workshops, lessons and pamphlets regarding meeting rules and “process” (cf. Maeckelbergh 2009, 164–170), with the result that many working-class participants who show up either fall silent, speak without being heard, or use humour to break the tension of formality, as we saw in the case of the bad anarchist at RAT, which doesn’t work in their favour.
endnote 10: “This was my point,” Marginalia by David Graeber (2016).
*no matter how nice sounding.. seat at the table ness is no where close to legit listening..
Anger presents a specific problem. Throughout the remainder of this section I attend to its particularity, moving beyond consideration of who gets angry and why to study the displacement of anger as constitutive of the bourgeois subject itself, as well as bourgeois longing for authenticity.
anger ness et al.. lewis anger law.. et al..
As we saw at the RAT conference, even a playful call to “have it out” may be considered aggressive. Beyond indicating a lack of self-restraint (as do laughter and tears), anger is marked as “violence” because in upper class life conflict is displaced to behind the scenes, be it removed to the “private sphere” or to institutions that wield violence on one’s behalf — consider how being able to call a lawyer on one’s behalf allows the caller to think of herself as not being physically violent because the police who implement the decisions of lawyers are different people than her. Note also that the people who lawyers and bureaucrats deploy with sticks and guns are of a lower class than them, reinforcing further the associations of upper class/non-violent and lower class/violent.
11
People without class power actually need to be able to read others’ emotions for practical operations of cooperation and conflict on an everyday basis, whereas wealthier people can and do pay to make problems go away, and have relatively little experience of equivalent “consensus processes” in everyday life as a consequence.
interpretive labor et al
12
Meanwhile, an always-attendant desire for “authenticity” (wherever it may be projected) reflects partial consciousness of dishonesty as a lynchpin of bourgeois life.
13
The fact that white middle class activists in my study who adopt accoutrements marked non-white are policed as engaging in (racist) “cultural appropriation” (see Lagalisse 2019a, ch. 9), while there is little equivalent policing of “appropriation” in regard to (inauthentically) wearing painters’ clothing as decoration, i.e. without having worked as a painter, invites insight. White middle class anarchists seek white redemption by flocking to communities of colour — these days especially indigenous ones (see e.g. Lagalisse 2011a; Dupuis-Déri and Pillet 2019)— hoping the authenticity of others will enable them to “come alive,” yet also work to construct a redeemable white identity via distinction from poor (“racist”) whites, and while appropriating markers of working-class-ness in an effort to signify “authenticity” itself, seeking class redemption as well
14
Consider also bell hooks’s (1997) analysis of dynamics in her classroom.
Several white women students complained that the atmosphere in the class was “too hostile.” They cited the noise level and the direct confrontations that took place in the room prior to class starting as an example of this hostility. Our response was to explain that what they perceived as hostility and aggression, we considered playful teasing and affectionate expressions of our pleasure at being together. We saw our tendency to talk loudly as a consequence of our often being in rooms where many people were speaking, as a consequence of cultural background: many of us were raised in families where individuals speak loudly. In their upbringing as white, middle-class females, the complaining students had been taught to identify loud and direct speech with anger. We explained that we did not identify loud or direct speech in this way and encouraged them to switch codes, to think of it as an affirming gesture. Once they switched codes, they not only began to have a more creative joyful experience in the class but also learned that silence and quiet speech can in some cultures indicate hostility and aggression (ivi, 405).
Rich white people are the only ones who feel genuinely comfortable with the middle class anarchists’ formalized consensus process; whereas rich people of colour struggle with feelings of ambivalence and frustration but often integrate to some degree; whereas poor white men experience it as a hostile environment yet sometimes integrate as well; whereas white women from a working-class background and poor men of colour both experience a double-whammy of hostility and rarely return if they show up in the first place; whereas women of colour are virtually absent or struggle with stereotypes of themselves as “angry.”
from google:
Lagalisse was a mentee of Graeber, and they were engaged from 2013 to 2017, a period of intense intellectual exchange.. Both were influential figures in anarchist anthropology, focusing on social movements, power, and alternative social structures.
_______
______
______
______
_____
_______
_______
be you. 