Monday, 7 April 2014

 The Revolution Will Not Be Funded Anthology

"As Angela Davis poignantly argued in her opening address at the first Color
of Violence conference, violence is constituted in the very fabric of society. In no way an unexpected aberration in the order of things, violence is the knife that cuts and the thread that sews this racist imperial nation together; violence is the
order of things. It creates and separates nation-states, slices us into genders and sexes, Global North and South, distances the suburbs from the inner cities, brown
and black from white"

"Violence itself, as Angela Davis also noted, is a "powerful ideological conductor, 
whose meaning constantly mutates." Discourses of violence are situated and
produced amid specific political and historical interests and contexts. So it is compelling to note that the state has ushered in what have become dominant narratives on violence against women that do not consider the intersection of state and interpersonal violence"
"When the state defines violence against women, it excludes from the definition among the most egregious attacks in the history of the human experience, dismissing many experiences of colonial and racist violence. In fact, the state narrative on violence against women excludes just about every form of violence, including military violence"
Through the criminalization process, the state also produces a racist, sexist, and heteronormative discourse on violence that works to purport men of color as hyper-violent, legitimating the racist practice of containing, detaining, 
invading, criminalizing, and splitting people-of-color communities.  The ideological
work of a hegemonic discourse on violence against women that avoids
many other prevalent forms of violence, particularly those experienced by
women of color and our communities, sets up a pretense to address violence
while simultaneously protecting white supremacist, patriarchal, and capitalist
social arrangements. This analysis begins to reveal not only the state's complicity
in maintaining violence against women, but the state's interest in deploying
violence against women. This is the state's double discourse on violence against
women: expressing interest in care, definition, and intervention of certain forms
of violence (individual) on one hand, while dismissing, negating, and deploying
other forms of violence."
"While the state posits itself as an ally in ending violence against women, the
antiviolence movement grows ever more dependent on its funding and ideology.
Antonio Gramsci argued that the consent of the ruled is achieved through the
state's education of the masses. In other words, the feeding of the line is key to
establishing hegemony, the way the dominant group, through culture, folklore,
and an array of social institutions, creates what comes to be known as "common  
 sense." And through the ideological disbursements in funding, we come
to expect prisons, therapists, and medicine to eliminate violence against women. The NPIC has delivered the line."
"Funding, whether government or foundation money, emerges from the deepest
ravages of capitalist inequality. Simply put, the government will not dole out
dollars to organize against privatization, against the fourth world war, or against
itself-in other words, it will not fund the movement to end violence against
women. Paolo Freire once said that violence is an instrument of terror intended
to immobilize the opponent; it stands then that the non-profit industrial complex
is guilty of deploying the violence of non-profitization, an attempt to sink our
movements. And, just as we have always done, we will not stand for violence. We
will call out injustice wherever we see it and continue our long, hopeful fight to
end violence against women and the fourth world war"



are still many people who believe the myth that anyone can make it in this society-

that there is a level playing field. To keep that myth believable there have

to be examples of people who have "made it"-have gone to college from a poor

family, moved from homelessness to stable housing, found a job despite having

few "marketable" skills. Some of those who have buffer-zone jobs determine

which people will be the lucky ones to receive jobs and job training, a college

education, housing allotments, or health care. Those who gain access to these

benefits are held up as examples that the system works and serve as proof that if

one just works hard, follows the rules, and doesn't challenge the social order or

status quo, she or he, too, will get ahead and gain a few benefits from the system.

Sometimes getting ahead in this context means getting a job in the buffer zone

and becoming one of the people who hands out the benefits"

"That is, instead of saying,  how can we include women of color, women with disabilities, etc., we must
ask, what would our analysis and organizing practice look like if we centered
them in it? By following a politics of re-centering rather than inclusion, we
often find that we see the issue differently, not just for the group in question,
but everyone."



No comments:

Post a Comment