“You Must Avoid Politics”: A Pending Death Sentence

Being told to avoid politics is like being told to drop dead. Perhaps that seems harsh. But one of the main and most celebrated insights of feminism is that the personal is political.

My basic reading of this important feminist lens it is that everyday life is political, or shaped by institutions, mores and norms that are historied and socially constructed. It’s not only the public sphere of mainstream politics that is political – rallies or parliament meetings or insurgencies or whatever. It is also the way that family life is structured, the way that work is structured, etc. The way that everything has come to be the way it is. As such, the small-scale, personal interactions of every day life are historied and political. Consider such things as the Politics of Death. The Politics of Food. The Politics of Water. Even these things that seem “essential” to human existence carry with them the complexity of their histories of conceptualization and their historied political shapings. Others have written far more eloquently on these topics so I will not elaborate on them here.

Casting life as political is a robust counter to essentialist thought, which has long been mobilized in order to justify “the ways things are” – often using long-since disproven but often-recycled arguments about human nature. Or someone’s “natural” place (for instance, a woman’s natural place is in the home). These arguments are often used by those who profit from “the way things are” to maintain a social order which is usually grossly twisted in one direction. “The way things are”, reads the assertion of power, “is inevitable. Accept it. You cannot change it. We have already won. This is the best that you can hope for.”

The idea that life is political creates space for agency. Because much of life is not written in stone, this means that things can change. Taking into account the historied nature of institutions is a way of recognizing that things have changed in the past. Moreover, because much of life is political, and because much of life is incredibly fucked up in our shared contemporary moment, there is also an imperative for action – inherent in this is the notion that things must change – a crucial moral imperative that I believe is inherent in the celebrated insight.

What brings me to write this out is that recently I have taken an opportunity to work for an NGO in the Philippines as part of a co-op work term for my undergraduate degree. Throughout the process of me getting here – be it the original interview, the orientation, safety warnings and procedures and government bulletins – there has been one concrete message.

You are in an Other place. Do not interfere. Do as you’re told. You are part of a Program. With RULES. Politics in the Philippines can get you into trouble. One of our rules is that You Must Avoid Politics.

As someone who is an advocate for a radical transformation from now and towards more feminist relations (along the lines of bell hooks or Lydia Sargent), it should be understood that the assertion for me to drop my politics is attempted murder of myself as a political being. Dramatic claim, yes – it is perhaps more an attempt to incarcerate or incapacitate than to kill, but the point still stands. Political lobotomy, some would argue, is a fate worse than death. The message is to simply be a good, obedient worker. No rallies or meetings or assertions. It was actually quite funny – my resume shows that I’ve been involved in political organizing (more grassroots NGOs than the INGO I’m working for right now). This, along with the interview, gave the co-op folks reason for concern. This informed the emphasis in the above mentioned death sentence.

I am aware of politics as a form of cultural insensitivity, or even (some would argue) “Western cultural imperialism”. Being someone who has had the privilege of learning about anti-oppression and counter-oppression in many forms for the past four years at University does not give me license to go around telling people what to do (this almost doesn’t even need to be stated). I always try to be cognizant of my privilege. What I really seek is an honest exchange of ideas. The difficulty is to engage without pontificating (I’m fully willing to admit that sometimes I get pissed off and end up calling someone a sexist or racist or capitalist, which effectively ends the conversation) but instead trying to enact a sort of co-learning with people through asking unassuming but critical questions. It’s a learning process, though, and I don’t pretend to be perfect.

However, killing politics or political discussions in the name of not hurting someone’s feelings – is this legitimate? With this question, and this discussion the specter of political correctness rears its confusing head, and along with it come a thousand thousand questions. I will say that I am most tempted to simply be honest. To be dishonest, and hold my tongue and my politics means that I assume that people here are weak and that I need to censor myself in order to protect them and their culture from my interference – a heap of paternal nonsense.

“Humans rights as Imperialism” is a phrase that I’ve often heard thrown around. I’ve also wondered about it. Is it progressive or radical people who use this concept in a genuine way (for instance, carefully analyzing a certain action or claim and the consequences, and then having a discussion about it)? Or has it become an unthinking catch-phrase or pronouncement that, perhaps even originally mobilized by reactionary elements, has entered the lexicon of people working towards a better world who would prefer a perfect (and perhaps unattainable) politics than a messy intercultural interactive one – a REAL one?

On this point I would quote Frederick Douglass, who said that “those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are ones who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.” Douglass was a leader of the abolitionist movement, as well as supporter of immigrants rights and suffrage struggles (he often said, “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong”). The ones he mentions, those who profess to favour freedom, are perhaps captured by a capitalist mindset. Politics leads to, at times, disruption. We must not have disruption. We must have order, and nice, passive, lukewarm conversations about the weather or sports, and everyone make sure to get to work. Work is important. Just do your job. No politics. Disruption is bad for the economy. Never mind that the economy is bad for the people. Just work. OR ELSE. So these folks might be well-meaning, but have a strange commitment to the rules, and the institutions of the existing order.

Antonio Gramsci pointed out, in the way few Marxists have, that the rule of one class over another does not depend on economic or physical power alone (for instance, cops breaking up striking workers who are standing up for their rights). It also requires that the ruled accept the system of beliefs (its social, cultural and moral values) of the ruling class. They speak to what Douglass was critical of – an obedience to the very order that holds them down. Fear is often a mechanism of control – either of the police breaking a strike for instance, or of a world where things are different. And so the rules of the existing order are internalized. For instance, accepting whiteness as The Ideal. Or accepting the notion that silence is golden (here I mean in strictly political terms – silence when you have a headache is fucking awesome).

I suppose I should take some time to expand and clarify this point – I definitely think that “Western Cultural Imperialism” exists. The flood of bleach that is currently whitewashing the world’s cultures is indeed problematic and an example of the abovementioned interlization. For example, there was an ad on the radio the other day that was selling a soap product that made your skin both whiter AND less dirty. The association of whiteness with cleanlieness and purity, and ‘goodness’ in general, and non-whiteness with dirtiness and ‘badness’ in general was pretty evident. I can’t remember the exact phrases, but the internalized racism was clear. I also saw a television ads for armpit whitener! Many models you see on the billboards are either white or have very light skin colour. So the “White West” becomes Life Goal, or perhaps National Goal, and assimilation and capitulation becomes The Path. I find it hugely problematic. But so do quite a few people here that I’ve spoken with – in the very political conversations that I was warned against.

I suppose what is most problematic for me is inaction and silence. Even thoughtful silence is a helping hand to those who profit from the suffering of others. For every word has some potential for a small revolution. Okay, so maybe that last bit is a little romantic. But shouldn’t it be in the places where we are encouraged to remain silent where our voices are raised louder so that they may echo and shake the cold chambers of injustice and shake things? I think that giving the fuckers at the levers of the giant death-and-hatred machines around the world deserve at the VERY LEAST a headache.

The Philippines is a place where politics is dangerous. For instance, already in the new president’s term, a mere 46 days, 5 activists and 1 journalists have been victim of political murders. As such, there is good reason to be cautious. To have conversations contextually. And to be flexible.

But I hardly think it’s reason to commit suicide.