About manners, emotions and personal engagement

[vito]

This follows from E.D. Robson's last email on GazaSol-Gen, some replies on what has been said there.

From E.D. ROBSON's email
I would also like to issue a word of caution about nuance on the internet.
Eleftherios and others, it is VERY difficult to judge tone in emails.
Sarcasm can be massively misinterpreted and probably shouldn't be used as a
result.

It is also quite problematic to single out individuals and criticise them.
It might be more constructive to talk to them in person about the issues
that you have. What might be an attempt to be constructive, can be hurtful
and come across as a denunciation rather than an attempt to move things
forward. Please don't be personal in emails. Bringing up 'emotional
problems' in a mailing list email is a very offensive thing to do.


I disagree. Being personal is part of being politically involved. Eleftherios was personal, Beccy too. I greatly enjoy reading their posts because they show true engagement, they do not separate the private from the public on issues that demand true engagement. Emotions are part of politics and they are a legitimate topic of discussion. It might be offensive for some coming from a certain type of socialisation, but let's not forget that not considering emotions is also offensive for others, coming from different backgrounds.

In fact, there are even class issues there that seem to highlight how a rather non-emotional engagement with things is usually a middle/upper-middle class way of dealing with the world. There's also issues with certain types of British socialisation. And there are ultimately issues with how British upper/middle class socialisation influences the way people act and behave in the very elitist University of Cambridge. I really find it discriminatory to say that references to personal and emotional issues are offensive. What is offensive in it? So, if as a social anthropologist or psychologist, I use obscure jargon to basically categorise and analyse how real people think, act and feel, that's social science. But if I say that a certain person might have this and that issue and that is why is acting in this way in CGS, it is offensive? What's the rationale behind this? This highly depersonalised/technical discourse tends to favour a certain elitist upper-middle class socialisation over others, and ultimately it is used to discriminate people who don't subscribe to that worldview on the basis of manners and use of 'inappropriate' language. These are the things that I was also fighting by being at the occupation, by confronting proctors, and the whole system of manners used by university administrators to discriminate, divide and rule.

I really think that banning the personal and the emotional from discussions ends up in a sterile bureaucratic discussion, once again giving legitimacy to certain voices and delegitisiming other equally valid voices as 'rude', 'sarcastic' or similar.

I think these are issues that need to be discussed and also nothing should be given for granted. Several emails on Gaza-Sol have seen similar types of interventions, with very assertive invocations to manners and certain etiquette of behaviour which are not for granted at all. Let's discuss this in the open, and unpack the prejudices, values and disadvantages behind each of this view, behind appeals to manners, behind defence of sarcasm, behind appeals to more personal engagements. They are all ideologies that should not be taken for granted.

[patrick]

I agree wholeheartedly on this.

If we are going to engage in substantive discussions, then we need to be able to say things like 'I think you're completely wrong' without worrying that this will contravene some rules of politeness. There's a limit somewhere I suppose, but it is far more appropriate so say, for example:

'Patrick is wrong about Hammas because...'

than to explain Patrick's viewpoint (which everyone will have just heard in the course of an argument) then to criticise it. It's simply quicker and easier, not to mention more accountable, to keep tag people's opinions with their names.

Come on guys, we can disagree, argue, and still stay friends (or, in any case we can still dislike each other personally and cooperate on an issue that is far bigger than any one personal relationship.)

[xylokarabes]

Patrick, I'd totally agree with that. As a proviso, though, I'd add that the reason Ed's mini recruitment drive for his particular brand of Trotskyism attracted opprobrium at the meeting was not due to its political content, but instead simply a matter of people disliking such events being used for that sort of a purpose. Quite understandably. We're meant to be there to help the Palestinians, not boost memberships of Leninist outfits.

[ellyrobson]

I suppose, just to clarify myself, I was making a point about respecting one another, especially on the internet.

I feel that there is a discrepancy between the way that people approach each other face-to-face and on the internet - you only have to look at some of the people who posted on the blog during the occupation, but made no effort to meet with us face-to-face. Whether that's because the internet gets rid of societal inhibitions or whatever you want to attribute it to, I still think it is important to treat one another with respect.

I certainly would never try to shut down debate, dialogue, dissent, disagreement. These are important parts of CGS.

But I think that criticism should attempt to be constructive and that we should keep an eye on our common ground as well as where we disagree.

Elly

[anarchistluke]

I've still not got my head straight enough to reply to your thoughts vito, it's not that I'm ignoring you or anything, but I need to think a lot before I give a close reply following each point, if I'm going to do so.

Secondly, Pat, I think everyone agrees with that, but there's a difference between political disagreement and hurtful, embarassing, etc comments, which are actually more likely to stifle debate than encourage it. Will a shy person voice their view if they think that the next person to speak will say "nah, that's fucking stupid, what kind of idiot thinks that? only a retard would agree with you". I'm taking an extreme example I guess, but the point is that you can be frank without being hurtful.

As for why people laughed at Ed in the meeting last night - I can't speak for anyone except myself and Andy, but both of us laughed purely because we saw it coming and thought it was funny that Ed was so 'predictable' and 'in character'. I actually wholeheartedly support the appropriateness of him choosing to say what he said, when he said it. I'm also grateful that he has, by and large, not been trying to recruit or anything like that*. The way the announcement of that event was phrased did lead a lot of us to believe that it was the 'appropriate place' for us to stand up and say "ok, here's why you should be a socialist, and this is the group I belong to", etc.

*Although I still think that he was taking the piss a little bit in the run-up to the CUSU elections.

[patrick]

In retrospect, Ed's 'in character' plug was kindof amusing.

However, I think his intention was to say that he thinks everyone should join a political party, and this is a political point to make, and as such should be encountered on the level you'd encounter any serious statement of opinion. I'm not sure how the announcement was phrased, but when I read 'political discussion', I imagine a set of issues, linked together by vaious (maybe competing frameworks) expressed through organisations or groups. For some of us it is impossible to talk politics without saying 'this is about socialism and class analysis' because that is how we think about the world.

The opinion 'I think you should be a socialist' is a perfectly valid one to bring up in a political discussion.

I couldn't say whether serious and frank exchanges of opinion will be good for the group or not (we'll see what happens with the fortnightly discussions next term), but if we're going to engage in serious exchanges of opinion, we have to be prepared for people to promote their own ideas and their own organisations.

[xylokarabes]

A political party is something quite different to his political party. And even the former is contentious, what with the anarchists and so on. I really do think that that sort of thing does more harm than good: we ought to ignore our sect divisions as much as possible, not needlessly emphasise them.

[beccy]

There are far more important political questions to the actual situation in Israel-Palestine than which party we belong to, or which ideology we ascribe to.

And it's perfectly possible to respect each other whilst having honest debate. Manners or etiquette for the sake of it are of course ridiculous: making a person feel comfortable speaking openly by being friendly and respectful is not.

[eleftherios]

I agree with this from Beccy,

"There are far more important political questions to the actual situation in Israel-Palestine than which party we belong to, or which ideology we ascribe to."

However, unity is crucial at the CGS and unity is enhanced when we are open, honest and true to each other about our political views. Our political views are important because as you said the occupation and other actions we did were political actions.

[xl269]

libcom.org/library/letter-students-december-2008-16122008

Don’t listen to any political organization (either anarchists or anyone). Do what you need to. Trust people, not abstract schemes and ideas. Trust your direct relations with people. Trust your friends; make as many people as possible in your struggle your people. Don’t listen to them when they’re saying that your struggle doesn’t have a political content and must seemingly obtain. Your struggle is the content. You only have your struggle and it’s in your hands to preserve its advance. It’s only your struggle that can change your life, namely you and the real relations with your fellowmen.

[digger1]

The LibCom quote is brilliant. In fact I can safely say it's the only good thing I've ever read on LibCom.

I agree that Political issues relating to Israel-Palestine are important but they are also bound up in the current debate. You can't say to people from vanguardist parties: "lets just talk about Palestine and lets have none of that sectarian nonsense". A political debate about Palestine will inevitably stray on to these sorts of topics if parties are involved. This is not a statement against their involvement I'm happy they are heavily involved but you can't say "bring your ideology but leave your party at the door", for these individuals their party is bound up in their ideology.

On the subject of what Ed said, though it feels slightly wrong seeing as he's not posted, I laughed because it was so typically trot. Lets not confuse the issue here, Ed was in no way the first to mention socialism or the class conflict, several in the meeting mentioned either 'socialism' or 'the left' or 'class conflict' or 'anti-stateism' to almost no reaction, although opposing states got a laugh and a comment just as Ed did.
Had he simply talked as a socialist and mentioned his party or even spoken about his party line I would have had no problems. It was reduced to "I'm a socialist and I believe this, if you agree with me on socialism you should join my party the AWL" I think you'll agree there is an issue.
The AWL has it's merits, if I had to go trot I'd go Workers Liberty. But to present a basic socialist view point and then say
"if you agree join this very specific party" especially as no-one else had used that meeting, and as far as i recall, though correct me if I'm wrong, ANY OTHER CGS meeting, for blatant recruitment to any of the myriad of organisations, including anarchist and left reformist organisations, who would also agree with the very general socialist view of the world.

Anyway, Personal Arguments yes, Personal Insults no

[xylokarabes]

I concur with digger.

(Except idk if I'd go WL if I was forced into Trothood.)