Back to the Venomous
Butterfly page
Back to the Killing King Abacus Main
Page
AGAINST THE LOGIC OF SUBMISSION:
REVOLT, NOT THERAPY
When the situationist idea that revolution would be therapeutic
found its way into the English language, it opened a Pandora’s box of
misunderstanding. It seems clear to me that the situationists were pointing out
that a real revolutionary rupture would break down the social constraints which
underlie so much of what is considered “mental illness” and “emotional
disturbance”, freeing people to discover their own meanings and methods of
thinking and feeling. But many have understood this concept differently, taking
it to mean that revolution is to be something like an encounter group, a
counseling session or psychological “self-help” activity. Ceaseless self-examination,
embarrassing confessionalism, the gamut of support groups, safe spaces, and the
like come to be understood as “revolutionary” activity. And many so-called
revolutionaries, in conformity to such a practice, tend to become the
emotionally crippled neurotics that they assume they are, searching for a
revolutionary healing that will never come, because this assumed role is
inherently self-perpetuating and, thus perpetuates the society that produces
it. What is missing from this therapeutic conception of revolution is revolt.
The destruction of the social order with
the aim of liberating ourselves from all domination and exploitation, from
every constraint on the full development of our singularity, certainly requires
an analysis of how our lives, our passions, our desires and dreams have been
alienated from us, how our minds have been constrained to reason in certain
ways, how we have been trained to follow the logic of submission. But such an
analysis must be a social analysis, not a psychoanalysis. It must be an
examination of the social institutions, roles and relationships that shape the
conditions under which we are forced to exist.
Consider this analogy. If a person has
broken her leg, of course, she must try to set it, get a cast or splint and find
a crutch. But if the reason why he is having trouble walking is that someone
has put a ball and chain on his leg, then her first priority is to cut off that chain and then to guarantee that it
won’t happen again by destroying the source of the chain.
By accepting the idea (promoted heavily by
progressive education and publicity) that the structures of oppression are
essentially mindsets inside of ourselves, we become focused on our own presumed
weakness, on how crippled we supposedly are. Our time is eaten up by attempts
at self-healing that never come to an end, because we have become so focused on
ourselves and our inability to walk that we fail to notice the chain on our
leg. This endless cycle of self-analysis is not only tedious and self-indulgent;
it is also utterly useless in creating a revolutionary project, because it gets
in the way of social analysis and it transforms us into less capable
individuals.
The therapeutic approach to social
oppression ends up focusing on a myriad of “isms” with which we are infected:
racism, sexism, classism, statism, authoritarianism, ablism, agism, etc., etc.
Because the first two give very real and clear expression of the difference
between psychoanalysis and social analysis, between the approach of therapy and
that of revolt, I will examine them briefly. Viewing racism and sexism as
essentially unconscious mindsets and the behavior these produce, the nature of
which we are not always aware, we are drawn onto a practice of constant
self-examination, constant self-doubt, which effectively disables us,
particularly in our ability to interact with the other. Racism and sexism
become something nebulous, a pervasive virus which infects everyone. If one has
the bad fortune of being “white” and “male” (even if one consciously rejects
all the social constraints and definitions behind such labels), then he is
required to accept the judgment of “non-whites” and “females” about the
significance, the “real” unconscious motivations of his actions. To do
otherwise would constitute arrogance, a lack of consideration and an exercise
of “privilege”. The only outcome I can see from such a way of dealing with
these matters (and it is certainly the only outcome I have ever seen) is the
creation of a bunch of shy, yet inquisitorial mice tip-toeing around each other
for fear of being judged, and just as incapable of attacking the foundations of
this society as they are of relating to each other.
If, on the other hand, we view racism and
sexism as expressions of the social ideological constructs of race and gender
which have specific institutional foundations, a very different approach
applies. The concept of race as it is currently understood here in North
America has its origins in the institutions of black slavery and the genocide
against the indigenous people of this continent. Once established by these
institutions, it became rooted into all of the power structures on one level or
another due to its usefulness to the ruling class, and was trickled down to the
exploited classes as a means of separating them and keeping them fighting among
themselves. Sexism has its origins in the institutions of property, marriage
and the family. It is here that patriarchy and male dominance have their seat.
Within this framework, gender is created as a social construct, and as with
race, it is the continuing usefulness of this construct to the ruling class
that has kept it in place in spite of the increasingly obvious absurdity of the
institutions that are its basis. Thus, the destruction of racism and sexism
must start with the explicitly revolutionary project of destroying the
institutional frameworks which are the current basis for the constructs of race
and gender. Such a project is not one of therapy, but of revolt. It will not be
accomplished by shy, tiptoeing mice—nor by inquisitors—but by self-confident,
indomitable rebels.
I won’t go into the absurdity of such terms
as classism or statism here because that is not my purpose. My purpose is to
point out that, though revolutionary struggle may, indeed, have the
“therapeutic” effect of breaking down social constraints and thus opening the
mind to new ways of thinking and feeling that make one more intelligent and
passionate, this is precisely because it is not therapy, which focuses on one’s
weakness, but a self-determined project of revolt springing from one’s
strength.
Freedom belongs to the individual—this is a
basic anarchist principle—and as such resides in individual responsibility to
oneself and in free association with others. Thus, there can be no obligations,
no debts, only choices of how to act. The therapeutic approach to social
problems is the very opposite of this.. Basing itself in the idea that we are
crippled rather than chained, inherently weak rather than held down, it imposes
an obligatory interdependence, a mutuality of incapacity, rather than a sharing
of strengths and capabilities. In this, it parallels the official way of
dealing with these problems. And no wonder. It is the nature of weakness to
submit. If we all assume our own weakness, our perpetual internal infection by
these various social diseases, then we will continue to nurture a submissive way
of interacting with the world, ever ready to admit guilt, to apologize, to back
down from what we’ve said or done. This is the very opposite of responsibility,
which acts consciously with the assurance of one’s projectual approach to life,
ready to take the consequences of one’s choices—the outlaw worthy of her
transgressions.
In the face of ten thousand years of institutional
oppression, ten thousand years in which a ruling class and the structures that
support its power have determined the conditions of our existence, what we need
is not therapy, but strong-willed revolt aimed at developing a revolutionary
project that can destroy this society and its institutions.
Back to the Venomous Butterfly page
Back to the Killing King Abacus Main Page