Currently, I'm really interested in institutions, and how they facilitate participation and engagement with the world.
There is a problematic history of coercive, authoritarian and inadequate approaches to activist and citizen learning and political practice in Sydney, that is ingrained in many of our activist cultures.
You cannot really point the finger and make accusations, because it is actually very difficult to overcome the authoritarian cultural obstacles to useful and liberatory activism. There is a fine line between having an efficient operation, and excluding members from decisionmaking.
How can we distinguish non-authoritarian methodology? This question is connected to educational methodology, which is key in social change. Paulo Freire's analysis of the 'banking method of education' (oppressive) versus the 'problem-posing method of education' (liberatory) is relevant in this regard.
When I read pamphlets, or any textual artifact of the Left in Sydney, I often sense that the writer is coming from a rigid position, seeking to 'politicise' me, or 'implant knowledge' into me, rather than to enter into dialogue about the world together. Funnily enough, I notice a very different, more open-minded and reflective/reflexive writing style in Melbourne. (sorry i'll have to find examples- just give me some time- i'll update this post)
Politics in Sydney can be divided thus:
Authoritarian:
Most parts of the Liberal party, most parts of the Labor Party (including the former DLP), Marxist-Leninist groups, Stalinist groups (ex CPA groups), some Anarchist groups that have insular 'in group' tendencies, some top-down environmental groups, many NGO's, most unions.
Non-Authoritarian:
Most environmental groups, The Greens, small parts of the Labor and Liberal Parties, Aid/Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, some unions, some Anarchist groups.
Usually, to overcome an authoritarian culture requires that a support network is strong, and that it promotes a different, more inclusive culture than the mainstream.
The most famous social movements in Sydney: BUGAUP, Aboriginal reconciliation, and The Green Bans, were all non-authoritarian.
Unfortunately, non- authoritarianism is the best descriptor of these groups (rather than a positive descriptor such as left 'libertarian' or 'democratic') because they were usually unable to articulate a positive pro-active program for democratic social transformation.
When groups overcome authoritarianism, they are more likely to be successful, since a less coercive attitude encourages participants to realise their creative potentials. Yet overcoming authoritarianism is hard. It requires sharp analysis and good group process/ facilitation, that recognises the impact of inequality. Our society is inherently hierarchical, and different people have different levels of privilege, exerting power over others easily when they are stereotypically 'normal' people (ie anglo macho males). Yet the particular type of authoritarianism that Sydney-based activism suffocates from is particularly bad, because it promotes political relationships that derail EVEN those initiatives that ordinary people without any activist expertise can initiate. There are so many examples of keen, open-minded people with much organiser potential who I have seen ultimately turned away by the antics of the Sydney Left.
The collapse of the Sydney Walk Against the War Coalition is a prominent example of this.
This is related to our track record with coalitions. Last week, I sat in on the development of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition in Melbourne. I've been reflecting on coalitions in Australia. I actually think we suffer from a 'coalition deficiency'. There are very few examples of successful coalitions operating in Australia. Our political culture is affected by this.
Anyway. I remembered that many organisations in North America (even GRASPE McGill, which was a collective of students) begin from the assumption that they are coalitions, that must be bridges of difference, and hence begin by coming to consensus on principles of unity. We neglect this step. We assume that members are broadly 'left', and hence the basis of unity does not need to be explicit. I think this is a problem. In other words, in addition to the predominant representation of coalitions as platforms of unity, I believe that the most important aspect of coalitions is their ability to create political space for difference.
Journalistic commentary on political methodology?
Journalistic commentary on political methodology is sparse, and is usually limited to the ways that politicians market themselves to the populace. The predominant commentaries on politics in the Australian press and literature neglect activists as political agents. There are very few recent books or articles on the methodologies of the 'left' in Australia.
Apart from Amanda Lohrey's essay on the rise of the Greens in Australian politics (and even then, as far as I can remember, her analysis focuses on the parliamentary sphere, and the attempt to gain a majority, as the single type of political subjectivity that can be attained in politics).
Actually, I think the best book on political methodology in Australia is Meredith and Verity Burgmann's Green Bans, Red Union.
A few months ago, upon attending the launch of the magazine 'New Matilda', I expressed my frustration thus:
I think they (along with most australians) are a bit 'liberal' and politically naive, in that they believe that by launching an extensive policy platform in time for the federal election, they can change Australian politics, without the help of social movements (I see social movements as an enforcement mechanism). Yet there needs to be some discussion on the HOW (ie methodology- theories of social change) as well as the WHAT (policy debate... ) This is what I really like about many US-based left publications, in that they understand movement building and popular education. At the moment, the main political
agents in the current world view of New Matilda are the politicians and the policy writers, the politicians listen to the policy writers if they frame their ideas in the right way... a bit simplistic me thinks...
There is a worthy research project to be undertaken (maybe by me) to understand what methods of organising enabled mass-participatory social movements in australia despite prevailing authoritarian approaches to politics.
a.
No comments:
Post a Comment