Category: Blog posts

YOLO. You Only Live Once.

It has become the catch cry of a generation. It represents a growing trend to take life one day at a time, and to do everything you can to make the most out of every day. It is about living life for you, living life fast, and living life now.

But have we really thought about the impacts of this trend? In the latest of my series of reviews of chapters from the Occupy Handbook, I’m taking a look at US Cultural Decline: The Overlooked Intangibles by Brandon Adams. Adams argues that the past few decades have seen a significant cultural decline in the United States, a decline that is directly linked with the economic issues the nation is facing. The best way to frame Adams’ article is to quote the question that he asks himself directly:

“It seems reasonable to ask the question: is it possible that, culturally, we’re a bit too messed up to mind the store? Three cultural trends relevant to our past and future economic paths would seem to indicate that we might me: first, a shortened attention span, when the complexity of our economy is increasing at a rapid clip; second, a decline in savings rates (broadly constructed); and, third, a decline in societal trust levels.”

Adams argues that these problems are directly correlated with a growing fast-past world and a shortening attention span. As ‘globalisation’ has spread, our world has become much more complex, bringing increased pace to our every day lives. Whilst for many this is seen as only being good, there are problems it brings.

“Still, from the perspective of individuals, the decline in attention span that has come with a faster world may have both positive and negative effects: our newly limited ability to concentrate may act like a governor on the “happiness treadmill,” with adjustments assuring that none of us has too good or bad a time. Yet from he perspective of the nation as a whole, our ever-shortening attention span negatively affects our long-run economic capability.”

Adams builds on this by arguing that this fast-paced and complex world has significantly impacted societal trust levels, and led directly to a more individualistic society:

“The psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi notes that people enjoy time with family, but they ten to enjoy time with friends more, and they enjoy times of “flow” most of all – times when they are full immersed in activities, often solitary, that they are extremely passionate about. The modern human being in wealthy societies is constantly in search of these high-intensity “flow” experiences, and the drop-off in (essentially more boring) community activity is a consequence.

“The observed behavior of modern, rich societies suggests that this fracturing of community, in favor of a society where individuals are more free to pursue their own conception of optimal experiences can go a very long way. The wealthier a society, it seems the fewer the counterweights against individualism. Communitarian restrictions provided by history, religion, and family ties are often than not simply cast aside.”

Now, I think there is an interesting discussion to be had as to whether people do genuinly desire individual experiences more than anything else (as it goes against a lot of anectodal evidence in relation to people’s strong desire for relationships), but it is clear that individualism has grown as modern capitalism has expanded. This makes sense, as individualism is a framework under which capitalism is based (and it therefore would be interesting to see whether psychological research that shows a desire for “flow” experiences takes into account the societal framework that determines individualist activity and achievement to be an essential goal of life). But, no matter how and why individualism is is growing, it is clear it is having an impact. Interestingly, Adams argues that it is having a short-term positive effect, but that this cultural decline is having long-term negative consequences:

“Although some of the consequences of individualism are regrettable, it might well be the case that our current, fractured, individualistic, short-horizon society is optimal in terms of cumulative overall happiness. In the absences of a comprehensive framework/philosophy that suggests how life should be lived, for better or worse, in early twenty-first-century Western nations, we have adopted the moral philosophy of the economist: the best course of action is that which maximises the happiness of the individuals.

“In the long term, the United States is following the play-book of a failed empire. This playbook consists of a weak political will abroad, an unsustainable trade balance, increasing public debt (to the point where default or very high inflation is inevitable), a declining culture (at least in terms of fundamental cultural variables associated with economic performance), the financialisation of the economy and its influence of rent-seeking activity, and – finally – an inability as a nation to make difficult, long-term political choices.”

In other words, YOLO, may be bringing us short-term happiness, but it is stopping us from being able to plan for long-term success. We are living for now, but not planning for the future. And whilst I disagree with Adams on the positive short-term affects of individualism (or at least think we should directly challenge the ‘moral philosophy of the economist’ in our short-term thinking) it is clear that there are long-term impacts of an individualistic approach to society. Our culture and our economy are directly interlinked, and until we start to investigate the bigger picture questions – the ones to do with our culture, it will be impossible to really solve the problems we face.

At one of the rallies supporting same-sex marriage outside the US Supreme Court last week, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) asked Jerssay Arredondo from the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Program (QUIP) to speak. Prior to getting onto the stage however, HRC revised Arredondo’s speech, and asked him not to mention that he was an ‘undocumented immigrant’. As Arredondo said, HRC effectively asked him to ‘go back into the closet’. Further reports from the rally stated that HRC asked other people in the audience not to wave trans* flags because ‘marriage equality is not a trans*’ issue.

As HRC logos adorn the Facebook and Twitter profiles of thousands around the world in support for same-sex marriage, these instances open up a large question about the role of HRC, the largest LGBTIQ organisation in the United States, in the campaign. Whilst the logo has been used to support same-sex marriage, there is an open question as to what else it is supporting.

Now, I have never worked with, or for, HRC, so I do not have a first-hand account of how they operate as an organisation. But as I have seen their logo all across my computer screen, and heard stories about how they have acted over the past week (as well as how they had acted in the past), I thought it was worth doing some more research on the organisation. And in doing so it became clear the HRC has a very sordid history with the GLBTI community in the United States; one which really brings into question the support they are gathering from the last week’s campaign. As a largely middle to upper-class organisation focused on political lobbying and fundraising, HRC has a history that involves questionable tactics, ignoring important issues, and most problematic of all, sacrificing other members of the queer community to gain support for particular issues.

Let’s start with the basics. HRC promotes itself as ‘the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans’. Despite their claimed broad ranging agenda however, and the cash that has comes behind it, the organisation has often focused on what one could call ‘middle-class’ issues, with a particular current focus on marriage equality. In other words, whilst promoting a large agenda, HRC has actively ignored significant issues such as youth homelessness and suicide, racial justice and immigration, and issues pertaining to trans* and intersex folk. As Derrick Clifton reflected in the Huffington Post:

“The HRC has yet to make a strong, substantive appeal on youth homelessness, which disproportionately impacts LGBT communities.

The HRC has a long history of throwing trans* people under the bus. Many folks still remember them dropping the “T” while attempting to push the Employment Non-Discrimination Act through Congress in 2007… and it still failed to capture enough votes to pass in the Senate and become law. They’ve since reverted to supporting a trans-inclusive bill, yet many still feel the sting.

The HRC has tokenized and otherwise has given lip service to issues pertaining to LGBT communities of color. Racial justice (or even an allusion to it) isn’t even listed on their website’s “issues” tab as part of a broader strategy. And dare we not address how that functions from within, given the racism many people experience in LGBT* spaces and forums.”

And this issue is really important as it goes directly against the HRC brief. HRC is not ‘Americans for Marriage Equality’, but rather the largest, and wealthiest LBGTIQ organisation in the United States. It boast itself to donors and supporters with a broad ranging agenda, yet when crunch comes to crunch, it tends to focus its energies on the issues that reflect its donors more than it reflects the broader community.

But more importantly, this singular focus has meant is that in aiming to achieve its goals, HRC has actively worked to push aside particular parts of the queer community, in order to gain extra ‘rights’ for other particular members of the community.

For example, following the 2004 elections, it was reported that HRC was actively considering working on a deal with the Bush Administration in which it would support efforts to privatise social security in exchange for the right of gay and lesbian partners to receive benefits under the program. More recently, HRC was criticised recently after it gave Goldman Sachs it ‘2011 Workplace Equality Innovation Award’. This included the releasing of a video titled ‘Americans for Marriage Equality’ featuring Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. The award and video were criticised for giving cover to Goldman Sachs, despite the impact they had on the 2008 financial crisis, and therefore the huge negative impact they would have had on many queer people.

In probably its most controversial action, in 2007 HRC actively backed away from a promise that it would not support an non-trans*-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). With passage likely in the year, HRC actively side-tracked the trans* community, effectively telling them that they would have to wait for another time for protection against discrimination. Whilst HRC has now reversed that position and once again supports a trans* inclusive ENDA its 2007 actions left a very bitter taste in the mouth of many.

Even with all of this, HRC’s current campaign on same-sex marriage comes after lots of resistance from the organisation to take charge on the issue. Whilst advocates have been fighting for marriage equality for decades, with the first success coming in 2001, in many ways HRC has been rather late to the party. Following the 2004 elections, in which HRC was largely uninvolved in campaigns against constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, the organisation actively pushed advocates to take a slower approach, and focus on ‘relationships’ rather than legislative change.

Maribel Hermosillo reflects on all of these issues, by arguing that all of these issues reflect an middle to upper-class approach; one which simply tokenises other members the community, but pushes them aside when its crunch time.

“The HRC’s message is that the LGBT inequality in the U.S. only impacts middle to upper class white couples. The HRC tokenizes the involvement of people of color at the intersection but refuses to give them the opportunity to truly voice their experiences.”

Quoting her again, she says that the events last week showed the real flavour of the organisation:

“This sounds like HRC has a specific message they want the U.S. to understand by romanticizing marriage equality to be an issue of love and not of discrimination. If the HRC was concerned about issues of discrimination then trans*, people of color, undocumented and working class would be represented fairly in the campaign for marriage equality.”

The use of the HRC logo over the past week has provided a great way for people to show support for same-sex marriage. Unfortunately however, the HRC logo isn’t just about marriage equality, it’s also about an organisation that has significant issues in the way it deals with the queer community. Although I may not join you, feel free to go ahead and show support for the issue, but please think twice when putting that logo onto your profile.

So, I have to say it. I love Helen Razer. I love her in that kind of ‘fan girl’ kind of way (or really I should probably say fan boy). I love watching her tweet, I love reading her blog, and there is that part of me that just hopes, one day, that she will respond to me, and I we will be Twitter friends forever.

And there’s nothing like when she gets going on Twitter. And boy did she get going yesterday. As people were covering our screens with Human Rights Campaign logos (urgh, worst), she let rip on same-sex marriage. And it was amazing. If you missed it, her are some of my favourites:

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

If your “progressive” argument does not extend much past “I Choose My Choice!” and crying at sappy GetUp ads, you might need another think.

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

Your terror of perversion is palpable. Why do you want to domesticate queer by applauding that dull portion of it that craves marriage?

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

Putting queer in the stultifying museum of marriage will see its death. You don’t want difference. You want homogeneity.

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

Queer people are NOT JUST LIKE YOU. They are different. Stop fighting for their “right” to sameness.

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

This year, Mardi Gras had “Parental Warnings” on its arts events and every fucker had a fresh little kid in a Baby Bjorn and I am ashamed.

Helen Razer ‏@HelenRazer

Queer is dead. Instead we have pale gay privations of straight. I am cross & now I am going to have to become a poly just to make a point.

This week I’m going to start with a first in what I hope will be a running series of interviews with people who are working on some of the issues I am covering in the blog. This will be a way to get some different perspectives on the issues I’m discussing.

With all the discussion about police violence after the shocking footage of brutality came out after Mardi Gras (see my posts The Police: Never Supporters of Mardi Gras, and Taking a Radical Approach to the Police) this week I interviewed the President of the Indigenous Social Justice Association (ISJA), Ray Jackson.

ISJA was formed in late 1997 after a group of activists made the decision to formally withdraw from the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee, but still wanted to continue working on the same issues. ISJA is completely self-funded and works with Aboriginal peoples and their communities to provide support for those who have faced issues with the police (amongst other issues), including writing letters to Ministers and the Police, attending the Coroner’s Court, and helping families in need. With 400+ Aboriginal deaths in custody since 1980 (with only one police officer arrested, and then acquitted), and numerous instances of police violence toward Aborigines people, it is work that is clearly needed.

I started by asking Ray what the issues were that Aboriginal people faced in relation to the police.

“I always start the answer to this question by saying we have to go back in history. We have to go back 225 years to when the boats first sailed into Sydney Harbour. The troopers who were with them were later used to ‘clear the land’, as they were commonly known to do, which meant of course the genocide of the Aboriginal mobs around Sydney and the outlying areas.

“When the police were formed, they were formed out of the troopers. So there’s been, I would argue, a historical ethos of the police in their attitude and their handling of Aboriginal issues. It’s always been a war, and it always will be a war. More bad than good has happened over the years of course.

“Finally, we’ve now come to a situation where the public, and the Magistrates Courts are taking the police on. The Magistrates Courts are not taking the word of the police as said. It’s not sacrosanct. We know that they lie on oath. And people are becoming more socially aware of their power when they see these assaults going on. People are using their mobiles and cameras to take evidence of the police brutality. And more and more we are using these images as evidence to inform people about what is going on and why the police need to change.”

You spoke at the Mardi Gras police violence protest. How do you see the violence at Mardi Gras by the police connected with violence towards Aboriginal people?

“As I said at that rally, I link the gay mobs and the Aboriginal mobs into one basket. For 225 years both our mobs have been discriminated against, ostracised and abused by the police.

“As I said at that rally, it is high time that both our groups worked together. We have one common enemy in this situation and that is violent police. We need to curb the violence of the police.

“Also, not unsurprisingly, in the Aboriginal mobs there’s gay people, so we cross-over. And there’s no use that you fight your battles with the police from the gay point of view, and we fight our battles with the police, which is the same battle, from the Aboriginal point of view. We should be combining and hammering the police and the Government more on changing the violence of the police.”

How well do you think the communities are working together?

“We started our combined work back in 2009 with the death of Veronica Baxter, also known as Paris; a transgender Aboriginal person. She hung herself in the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Gaol and it was the push by the GLBTI groups that got this front page coverage in the gay community. We need to re-raise this issue and again seek justice for Paris to find out why she was allowed to hang herself in Gaol. We know why – she was not given her hormonal medication for over a week. And we know that that can lead to suicide ideation among other problems. We’ve run into a brick wall, and we’re trying to circumvent that, and both groups have worked very well – especially ISJA and CAAH (Community Action Against Homophobia).”

From your opinion, what needs to happen within the police and the Government to solve these issues?

“The Government, especially the Police Minister, has to bite the bullet. Our Police Minister here (in NSW) is an ex-cop himself, so we’re not going to get too much joy from him. But Governments need to bring their police force into line. They are not a force, they are a service. They are there to protect people from criminals – black, white, whatever. But there’s always been this historical marriage between Government and Police whereby they protect each other. This is why you have had over 400+ Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody since 1980 and the only person ever to be dragged into court is Chris Hurley up on Palm Island, but he was allowed to go free.

“The police have to understand that they are public servants. We pay their wages, we buy their uniforms, we pay for their glocks, and tasers and pepper sprays. But we don’t supply them so they can be used against us. They can use them as life-saving stuff when they are chasing criminals. Not the general public. Not young Jamie Jackson at the Mardi Gras who the police were terribly violent to – to the point that they slammed him onto the footpath, they then bashed his head onto the concrete, which caused him to bleed. They then rolled him over, cuffed him, and then an officer stood on his back. Now the copper who done that is not a small man by any means, but what he done to young Jamie then could have killed him. He expelled the air out of young Jamie’s body and that could have triggered death. We’re very very lucky that it didn’t.

“The police have to learn that their brutality against ordinary citizens is not going to be tolerated anymore.”

In the next couple of days, I will aim to provide some comments and analysis of Ray’s interview, and how this links with the Mardi Gras violence this year.

After the failed leadership spill of Julia Gillard last week, this article from Paola Totaro in the Guardian, Australians don’t know how lucky they are, made its rounds throughout the Internet.

Totaro’s argument was that the recent political events in Australian show a growing tendency of whinging in Australia despite a growing economy that should make us one of the happiest, and most stable democracies in the world. As she says:

“Last June, Australia celebrated its 21st. No, not a birthday or coming of age, but the completion of its 21st consecutive year of economic growth. Yup, you heard right, 21 years. Of growth. 21….

“Viewed from Europe, where national governments are planning to bail out their banks by raiding the savings accounts not just of Russian oligarchs but pensioners too, news of yet another political attack against Australia’s leader smacks of a particular strain of antipodean madness.”

There is a lot of Totaro’s thesis that I agree with. Compared with other countries, complaints about Australia’s economic growth, Government debt and ‘cost of living’ are often blown out. The Australian economy continues to be stronger than almost anywhere in the world, and we need to recognise that in the ongoing debate in the country. As she also states, debates like that around asylum seekers are completely overblown, with the perceived ‘threat’ of ‘boat arrivals’ well above any actual threat posed. Australians do have it relatively well-off.

Despite this however, I find the basis of Totaro’s argument to be extremely problematic. Her argument is based on a growing trend in modern democracies; an idea that economic strength, based on a few simple measures, is the only real measure of a successful Government. There are many issues I find with this thesis.

Totaro’s first argument is that ongoing economic growth in Australia, as well as other measures such as debt and deficit levels should signify a level of community happiness and satisfaction in the Government. As she says quite bluntly:

“A government budgetary surplus of up to 2% of GDP? Surely, that in itself should deliver government on its own. But not in Oz.”

This argument however, misses two key issues. Firstly, economic success in terms of GDP growth certainly does not mean economic success for everyone. For example, research from MP Andrew Leigh shows that after declining for about 50 years, economic inequality has grown significantly since the late 70s. In the 2009-10 financial year, Leigh found that the top 1 per cent of earners in Australia declared 8.9% of all taxable income, almost twice their share from 30 years ago. Other democracies are seeing much higher rates of inequality. In the United States, whilst GDP has rebounded since the economic collapse of 08, the median income level has dropped to its lowest point since 2005, pointing to the fact that GDP growth has gone exclusively to the wealthy.

More research shows that economic growth does not automatically mean happiness. Research from the UK for example, showed when asked what was important to them, most people placed immaterial things at the centre of their happiness. Research from China has showed, that whilst economic growth continues, as inequality grows, poorer community members are getting unhappier. This connects with broader research that shows a threshold level in the welfare effect of income (p.14-15); that is that the correlation between income and happiness is only strong when people are moving out of poverty (and therefore are moving to a place where they can afford the basics to live), but that the correlation dissipates once that threshold has been met.

Even on the other key economic measure that Totaro states, the argument can easily fail. Totaro constantly uses Australia’s unemployment rate of 5.4% as a key indicator of success. Obviously employment is a major issue, and high unemployment rates can bring significant turmoil, but it does not automatically equate to happiness. As I’ve pointed out before, research has shown that having a bad job is worse for people’s mental health than having no job. This suggests that issues such as industrial relations, and providing meaningful work is essential to community happiness.

Beyond all of this however, Totaro’s argument misses one other basic issue; Government is not all about a few economic measures. Whilst much of our democratic debate has been focused around a few economic measures, there are a lot of other issues that Governments have to deal with. In Australia we’ve seen big debates around how we deal with climate change, immigration, and how we spread the wealth of the commodity boom that is providing the GDP growth so much of the world envies. Going beyond this, the work of the current Government to try and achieve the economic positions that Totaro claims to be so great have caused great controversy; for example the cut to single parent welfare payments and international aid have been critical.

Whilst Totaro has an argument that there are many debates in Australia that are over-blown, the basis of her argument is flawed. Yes, compared to most of the world, Australia is extremely well off. That is one of the reasons why we haven’t the major movements and uprisings that the United States and many countries in Europe have seen. Despite this however, we cannot simply boil down modern democracy to a set of economic numbers. Our democracies, and the needs of our communities, are much more complex than that.

The debate over media regulation in the last week has highlighted a tendency within many in the middle class, and particularly those in the left (this happens from the centre and the right too, but I am going to focus on the left today, as I think it has specific consequences for left movements). We seem to treat the working class, or ‘regular people’, as if they are all complete morons.

Whilst to me it is clear that debate over media regulation is needed, so much of the debate from the left’s perspective has been based around the idea that we need media regulation so the working classes will no longer be ‘duped’ by the mainstream media. The underlying idea is that the reason people are ‘so stupid’ to vote for Tony Abbott and the Coalition is because they have been fooled by the media. People simply aren’t smart enough to look beyond News Ltd. and we therefore need to broaden media coverage so people can be told ‘the truth’.

It is a common thread through much of left wing politics; one which assumes a stupid general populace that need to be educated.

Just look at the discourse by the elite in many arenas. Much of left rhetoric is focused around ‘educating’ and ‘raising awareness’ of major issues of the day. If we just teach people about the important issues of the day, they will finally ‘get it’ and change their principles and vote.

When people don’t change their vote, we then treat them as if they’re morons. “The majority of the population is full of idiots” we say. “How could people be so stupid as to vote for Tony Abbott?”

Look at some specific policy issues and we see the same trend. For example our talk about climate sceptics is laced with a superiority complex. Clearly we educated folk are just smarter than those who ‘don’t understand the science’, and what we need to do is ‘educate them’ about why they are wrong (or why they are so stupid). As I’ve pointed out before this ignores the very real reasons behind climate denialism.

This is discourse that is elitist, classist and worst of all extremely destructive for left-wing causes.

Firstly, an assumption of stupidity behind right-wing views is rather simplistic. It doesn’t feel like this needs to be said, but the idea that right wing beliefs are connected with stupidity is not true. And whilst the left may believe that they have ‘evidence’ on their side around so many issues, this is not an objective belief. Ideas of what are true and correct are subjective, and so our understandings of what is right, wrong, and who is smart and who is stupid are too. We all understand these ideas differently, and just because we read evidence differently to others doesn’t make us inherently smarter than them.

More importantly though, people do not engage in politics necessarily through ideas and rational thought. Whether we like it or not, people, including those on the left, engage in politics through their emotional brains. We engage in politics through values. We may not like other people’s values, we may campaign against them, but they are not based on intelligence levels. This is really important for understanding how destructive this rhetoric can be. The left is often so focused on talking about facts and evidence that it forgets that people actually connect through values, meaning that our campaigns are often useless.

Even more importantly though, treating the working class, or ‘ordinary Australians’ as if they’re morons is a completely elitist, and isolating approach. There are two ways in which we manage to isolate people through this. Firstly, this approach is rather off-putting for people who have values that are different to ours. Treating people who have different values as if they are idiots is a perfect way to ensure they don’t listen to you, making sure we never are able to engage with them to discuss, question and challenge their values base.

Beyond this though, this approach has the ability to isolate many whose values we share. This superiority complex is often directed at groups of people based solely on particular traits – often education and location. It assumes that all ‘bogans’ are stupid people who could never share our values. The uncomfortable reality for many people though is that these people we deride are also the same people that hold our values. It seems unlikely though that we are every going to be able to work with people the moment we decide to talk down to them.

As a collective, the left is supposed to be inclusive and looking at ways to work together for a greater good. The approach of many in the movement however directly contradicts these ideals – looking at people’s educations levels, lifestyle choices, and political opinions through the lens of a superiority complex. It’s about time we got over it.

As the fall-out from police bashings at Mardi Gras continues, debate has turned to how the queer community should react to the incidents. Following the anti-police rally in Sydney, some advocates condemned protestors for holding a banner saying “All Cops Are Bastard”. The head of Community Action Against Homophobia called the actions of ‘left-wing activists’ “juvenile”. This week, in response to the situation, Sydney MP Alex Greenwich is hosting a community forum where the community and the police will discuss the issues.

After the footage of the police bashings came out, I posted a blog about how I think the police have never been friends of Mardi Gras, and whilst I was hoping to see more discussion like this, the response by many to the incident (including to my article) has worried me significantly. It seems like for many, the way to respond to police bashings is ‘let’s see how we can fix our relationship with the police’, rather than ‘let’s campaign to fix the police’.

I think the best way to think about this is to think really hard about what the police have done over the past couple of weeks, and how we would react if another organisation did the same.

The allegations against the police are serious. It involves bashing and arresting people without reason, conducting strip searches in public, and harassing people on the street who were just having a good time. And the incidences aren’t unusual. Harassment by police is common, and ask anyone who is Indigenous, working class or from an ethnic group, and you will know that it goes well beyond the queer community.

Despite all of this however, the police seem to be the only organisation in which we respond to systematic bashings of innocent people with requests for meetings, and demands that everyone to stay calm. When queer people are bashed on Oxford St we take to the streets, but when the police do it, we organise a community forum.

Now for many, this comes down to the idea that the ‘police are there to protect us’ and ‘this  is just a few bad apples, and we shouldn’t taint everyone with the same brush’. The unfortunate thing about this approach is that it fundamentally ignores the insitutional problems within the police. Yes, there are cops trying to do good things within the police force, but the reality is that the violent culture of the force has clearly become so strong, that the bad outweighs the good for many communities.

At the protest in Sydney, a man was arrested for offensive language and behaviour. It was noted by some at the protest that the man only started getting aggravated after the police started harassing him and that it seemed like the police came to the protest with the ‘intent to arrest someone’. In other words, without cause, it seems like the police went to the protest with the intent to harass and arrest an innocent person.

When you think about it this way, you really have to ask who is causing more harm – the police, or the people who are pointing out their systematic violence? The police are the actual radicals here – the ones harassing, bashing and arresting innocent people. As long as this systematic violence continues, it is our duty to treat them as the radicals they are.

Meetings, forums, and ‘staying calm’ is not what’s going to achieve change. It is challenging police power and systematic violence that is, and that is how we need to approach these events.

It’s been a big week for the media in Australia. After the Government announced a media reform package on Tuesday, News Ltd. declared war. The Daily Telegraph ran a front page story on Wednesday comparing Communications Minister Stephen Conroy with the likes of Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and a number of other dictators. On the same day News Ltd. Chief Kim Williams has said that the Government was using ‘Soviet Style’ tactics.

This week is part of a long debate about the media in Australia, one that seems to have intensified significantly over the past couple of years. There are major issues that media agencies are facing in Australia, and around the world. Last year, both Fairfax and News Ltd. announced mass sackings of journalists as newspaper circulation continues to drop. Whilst many would have different experiences with the issue, there are also growing concerns about the quality of content now on offer in Australia’s major media outlets – a so called “crisis in journalism”.

This brings up some pretty important questions. What are the causes of these problems, and what solutions are available? How can we ensure a vibrant media in Australia? One of the latest pieces I read in the Occupy Handbook (if you click on The Occupy Handbook tag you will see other reviews on pieces from the book) provides an interesting perspective on the media in capitalism; one that is worth considering in the Australian context. The piece, Occupy the Media, was written by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan. They outline the issues they have with the modern media system like this:

“We need a media that covers grassroots movements, that seeks to understand and explain the complex forces that shape our society, a media that provides information and empowers people to make sound decisions on the most vital issues of the day: war and peace, life and death. Instead, the media system in the United States, increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer multinational corporations, spews a relentless stream of base “reality” shows (which depict anything but reality), hollow excuses for local news that are larded with ads and highlight car accidents and convenience store robberies, and an obsessive coverage of traffic, sports, and extreme weather (which is never linked to another two words: climate change). Perhaps most harmful of all, we get the same small circle of pundits, who know so little about so much, explaining the world to us and getting it so wrong.”

Goodman and Moynihan don’t however offer the standard sorts of arguments of what is wrong with the media; that ownership is concentrated in too few hands, that mainstream media is biased, or that journalists are too focused on the personal and not on policy (although I believe they see these as problems). Nor do they offer standard solutions; new regulations, a ‘fairness doctrine’ etc. Instead, through drawing the connection between the Occupy Movement and the mainstream media, Goodman and Moyniham aim to look at the root causes behind some of the issues the media faces:

“At the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement is the critique that wealth and opportunity are not equitably distributed, and our media system, largely controlled by corporations, contributes to that status quo.”

This is the sort of critique that places media squarely within the operations of a capitalist system (it’s interesting, as unlike many other companies, media agencies often don’t get critiqued in this way. For some reason they are seen through a ‘greater good’ lense that forgets the profit motive).

So what does this critique offer us? It’s rather simple –  for those who run media agencies, there is only every one real concern – how much money they can make. Media agencies are a profit-making business, and if there is a choice, making money will always come ahead of good journalism. Media owners will always be looking to streamline, to find ways to make new cash, to ‘monetise’ their product  (and it’s important to note that often that can mean losing money on media if the agenda it can push can make money elsewhere).

And whilst one may think that is a good and efficient way to run other businesses – to produce the best quality product there is (although, as we should know, I don’t necessarily believe this to be the case), in the media in particular it can cause real problems. That’s because doing good journalism can’t be done ‘efficiently’ in the way capitalism sees it. Good journalism takes time, it takes resources, and it takes money. And the capitalist media system isn’t providing this.

So what is the solution? Goodman and Moynihan tend suggest that it is the corporate nature of media that is the problem, and therefore stripping this nature away is the real solution:

“The “crisis in journalism”, which has been blamed on the Internets disruptions of traditional advertising business models, is also traceable to the very corporate behaviour that many of the Occupiers are protesting. Leverage buyouts of media properties have left newspapers with massive debt, forcing layoffs of journalists and support staff. By stripping away the profit motive – by removing the Wall Street bankers from the picture – solid, disciplined nonprofit journalism is possible.”

And that’s the thing about journalism and the media. Whilst it is not the case for many other industries, journalism already has a vibrant, independent, non-for-profit sector. There is a model that can be used – one that puts journalism and the readers ahead profits. It seems to me that in the short term, this is part of the debate we really need to be engaging in.

On Sunday, 60 minutes played a widely publicised interview with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, in which he talks extensively about his relationship with his sister, who four years ago ended her marriage to enter into a relationship with a woman.

For as long as he has been in the public eye, Tony Abbott has rightfully drawn condemnation for his views on homosexuality. Abbott has been a roadblock on progressive queer policy many times, including his current opposition to same-sex marriage and adoption.  Abbott has also said some pretty awful things about queer people. For example, as quoted in the interview, Abbott once described lesbians as:

“grim faced, overall clad, hardened, strident, often lustfully embracing counterfeit love.”

Then, in 2010, he said this about homosexuality on 60 Minutes:

“There is no doubt that challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things…I probably feel a bit threatened (by homosexuality), as so many people do.”

Now, I’m not going to write here that after this interview all can be forgiven, Tony Abbott is someone we can trust on queer issues, and everything is now okay. I, just like everyone else, have no faith in Abbott’s personal positions, and given that his policies haven’t changed at all, from a public policy perspective this interview means nothing. He is definitely not someone fighting for queer liberation.

Yet, unfortunately, the reaction to Abbott’s interview has completely missed the point, and ignored its importance. For example, after the interview was played, Australian Marriage Equality sent out a media release stating that as long as Abbott didn’t support marriage equality, he couldn’t truly ‘accept’ his sister Christine. Rodney Croome from AME had this to say:

“You can’t draw lines around other people’s humanity by accepting who they are but rejecting their fundamental human rights”.

“Tony Abbott cannot say he truly accepts his lesbian sister, Christine, until he has also accepted Christine’s partner, Virginia, as her wife and his sister-in-law.”

First of all, I would have to say that it must be really insulting for someone like Christine Forster (Abbott’s sister) to have someone else tell her what acceptance by her brother means. If you look throughout the interview, and Christine’s other media comments, it seems pretty clear that she looks pretty comfortable in her family setting and accepted by her brother. For anyone else to step into their family and comment from afar is quite insulting (insulting as it is for Abbott to comment on queer relationships).

But more importantly than this, AME, and so many other activists, have once again missed the point when it comes to this interview. Because whilst Abbott hasn’t come out to support same-sex marriage, the interview, and his ‘transformation’ is important.

If you were to name the biggest issue I reckon most queer people face in their lives, it is the fear of coming out, and the threat that a family would reject them. Whilst many, like myself, are lucky that they live in progressive families and have no problems when they come out, others don’t have such luck.

People growing up in conservative families often face consequences when they come out; being kicked out of home, being ostracised, or being told continuously that they are going to go to hell. Yet, often when you hear about these sorts of stories, they can be followed up by a slow process of acceptance, one where a conservative family turns from hatred, back to love, for their queer family members. It may not be a full transformation to a point where they are marching in Mardi Gras (although for some it is), but the transformation is important anyway.

And in many ways this is a key aim of queer activism – to create societal change so that people no longer have to face the threat of being ostracised when they ‘come out’ as queer. And that means engaging with conservatives and taking them on a path away from hatred.

From this interview it seems to me that this is what Tony Abbott has done. He has moved from almost complete hatred of queer people, to one where he can accept his lesbian sister. Has he come far enough? I don’t think so. But for me, the movement is important. It’s particularly important because as a national leader he has shown conservatives around the country that they can, and should, support their queer family members as well.

And this is where marriage advocates have missed the point. In slamming Abbott for this interview they were blind to other important issues facing queer people; important issues that were directly addressed in this interview. Marriage advocates have determined only one form of ‘acceptance’ and seem to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit that mould.

Of course, this doesn’t make Tony Abbott my queer hero. His policies continue to raise serious questions for me, and as a queer man I could never vote for him because of this (amongst many other issues).

But maybe instead of having a go at his family life, and the treatment of his sister, we could recognise some movement. It’s not movement that’s far enough, but when it comes to the personal treatment of queer people by conservatives around the world, it is important.

 

I little while ago I did a few reviews on The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault. For those of you who remember, Foucault argues that a lot of our history of sexuality is formed around a history of ‘confession’. As I said in the second review:

“In the Western World however, scientia sexualis is focused around the method of confession. Foucault argues that since the Middle Ages, confession has been a major tool used in the West as a means to reveal the ‘truth’. This ritual of discourse is one which unfolds in a very distinct power relationship, one in which the confessor has some authority above them that requires the confession. The confession however, also provides a sense of purification for the confessor – it absolves them of their sins. In that sense therefore, confession is a bottom-up process – one in which the confessor is the instigator through coming to the confessional booth.”

In the latest version of the Overland Journal Fiona Capp looks at our culture of confession, it’s history, and where it sits in the modern world. Capp goes through an interesting historical analysis of the use of confession, covering Salinger, Foucault, and the works of Rousseau and his piece ‘The Confession’. What I thought was interesting about her piece though is how this connects to the modern world.

When we think about the art of confession, we would often think about the catholic church, and the art of the confessional as part of religious practice. In that sense, confession is an ancient tradition, something many of us would have very little connection with today. Capp argues however, that the culture of confession has just adapted to the modern world:

“In the twentieth century, psychoanalysis, with its concepts of repression, the unconscious and slips of the tongue, took over from the religious confession as the model for popular confessional culture: from Oprah Winfrey and game shows like The Moment of Truth (where contestants are tested on how honest their confessions are) to talk back radio and personal diaries posted on the Internet.”

This new reality of confessions opens up an interesting take on the power relations around confessionals. Historically, confessions have had a real power dynamic behind them – the church forces confessions to ensure someone can go to heaven, the state demands confessions to convict criminals etc. And whilst these forms of coercive confession still exist, they are being eclipsed by a new culture of confession, one in which we are all actively confessing our sins with no direct power forcing us to do so.

What’s interesting about this though, is that this new form of confession, brings with it its own power relations. Not only are we now placed in a social position that confession is seen as an important part of our life, but it also provides state and corporate power over our information, and the very things we are confessing. As Capp explains:

“The head of the Nazi Labour Office, Robert Ley, reportedly said that the only private individual was someone asleep. Although we are hardly witnessing invasions of privacy comparable to those perpetuated by the Nazis, the intrusions which our confessional culture sanctions (not to mention the intrusions of government and business into our affairs through CCTV surveillance and centralised collation of medical, financial and other personal records etc.) have become disturbingly all-pervasive.”

The modern confession retains its position as power-tool – one in which we all confess our ‘sins’ as a way of repentance and punishment. The difference now is that this power is being wielded when we’re not even realising it, and in fact we are voluntarily partaking in it. And that is the most effective form of power of all.