Effectiveness, Ethics and Community
A reply to Jen Angel’s “On Oscar Grant, Violence, and Outsiders”
In looking at this situation, three questions come to mind:
Effectiveness: What is obtained by a given action for oppressed and marginalized peoples?
Ethics: What is the impact of a given action on oppressed and marginalized peoples?
Community: What is the response from oppressed and marginalized peoples who are most directly impacted by a given action?
As with most of the “activist left” in the US, especially among the college educated and/or white middle class left, black bloks pretty much fail in all three of these areas, but first and foremost, they tend not to be an effective means for building towards liberation, including the kinds of liberation that have anti-authoritarianism at their core: they’re a symbolic means of expressing extreme displeasure with a given situation, but frequently with a vaguely defined message and an even vaguer target. This is not to say that all forms of property destruction are inherently ineffective — indeed, there are a number of examples of such actions having a very clear message that is directly targeted at the source of the problem (warheads, for example), which while being symbolic in nature, use said symbolic means to raise both questions and awareness regarding the morality of a given enterprise from the powers-that-be. In contrast, going all smashy-smashy on a Whole Foods in the middle of a street-level moment of resistance to police violence may feel good — and believe me, there’s a lot that can be rightfully said and acted upon as per Whole Foods — but effective? I don’t think so. It’s not that Whole Foods or Starbucks or any of these corporate-based lifestyle behemoths aren’t an active part of people’s alienation — clearly they are – but targeting them by default typically doesn’t speak to the immediately tangible and quite real sources of people’s anger, and if anything, acting in such a fashion reinforces the laughably inaccurate view perpetuated in the mainstream media that “anarchists” (read: anybody dressed in black who breaks something that represents the status quo, regardless of their politics, race, gender, economic status, views on the state and so on) are a bunch of young, petulant white suburban youth who are just looking for something to vent their oh-so-inexplicable rage on.
In terms of ethics: I think much of what drives people in black bloks who have genuine intentions to change society for the better, if the various manifestos and statements I’ve read over the years are any indication, is the need to spur people to actively resist the myriad of ways that mainstream society oppresses the vast majority of people in a routine if not constant basis. In this way, the “outsiders” argument falls flat: the only real outsider is someone who is so removed from the vicissitudes of daily life as to be untouched by the quotidian, which means that with rare exception, none of us are outsiders, and we all are in this ennui-laden mess together. The problem with this approach as a justification for property destruction is that, if said manifestos are any indication, there doesn’t appear to be much of a dialogue outside of manifesto-writing circles and such as to what actually is both effective and ethical outside of said circles.
In contrast, what is needed from non-marginalized peoples in a given context (for example, white radicals living in a predominately black neighborhood) is much more in the way of efforts to actively engage in community dialogue in a way that is a two-way street, as well as a willingness to re-evaluate behavior on the basis of that dialogue — a “for us” as opposed to an “against you all.” The reason that this is necessary is not because of the mistaken presumption that a “white means bad, therefore, you’re blaming me for things I have no control over” sort of attack is being fomented by communities of color and their allies (a disturbingly common assumption, in my experience), but because mutually beneficial dialogue is how the work gets done. I’m speaking in general here; there are exceptions, but that’s the problem — they need to be not just exceptions, but the rule in order for any given group of people coming out of the broader radical left, including people who participate in black bloks, to be effective once again.
That said, I think the biggest ethical dilemma with utilizing black bloks as a tactic is that it can, and frequently does, give the police an excuse to institute ever more draconian measures at protests, while at the same time, providing them with a golden opportunity to improve upon the sorts of militarized tactics that have been used in poor communities on a regular basis for decades. In short: the intention coming from people who are part of a given black blok may not be to do the cop’s work for them (if anything, it can be and frequently is the opposite), but in practice, it does so, and quite effectively. This is exactly why the police love to infiltrate black bloks — it’s not just a matter of “getting the bad guys,” it’s also a utilization of a remarkably effective way to further drive a wedge in already polarized communities from all backgrounds, especially if infiltrators succeed in committing property damage without getting exposed, which in turn kicks in the mainstream media portrayal of “scary anarchists” in near-record time.
Further, the mainstream media’s common portrayal of your typical “black bloker” is white, male and quite far from being a cohesive “blok” of anything; it’s as if said individuals somehow found each other through some form of chaos-driven telepathy, or possibly via “anarchist gaydar,” as Jen Angel notes. The fact that this is not representative of the race, gender, social views, political work, et. al. of anarchists on the whole does not change the fact that a) the common perception among many non-anarchists is that anarchists equals black bloks equals those crazy white guys with their smashy-smashy, and b) while anarchists on the whole are not exclusively white and male, a lot of the people who are represented as “black blok anarchists” in the mainstream media in fact are such. This reifying of a tactic into a representation of “anarchists” writ large is further compounded by said portrayals typically being the only time the mainstream news ever mention anarchists or anarchism. This presents an interesting ethical dilemma for anarchists who do not feel adequately represented by this portrayal: how should we respond to this obvious misrepresentation of our work? In my view, the best way to counter this is to actively represent the ways in which our work is not represented by this portrayal whenever possible. By engaging in forms of work that actively challenge white supremacy and other mechanisms of oppression in the larger society, while openly representing how our political views can be used as a tool in transforming authoritarian social dynamics, we provide a counter-narrative to the dominant myth of the chaos-loving white boy in all black.
Lastly, community. The vast majority of resistance movements I’ve encountered on the broader left in the U.S. don’t have so much as a clue as to what concerns and motivates people in marginalized communities. The reason for this is simple: most people who self-identify as activists are too busy being right about things off in their own respective subcultures (be they professional, as in non-profits — or “amateur,” as in protests et. al.) to pay much attention as to what people who are not part of a given activist subculture thinks about them, and in turn, what the impact of what their behavior (from being the fairest of fair-weather friends to gentrifying neighborhoods) winds up being, even when they are living and/or working in the middle of poor and working class communities. The reason I point this out is that I would be remiss if I laid the burden of these counter-community sort of situations exclusively on people who happen to on occasion be in a black blok, whoever they may be; while there most certainly are white anarchists and other left radicals who are part of the problem, there are also people who politically identify as anarchists, radicals, et. al. who actively aren’t part of this problem, as well as white non-radicals who are every bit of guilty (if not more guilty) in having a deleterious effect on urban communities of color. However, nobody should merely be let off the hook here – saying “I’m one of the good guys, I want to change the world” is the oldest trick in the book.
This situation symbolizes a problem that, while in some ways highlighted by both the myths and the social realities surrounding black bloks, is also much larger than the occasional broken window. The sooner that larger numbers of people from the corners of the left addressed in this article realize this and start making moves to actively participate in changing these sorts of counter-community dynamics in all their forms, in ways that allow for direct representation from marginalized communities, the better off we all will be. By actively listening to, and when appropriate, engaging in community-based discussions regarding effectiveness and ethics, we create the potential for social change not by activist-based fiat, but through a process that is both diverse and decentralized – a goal that has been much touted not just in anarchist circles, but by the grassroots left as well. It’s my hope that this most recent example of “the trouble with anarchists” can be turned on its ear, and replaced with the beginnings of an actual dialogue for the benefit of all.
