2013-05-22T01:38:28-04:00 James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=james-hetterley Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for James Hetterley Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1334442 2012-03-09T09:07:47-05:00 2012-05-09T05:12:02-04:00

James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hetterley/
Contrasted with this is new, internet-based activism, brought into the mainstream by Anonymous and WikiLeaks. But at the beginning of March 2012, a completely new kind of activism, on an even larger scale arose. This is #Kony2012, a viral video which is at the centre of the Stop Kony movement, wanting to make Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony famous, in order to arrest him.

On the face of it, this is a positive, and generally agreeable aim, which is probably why it has attracted the interest of a-political people, and within a number of hours became one of the largest protest issues in modern times. But as well as the questionable actions of both Invisible Children (the organisation who made video) and the Ugandan Army as well as Joseph Kony's LRA, Kony 2012 has made a much more significant contribution to the activist movement itself.

At a time when Konymania (nice word I made up there, eh?) is at its height, here are two thoughts on what has arisen from which a badly thought out movement:

Military Interventionism:

The most interesting point about Kony 2012 is that it supports military interventionism, which has been opposed by practically all activists since the aftermath of 9/11. It is generally agreed upon that Tony Blair and George W. Bush acted undemocratically (and perhaps illegally), and therefore it seems equally as irrational to approve of intervention into Uganda. This then leads to the question of whether popular support, or what could be called direct democratic interventionism, should be distinguished from the interventionism propagated by elected governments. Indeed, if there is a distinction, this could theoretically make Bush and Blair's actions in the Middle East all the more illegal. Although these are perhaps hasty generalisations (much in the vein of Invisible Children's video) the now age-old argument that the Imperialist West has no right to involve themselves in the affairs of the developing world still rings true. As failed as it is, there is a reason the United Nations was set up. If healthy debate is going to exist between countries, then it should be through international organisations that were set up to evade wars; not through badly thought through right-wing campaigns that regress on the political dialectic that has developed over the past decade or so.

These bourgeois elements are more than hinted at in Invisible Children's actions; indeed, they want obtain the support of a select group of individuals to "help bring awareness to the horrific abuse and killing of children in Africa at the hands of Kony and his leadership". This includes "celebrity culture makers" (popular actors and singers, essentially) as well Western war criminals/right-wing politicians that have "the power to keep U.S. government officials in Africa", such as George Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Because, of course, a U.S. military presence has historically improved the situation in developing countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam: all fabulous!)

Equally, we are posed with the theory that the support for this issue is broadly more with those on the centre and right instead of activism's traditional left-wing base, which, although creates legitimacy for protest as political expression, shows the penetration of Tea Party, barmy neoconservatism into mainstream debate. Why support a movement which exists to perpetuate a system that needs to end?

Single-Issue Activism:

Another point is that Kony 2012 is centered around a single issue. Essentially this has never existed before, especially not in an international form, and even the civil rights movement, the anti-war/nuclear movements, still sparked debate on areas of policy not directly influenced by the issue (especially economics). Kony 2012 is focused on one individual, which the West is out to "get", because we happen to dislike him. This kind of oversimplified, black-and-white ethical approach has not been unused before; and indeed a simplification of complex debates has been supported by thinkers on both the left and the right, in the belief that this will enchant the apolitical, as it allows one figure to be given the blame, unlike Occupy, unlike UK Uncut, which fixates its actions on one class of people which have cheated the proletariat (and are based around the fundamentals of economics). If anything, this makes the apolitical more apathetic, with 1 million people marching against the War in Iraq, with the worldwide growth of Occupy, with the perpetuation of anti-war ideology for centuries. To construct an argument against interventionism is in its nature more complex than constructing an argument for it; but without including an historical materialistic outlook on the World, on the actions of the Imperialist West, on the actions of our leaders, on the aftermath of these wars, we fall into a cycle of slowly dismantling the entire developing world purely because of post-colonialist guilt. Whatever Kony has done, his name is just the next in the long line of despots who the West feel it is in their power to liberate: Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, whilst embroiling themselves within a war which they will not win.

But amongst all of this, because the actions of Invisible Children are questionable, then they should be questioned. This is no ordinary campaign, and it has the capacity to create more problems than it solved. From an extremely bourgeois academic opinion, it will be more interesting to see how this turns out purely because a single issue movement has never materialised on such a large scale hitherto.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1244887 2012-01-31T15:13:09-05:00 2012-04-01T05:12:01-04:00

James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hetterley/ The Big Questions on television this weekend, the Beeb's Sunday morning ethical discussion programme in which semi-intellectual individuals come on and debate their point of view, at the same time annoying great swathes of tweeters. Two arguments came up most recently: the first being the matter of Scottish independence, the second being equal marriage. We will discuss the latter.

For many people, equal marriage seems to be the overriding issue that will throw homophobia out of our system; by legalizing the marriage of two people of the same gender, we suddenly have equality. Within this debate, there are generally two arguments that arise from the issue: the first being the position of homophobic mainstream churches and clergy of professing it fundamentally breaking the definition of marriage; the second being from the queer community that equal marriage is the only way to liberation. Both of these positions are wrong.

Firstly, those who assert that the marriage of LGBT people fundamentally breaks the definition of marriage have no idea what marriage itself is. Even if you simplify the idea of marriage, it is essentially indefinable (except for the joining of multiple people in certain sexual relations) when you consider the history that marriage has seen, whether it is group marriages, straight marriages, polygamous marriages, or common-law, there is no single, objective marital union. Monogamous, heterosexual marriages are just the normative marital structure in our current epoch. As is pointed out in the program, the Bible itself points out five possible marital structures. Just as marriage has evolved in the past, marriage will evolve in the future. Queer marriages just happen to be the next step.

Secondly, it is wrong to assert that equal marriage is the way to liberation. Indeed, it is this argument which is completely flawed. In this sense, liberation is not the freedom of queers, but the assimilation of heteronormativity within a queer construct. In this sense, liberation is in fact surrender. The surrender of our sexuality, the surrender of our struggle, the surrender of our raison d'être. Is the way to ending sexism for all women to embrace masculinity? If not, then why is the way to ending homophobia for all queers to essentially become straight? To accept "equal" marriage is not to raise the rainbow flag but raise the white flag. To accept "equal" marriage is to become second-best.

This is why queer radicalism is an essential part of liberation. This is why queer radicalism is the only way to equality, to our free determination. For what is liberalism but assimilation? To be "queer" is not only to desire same-gender relationships, but to not be cisgender, to be non-heterosexual, to be sexually liberated, to question the relationship norms of our age. Are all these constituent parts really fulfilled by the fatigable social construct of marriage? Are our entire beings expressed through this lifeless economic contract? What right do religions and the State have with who I fuck? The mere act of sodomy is protest enough against our society. Why should we be forced to accept a compromise for our equality just because the Westminster élite find it agreeable? Equality is not doing what straight people do; equality is doing what I want to do without straight people stopping me.

LGBT marriages will automatically be different from straight marriages. We have different histories. When straight people have walked hand-in-hand for a month with someone of the same gender they'll understand. When straight people have to live with an undercurrent of hatred throughout their lives, they'll understand. When straight people grow up different from other children, when straight people have to lie to themselves that society will accept them eventually, they'll understand. When straight people live in a society that is vehemently against us, they'll sympathize, and only then will they understand. When straight people become queer, they can start telling us what to do. Then maybe they'll start assimilating us. There is no point to LGBT marriages. We are not all monogamous. We are not all religious or capitalist. And unlike heterosexual polyamorous atheist communists, we're not afraid to collectively say it. As long as marriage is assimilation, it is not equality. As long as marriage is monogomous, State-run or church run, and based around economics, it is not queer. And as long as marriage is supported by a bourgeois political élite, it is nothing short of oppression]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1239806 2012-01-29T03:34:10-05:00 2012-03-29T05:12:01-04:00

James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hetterley/ "pull a Bozier", aptly defined as "verb; to act like a pretentious and self-righteous wanker upon the leaving of a political party entirely for personal gain".

So, in this criticism of the free market party, I will endeavour to criticise the party and its views, and not do so in such a way to augment my own significance. To say I act as a voice for socialists and Marxists would be pretentious, but I would say my views represent the principles of a silent majority.

The Labour Party is broken. Completely and utterly broken. There are no two ways about it. The trade unionist and socialist principles that the party was built on, and improved upon by a lineage of politicians (Attlee, Bevan, Benn, Foot, to name a few) no longer exist. The generic argument for this, especially by socialists but also by sarcastic hyperbolic right-wingers, is to criticise the philosophy of 'New Labour'. I refute this. One should remember that even if New Labour were capitalistic (which I obviously disagree with) they were at least socially radical and invested highly in public services. Either way, New Labour is dead within the party. What has broken what was once a great party is the party élite, the leadership; and the democratic deficit that is only becoming more and more apparent within the party. A party cannot govern a country if it cannot govern itself. A party cannot say it supports democracy if it is not democratic itself.

The most obvious expression of this democratic deficit is the uneven weighting in party elections; most importantly the leadership elections. Miliband has regularly been criticised for only becoming a leader as a result of the "union vote", but the significance of a vote from a union member or an ordinary party member is so tiny in comparison to the weighting of an MP's vote that it is completely vacuous to say that me paying membership fees a month is actually worth anything. I can be annoyed at Labour without being part of Labour. I joined Labour thinking I could help change it. When the vote of 200 (or so) MPs have infinitely more power than party members and trade unionists, you question the point of being there. When 200 people hold 33% of power in the party, but the 100,000-200,000 members and 1,000,000+ trade unionists hold only 66% of power, you can see there is an inherent flaw within the party. I will not join Labour again until this is remedied. I will not even comment on Labour Students as the faction is so wholly undemocratic that I'm surprised they even pretend to hold elections.

Policy is a matter for the élite, not for the members. The powers of the NEC are unjustifiable and the hold they have over policing the party is nearly unforgivable. This was greatest expressed under Kinnock's leadership, when many Militant tendency members were, in true Stalinist fashion, purged from the party in an act of ideological cleansing. Although the NEC does not generally act so rashly these days, their tactics are those of a capitalist party, not of a socialist party. The benefits cap, the reluctancy to talk about even moderate social-democratic issues such as rail nationalisation, and Ed Balls's economic betrayal are not a representation of the will of the members but the will of the party élite, the will of those who know they can come out with any old "reform" to the party, pretend to forget our past, turn our country increasingly into a two-party system with a unifying neoliberal ideology. I oppose this government, and therefore joined the Labour Party, to oppose it, not to support it! Even the grassroots who disagree do not disagree too loudly; firstly in fear of expulsion, secondly, to paraphrase Mill "better to be in a workers party I hate with than in a bourgeois party I hate". I wasn't sure there was much difference.

I refuse to be part of this organization any longer. You are not the party of Bevan, Attlee, Wilson, Foot, and Benn. You are not even the party of Blair. We need a party, much like the Socialist Left in Norway, for it is that party who would represent Labour's past. All that is left of Labour is a remnant of the past, an old historical artefact slowly degrading, a corpse ready to be cremated. I may rejoin Labour in the future, but Labour in its current state? I may as well have just gone out and bought a Conservative membership card.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1157948 2011-12-19T11:19:30-05:00 2012-02-18T05:12:02-05:00

James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hetterley/
All social relations existing in a hierarchal (therefore Capitalist) society are based around class.

Therefore, all existing genders come as a result of social perception, economic privilege or poverty, and even family history. In the same way that perception of the sexes (as de Beauvoir outlines in "Le deuxième sexe") alters in different classes, as do the perceptions of different genders. Where the proletariat is more sexually and socially liberated, they are economically unfree; where the bourgeoisie is frigid and socially bound to conservative "order", they are economically irrational. As a general rule, masculine-leaning genders have taken the power, feminine genders subordinated, and heterosexuality forced into the norm.

Where Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she did not get to that position because she was a woman, but because she was masculine. Could you, though, imagine a feminine woman or a camp man becoming Prime Minister? We are defined nowadays not by our sex, but by our gender (or how society perceives our gender).

What this has lead to, then, is a heteronormative and patriarchal society where the great focus of most gender studies is centred around feminism. Even if they are the most oppressed of the two sexes, they are certainly also the most studied. Hardly a social science student can call themselves thus if their eyes haven't graced over a copy of Le Deuxième Sexe or The Female Eunuch; indeed, even if the oppression of women hasn't ended, the intrigue to define them is still a hot topic. But we must see a change in the academic sphere. In the same way that no gender should dominate because it makes society degenerate (look at our current world), the opposite gender should not dominate gender studies purely because it is oppressed. To perpetuate the gender binary is just as oppressive.

The question that gender academics should be asking is not "What is man" or "What is woman", but "What is it to be human, and how does our genitalia affect our perception to society?" For at base level, all genders are first defined by stereotypes of sex. Although in society males are dominant, in the academic world we still have no even theorised definition for what "man" is unless we define him by his genitalia - and if that is so then women must also be defined by their genitalia, and if genitalia really is the only distinguishing force, then gender studies has no use.

Society, at base level, still perpetuates the gender binary. Transgendered people are not seen as people with a different gender to their sex, but as social outcasts with mental disorders comparable to those thrust upon homosexuals and bisexuals not one century ago. The average life expectancy of a transgendered person is 28. It is estimated one transgendered woman is killed ever 35 hours. Feminism is no longer a sufficient term to define those wanting gender equality, the oppression and stigmatization of genderqueers and transsexuals is even greater.

We need to see a change in the world of gender studies; very little transgender literature is particularly well known, we have no Germaine Greer or Simone de Beauvoir - indeed the greatest proponent of androgyny recently has been Eddie Izzard, and that is purely because of transvestitism and not because of any outright gender definition. Indeed, this displays the gap between women being a known oppressed gender, and androgynes and third sex-people being ignored because they are not known. We should not be vocal as to allow over-discrimination, but to be as well known as to be defined by our gender instead of by our sex... whatever that is.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1150888 2011-12-15T19:00:00-05:00 2012-02-14T05:12:02-05:00

James Hetterley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hetterley/
The "Sex and Relationship Education Guidance" (July 2000) tells us "pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage...the government recognises that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage...ensure there is no stigmatisation of children based on their home circumstances." These are some pretty obvious guidelines: marriage, heterosexual relationships out of wedlock, single-parent families, and LGBT relationships are all to be taught in schools because stable relationships are recognised as "key building blocks of society".

However in the Funding Agreements for free schools and academies outlined in July 2011 tell us only this, "ensure children at the academy are protected from inappropriate teaching materials and they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children." The dark hand of conservatism slaps the face of equality yet again...for although this may seem as if it is a pretty moderately conservative piece of legislation, it infringes on two principles that should be unmoving in our society: (i) equality for the LGBT community; and (ii) an unbiased education for all children.

Recently, I met my Conservative Party MP, Rehman Chishti, to discuss this dangerous piece of legislation with him. I asked him a simple thought experiment, "Is it not unjustified for faith schools and free schools to preach heteronormative and pro-marriage agenda; when it is apparently not justifiable for other free schools to preach a homonormative, anti-marriage agenda? Does this not go against the concept of free schools?" I was left without a coherent answer, the closest that I got being merely that faith schools have a right to instil the values of their religion onto their children.

But this got me thinking; should faith and free schools be allowed to instil values and principles into children? Does this not go against a varied and unbiased curriculum? Does it not disable the students who go to these bigoted institutions? Any rational human being would agree with the idea that schools are not places of religion or ideology, they are not places to force faith onto children, but where children go to learn in an environment where their education is lead by facts, not by opinions.

Terry Sanderson, the President of the National Secular Society, said, "It opens the door for religious schools to teach a really narrow version of what constitutes an acceptable relationship". Because, yes, if gay marriage comes to be legislated as Nick Clegg keeps on telling us then many secular schools will of course teach both LGBT and heterosexual marriage as positives, but how many Catholic and other religious schools be so inclined to do so? Legislation needs to be specific for it to be valid, and since this is completely open to interpretation, the zealots and fanatics will ensure the return to Section 28-induced discrimination of the 80s and 90s.

But even then, this only answers half of the problem. Why should marriages of any nature be more important than stable relationships? A stable unmarried couple is surely a much better parenting team than an unstable married couple on the brink of collapse. And surely a single parent or an LGBT couple that can care for their child and provide for them are just as "good" as a married couple. Surely all of this (or preferably, none of this) should stay in schools.

There is, indeed, a simple answer to all of this between all the rhetoric and the debate: teach nothing. Teach sometimes marriage works, teach sometimes marriage doesn't. Teach sometimes single parents are stable family homes, teach sometimes LGBT couples are stable parents. Replace Religious Studies with Philosophy so that children are not taught pseudo-theology but how to critically think. Ban religious schools so that minority groups are not stigmatised and all children can gain an unbiased and equal education.

Let us not descend into the past with this ideological suicide note, but let us improve our education system. Let Mr. Gove not be the homophobe he so obviously is, but expose the flaw in all free schools. It is surprising that so far Labour has said so little on this document. Let us expose the coalition for the regressive, vile ministry that they really are.]]>