After MOBConf

MOBConf (Mobilizing and Organizing from Below Conference) was hosted this past weekend in Baltimore by Red Emma's Bookstore.  It was a joy to attending informative sessions and to meet people indefatigable for radical politics and social justice.  I gained an appreciation for the breadth of work that people of all experiences and interests are doing all over the country toward this end.  The sessions on safe spaces host a discussion on the essential questions and challenges that face creating these spaces and provided me with a new framework for understanding my work in tenant organizing.  The antiracist training workshop covered important material--from Western racial history and theory, to anti-racism as central to anarchism, to how to address subtle forms of racism one might encounter in their next activist meeting.  Despite my minimal involvement with the Occupy Movement, I still enjoyed the Tidal/Occupy Theory discussion group--an initially leaderless session which slowly emerged as a conversation about Occupy, space(s), and the possibilities and goals of Occupy.  You can see peruse the pictures and videos of the conference here.

A few friends and I led a panel discussion on Religion and Radical Politics, described as "a chance to explore the political aspects in religious traditions which offer relevant critiques and points for hope in our world."  Unfortunately, we weren't able to gather the religious diversity I had initially envisioned, but it was a great panel nonetheless.  We all prepared more than we were able to share, but we briefly touched upon subjects such as debt and economics, gender, sexuality, and the current role of churches in organizing. 

Though incomplete and vague, below are my notes for my discussion on "Sexuality and Class."  My goal in this 10 minutes presentation was to show that the Gospel texts, though by no means "pro-gay", offers a vision of sexuality which is inseparable from political and economic realities.  In many ways, in this presentation I am trying to work out my own frustrations with the dominant "gay rights" movement seems disconnect from class struggle and economic inequalities.  As such, its demands (e.g. marriage equality, adoption, participation in the military) seem little more than bourgeois concerns and the movement elitist.  Until its able to recognize and incorporate economic struggles (near and far), I have difficulty supporting much of the mainstream gay rights movement.  My presentation was an attempt to show that the Gospel texts recognize both sexuality and economics as inseparable and offers avenues for the transformation of both in the new Christian community and beyond.  My notes are below:

 

Sexuality and Class: Presentation for MOBConf

My goal is not claim that the Bible is a gay-friendly text or to try to defend its unsettling references to homosexuality. I want to argue that marriage, reproduction, and family are essential parts of heterosexism or “heteronormativity.” And as such, heteronormativity is an instrument for defining and controlling gender and sexuality as well as politics (i.e. determining who is in or out, familiar or foreigner, friend or stranger) and economics (who will help me gain wealth?, how can I make sure my wealth isn't taken by another?, who can have my wealth after I pass away?). Even though the Gospel texts have no explicit reference to gay or lesbian issues, it levels harsh critiques against marriage, reproduction, and the family unit and thereby removes any foundation for heteronormativity in the new community whose life together embody signs of the Kingdom to come. Liberated from heteronormativity, new possibilities for gender and for sexual identity are able to emerge. Simultaneously and in the same moment, new political and economic possibilities also unfold.

Focusing on the Gospel text, we find many declarations about the family—some overt and some not so explicit. Regarding the family unit, one can find:

"Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life." (Mark 10:29-30)

Or

"'Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26-27)

Which can be interpreted it to mean that you must hate mother, father, wife and children in so far as they are those relationships to you (along with the privileges they engender), but you must love them as members of the new, egalitarian community oriented to justice.

The last passage included children, which leads us to the issue of reproduction. Passages addressing and critiquing reproduction state,

"While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!'" (Luke 11:27-28)

Or

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

Or Jesus' declaration that those who enter the new community must be born from above, that is, in contrast to their biological birth and any privileges which might accompany it (John 3:1-8).

Even regarding marriage, Jesus takes a critical and cautious posture which is made evident in his own singlehood and when he affirms that, considering the demands of marriage, for some it is better not to marry (Matthew 19:5-12). All of this, and many other passages, are not inconsequential nor just happenstance. It is not that the Gospels hate marriage, but it is seen as dangerous for the sustainability of a new, diverse community embodying mutuality. In this egalitarian community dedicated to justice, all other social identities and roles lose their privilege and have no merit. And so, the Gospel text is explicitly critical of any valuation of marriage, reproduction, and the family unit—essential aspects of heteronormativity.

Okay, so the Gospel texts are critical of heteronormativity... so what? What does this have to do with sexuality? And what does this have to do with organizing from below? This is very important if we recognize that heteronormativity is a matrix for regulating not only gender and sexuality, but also politics and economics. The family is both the product and the conduit for socio-political realities. In particular, sexuality is regulated in the structure of the family—sexuality is restricted to between a man and a woman (ensuring that the other person is one's own property) and has reproduction as its goal (producing other economic agent to provide support to the parents in old age and to responsibly inherit the wealth of the couple after their demise). When understood in light of heteronormativity, we can see how sexuality is intimately entangled in politics and economics. In the traditional family unit, sexuality is essential to determining boundaries—who is in or out—as well as keep wealth and resources within closed, reproducing circles. And this mechanism for keeping economics in closed, familial circles is essential to creating and perpetuating class division—those with wealth are able to keep it in their closed circles and those in poverty continue to inherit poverty. And despite the illusions of social mobility, the family structure is an economic force that serves to keep out the unwanted and keep in capital. An recent article in the Guardian titled “Yourdaddy's rich … inherited wealth may date back to dawn ofagriculture” by Maev Kennedy (May 28, 2012) confirms that the economic and political dynamic of the family has ancient roots. Returning to the biblical text, we see this very problem happen in the Acts 5:1-11 account where the first husband and wife mentioned in the new community are the very ones who try to hoard money for themselves—violating the practice of sharing with those in need and communal possessions.

What does this have to do with sexuality? I find that much of the current, dominant discussions about sexuality are narrow, still subscribing to heteronormative ideals and, I propose, that's why "gay rights movements" have difficulty making any connection to class and economic issues. However, sexuality is more than what reproductive organ one enjoys. Marriage equality has become little more than seeking to participate in heteronormativity and its benefits to the exclusion of many who are of low-income. This, among many other issues, makes much of LGBT movements full of elitist aspirations. Those with unstable or non-tradtional families, those with very little wealth or social capital, those who are jobless, and those who have to rely on social services for support are often times excluded from the “gay rights” vision represented by white, muscular men who apparently are wealthy enough to go on cruises and wear Diesel.

But in its consistent critique of heteronormativity, the Gospels offer us amazing groundwork regarding sexuality, economic inequality, and becoming a community that works for justice. If we recognize a common root of LGBTQ oppression and economic inequality in heteronormativity, we'll be able 1) to forge queer movements that will be inseparable from economic justice and 2) to organize and work in solidarity with those who are low-income or marginalized because our social ties and economics will take on a new shape. Suddenly, our new family are those who seek justice, our siblings are those commitment to mutuality, our children are those who continue the work of the community after us. Rather than dividing along our bio-legal family lines, mobilizing and organizing from below demands that we are willing to enter new families. And once we undo the hold of the heteronormative ideal and dedicate ourselves to the community of radical justice, we'll find that sexual liberation and economic liberation coincide.

Riz Khan: Cornel West and the fight against injustice

Gentrification in DC

I'm indebted to my friend for bringing my attention to the article "DC, Long 'Chocolate City,' Becoming More Vanilla."

This story follows a trend that has happened to numerous Washington, DC neighborhoods--Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights; Petworth is already in the works.  Anacostia is the latest, but not the last, in DC's eastward march of gentrification--enjoyed by hipsters and ladder-climbing suburbanites alike (sadly, that includes me, too).  This article touches upon two very important issues, but fails to distinguish them well enough to make clear the problem at hand.  The title leads one to believe that the problem is primarily a racial matter--a predominantly black city is gaining more white inhabitants and losing it's long standing black residents.  Even though this is true, this covers over the fact that this is primarily a problem about economics and class rather than a racial issue.

Economics and race are inseparably intertwined, however they are NOT identical--and this fact makes all the difference.  First of all, the problem the article highlights is that poor families who have lived in DC are being displaced by rising property values and the increase in the cost of living because white developers are buying property, refurnishing old homes, and opening new businesses in low-income neighborhoods.  That is the problem of gentrification.  Secondly, this also has strong racial component because Washington, DC's has had an overwhelming black population.  This has been the case for at least three reasons, if not more: 1. a disproportionate percentage of poor people are black (one reason why race and economics are intimately tied), 2. many black people who moved from the South in the early 20th century settled in the city, AND 3. white flight in the late 60's created a city abandoned to the poor black populations.  This is an important distinction because the problem is not the presence or lack thereof of black people, but of the poor families who are being pushed out of their neighborhoods.  Therefore, whether the developers and new inhabitants are black or white does not make a difference, the injustice is that poor are being uprooted by the rich.  However, if anyone has an awareness of systemic racial injustice, it will be clear that the majority of the residents of Anacostia are poor black people and a majority of the developers are white.  Economic problems have strong racial implications and discussions about race are never unrelated to economic disparity.  However, if one will do justice to this problem, it must be seen primarily as an economic problem, not a racial matter.

I admit that I am puzzled by consequences of gentrification (actually, displacing the poor is not just a "consequence" of gentrification, but is directly at the heart of gentrification's intent).  Poor neighborhoods are complex systems filled with various relationships and patterns--good and some harmful.  In a poor neighborhood, there are families which care for its members, there are schools with networks of friends, familiar faces in churches and local stores.  These are healthy and vibrant relationships which have found their home in places like Anacostia.  However, there are also brutal gangs which divide the neighborhood into territories of violence and hostility.  There are drugs and prostitution circles--both of which are frequently used to keep people in dehumanizing servitude to others.  The truth is that poor families do not want to live in fear of violence any more than rich families do.  Poor or rich, no parent wants their child's life to be in danger simply by walking to school.  No one wants their sense of security violated by rape, muggings, or burglary.  Even though, I want to advocate for those who are poor, I find these ills hard to ignore--ills which have a direct correlation to burden and persistence poverty.  Unfortunately, the rich continue to believe that they know what the poor need and then, with clear consciences and deaf ears, impose their good works on those who already suffer the most.  Gentrification is the inadequate answer of the rich to the problems of poverty.

Let's not romanticize areas like Anacostia--fear of these areas are not solely a matter of white delusions about predominantly black neighborhoods.  There IS violence and high crime rates in this and other neighborhoods.  I do not want to displace those who are impoverished, but they live do in neighborhoods that are in need of transformation.  But what is needed? Better schools?  Community centers?  The removal of power plants and waste sites--causes of numerous health problems among the poor?  Better police enforcement (I know this would also demand an overall of the justice system and reducing instances of police corruption and brutality.  However, we must remember that despite instances of police brutality, some times the problem is that the police do not show up when needed by those who are live in these areas)?  Is there are a way to remove the ills of poor neighborhoods without uprooting multi-generational family and its beautiful communities?  Some of these communities stand like aged Sequoias in DC's transient population.  Until those who are poor--who have been historically poor--are the guidepost for our actions, then we have yet to do justice.

And how about us suburbanites--black, white, or any other race/ethnicity?  Where do we live and what do we do?  Some with good intentions (some with not-so-good intentions) have moved to these gentrified areas.  But the fact of the matter, whether we like it or not, is that simply our presence can send property value soaring and our neighbors shoved into the streets.  My friend reminds [and challenges] me that where one chooses to live is an ethical matter and I'm still struggling with what that will mean for me.