pigs on campus

Saturday April 9 2011

Approximately 11:30AM, cop seen "talking to" (questioning?) people in Proctor Dining Hall.

A few minutes later, two cop cars parked behind a public safety vehicle in parking spots behind the library. 3 pigs and 1 pub safe officer were talking in a group behind the library.

There reason for being here is unknown. Keep your eyes and ears open.

Fuck all cops and cop collaborators. They have no purpose in our, or any, community.

Challenging a "Culture of Despair"

The following is an email correspondence between a student and the Chair of the Economics Department.  It is in response to an offensive lecture the college hosted without allowing for any critique.  The email and op-ed following the event have gotten numerous people talking on our campus about many significant issues and has demonstrated that we all have the power to make some noise and begin to challenge domineering and “unquestionable” subjects.  While certainly some have disagreed with the methodology and language used in the email, ultimately being firm and honest about grave matters is essential to questioning a serious action.  Focusing merely on timing and language is simply an act of resistance (see Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”).  You all can and should speak up to challenge one another in our community!

________________________________________

Subject: March 17: Talk on early non-marital childbearing

Phil  Levine (Wellesley College)

Early Non-Marital Childbearing and the "Culture of Despair"

Location/Time: Thursday, March 17, 4:30-5:30 Axinn 220

This paper borrows from the tradition of other social sciences in considering the impact that “culture” (broadly defined as the economic and social environment in which the poor live) plays in determining early, non-marital childbearing. Along with others before us, we hypothesize that the despair and hopelessness that poor, young women may face increases the likelihood that they will choose to give birth at an early age outside of marriage. We derive a formal economic model that incorporates the role a woman’s perception of economic success may play in determining her childbearing and marital outcomes. We operationalize this perception mainly by using the level of income inequality that exists in a woman’s state of residence. We empirically investigate whether low socioeconomic status (SES) women are more responsive to differences in the level of income inequality in terms of their childbearing and marital outcomes. We find low SES women have more teen, non-marital births when they live in higher inequality locations, all else equal, supporting our hypothesis. The mechanism driving this finding is less frequent use of abortion. For women in their early 20s, higher inequality reduces the prevalence of shotgun marriages among low SES women, leading to more (fewer) non-marital (marital) births.

________________________________________

Dear Chair Matthews,

I am deeply appalled and tremendously offended that your department has chosen to endorse such a hateful lecture.  "Culture of despair" rhetoric is simply a re-branding of the equally problematic "culture of poverty" that both dehumanizes the poor and blames them for their "condition".  Where are the voices of the women in this study?  They have been simply reduced to a faulty economic model.

We must stand up as a community to blatantly discriminatory lectures that our college endorses.  As human beings striving to be just and fair we cannot tolerate hate.  The college has a history of supporting hateful racism, classism, sexism...and that is wrong.  A few years ago Charles Murray came to campus to speak about his disgusting justification of the superiority of whites in the Bell Curve and we did not bring him here ironically or bring somebody else afterwards to critique his oppressive position.

Thank you very much for reminding me that just because Middlebury offers wonderful classes such as Writing for Social Change and Social Justice in Education that does not actually mean it is committed to those principles.  Believing so would be a terrible mistake to make that would blind us to the horrible injustices this institution is involved in and specifically the oppression that your department perpetuates.

We must actively resist the oppression and it starts with you writing an all-campus apology and clarification.

________________________________________

Thanks for sharing.

The department has not “endorsed … a hateful lecture.”  First, invitations to present seminars on campus aren’t endorsements. Second, it’s not clear to me – and unless you’ve managed to find the time to read Professor Levine’s paper before most of us have, I don’t know how it could be clear to you – that it is in fact “hateful” in the ways you suggest.  (I would suggest, however, that the analogy to Murray’s problematic work isn’t constructive here.)

I’d be pleased to send you the paper, and I would be pleased, perhaps even with a colleague or two, to discuss it with you.  I would further encourage you to attend the lecture and ask questions:  in advertising it to other departments and programs, it was our hope that the resulting conversation would reflect an even more diverse set of ideas and methods than usual.  That’s what the “liberal arts experience” is all about.

I’m afraid, however, that there will be no “all campus apology.”

Best wishes, PHM

________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I appreciate your offer to sit down together and read Professor Levine's paper; however, I do not appreciate the condescending tone by which you addressed me to distance yourself from this act of injustice you are unfortunately supporting.

Every move you make is political and you can never try to remove yourself from power, pretending to be able to do so is woefully destructive.  Each book you assign to your class, every word you choose to use in lecture, and every penny you use to bring speakers to campus is a reflection and perpetuation of an ideology; there is always an embedded endorsement.

Your misunderstanding as to why this talk is hateful exactly illustrates the problematic position of not reading culture critically and acknowledging how you are situated in power structures.  As one of my friends put it: "This is just a further example of why a more appropriate name for the Econ department is the Economics Department of Oppression and Lack of Understanding."  I am not suggesting that this title is an essential component of Econ on this campus, but rather demanding that you take proactive measures to ensure that it continues to be so applicable no longer.

By no means is this an attack on you or your department; rather, this is firm stance against horrible injustice and the dehumanization of a group you are playing a part in the oppression of.

Unfortunately, your calculation that this event will lead to a more diverse set of ideas is terribly misguided.  Consider the fact that all-gender bathrooms are currently being advocated for (and much over due) on campus.  Under your misunderstanding of diversity it would possibly be harmful to focus the discussion in such a place so that we are dedicated to social justice, we should probably encourage a more diverse set of ideas around the issue, perhaps maybe we should posit something else into the conversation such as creating "White Only" and "Colored Only" bathrooms?  What do you think about that diverse idea?

A liberal arts education is not about being indoctrinated with hate.  As our mission statement reflects the experience is more about cultivating "the intellectual, creative, physical, ethical, and social qualities essential for leadership."  This lecture runs in opposition to such ethical and social qualities and therefore it is your duty to clarify and respond in an all-campus apology.

________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I respectfully attended the event this afternoon, but unfortunately was not respected back.  I am curious as to why this was, perhaps you along with the administration could address this for me and the rest of our college community.

I am puzzled by how quick you were to defend Levine without having read the paper yourself and to leap to the assumption that I had no grounds for objection since I likely had not read it either.  Through the lecture, however, you now know how unsubstantiated your resistance was.

As you encouraged, I questioned Levine at the lecture.  I explicitly stated numerous questions drawing on verbatim quotes from his speech as well as troubling passages from his paper (that yes I have indeed read).  Unfortunately, I failed to receive an answer.  While I respectfully allowed the event to proceed, we certainly learned much from the silence.  Numerous members of our college community expressed disbelief in the unprofessionalism by which he handled his response; we are all left waiting for this troubling issue to seriously be addressed.

Please know that I want to engage in constructive dialogue with you.  While you invited me to speak with Levine, the offer was revoked upon the opening of my mouth.  While I find this incredibly problematic, I am not going to let it get in the way of us having an important conversation.

I look forward to your response to these urgent concerns and receiving a genuine all-campus apology that ensures such events will not be supported by the Economics Department without critical follow up.

"Il Faut Gagner"

I began writing this mid-February with intentions of writing more, but I let it drop as I started having more work to do for classes (something I’m not used to having to do in France…) Now it’s the beginning of April and Libya and Syria have added themselves to rebelling countries in the Muslim/North African world. –Laurice Fox, ‘12

“Il faut gagner!”

“…Sinon c’est la fin du monde!” I cried out jokingly—my competitive nature present. Directly across the table, Diego, poker faced—emotions well masked behind sunglasses…what I would consider a cheap way out—curtly and frankly followed my statement with: “Wikileaks est la fin du monde.” Yes; frank, unprecedented, unexplained. Everyone else around the table was having his or her own conversation before the next round commenced, but there I was immediately thrown back, and of course immediately prepared with a response. Kneeling on my chair, caipirinha in hand, I retorted, “Le fin du monde!? Ou peut-être wikileaks va faire le monde mieux!” I said it in a giddy matter—a little affected by the previous cocktails. Through the ring-clouds of cigarette smoke, cards, chips, Diego stared back at me still poker-faced, through his opaque sunglasses, leaning calmly on the edge of the table, arms crossed. He embodied the Pierce Brosnan/James Bond persona very well. And it was not until directly after my response that I actually thought about it…and thought some more about his statement and recent events.

So, still positioned on the chair on my knees and glass in hand, I drifted away from the playing table into my thoughts for a moment. What was my reasoning in my response? That Wikileaks has revealed how corrupt governments of countries are and therefore the citizens of these countries are actively demanding for political reform and so far succeeding if we look to Tunisia and Egypt as examples? Is that not a change better for the people—at least the over–looked and under- represented? So…where was Shady coming from letting his comment unfurl and blend in with the rest of the smoke rings over the table? Wikileaks: the end of the world. I assumed he was referring to what would happen after the people of these corrupt countries, which at the moment we can specify as North Africa, attained political reform. These countries may over-turn their corrupt governments, but what happens after? More political turmoil? Destabilized allies? More revolts? Interference from political super powers that could end badly? I streamed through these thoughts picturing corruption, countries at war, military verse civilian violence, and then I emerged from them and said to Diego: “En fait, t’as raison. Je pense que t’as raison.” He just stared back…

I don’t want to say that Wikileaks is the end of the world, though. Not yet at least. When I think of the end of the world I think of nuclear warfare or natural disasters of such a large scale that nearly the whole human race is effaced. For now, I can at least say that Wikileaks is the end of an era—or the beginning of one.

Resisting Gendered Salaries

While the college claims that it values all of the disciplines that make the liberal arts so vibrant, they clearly construct a hierarchy in the pay grade.  As a private institution we are extremely secretive regarding salary issues; however, we openly admit that Economics, Computer Science, and Arabic necessitate a “market-based premium” and are consequently the highest paid disciplines on campus.  Since these fields are male dominated, do they inflate statistics of gender bias in faculty salary, or in fact do they reinforce and further perpetuate the ill founded devaluation of women’s work?

With the industrial revolution the labor force became gendered into what we now view as “traditional” gender roles.  Instead of working on the family farm, men began to take jobs in cities, assuming their responsibility as breadwinner, and women stayed home to take care of the kids and complete the housework: men’s work was paid, women’s work was not.  Of course gendered occupations are heavily raced and classed as well.  Black men have continually faced limiting social conditions that make it exceedingly difficult to integrate into the labor force.  The racist critique of the black family as matriarchal has been used historically for us to abandon social support mechanisms in favor of futile policy that encourages marriage.

Since a horrible economy has made it increasingly more difficult to live on one income, a persistently growing number of households have more than one provider; however, men still make more money than women.  As a society we will never let a women’s job exceed the pay of that of a man, we are constantly involved in the devaluation of their work.  “Official explanations” for salary discrepancies of Economics, Computer Science, and Arabic keep us from asking why the markets are so situated in the first place.  It is not that the market demands a premium for these fields which just happen to be dominated by men, but rather it is precisely because they are dominated by men that such a premium is granted. 

Should we really care to have the greediest professors or should we rather strive to attract those academics with a dedicated passion towards teaching?  What if we hired the kind of economists who are critical of increasing income inequality instead of in support of it?  Taking the appropriate stance on these issues would dramatically shake up the demographics of our departments, providing us with diverse and invigorating perspectives that inspire us through the compassion of educators committed to liberation.

For some reason our market-based logic fails to hold up on the student end.  Why is it that we are not presented with a differential pay grade based on our major?  The college blatantly undervalues most of our disciplines and it is time that we reflect such back to them to demand equitable pay for all of our professors instead of perpetuating commonsensical groundings for an oppressive pay scale.  For all future tuition bills we must pay only 80 percent with a stipulation that the remaining balance will linger empty until the school stops treating our professors as such.  Let us mobilize and act collectively with our peer institutions.  With enough joining this movement our schools cannot possibly fail to listen.  Together, in solidarity, we shall resist rather than collude in the oppression. 

- the Gadfly

Queer Article?

Hey all,

Here's what I've been working on. I think it's pretty much done, though I'm not super happy with it. If you have any suggestions do let me know! Email's nkerr@midd

When talking with other students about the label “Queer”, an idea that pops up in conversation after conversation is the desire to eschew political consciousness in relation to sexual-object choice. This is understandable in some sense; the term “Queer” to many has overt political, theoretical and social underpinnings, that is when it isn’t written off as an outdated and offensive term for which we now have a “better” and more “neutral” alternative in the acronym of LGBT.

            “Why should my sex life be political?”

            “Why, as a (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual etc) identified individual, should I have to ascribe to a political ideology for which there is no heterosexual equivalent?”

            These are, of course, important questions to address. Why should a minority group, demarcated by something as arbitrary as sexual preference, be asked to ascribe to a whole set of politics, presuppositions and stereotypes when we do not ask the same of our heterosexual counterparts?

            This line of questioning misses a crucial point; namely, any claim to or classification of identity is an inherently political act, and the classifiers “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “bisexual” etc, were all conceived, brewed and assembled within political contexts.

            Foucault locates the creation of the homosexual—and of sexual identity more broadly—in the late 1800’s. It was at this point that acts of sodomy, adultery or prostitution suddenly ceased to be sporadic behaviors or activities and became discursive behaviors constitutive of identity. Thus from “sodomy” was born the “sodomite,” someone who engaged in an act or acts of sodomy which suddenly bestowed him with the burden of an identity. Those classified as “sodomites”, “adulterers” and so on could now be punished politically and socially, as the unmarked (and assumedly untainted) individuals of high moral standing could justify their right to dominance by contrasting their discipline, morality and purity against that of the debased and newly-identified sexual deviant.

            And LGB politics has continued in much the same vein since then, using the bondage of identity to engage in identity politics (at times to great effect and good use), demarcating themselves from the unwashed heterosexual masses and demanding rights as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual individuals. (I leave Transgender out of this list since homonormative identity politics has seen fit to abandon the Trans fight in favor of “respectability”, using a mantra of “First the few, later the many” to justify co-opting and subsequently disenfranchising transpeople).

It is far too late to divorce sexual identity from the political. Heterosexuals too engage in a hetero-identity politics, it is simply because they dominate the political system that a white, heterosexual identity politic is rendered invisible, a convenient way of naturalizing a systematic control that is anything but natural.

            There can be no claim to a “natural”, “apolitical” sexuality; no such identity exists or has existed within modern Western social-political discourse. Instead, Queer Folks ought to embrace the political nature written into our bodies, our identities. Denying the role that social and political power has played in our creation is a fruitless road, one that renders the very recent ascension of the dominant hetero/homonormative identity politic “natural”, i.e. invisible; and ultimately, the denial and rejection of the political within our Queer bodies is a deliberate ignorance of our creation, past, present and future.

            This is not, however, a call to identity politics. The identity politics of white, middle-class homonormative “activists,” with their calls to solidarity, unity, are ultimately a dead end. We’ve seen this tension between a Queer political activism and a hamstringed, straight-jacketed homonormative LGB activism play out in the fight for Same-Sex Marriage. Queers who questioned the idea of marriage as a “human right” (as opposed to, say, access to education, housing, healthcare etc, issues that the homonormative “Human Rights Campaign” does not concern itself with) were demonized by the HRC and homonormative public figures like Dan Savage, cast as opponents of the struggle for the “human right” that marriage supposedly is.

The label of “Queer” has been shed by the mainstream gay movement , its culture co-opted and reappropriated for a white, elite, normative and bourgeois consumer audience. Corporate sponsored Pride Parades, the support of Dov Charney and his chauvinist-anti-fat-softcore-porn-fueled t-shirt empire, empty promises of queer-for-profit pop stars (are you there, Gaga?), this is what is left to us by the lepidopterist that is identity politics.

What, then, is a satisfactory answer? If we cannot ignore the queerness of our bodies, of the bodies of everyone we know, but cannot fit into identity politics, what avenue is left open to us?

It is by finding an activism that fits our own lives and bodies, by constantly doubting “common sense” politics and ideology, by not supporting something just because we are told to, that we can realize a reinvigorated coalitional politics and not be lulled by false consciousness. Instead of opening our campuses up to the ROTC because of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (is the military now vindicated, washed clean of all its crimes because of this newfound “tolerance?”), why are we not rejecting the presence of the Military Industrial Complex on our campuses? Instead of getting riled up about same-sex marriage, why do we let Republicans hamstring healthcare legislation and tear down or privatize welfare? The systematic and ruthless war being waged against American citizens and non-citizens alike by white, male, heteronormative capitalist interests affects all of us, and, whether Queer or straight, white or non-white, normative or subversive, it is our task now to recognize oppression when it is presented to us, even if it is wrapped up in an appealing little package. What is the cost of buying into dominant political narratives? Are we any more free without DADT? Are we better people because we can marry (and who, exactly, among us actually has access to that “right?”), or are all of us getting fucked as we congratulate ourselves on the success of our identity politics?

ANNOUNCEMENT

Miss the 18 march deadline but still want to submit an article to be included in our spring issue?

Well, you still have a chance. We are still accepting articles, but please get in contact with us as soon as possible to let us know that you are interested.

middlebury.gadfly [at] gmail [dot] com

- t h e g (A) d f l y

Border Tales

Since human greed and territorial nature created the idea of a border centuries ago, the world has become increasingly defined by borders and the policies that surround them. As natural borders—such as rivers—drastically change environments, artificial borders—such as the US-Mexico border—drastically change human existence. A look at the border policy of the most powerful nation in the world is a good exercise to connect with the vast implications and hypocrisy of border and immigration policy.

When the white man arrived in America, we (I am a white man) encountered the native population, who believed that like the air and the water, land was not something that could be owned. Exploiting this belief, we swept away cultures and civilizations from coast to coast, and then drew lines on the land to signify what was ours. As we defined ourselves to be a beacon of hope, the masses arrived, and increasingly, we have looked to those lines on the land to keep them away.

Our southern border, which was once abstract, has come to separate one of the wealthiest nations from one of the poorest nations in the world. Before the border existed, the man two feet north was no better than the man two feet south, but today, that difference of four feet might be the difference between wealth and poverty, food and starvation, hope and desperation. All because of a line and our laws to define its significance.

The legislative line of order versus liberty is hopefully balanced, but it is more often stumbled over when defining the rules of our border. As immigration into the U.S. increases, citizens sometimes feel that we are losing order and that “our” land should not be “theirs” too. This ideology is often rooted in racism and fear. The notion of protecting “our” land has been given life through much legislation dating back to as early as the Chinese Exclusion Act or as recently as Arizona’s SB1070. Essentially, this type of legislation makes our borders less permeable, and allows us to send more and more immigrants across that line. The irony of this ideology—that has become the centerpiece of US immigration policy—is remarkable.

The U.S. is located on land that we stole through violence in the Mexican American War. The U.S. came to prosperity on the backs of stolen humans from another continent. One of the driving forces of our economy today is the cheap and hardworking undocumented labor force, a product of the line we drew so long ago. But still, despite all this, our policy towards immigrants is self-righteous and overtly seeks to protect “our” land for ourselves.

This hypocrisy expands beyond the line from Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico. It exists in every border laid out on this earth. Can we truly own land? Can we acquire it fairly? Is the security that we feel from a line in the dirt worth the tremendous divide that it unequivocally creates among humans? The root question is whether borders are justified in their existence.

Food Insecurities

When food prices peaked in 2008 the developing world, as is the case in many economic disasters, was hit the hardest. Food insecurities in Asia and Africa were increased by the high prices, especially in places where drought had already made food production an impossibility. The outward flow of migration from the developing world provided remittances to some families, but migration also had negative effects on families. Even thought the price of food has slowly fallen since 2008, food prices at local levels have remained high. This, combined with the economic meltdown of the last couple years, will have devastating effects on developing world. The silent victim of this global crisis is women, the demographic that has been most severely affected. Women are the ones who have had to go without food most often, have the least diverse diet and who have had to make the greatest sacrifices in search of affordable food. In a world that already leaves women far behind men in terms of political power and autonomy, they are also the ones who must pay for the commodification of food, and who are made to starve when Western policies have made food impossible to buy.

            All over the world, women are the last to eat and eat the least. Women often have a low position in society in developing nations. Even before the 2008 crisis they were the last to eat. As men are migrating out of developing countries or to urban areas women are becoming the heads of households in traditionally patriarchal societies. Yet a woman who runs her own household is still as likely to eat last and least as in a male-run household. This is because women prioritize the needs of their children and husbands above their own. Not only do women eat less, but they eat less diverse and therefore less healthy diets. In a study done on food insecurity and gender in Ethiopia, at the peak of the food crisis men ate 4.1 different foods while women ate only 3.6.

            Women in these developing countries were inconvenienced and strained by high food prices. They had to spend more time searching for food at lower prices and oftentimes had to travel far distances in order to find affordable food. In Bangladesh, women were often stopped from travelling to different markets because female mobility is restricted. If one of the ways to measure autonomy is by access to mobility and resources, this is an example of the way the autonomy of women is stifled to the extent that they must fear starvation and the starvation of their children. 

            To cope with these harsh conditions women must often go without meals or limit the portions of their and their children’s meals. It is Western policies that can largely be blamed on these food insecurities.

            Price speculation and the commodification of food is one of the leading causes of these mounting prices. Another contributing factor is the trade-off occurring when crops such as cassava and maize are used for biofuels instead of food. The land used for biofuels as opposed to food production could also be a contribution to this trade-off. The International Food Policy

Research Institute predicts that if policies toward biofuels consumption remain as they are, the price of maize, sugar, wheat, cassava and oilseeds will dramatically increase.

            Perhaps the most devastating contributor to rising food prices is climate change, which is responsible for droughts in many parts of the world. Although the roots of climate change cannot be blamed entirely on the West and Western policies, it is a global challenge that must be met and solved by the world community, a challenge that so far few have risen to meet. The global community then is responsible for the food shortages and resulting high prices that changes to the environment necessarily bring about.

            It is not just women who suffer from starvation, and all who must face the realities of food shortages deserve aid. However, in communities where food is being rationed and women are receiving the shortest end of the stick, it is time for global attitudes toward women and their place in society to shift. Women can no longer bear the brunt of global crises just because the society in which they are from treats them as second-class citizens. Food insecurity limits women’s abilities to demand higher statuses in life, as the worry about how to afford or find the next meal distracts women from seeking political and economic power. As the developed world struggles to deal with the best way to confront the food crisis and to aid those who are starving, it must consider the plight of women and the empowerment they must achieve before they are able to confront a society which tells them they are not worthy of having equal proportions of food as a man. 


- Amelia Furlong

Reification - The Self-Alienation of Bourgeois Consciousness

We live in a capitalist system founded upon economic relations, where the commodity structure has “penetrated society in all its aspects and remolded it in its own image”.  The essence of this condition is that our actions, rather than appearing as our authentic, creative presence in the world, become labor – an alienated thing.  Losing all of its organic dynamicism, human activity is reified – given a ‘phantom objectivity’ disconnected from the individual – and man’s social relations are perverted into the sterile relations of commodities.  This reification transforms society into a system of economic production and consumption, and man into a sum of exchange-value and capital.  Human social existence becomes necessarily alienated from its true nature.

As Georg Lukács writes –

There is both an objective and a subjective side to this phenomenon.  Objectively a world of objects and relations between things springs into being (the world of commodities and their movements on the market).  The laws governing these objects are indeed gradually discovered by man, but even so they confront him as invisible forces that generate their own power.  The individual can use his knowledge of these laws to his own advantage, but he is not able to modify the process by his own activity.  Subjectively – where the market economy has been fully developed – a man’s activity becomes estranged from himself, it turns into a commodity which, subject to the non-human objectivity of the natural laws of society, must go its own way independently of man just like any consumer article

It is clearly demonstrated how the concept of reification is not only useful for students of Marxist political economy, but is of value for any serious critique of modern society. The reification of social relations under capitalism perverts our very experience of the world.  In man’s estrangement from authentic being through the objectification of his activity, he comes to view the interactions of these reified objects as the true nature of social existence. He becomes subjugated to the quantitative calculability of the commodity structure, and seeks to understand himself solely through this rational, ‘scientific’ system. “Just as the capitalist system continuously produces and reproduces itself economically on higher and higher levels, the structure of reification progressively sinks more deeply, more fatefully and more definitively into the consciousness of man”.  Capitalism thus produces a false consciousness that constantly reasserts its own self-alienation.  Lived, authentic experience is lost to the rational mechanization of reified forms, governed by laws and systems we believe to be objective.

Thus, the pervasive alienation of modern existence exhibits itself not only in the ostensibly economic sphere.  Capitalism has perverted every aspect of society, as well as modern man’s very consciousness.  The modern role of science is a clear example of the distorted nature of bourgeois consciousness. We live in an age of sterile positivism, where the majority of the educated population holds faith in the ability of science to understand human activity as a rational, logically approachable system.  Science, however, does not hold the privileged position that it so often claims.  Rather than engaging objective existence, our modern quasi-positivism is in fact concerned only with reified forms.  This is especially evident in the social sciences.  False bourgeois consciousness has historically reproduced the structure of economic reification in the practice of psychology and sociology.  By objectifying man’s thoughts and activities into scientifically interpretable things, these disciplines have further alienated modern man from his experience of the world. Lukács would regard these false relations, these structures of modern consciousness, as symptoms of capitalist commodification.  In regarding man as a psychological and sociological construct, we have further distanced ourselves from the organic, creative free play of human existence.

Exploring the reified structures of distorted consciousness calls us to reexamine the nature of our own presence in the world.  While the institution of liberal arts education professes an ideal of lofty personal striving and emancipation from unreflective, self-imposed immaturity, here among the self-satisfied sons of wealth and comfort we seem far more content to constantly reproduce reified social relations, rather than transcend self-alienated bourgeois values towards fullness and authenticity of being.

Modernity is an age of estrangement, where man’s objectified activity has been given alien autonomy and power over him.  Fullness of meaning, strength of voice and authentic being-towards-death – these values have no place in the false bourgeois consciousness of modern capitalism, where humanity is governed by rational, deterministic laws concerned only with the reified form of man.  It is clear that we must attempt to rise above this false consciousness to the phenomenological standpoint – and accordingly strive to recover our being from capitalism’s self-imposed alienation.

TYH

Know Your Rights: Dealing with the Cops

I despise the existence of cops. Plain and simple. You know my bias from the beginning, but I will try not to let that bias come through too much. My purpose here is to pass along some useful information.

Cops are not your friends. An individual police officer may be friendly, but that’s more a testament of their personal character and forces me to wonder “Why the fuck did s/he become a cop!?” Cops do not serve the people; they are the enemies of freedom and individuality. Their purpose is to maintain a hierarchical system based on subordination and to reinforce capitalism. I do not dislike individual cops because of the individual, but because that individual chose to support a system that is flawed and serves only to help the richest white individuals and corporations.

Regardless of how much I dislike the cops; I know that when they confront me, I need to act meek. “Yes sir.” “No, ma’am.” “No, I have no idea why you’re pulling me over.” Interaction with the cops is virtually unavoidable. If you are ever in a car there’s a chance you will be pulled over. Don’t have a car? Well, you’ll probably be stopped for hitchhiking in the wrong place, or biking where you are not supposed to bike. Or maybe you will happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and a cop will stop you and ask what you know, why you’re at the scene of the crime. Or maybe because s/he doesn’t like the way you look. Or maybe… the list goes on. What’s most important is that you know your rights when being confronted by the police.

In general, there are two key phrases you need to know.

The first is: “I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer.”

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Why would I advocate speaking to a lawyer? Well, this is an extenuating circumstance. Invoke your Miranda Rights [1] by not speaking and demanding a lawyer. This way, the cop cannot use you against yourself. Plus, a lawyer will know the law better than any given individual, no matter how well informed we try to be.

An officer may not use your refusal to speak as an admittance of guilt. Probably, the cop will continue to ask you seemingly harmless questions. Do not answer them! Just repeat that you are going to remain silent and that you want to see a lawyer. The only thing that will come of you talking to cops is giving them more information than they originally had. Remember “Anything you say can and WILL be used against you” (emphasis mine).

The second key phrase is: “I do not consent to a search.”

Even if they have a search warrant, still use this phrase. You will never lose anything by invoking your right not to be searched. Plus, if they have a search warrant, and things are not totally in order, or if they search you without a warrant anyways, anything they find will be inadmissible in court.

It is important to remember that you need to state clearly, politely, and firmly that you do not consent to a search. In those terms. If you are not clear and do not stand your ground on this, the cops will do their best to get a casual consent. If a cop comes to your house, quickly exit and close the door behind you, assess what they want from outside, then invoke your key phrases as needed. If a cop asks you to step out of your vehicle, remember to close the door, or it may be seen as a form of consenting to a search. And always remember key phrase number 1, “I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer.” If you are being detained, the only information you must give them is your name, address, age, birthday, and social security number until a lawyer arrives and advises you what to say.

These two phrases will help a lot. Though, not all cops will honor your rights. In these instances, stand as firm as possible in your refusal to speak. Even if you started speaking, you may invoke your Miranda Rights at any moment, and from that point forward you do not have to answer anything until your lawyer arrives.

It is also helpful to understand the different type of interactions with police. Midnight Special suggest 3 types of interactions:

1 ) Conversation: the cops are trying to get info and can’t soundly connect you to anything.

2 )  Detention: the cops had reasonable suspicion to hold you for questioning and you cannot leave. “Reasonable suspicion” means that the cop must be able to logically articulate why they are holding you.

3 ) Arrest: You can only be arrested when the cops have probable cause, meaning that they have more than reasonable suspicion. In other words, they have to be able to connect you to a crime to arrest you.

If you are arrested, you can still invoke your right to silence. At this point, the cops will do anything they can to get you to admit to committing a crime. They may use good cop/bad cop routine (remember, there is no such thing as a cop who is your friend), say they have some circumstantial evidence (which is most likely shaky at best; if it was a solid defense they would not have to question you), threaten a polygraph (lie detector) test, or one of their myriad other tactics. There is one surefire way to hold your ground, and that is to not speak.

Moreover, if you are involved in activism and direct action, be aware that a cop who has infiltrated your organization or who is undercover in the midst of protestors and activists does not have to identify him or herself. They can use many tactics to get you to get you to commit a crime without it being considered entrapment. (For instance, a Narc may take drugs so as to not blow their cover.) Just because they’re doing something illegal doesn’t mean they can’t and won’t nail you on the same activities. Be smart; don’t talk about illegal activity with those you don’t trust.

These may not apply to non-citizens or “illegal” immigrants. I am not totally sure and do not want to speak about anything I do not know about. There should be resources available on the internet regarding “illegal” immigrants’ rights when dealing with the cops. (If you do know resources, please post them in the comments!)

There are several resources available online concerning your rights when dealing with cops. Here are a few that I have consulted:

“Flex Your Rights” is a DVD you can purchase about knowing your rights when dealing with cops. However, there is also an FAQ on the website with concise chunks of information, as well as small video clips and some lectures about civilian rights when dealing with cops. You can check that out here: http://www.flexyourrights.com/

“Anarchist Survival Guide for Understanding Gestapo Swine Interrogation Mind Games” “Subtitle: Staying Free By Shutting the Fuck Up!” By Anarchist Author, Poet, Jailhouse Lawyer & Prisoner Harold H. Thompson. This is a pamphlet about, well about exactly what the title says. It stresses the importance of staying silent and goes over several police tactics.

“Dealing With Police” is a short, 4 page informational sheet from Midnight Special, a now-defunct legal collective. They have several resources available here: http://www.midnightspecial.net/materials/.

The Zine Library has a wide collection of articles, pamphlets, posters…etc. on prisons and police here: http://zinelibrary.info/english/prisons-and-police

A flyer from  The Zine Library: http://zinelibrary.info/files/enemies-police-v2.pdf

Injustice Everywhere: The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project. http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

I realize that this article could cover many, many more aspects of dealing with cops. However, in most people’s daily lives, I feel that these key phrases and links will be the most useful. Feel free to suggest other tips for dealing with cops in the comments.

Oh yeah, and one final note, the key phrases above also work with any government agency (FBI, ICE, CIA…etc.).

[1] Interesting thing I learned about your Miranda Rights while looking up information about civilian rights when dealing with cops. Contrary to popular thought, a cop does not have to read you your Miranda Rights as soon as you are arrested. “The only time an officer must read a person his or her Miranda rights is when: (1) the person has been placed under arrest, AND (2) the officer is about to question the person about a crime” (http://flexyourrights.org/faq). Also, for those of you who may not recall exactly what the Miranda warning is, it reads, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”


- t h e  g a d f l y


-----


March 15 is the International Day Against Police Brutality. In the US, we may have a day reserved on October 22nd, but that does not mean that we should not support others on this day. Fuck police brutality. And fuck police. The cops are not your friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality