Tag: performative politics

A Critique of Performative Politics & Symbolic Protest

A call to action for shifting movement actions away from symbolism and towards material disruption & abolition.

We believe in healthy, constructive critique, and we think that movements and the individuals that make them should be self-critical in order to improve practice and thought. But too many times, our community actions try to replicate the most visible or publicized forms of actions, and try to follow models of organizing that carry the most social capital. Most of the time (there are some exceptions), this ends up reproducing ineffective political positions and actions. In particular, we want to point out the issues of performative politics and symbolic protest.

Performative politics are exactly what they sound like: taking action through superficial performances. One of the definitions of performance is “a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.” Similarly, performative politics are a politic rooted in recycled scripts and uncritically repeating prescribed roles. By the nature of performance, people tend to not think for themselves and let others dictate their moves. This politic detracts from the autonomous potential that lies outside of pre-ordained or “acceptable” political and protest norms. By “symbolic protest,” we mean the ways certain types of actions mostly (not always) implement a performance that does not materially disrupt systems of oppression. These include but are not limited to: taking a knee, yelling at cops, hashtags or Instagram “Blackout” posts, letters of opposition, taunting officials, parades, voting booths, etc. All of these things are about symbolism and are more about “making a point” than actual disruption.

We want to center our main argument here: we should be gauging our power in terms of our material capacity to shut down material systems of oppression. We want to say, Keep the actions and momentum going! This is NOT a diss to organizers who are new or folks who have just started taking the streets; everyone is still learning, and this is a lifelong experience. We also do not want to diss previous protest actions that were peaceful or youth-led initiatives for voting, etc. In fact, to qualify what we are saying about what causes changes, we’d like to mention that we will never know what effect these actions truly have because inspiration is not something tangible that can be calculated. However, we do know, based on decades of performative actions and symbolic protests, that those methods do not and have never dismantled systems of oppression. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

We acknowledge that certain actions can be labeled performative or symbolic AND may still have been inspiring for some folks, and that’s perfectly fine. That is all valid, and we appreciate the bonds and connections made through past actions because that is what liberation is all about. HOWEVER, we do want to be clear that we must abandon performative and symbolic action when we feel ready to take part in direct action or be a part of autonomous initiatives.

Imagine how many more people could be inspired if ALL of our protests and actions materially disrupted capitalism and state violence; how many more people could be inspired by a MATERIAL shift in their lives. Our main point is that symbolic action will never accomplish that material shift, even when it feels better than doing nothing; that’s the difference. We want to push for folks to get involved in projects that really disrupt oppression. Dismantling power materially is not just inspiring, but also directly affects our lives and disentangles our communities from the material strongholds of capitalism and white supremacy. We can only get rid of these systems once and for all when we shift away from symbolism and performance and instead, towards material disruption and abolition.

A few other points that we want to reiterate:

  1. We want to push back on the predictability of protests and marches. If there is no element of surprise or an assessment of local power relations to act upon, these actions become easy to repress by cops and fascists. Instead, how can we intentionally channel these demonstrations to attack material targets of oppression (i.e. condos, warehouses, police precincts, frat houses)?
  2. What does actual material subversion look like? We suggest looking up and learning these methods (look them up using DuckDuckGo search engine, on a Tor Browser, or on CrimethInc.’s website): sabotage, blockades, squatting, black blocs, monkey-wrenching, occupations, tree-sitting, expropriations, and other direct actions and autonomous projects.
  3. We should stop over-directing community resources on bail funds for non-impactful “intentional arrest” actions. Let’s save that for Black/queer/trans funds, where they are really needed.
  4. If there’s no foreseeable direct, material change as a result of the work being done, we should question its effectiveness. A good rule of thumb to gauge performativity is to ask yourself who the action is for and whether it directly benefits them. For example, posting a black square in honor of #BLM but not doing any other work for Black lives does not benefit the Black community. (We are NOT equating relevant, behind-the-scenes work to useless, performative work. Keep educating yourself when no one is looking, joining reading groups, having low-key meet-ups with comrades, etc. even if the effects of these aren’t immediate.)
  5. Keyboard warriors would benefit from putting their phones down more often and meeting real people. Tweets and statements are valuable only when accompanied by action and change, and when they’re written by people who are actually doing the work. The oversaturation of commentary online based on theory and opinion detracts from relevant anecdotal evidence and analysis provided by people who are actually on the ground. Practice is the best teacher.
  6. Asking celebrities and people with accolades (i.e. doctors, lawyers, legislators) to co-sign your action literally does nothing except display an attempt to be palatable to the public. We don’t need “distinguishable” acceptance for our demands to be valid and, instead, need to reject respectability in all forms.
  7. Petitions do NOT guarantee anything because they appeal to legislators and politicians who already don’t empathize with our struggles. Like statements, petitions are only useful when they’re accompanied by other actions to legitimize them. In fact, online petitions (such as those Change.org petitions that have been circulating) can instead document/publicize your information (name, zip code) if you forget to sign anonymously.
  8. As mentioned previously, things like sit-ins, group-chaining, op-eds, etc. are purely performative. We’d also like to reiterate the problem with labeling protest actions as “peaceful” and the effects of the enforcement of peace at these actions. Demonstrators will lose interest if they see a call to action that does not result in material change. When an action is just a street performance that asks for political leaders to empathize, we should question who we’re doing this for and why. (People who aren’t ready to get rowdy should not feel forced to, but a protest should be a place that allows rowdy protestors AND peaceful ones. The absolutism and enforcement of the “peaceful” label is the problem here; P.L.U.R. is cool for music festivals, but not for shutting down the system.)
  9. Create a power-map of your area and/or conduct a tactical terrain analysis with your squad, and share it with others in an assembly or discussion. These two methods of outlining local power relations allows communities to identify key material targets, suitable for subversive actions that lead to material disruption. Look for the openings where you can attain maximum rewards with minimal consequences.

Towards abolition and nothing less!

Against the Politics of Safety, Privilege, and Allyship

We have all heard it before:

“Black people and POC should not be at the frontlines, it is too dangerous for them.”

“The role of white people is to do the riskiest tasks, BIPOC are too at risk!”

“Only white people destroy things and agitate, BIPOC know not to do those things!”

“I am an ally to this struggle and will only do the things that the leaders of the struggle say to do.”

All of these misled statements and widely held beliefs result in the following:

  • Erasure of Black, Indigenous, and POC militants, risk-takers, and revolutionaries
  • Belittle and infantilize the struggles of marginalized people by telling them how to NOT resist
  • Gaslight and mislead marginalized people into thinking that directly fighting back is counter-productive
  • Upholds savior complexes and allows clout-seeking individuals to become representatives of a struggle by centering respectability, pacifism, and legibility to those in power

When (typically white) people say that others cannot militantly resist their own oppression, they minimize the harm that the oppressed endure, patronize the oppressed by insisting on how they should be receiving help from their “allies,” and establish a false binary between those who can versus those who cannot “properly” resist.

We are told that resistance lies in “speaking truth to power” rather than attacking power materially. We are told by an array of non-profit-certified “white allies” that the very things we need to do in order to free ourselves from domination cannot be done by us because we’re simply too vulnerable to state repression. To these things, we must say, Enough bullshit! We must refuse this idea of privilege: the idea that only a select exclusive few can take up action against systems of oppression.

The privilege theory model of activism has weakened movement organizing by confusing identity categories with solidarity, thus reinforcing stereotypes about the political homogeneity and helplessness of “communities of color.” However, many self-appointed leaders tend to weaponize the concept of “the community” in order to wield it for their (usually liberal and reformist) ends. Uncritical adherence to the use of the word “community” tends to hide the power moves made by clout-seekers. We should push back against the habit of deferring to the concerns of so-called “community leaders.”

It is a well-worn activist formula to point out that “representatives” of different identity categories must be placed “front-and-center” in struggles against oppression. But this is meaningless without also specifying the content of their politics. For example, the US Army is simultaneously one of the most racially integrated and oppressive institutions in American society. “Diversity” alone is a meaningless political idea which defines agency as inclusion within oppressive systems and equates identity categories with political beliefs.

These models of privilege and allyship politics relinquishes power to political representatives and reinforces stereotypes of individually “deserving” and “undeserving” victims of racism, sexism, and homophobia. A vast nonprofit industrial complex and a class of professional “community spokespeople” has arisen over the last several decades to define the parameters of acceptable political action and debate. However, we must challenge all and every group’s attempts at trying to become the most “legitimate” actor against oppression. Ultimately, “legitimacy” has more to do with hoarding social, cultural, and material capital rather than the subversion required to undo all forms of capital.

This politics of safety continually projects an image of powerlessness that keeps BIPOC, women, and trans/queers “protected,” confining them to speeches and mass rallies rather than active disruption. This kind of politic defers to palatable, white middle-class cultural values, such as respectability, legitimacy, or legibility. When we are considered too “rowdy” or “defensive” by liberals and reformists, they are ultimately making us LESS safe by diluting the true nature of resistance. As oppressed peoples, in order for us to be TRULY safe, we needa get rowdy and violent towards this dangerous system against the wishes of respectable “activists” or “community leaders”!

When activists argue that power “belongs in the hands of the most oppressed,” it is clear that their primary audience for these appeals can only be white activists, and that they understand power as something which is granted or bestowed by the powerful. Appeals to white benevolence to let BIPOC “lead political struggles” assumes that white activists can somehow relinquish their privilege and legitimacy to oppressed communities and that these communities cannot act and take power for themselves. Allyship is treated as an identity, but it is not true solidarity: solidarity is based on action, not on opinions or by superficially “leaving your privilege at the door.”

BIPOC communities are not a single, homogeneous bloc with identical political opinions. White allyship both flattens political differences between whites and homogenizes the populations they claim to speak on behalf of. The absurdity of privilege politics re-centers anti-racist practice on whites and white behavior, and assumes that racism (and often by implicit or explicit association, anti-Blackness, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia) manifest primarily as individual privileges which can be “checked,” given up, or absolved through individual resolutions. Privilege politics is ultimately completely dependent upon precisely that which it condemns: white benevolence.

In seeking oppressed groups to take direction from, white folks of­ten end up tokenizing a specific group whose politics most match their own. “What does the NAACP [or Critical Resistance, or the Dreamers] think about this?” Likewise, they may latch on to the most visible “leaders” of a community because it is quicker and easier to meet the director of an organization, minister of a church, or politician representing a district than to build real relationships with the people those leaders purport to represent. This approach to dismantling racism structurally reinforces the hierarchical power that we’re fighting against by asking a small group to represent the views of an entire category of people with radically different lived experiences.

Being an ally has come to mean legitimizing a political position by borrowing someone else’s voice— always acting in someone else’s name without questioning the principle of appropriating others’ struggles. It’s a way of simultaneously taking power and evading personal accountability.

The idea of allyship obscures the fact that hidden choices are being made about who is being listened to, inculcating the idea that there is a single “community of people of color” that share common interests that could be properly represented by leaders, rather than a heterogeneous mass with both overlapping and sometimes deeply contradictory ideas. This repositions the white ally to wield the power of determining who are the most representative and appropriate black and brown voices. And, most importantly, who are white “allies” to determine who/ what is the most appropriate anything?

We must abolish the ally-industrial complex, and all of the components that make it possible: non-profits, whiteness, infantilization, representation, individualism, legitimacy, respectability, and the fear of truly disruptive revolt.

In place of the politics of allyship and privilege and their forms of activism, we suggest:

  • Warding off any and all attempts of local actors that try to seize the title of “community leader,” “local organizer,” “representative/ voice of xyz” – such moves are hierarchical power grabs and should be checked as such.
  • Building relationships with community as accomplices, not allies, which are relations realized through mutual consent and built trust.
  • As accomplices, being compelled to become accountable and responsible to each other.
  • Not waiting around for anyone to proclaim you an accomplice. You certainly cannot proclaim it yourself; you just are or you are not. The lines of oppression are already drawn.
  • Direct action is really the best and perhaps the only way to learn what it means to be an accomplice: we’re in a fight, so be ready for confrontation and consequence.
  • Recognizing that we inhabit multiplicity, which means that we live in a diverse world with communities that vary significantly between and within themselves. So, as we build power, we must acknowledge that we can only ever speak and act for ourselves.