It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It

Please be aware that I intend to make a series of posts here about a number of issues about which I have felt unable to speak until recently. An introductory post was planned, but it will now follow this one, which I have hurriedly prepared whilst the debate it hopes to inform is still ongoing.

I hope members of the ISN won't consider it too presumptuous of me to wade uninvited into their internal affairs. I have watched with interest an argument unfold within their ranks, centring on an issue that has troubled me for many years, but which I have been unable to articulate until relatively recently. It concerns the style and nature of our discussions, who it is that dominates them, how they do so, and what result this has on our practise. I also hope that the heavy reliance on personal anecdote in this short essay will be tolerated; I can't imagine any systematic work has taken place on the subject.

The left's endless round of meetings seem to follow the same format, no matter who is involved in them, their tendencies, size, and even their content (whether theoretical lectures, rallies or administrative 'business' meetings). Week after week, the same group of people speak, and the same group of people remain silent. If a speaker happens to question an issue raised, no matter their demeanour, they will be roundly denounced by a series of speakers, each becoming more shrill.

James H's contribution centred on how the socialisation of men and boys prepares them much better to dominate in this sort of environment, and how this can stifle the potential of women (and others) to contribute to our activity. He even helpfully links to another article, written from outside of the traditional left, that although imperfect, could further help us to understand this issue.

The response has been, as one would expect, robust:

The subtext here is that women are by their very nature meek and mild creatures, and non-women must take these feminine sensibilities into account at all times lest the poor dears become upset at a loud voice. Of course this may not be the intent of our critics, but the implication of such arguments – that women are delicate things who must be protected in this way – is itself sexist.

Certainly, plenty of women do not fit this (distorted) characterisation, especially on the left. On the gender issue I am not qualified to say more (and so I will not). However, I do wish to argue that, although it may not immediately be apparent, a significant proportion of comrades are “ by their very nature meek and mild creatures”, and we collectively fail to operate in a way that utilises their potential.

James put it better that I could:

I've often encountered women (and non-binary defined people) with some of the most sophisticated politics I've ever met falling entirely silent in these kind of environments, often passing comment only later, among a 'safer', smaller crowd. (Usually perspectives with considerably more nuance and utility than the noisy bluster which earlier stifled it.)

I am neither a woman nor non-binary defined, nor would I lay claim to especially sophisticated politics, but rarely has a better description of my behavior been made. At work and in my political life, meetings have always been, at best, uncomfortable. A feeling made worse by my SWP organiser at one time, who would chastise me, aggressively, after every branch meeting in which I didn't speak. I recall managers doing the same.

The fact of my not speaking was not wholly due to shyness (I was always able to overcome this, even when addressing large gatherings of comrades). It was usually down to the fact that I could not bring myself to simply repeat what had already been said, or that I did not dispute anything that had been said.

If I had a unique, salient point to make, I would try to do so. This would often fail because, by the time I had written the full speech out in my head, considered the most concise way to phrase my argument, checked it for error, and considered any potential challenges or holes in my logic, the discussion would have moved on to another area.

On other occasions, I might begin speaking, only to suffer another comrade interjecting. I would usually concede (or occasionally suffer a fit of anger, for which I would usually apologise later).

Naturally, I felt that my planned contribution was useful, that it would have improved the discussion, and that my comrades were poorer for not having heard it. I accepted then, and still do, that these issues were the product of clashing personalities. Many people do 'think aloud', testing ideas verbally, repeating them to emphasise their agreement, considering silence a personal slight, or as evidence of apathy. Many people do carry on conversations by talking over one another, never listening and considering. But the fact is that many of us cannot perform at our best under these conditions. I have often avoided meetings for this very reason, and have been derided as vacant or uncommunicative. And this condition is far from rare, and not restricted to comrades considered to be members of oppressed groups, although I am sure they are significantly over-represented among such ones.

I resisted these ideas for a long time, regarding my own natural tendencies to be aberrant. I was accustomed to what Charlotte B and Rosie W refer to as “legitimised bullying that characterised what the SWP CC liked to call its ‘polemical’ tradition”. I ignored my own feelings on the matter, considering myself and others to be over sensitive to the “sharp” arguments. I feel that Charlotte and Rosie have not fully considered just how fine the distinction between bullying and polemic might be.

In reality, this problem pervades the entire left, not just the SWP.

I want to stress that I, and I assume others, do not feel ourselves to be 'disabled' as a result of our communicative styles or preferences. I do not want to “silence those who already possess the oratory confidence we want everyone to enjoy”, but neither do I want to possess it myself. I am happy and confident as I am, but more importantly, I believe that I am better able to contribute to our collective struggles using my own particular skills and aptitudes. But please comrades, be aware that my ability to do so may well depend on others' willingness to rein in their boisterous, 'passionate' inclinations, and to accept my own as they are.