p241 ーp246
以下、「Dilemmas of White Privilege（白人特権のジレンマ）」の全文を翻訳します。
白人特権のジレンマ
活動家文化が問題視されるのは、多くの場合、それが白人特権の表れと見なされるためです。ランジャニットが指摘したように、この問題は人種の観点から議論されることが多いのです。アメリカの人種的分断は、何世紀にもわたって急進的な政治運動の障害となってきました。これにより、階級に基づく連帯を維持することが非常に難しい状況が続いています。そして、この問題は、直接行動グループ内で激しい議論を引き起こし、時には分裂の原因にもなっています。
活動家文化が問題視されるのは、多くの場合、それが白人特権の表れと見なされるためです。ランジャニットが指摘したように、この問題は人種の観点から議論されることが多いのです。アメリカの人種的分断は、何世紀にもわたって急進的な政治運動の障害となってきました。これにより、階級に基づく連帯を維持することが非常に難しい状況が続いています。そして、この問題は、直接行動グループ内で激しい議論を引き起こし、時には分裂の原因にもなっています。
Love & Rageの分裂
1990年代、白人特権に関する問題が原因で分裂した直接行動グループの例として、Love & Rage Federationが挙げられます。この団体は、同名の新聞を中心に、北米全体のアナーキストネットワークを構築する試みとして始まりました。最初の数年間は成功を収めましたが、10年後には、当初の中流階級出身の白人活動家以外の人々、特に有色人種のメンバーを効果的に巻き込むことができずに行き詰まりました。
1990年代、白人特権に関する問題が原因で分裂した直接行動グループの例として、Love & Rage Federationが挙げられます。この団体は、同名の新聞を中心に、北米全体のアナーキストネットワークを構築する試みとして始まりました。最初の数年間は成功を収めましたが、10年後には、当初の中流階級出身の白人活動家以外の人々、特に有色人種のメンバーを効果的に巻き込むことができずに行き詰まりました。
これに関する議論は最終的に、白人特権の本質やそれを克服する方法に関する理論的な対立に発展しました。
• 一部のメンバーは、この問題を「文化的」なものと見なしました。多くの白人アナーキストが、パンクロックやそのDIY（自分でやる）文化を通じてアナーキズムに触れたと指摘されます。典型的なアナーキストの集会所に足を踏み入れると、緑色の髪や顔のピアスをした人々に出迎えられるでしょう。彼らの見た目がどれだけ歓迎的なものであっても、その外見自体が白人労働者階級や有色人種の貧困層にとっては親しみにくいものでした。
• 一部のメンバーは、この問題を「文化的」なものと見なしました。多くの白人アナーキストが、パンクロックやそのDIY（自分でやる）文化を通じてアナーキズムに触れたと指摘されます。典型的なアナーキストの集会所に足を踏み入れると、緑色の髪や顔のピアスをした人々に出迎えられるでしょう。彼らの見た目がどれだけ歓迎的なものであっても、その外見自体が白人労働者階級や有色人種の貧困層にとっては親しみにくいものでした。
• 別の立場のメンバーは、問題がさらに深いところにあると主張しました。アメリカは白人至上主義に基づいて築かれた国であり、「白人性」は単なる文化ではなく特権のカテゴリーであるという考えです。白人が自分たちの文化的遺産について話すとき、ドイツ系、アイルランド系、リトアニア系などの民族的な背景を挙げますが、「白人性」そのものについては触れません。これは、白人性が暗黙のうちに他の白人たち（住宅ローン協会や警察幹部など）との間で、特権や保護を共有する協定だからです。
この議論の中で、「白人性」というカテゴリーを覆し、それを最終的に破壊することが唯一の解決策であるという主張がなされました。この立場は、同時期に出版された雑誌Race Traitor（人種の裏切り者）に影響を受けています。この雑誌のモットーは、「白人性への裏切りは人類への忠誠」であり、活動家たちにとって非常に魅力的な考え方でした。
Race Traitorと「人種の裏切り者」
「人種の裏切り者」となることの具体的な方法は議論の中心となりました。どうすれば効果的な人種の裏切り者になれるのか？ 誰がその役割のモデルとなるのか？
「人種の裏切り者」となることの具体的な方法は議論の中心となりました。どうすれば効果的な人種の裏切り者になれるのか？ 誰がその役割のモデルとなるのか？
多くの活動家が着目したのが、メキシコのサパティスタ運動の有名なスポークスマン、サブコマンダンテ・マルコスの例でした。マルコスは元々中流階級出身のメキシコ人であり、都市部の特権的な革命家グループを率いて先住民コミュニティを組織しました。彼は10年にわたるジャングルでの活動を通じて、先住民の意思決定に従う立場に転換しました。このような抑圧されたコミュニティの指導力を受け入れる姿勢は、「本物の人種の裏切り者」の例と見なされました。
しかし、アメリカのアナーキストたちが直面した問題は、彼らが連携しようとする多くの有色人種の革命グループが、しばしば階層的な組織構造を持ち、直接民主主義を白人特権の一形態と見なしていた点です。このような状況では、既存の社会の枠組みを壊しながら新しい社会を構築するという考え方を完全に放棄する必要があるのか？ または、少なくとも白人アナーキストたちがそのプロセスにおいて重要な役割を果たすことはできないのか？ という問いが浮かび上がります。
結局、Love & Rageはこれらの人種問題をめぐる派閥争いによって分裂し、最終的に崩壊しました。
シアトル抗議後の人種問題
似たような議論は、グローバリゼーション運動の初期段階でも発生しました。そのきっかけとなったのが、シアトルでの抗議活動において「有色人種の参加が不足していた」ことを問題視する記事「Where Was the Color in Seattle?」です。この記事は、人種的特権、コミュニティとの連携モデル、有色人種コミュニティのリーダーシップを受け入れる方法、そして白人の罪悪感が運動に与える影響などについて継続的な議論を引き起こしました。
似たような議論は、グローバリゼーション運動の初期段階でも発生しました。そのきっかけとなったのが、シアトルでの抗議活動において「有色人種の参加が不足していた」ことを問題視する記事「Where Was the Color in Seattle?」です。この記事は、人種的特権、コミュニティとの連携モデル、有色人種コミュニティのリーダーシップを受け入れる方法、そして白人の罪悪感が運動に与える影響などについて継続的な議論を引き起こしました。
ニューヨーク市の直接行動ネットワーク（DAN）は、このような議論の中心に位置していました。DANは、2000年4月16日にワシントンで行われたIMFと世界銀行に対する抗議活動を調整するために設立され、その後、共和党全国大会（2000年夏、フィラデルフィアで開催）に対する抗議活動を組織しました。
DANとSLAMの連携
共和党全国大会（RNC）への抗議活動を計画する中で、DANの一部のオーガナイザーたちは、ハンター大学を拠点とする多様なメンバーを持つラディカルな学生団体である**SLAM（Student Liberation Activist Movement）**や、他の有色人種コミュニティに基づく団体と連携することを提案しました。
共和党全国大会（RNC）への抗議活動を計画する中で、DANの一部のオーガナイザーたちは、ハンター大学を拠点とする多様なメンバーを持つラディカルな学生団体である**SLAM（Student Liberation Activist Movement）**や、他の有色人種コミュニティに基づく団体と連携することを提案しました。
この時期、シアトルの抗議活動以降、DANの戦術や組織形態に多くの注目が集まっており、他団体もこれに興味を持っていました。そのため、SLAMや他の団体もこの連携に否定的ではありませんでした。しかし、連携する条件として、以下のような要求が出されました：
1. ムミア・アブ＝ジャマールの支援
当時フィラデルフィアで死刑判決を受けていたブラック・アクティビストでジャーナリストのムミア・アブ＝ジャマールの事件に焦点を当てること。
2. 刑務所産業複合体への批判
アメリカの刑務所制度の問題や、人種差別的な刑事司法制度に対する抗議を活動の中心に据えること。
1. ムミア・アブ＝ジャマールの支援
当時フィラデルフィアで死刑判決を受けていたブラック・アクティビストでジャーナリストのムミア・アブ＝ジャマールの事件に焦点を当てること。
2. 刑務所産業複合体への批判
アメリカの刑務所制度の問題や、人種差別的な刑事司法制度に対する抗議を活動の中心に据えること。
これらの要求に対して、DAN内部では意見が分かれました。一部のメンバーは、これを既存の政治体制全体への挑戦として受け入れるべきだと考えました。他のメンバーは、これらの問題を通じて広範なテーマを提起できると主張し、連携の価値を見出しました。一方で、これらの要求がDANの目指す直接民主主義のモデルとの間に矛盾を生むのではないかと懸念する声もありました。
連携の結果とその影響
最終的に、この連携は長期的な協力関係には発展しませんでした。この結果に対する非難や失望により、多くの活動家がDANから離れることとなりました。しかし、短期間ではありましたが、この連携は以下のような成果をもたらしました：
• DANの戦術の普及
DANの戦術や意思決定方法が、より広範な活動家コミュニティに浸透しました。
• アナーキズムのアイデアの広がり
連携を通じて、アナーキズムの理念が他の運動に影響を与えました。
最終的に、この連携は長期的な協力関係には発展しませんでした。この結果に対する非難や失望により、多くの活動家がDANから離れることとなりました。しかし、短期間ではありましたが、この連携は以下のような成果をもたらしました：
• DANの戦術の普及
DANの戦術や意思決定方法が、より広範な活動家コミュニティに浸透しました。
• アナーキズムのアイデアの広がり
連携を通じて、アナーキズムの理念が他の運動に影響を与えました。
DANが2003年に事実上解散した後、ほぼ同じ組織原則に基づいて新しいネットワークである**Anarchist People of Color（APOC）**が形成されました。
APOCと警察の弾圧
APOCの初期の経験は、なぜ直接行動グループが白人主体になりがちであるのかを明確に示しています。有色人種の活動家たちが直接行動に取り組む際、白人活動家とは異なるレベルの警察の弾圧に直面することが分かりました。
APOCの初期の経験は、なぜ直接行動グループが白人主体になりがちであるのかを明確に示しています。有色人種の活動家たちが直接行動に取り組む際、白人活動家とは異なるレベルの警察の弾圧に直面することが分かりました。
例として、ブルックリンでAPOCが開催したベネフィットパーティーでは、地元警察が路上で会話していた参加者を襲撃し、暴力や逮捕を行いました。このような事件は決して珍しいものではありません。大規模な抗議活動中、警察が有色人種の参加者に特に暴力を振るうことはよく知られています。そのため、多くの（非アナーキストの）有色人種の活動家グループは、直接行動そのものを「白人特権の一形態」と見なし、過激な戦術を採用しそうな人々を自分たちのイベントから遠ざける傾向がありました。
ロサンゼルスDANとニューヨークDANの違い
ロサンゼルスのDAN（LA DAN）は、コミュニティグループとの連携を非常に重視し、アナーキストの会議がそのスペースで行われることを拒否しました。さらに、マーチにブラック・ブロックのアナーキストが参加することを排除するため、マーシャル（安全担当者）を配置しました。
ロサンゼルスのDAN（LA DAN）は、コミュニティグループとの連携を非常に重視し、アナーキストの会議がそのスペースで行われることを拒否しました。さらに、マーチにブラック・ブロックのアナーキストが参加することを排除するため、マーシャル（安全担当者）を配置しました。
一方、ニューヨークのDANは、事実上アナーキストグループとして機能しており、LA DANとは異なる道を歩みました。しかし、その結果、DANはしばしばトラブルに見舞われました。2000年5月1日のメーデーマーチでは、DANとメキシコ系移民グループが協力して行進を計画しました。この行進は完全に平和的で、許可も得ており、音楽バンドや巨大なパペットが用意されていました。
しかし、行進が始まる前に、ブラック・ブロックの小規模なグループが登場しました。このグループは抗議を目立たせるために参加しただけでしたが、警察が突如として介入し、16人ほどを逮捕しました。この逮捕は、19世紀初頭の「マスク法」に基づくものでした。この法律は、アイルランド系の盗賊を取り締まるために制定されたもので、公の場で複数人が顔を覆うことを禁止していました。
メキシコ系移民グループのオーガナイザーたちは、逮捕そのものよりもDANに対して怒りを覚え、ブラック・ブロックが集まることを許したDANを非難しました。そして、彼らは二度とDANと協力しないと宣言しました。
警察の策略と分断
こうした状況は、警察が意図的に分断を引き起こすための策略であることが明白です。ニューヨーク市警（NYPD）は、この種の戦術を非常に巧みに活用してきました。有色人種グループが主導する行進の際には、しばしば白人アナーキストを標的にして逮捕し、意図的に分裂を誘発します。
こうした状況は、警察が意図的に分断を引き起こすための策略であることが明白です。ニューヨーク市警（NYPD）は、この種の戦術を非常に巧みに活用してきました。有色人種グループが主導する行進の際には、しばしば白人アナーキストを標的にして逮捕し、意図的に分裂を誘発します。
例えば、2000年12月に行われたネイティブ・アメリカン活動家レナード・ペルティエの恩赦を求める行進では、NYPDのスナッチ・チームが突然行進の中に入り、マスクをしていない白人アナーキスト4人を逮捕しました。理由は、電池式メガホンの使用許可がないことや、逮捕時の抵抗でした。これらの逮捕が策略であることは誰の目にも明らかでしたが、結果的に分断が生じ、多くの活動家が直接行動そのものを挑発行為として捉えるようになりました。
ニューヨークDANの構成と人種的多様性の問題
こうした警察の策略によって引き起こされた問題に関係なく、ニューヨークのDANは元々白人が大半を占めるグループでした。特に顕著だったのはアフリカ系アメリカ人の不在です。DANの歴史のほとんどの期間において、約50人の積極的なコアメンバーの中で、アフリカ系アメリカ人のメンバーはたった1人だけでした。
こうした警察の策略によって引き起こされた問題に関係なく、ニューヨークのDANは元々白人が大半を占めるグループでした。特に顕著だったのはアフリカ系アメリカ人の不在です。DANの歴史のほとんどの期間において、約50人の積極的なコアメンバーの中で、アフリカ系アメリカ人のメンバーはたった1人だけでした。
もちろん、DANは完全に白人だけのグループというわけではありませんでした。いつも一定数のラテン系メンバーがいましたが、その多くはメキシコやプエルトリコではなく、ブラジルやアルゼンチンといった国々から来た人々でした。さらに、南アジアや東アジア（中国、台湾、韓国）出身、あるいは中東（トルコ、エジプト、イラン）出身の活動家も多く参加していました。それでも、これらすべてを合わせても、積極的なメンバー全体の3分の1程度に過ぎませんでした。残りのメンバーは、ユダヤ系やアイルランド系などの民族的アイデンティティを自覚する白人が多かったのです。
ニューヨークのような多様性に富んだ都市において、DANのこのような構成は問題視されていました。それは1960年代のSDS（Students for a Democratic Society：民主的社会のための学生連合）の初期よりは多様でしたが、それでも運動の目的に鑑みると十分とは言えませんでした。
人種以外の特権に関するジレンマ
これまで述べたように、人種問題は北アメリカの急進的政治運動における永続的な課題です。しかし、ここで強調したいのは、これらのジレンマが必ずしも人種差別だけに起因するわけではないということです。このような問題は、極端な社会的不平等に挑む運動において必ず発生します。特に、最も不平等な立場にある人々は、そうした不平等に挑戦するための手段が最も限られている場合が多いのです。結果として、特権を持つ者が反乱に加わること自体が、道徳的なジレンマを引き起こします。
これまで述べたように、人種問題は北アメリカの急進的政治運動における永続的な課題です。しかし、ここで強調したいのは、これらのジレンマが必ずしも人種差別だけに起因するわけではないということです。このような問題は、極端な社会的不平等に挑む運動において必ず発生します。特に、最も不平等な立場にある人々は、そうした不平等に挑戦するための手段が最も限られている場合が多いのです。結果として、特権を持つ者が反乱に加わること自体が、道徳的なジレンマを引き起こします。
歴史的視点から見る特権と反乱
この現象は新しいものではありません。歴史的に見ても、特権を持つ者が反乱の主軸となることはよくあります。
• 農民反乱の例
エリック・ウルフ（Eric Wolf, 1969）は、多くの農民反乱において、ゲリラ軍の中核を担うのは「中流農民」であることを指摘しました。最も貧しい階層は持続的な反乱を行う手段を持たず、最も裕福な階層は反乱を行う動機を持たないためです。
• 近代初期の「パン暴動」
E. P. トンプソン（E. P. Thompson, 1971）などの研究によれば、近代初期の「パン暴動」（実際には現代で言うところの直接行動に近い）を支えたのは、労働階級の中でも比較的裕福な層でした。これらの人々はブルジョワジーでも貧困層でもなく、尊敬される労働者階級に属していました。
• 革命運動における「中間層」の役割
カール・マンハイム（Karl Mannheim, 1929）は、真に抑圧された層は革命的な運動を持続することが難しいと論じました。マンハイムによれば、貧困層はしばしば「千年王国的」（millenarian）なビジョンを抱き、世界を一夜にして変えるような急進的な変革を求める傾向があります。一方で、中間層は倫理や知的文化を重視し、合理的なユートピアを発展させる傾向があります。これにより、革命運動はしばしば「中間層」の気質や方向性を反映することになります。
この現象は新しいものではありません。歴史的に見ても、特権を持つ者が反乱の主軸となることはよくあります。
• 農民反乱の例
エリック・ウルフ（Eric Wolf, 1969）は、多くの農民反乱において、ゲリラ軍の中核を担うのは「中流農民」であることを指摘しました。最も貧しい階層は持続的な反乱を行う手段を持たず、最も裕福な階層は反乱を行う動機を持たないためです。
• 近代初期の「パン暴動」
E. P. トンプソン（E. P. Thompson, 1971）などの研究によれば、近代初期の「パン暴動」（実際には現代で言うところの直接行動に近い）を支えたのは、労働階級の中でも比較的裕福な層でした。これらの人々はブルジョワジーでも貧困層でもなく、尊敬される労働者階級に属していました。
• 革命運動における「中間層」の役割
カール・マンハイム（Karl Mannheim, 1929）は、真に抑圧された層は革命的な運動を持続することが難しいと論じました。マンハイムによれば、貧困層はしばしば「千年王国的」（millenarian）なビジョンを抱き、世界を一夜にして変えるような急進的な変革を求める傾向があります。一方で、中間層は倫理や知的文化を重視し、合理的なユートピアを発展させる傾向があります。これにより、革命運動はしばしば「中間層」の気質や方向性を反映することになります。
不平等と抵抗のギャップ
このように、不平等な社会では、最も苦しんでいる人々と、最も効果的に抵抗を組織できる人々との間にギャップが生じることが歴史的にも示されています。もちろん、低所得層による「隠れた抵抗」が世界史における大きな力となっていることをジム・スコット（Jim Scott, 1985, 1992）などが指摘している通り、これらの人々の抵抗が無視されているわけではありません。しかし、その抵抗は必ずしも明確な反乱や革命の形を取るわけではありません。
このように、不平等な社会では、最も苦しんでいる人々と、最も効果的に抵抗を組織できる人々との間にギャップが生じることが歴史的にも示されています。もちろん、低所得層による「隠れた抵抗」が世界史における大きな力となっていることをジム・スコット（Jim Scott, 1985, 1992）などが指摘している通り、これらの人々の抵抗が無視されているわけではありません。しかし、その抵抗は必ずしも明確な反乱や革命の形を取るわけではありません。
グローバリゼーション運動における特権の認識
グローバリゼーション運動では、参加者が中間層ではなく「エリート」だと見なされることが一般的な認識となっています。この見方は保守派の論評者だけでなく、一般大衆にも広がっています。このような認識自体も一種の社会現象であり、次に進む前にこれを簡単に検討する必要があります。
グローバリゼーション運動では、参加者が中間層ではなく「エリート」だと見なされることが一般的な認識となっています。この見方は保守派の論評者だけでなく、一般大衆にも広がっています。このような認識自体も一種の社会現象であり、次に進む前にこれを簡単に検討する必要があります。
DILEMMAS OF WHITE PRIVILEGE
Most often, activist culture is seen as problematic-as it was for Ranjanitbecause it is seen as a form of white privilege, and arguments about activist culture are framed in terms of race. America's racial divisions have, of course, been the scourge of radical politics in the United States for centuries. Historically, they have made the maintenance of ongoing class-based alliances extraordinarily dif ficult.
Most often, activist culture is seen as problematic-as it was for Ranjanitbecause it is seen as a form of white privilege, and arguments about activist culture are framed in terms of race. America's racial divisions have, of course, been the scourge of radical politics in the United States for centuries. Historically, they have made the maintenance of ongoing class-based alliances extraordinarily dif ficult.
Arguments like these regularly rip direct-action groups apart.
Let me consider one particularly well-documented example. In the 1990s, the Love & Rage Federation (Filipo 1993) dissolved over issues of white privilege.
Love & Rage had begun as an initiative to create a continental anarchist network around a newspaper of the same name. In many ways it was quite successful.
After ten years, however, they found themselves stubbornly unable to expand beyond their original core of middle-class white activists or include significant numbers of people of color.1 Furious arguments ultimately broke out over the reasons for this: which also became theoretical debates about the nature of white privilege and ways of overcoming white supremacy.
Love & Rage had begun as an initiative to create a continental anarchist network around a newspaper of the same name. In many ways it was quite successful.
After ten years, however, they found themselves stubbornly unable to expand beyond their original core of middle-class white activists or include significant numbers of people of color.1 Furious arguments ultimately broke out over the reasons for this: which also became theoretical debates about the nature of white privilege and ways of overcoming white supremacy.
Some argued that the problem was cultural. The vast majority of white anarchists first discovered anarchism through punk rock and its DIY culture. Walk into a typical anarchist inf oshop, they poinred out, and you will almost inevitably be greeted by people with green hair and facial piercings. It doesn't matter how welcoming they were: their very appearance obviously limited the appeal of such places to members of the white working class, let alone poor people of color. Others argued that the problem lay much deeper. The US, they argued, is a nation built on white supremacy, and whiteness is not a culture. When white people talk about their cultural heritage they talk about being German, or Irish, or Lithuanian, but never about whiteness. That's because whiteness is a category of privilege, a tacit agreement with others categorized as "white"-from home loan associations or police superintendents-to provide aid and protection that is not provided to those not so classified. The only way to destroy the system of privilege is to subvert the category of whiteness, so as to ultimately destroy it.
This was a position being developed in circles surrounding the journal Race Traitor, which was launched around this time and avidly read in activist circles.
Its motto was "Treason to Whiteness Is Loyalty to Humanity." This was a very appealing notion, but the obvious question then became: how does one actually do that? How does one become an eff ective race traitor? Who might be an
1 They did acquire a Mexican chapter, A.rn.or y Rabia. But its me:mt)ers were also largely middleclass in
This was a position being developed in circles surrounding the journal Race Traitor, which was launched around this time and avidly read in activist circles.
Its motto was "Treason to Whiteness Is Loyalty to Humanity." This was a very appealing notion, but the obvious question then became: how does one actually do that? How does one become an eff ective race traitor? Who might be an
1 They did acquire a Mexican chapter, A.rn.or y Rabia. But its me:mt)ers were also largely middleclass in
242 DIRECT ACTION
example of an eff ective role model? Many in Love & Rage found inspiration in the example of Subcomandante Marcos, the famous masked spokesman of the Mexican Zapatistas. Marcos was originally a middle-class Mexican who led a group . of mostly privileged urban revolutionaries to organize indigenous communities in Chiapas and, after ten years in the jungle, came to abandon his vanguardist ideology in order to become an agent carrying out decisions made by the indigenous communities. In his willingness to step back and accept the leadership of oppressed communities, he could be considered an example of a genuine race traitor. But Marcos, for his part, had the advantage of being able to ally with indigenous communities that already acted very much like anarchists, with their own style of consensus-based direct democracy. What did this mean for anarchists in the United States, where most revolutionary groups based in communities of color were far more hierarchically organized-where, in fact, many saw emphases on direct democracy as itself a form of white privilege? Would all this mean having to abandon any idea of building a new society in the shell of the old? Or, at least, of white anarchists playing any significant role in the process of doing so? Within a year or two, Love & Rage split into feuding factions over
. racial issues, and the entire project ultimately foundered.
example of an eff ective role model? Many in Love & Rage found inspiration in the example of Subcomandante Marcos, the famous masked spokesman of the Mexican Zapatistas. Marcos was originally a middle-class Mexican who led a group . of mostly privileged urban revolutionaries to organize indigenous communities in Chiapas and, after ten years in the jungle, came to abandon his vanguardist ideology in order to become an agent carrying out decisions made by the indigenous communities. In his willingness to step back and accept the leadership of oppressed communities, he could be considered an example of a genuine race traitor. But Marcos, for his part, had the advantage of being able to ally with indigenous communities that already acted very much like anarchists, with their own style of consensus-based direct democracy. What did this mean for anarchists in the United States, where most revolutionary groups based in communities of color were far more hierarchically organized-where, in fact, many saw emphases on direct democracy as itself a form of white privilege? Would all this mean having to abandon any idea of building a new society in the shell of the old? Or, at least, of white anarchists playing any significant role in the process of doing so? Within a year or two, Love & Rage split into feuding factions over
. racial issues, and the entire project ultimately foundered.
Similar debates erupted in the early days of the globalization movement. In this case the kick-off was a piece called "Where Was the Color in Seattle?" (Martinez 2000), that sparked continual arguments about the nature of racial privilege, outreach versus alliance models, about how to accept the leadership of communities of color, and about the stifling eff ects of white guilt. The overwhelmingly white make-up of the emerging movement was felt to be a continual crisis. Certainly this was true of New York City Direct Action Network, originally founded to help coordinate the actions against the IMF and World Bank in Washington on April 16, 2000. DAN's second major initiative was to help organize actions against the Republican Convention in Philadelphia that summer. In order to do so, a group of DAN organizers proposed to ally with SLAM,2 a radical student group based at Hunter College with a much more diverse membership, and several other POC-based organizations. In those days in the immediate wake of Seattle, everyone was eager to learn DAN's tactics and forms of organization, so the latter were not averse; but they also insisted that the actions themselves focus on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (the Black activist and journalist then on death row in Philadelphia) and more broadly on the US Prison Industrial Complex, and racist nature of the criminal justice system. These demands isolated a significant faction in DAN who had seen the convention protests as a chance to move from issues of global trade to a broader challenge to the existing political system as a whole; to juxtapose their own model of direct democracy to the kind of cor- 2 Student Liberation Activist Movement.
SOME NOTES ON "ACTlVIST CUL TURE" 243
porate-dominated representative democracy embodied by the conventions. Some felt the two were reconcilable: that prison and death penalties issues could be used, ultimately, to raise the same broader questions. Others felt the compromise was worth the opportunity to create an ongoing alliance. In the end, the eff ort did not, in fact, lead to an ongoing alliance, and resulting recriminations caused quite a number of activists to give up on DAN entirely. However,the alliance, however temporary, was quite helpful in disseminating DAN-like tactics and styles of decision making, and even anarchist ideas themselves, in wider activist circles. Shortly after NYC DAN eff ectively dissolved in 2003, a new "Anarchist People of Color" network (APOC) was in the process of taking shape, based on almost identical organizational principles.
The early experience of APOC, however, already provides an excellent illustration of why direct-action-oriented groups had tended to be dominated by people classified as "white." When those who lack white privilege began to adopt such politics, they found they faced completely different levels of police repression.
As one particularly startling incident in Brooklyn revealed, APOC couldn't even throw a benefit party in their own offices without having to worry about local police sweeping in to beat and arrest partygoers talking on the street.
All this was, perhaps, predictable. It is a notorious thing that during largescale actions, police seem to target people of color for particular violence. As a result, many (non-anarchist) POC activist groups see direct action as itself a form of racial privilege, and made a great point of trying to keep those likely to engage in militant tactics away from their events. The short-lived Los Angeles DAN, which organized the protests against the Democratic convention in 2000, took the need to ally with community groups so seriously that they refused to allow
their spaces to be used for anarchis.! meetings at all, and even employed marshals to exclude Black Bloc anarchists from their marches.
New York DAN was very diff erent. To all intents and purposes it was itself an anarchist group. Still, it quickly found itselfin trouble for its refusal take the same path as LA DAN. Immediately after A16, for instance, NYC DAN and an allied group-New York Reclaim the Streets-joined with several Mexican immigrant groups to organize a May Day march through lower Manhattan. It was to be an entirely peaceful-indeed, permitted-event, replete with musical bands and giant puppets. Still, as the marchers first assembled at Union Square, a tiny
cluster of perhaps sixteen anarchists in Black Bloc appeared, simply intending to show the flag, as it were, and establish an overtly anarchist presence at the event.
Bef ore the march even started, police swooped in and arrested about a dozen of them.3 The Mexican organizers were outraged, but less at the police than at their 3 They were held on the basis of an obscure, early nineteenth century "mask law" originally passed to suppress Irish highwaymen, which made it illegal for any members of a group of more
porate-dominated representative democracy embodied by the conventions. Some felt the two were reconcilable: that prison and death penalties issues could be used, ultimately, to raise the same broader questions. Others felt the compromise was worth the opportunity to create an ongoing alliance. In the end, the eff ort did not, in fact, lead to an ongoing alliance, and resulting recriminations caused quite a number of activists to give up on DAN entirely. However,the alliance, however temporary, was quite helpful in disseminating DAN-like tactics and styles of decision making, and even anarchist ideas themselves, in wider activist circles. Shortly after NYC DAN eff ectively dissolved in 2003, a new "Anarchist People of Color" network (APOC) was in the process of taking shape, based on almost identical organizational principles.
The early experience of APOC, however, already provides an excellent illustration of why direct-action-oriented groups had tended to be dominated by people classified as "white." When those who lack white privilege began to adopt such politics, they found they faced completely different levels of police repression.
As one particularly startling incident in Brooklyn revealed, APOC couldn't even throw a benefit party in their own offices without having to worry about local police sweeping in to beat and arrest partygoers talking on the street.
All this was, perhaps, predictable. It is a notorious thing that during largescale actions, police seem to target people of color for particular violence. As a result, many (non-anarchist) POC activist groups see direct action as itself a form of racial privilege, and made a great point of trying to keep those likely to engage in militant tactics away from their events. The short-lived Los Angeles DAN, which organized the protests against the Democratic convention in 2000, took the need to ally with community groups so seriously that they refused to allow
their spaces to be used for anarchis.! meetings at all, and even employed marshals to exclude Black Bloc anarchists from their marches.
New York DAN was very diff erent. To all intents and purposes it was itself an anarchist group. Still, it quickly found itselfin trouble for its refusal take the same path as LA DAN. Immediately after A16, for instance, NYC DAN and an allied group-New York Reclaim the Streets-joined with several Mexican immigrant groups to organize a May Day march through lower Manhattan. It was to be an entirely peaceful-indeed, permitted-event, replete with musical bands and giant puppets. Still, as the marchers first assembled at Union Square, a tiny
cluster of perhaps sixteen anarchists in Black Bloc appeared, simply intending to show the flag, as it were, and establish an overtly anarchist presence at the event.
Bef ore the march even started, police swooped in and arrested about a dozen of them.3 The Mexican organizers were outraged, but less at the police than at their 3 They were held on the basis of an obscure, early nineteenth century "mask law" originally passed to suppress Irish highwaymen, which made it illegal for any members of a group of more
244 DIRECT ACTION
DAN fellow organizers, accusing them of putting their people-many of them undocumented workers-at risk by allowing a Black Bloc to assemble to begin with. They swore never to work with DAN again.
It's pretty obvious that when police launch preemptive strikes like this, fomenting divisions of this sort is half the point. The NYPD has actually proved remarkably adept at playing this sort of game, and has in fact made a habit, during particularly sensitive marches organized by POC groups, of nabbing one or two white anarchists on trumped-up charges. A year after the May Day March, during a march appealing for clemency for Native American activist Leonard Peltier in December 2000, for instance, an NYPD snatch squad suddenly broke into the middle of the march to tackle and drag away four (unmasked) anarchists. One was charged with possession of a battery-operated megaphone without a sound permit, the others with "resisting arrest." This was a very delicate issue, and everyone was making strenuous eff orts to avoid anything that could be interpreted as a provocation: none of the anarchists were wearing masks, the woman with the megaphone had not in fact been using it but simply carrying it from one permitted rally point to another (and anyway, as many pointed out, there's no such thing as a moving sound permit). Still, the fact that everyone knew the arrests were a pretext and consciously intended to sow dissension didn't really matter.
Afterwards, many activists who based their strategy on building alliances with POC .groups (including, in this case, several former members of Love & Rage, now turned Maoists) argued that the very presence of black-clad anarchists could itself be considered a provocation. As a result, such activists often ended up challenging the very principle of direct action.
Whatever the underlying reasons, though, there's one thing that it's crucial to emphasize. Groups like DAN were largely white. Particularly striking was the absence of Af rican Americans. For most of its history, NYC DAN had a single Black member, in an active core group of about fifty. This is not to say it was anything like exclusively white. There were always a fair number of Latinos (though more likely to be from countries like Brazil or Argentina than, say Mexico or Puerto Rico), and even larger numbers of activists of South or East Asian (Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean) or Middle Eastern (Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian) descent.
Still, their numbers all put together rarely came to more than a third of the active membership. As for the rest, if they had any self -conscious ethnic identity, it was most likely to be Jewish or Irish. While DAN was certainly more diverse than, say, early SDS, in a city as diverse as New York, this was considered a matter of scandal.
than three people assembled in public to disguise their faces. The Bloc had actually been warned of this but been falsely advised that jf there were slogans written on their masks they could not be held accountable.
DAN fellow organizers, accusing them of putting their people-many of them undocumented workers-at risk by allowing a Black Bloc to assemble to begin with. They swore never to work with DAN again.
It's pretty obvious that when police launch preemptive strikes like this, fomenting divisions of this sort is half the point. The NYPD has actually proved remarkably adept at playing this sort of game, and has in fact made a habit, during particularly sensitive marches organized by POC groups, of nabbing one or two white anarchists on trumped-up charges. A year after the May Day March, during a march appealing for clemency for Native American activist Leonard Peltier in December 2000, for instance, an NYPD snatch squad suddenly broke into the middle of the march to tackle and drag away four (unmasked) anarchists. One was charged with possession of a battery-operated megaphone without a sound permit, the others with "resisting arrest." This was a very delicate issue, and everyone was making strenuous eff orts to avoid anything that could be interpreted as a provocation: none of the anarchists were wearing masks, the woman with the megaphone had not in fact been using it but simply carrying it from one permitted rally point to another (and anyway, as many pointed out, there's no such thing as a moving sound permit). Still, the fact that everyone knew the arrests were a pretext and consciously intended to sow dissension didn't really matter.
Afterwards, many activists who based their strategy on building alliances with POC .groups (including, in this case, several former members of Love & Rage, now turned Maoists) argued that the very presence of black-clad anarchists could itself be considered a provocation. As a result, such activists often ended up challenging the very principle of direct action.
Whatever the underlying reasons, though, there's one thing that it's crucial to emphasize. Groups like DAN were largely white. Particularly striking was the absence of Af rican Americans. For most of its history, NYC DAN had a single Black member, in an active core group of about fifty. This is not to say it was anything like exclusively white. There were always a fair number of Latinos (though more likely to be from countries like Brazil or Argentina than, say Mexico or Puerto Rico), and even larger numbers of activists of South or East Asian (Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean) or Middle Eastern (Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian) descent.
Still, their numbers all put together rarely came to more than a third of the active membership. As for the rest, if they had any self -conscious ethnic identity, it was most likely to be Jewish or Irish. While DAN was certainly more diverse than, say, early SDS, in a city as diverse as New York, this was considered a matter of scandal.
than three people assembled in public to disguise their faces. The Bloc had actually been warned of this but been falsely advised that jf there were slogans written on their masks they could not be held accountable.
SOME NOTES ON "ACTIVIST CUL TURE" 245
DILEMMAS OF PRIVILEGE THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY RACIAL
I will be returning to the specifically racial issues periodically. They are the bane of all radical politics in North America. What I want to emphasize here is that these dilemmas are not simply eff ects of racism. Similar dilemmas crop up whenever one has a movement trying to combat situations of extreme social inequality. Always, those on the bottom, who have the most reason to want to challenge such inequalities, will also tend to have the most restricted range of weapons at their disposal with which to do so. Inevitably, this causes endless moral dilemmas for those whose privilege actually allows them to rebel. Ibis is not a new phenomenon. There is a vast literature on the subject. Eric Wolf (1969), for example, pointed out that in every peasant revolt we know about, the backbone of guerilla armies is always the middle peasantry; since the poorest stratum lacks the means to carry out a sustained insurrection, and the wealthiest lacks motivation. Similarly, E. P. Thompson (1971) and others have demonstrated that the mainstays of Early Modern "bread riots" -in reality, events very like what we would now call direct actions-tended to hail from the more prosperous among the laboring classes: neither bourgeois nor paupers, but members of the respectable working class. In fact, much of the early literature on radical movements seemed to argue that it was impossible for the truly oppressed to become genuine revolutionaries. Karl Mannheim (1929, also Norman Cohen 1957), for example, argued that not only do the truly oppressed tend not to engage in sustained revolt, their mode of imagining sodal alternatives tends to be absolute and millenarian. While the middle stratum "was disciplining itself through a conscious self -cultivation which regarded ethics and intellectual culture as its principle self -justification" (1929:73), and were developing rational utopias, the truly marginal tended to favor a kind of ecstatic vision of sudden and total rupture. Mannheim called this "chiliasm" "a mental structure peculiar to oppressed peasants, journeymen, and incipient 'Lumpenproletariat,' [and] fanatically emotional preachers" (1929:204).4 Hence, when the poorest elements did rise up, they tended to do so in the name of some great millenarian vision, in the belief that the world as we know it would soon come to an end in one blow and existing hierarchies be swept away. Now, while few nowadays would give much credence to the idea that the poor live in an eternal present or are incapable of long-term planning, Mannheim does have something of a point. Revolutionary movements have always tended to take on much of their temper and direction from those very "middle strata." At the very least, there has always been something of a gap in this respect between those who suff ered the most in an unequal society and those most able to organize eff ective sustained opposition. In other words, those "most affected"-as the current activist catchphrase puts it-by 4 Interestingly; it's the constituencies v.rho have traditionally been written off as "anarchists."
DILEMMAS OF PRIVILEGE THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY RACIAL
I will be returning to the specifically racial issues periodically. They are the bane of all radical politics in North America. What I want to emphasize here is that these dilemmas are not simply eff ects of racism. Similar dilemmas crop up whenever one has a movement trying to combat situations of extreme social inequality. Always, those on the bottom, who have the most reason to want to challenge such inequalities, will also tend to have the most restricted range of weapons at their disposal with which to do so. Inevitably, this causes endless moral dilemmas for those whose privilege actually allows them to rebel. Ibis is not a new phenomenon. There is a vast literature on the subject. Eric Wolf (1969), for example, pointed out that in every peasant revolt we know about, the backbone of guerilla armies is always the middle peasantry; since the poorest stratum lacks the means to carry out a sustained insurrection, and the wealthiest lacks motivation. Similarly, E. P. Thompson (1971) and others have demonstrated that the mainstays of Early Modern "bread riots" -in reality, events very like what we would now call direct actions-tended to hail from the more prosperous among the laboring classes: neither bourgeois nor paupers, but members of the respectable working class. In fact, much of the early literature on radical movements seemed to argue that it was impossible for the truly oppressed to become genuine revolutionaries. Karl Mannheim (1929, also Norman Cohen 1957), for example, argued that not only do the truly oppressed tend not to engage in sustained revolt, their mode of imagining sodal alternatives tends to be absolute and millenarian. While the middle stratum "was disciplining itself through a conscious self -cultivation which regarded ethics and intellectual culture as its principle self -justification" (1929:73), and were developing rational utopias, the truly marginal tended to favor a kind of ecstatic vision of sudden and total rupture. Mannheim called this "chiliasm" "a mental structure peculiar to oppressed peasants, journeymen, and incipient 'Lumpenproletariat,' [and] fanatically emotional preachers" (1929:204).4 Hence, when the poorest elements did rise up, they tended to do so in the name of some great millenarian vision, in the belief that the world as we know it would soon come to an end in one blow and existing hierarchies be swept away. Now, while few nowadays would give much credence to the idea that the poor live in an eternal present or are incapable of long-term planning, Mannheim does have something of a point. Revolutionary movements have always tended to take on much of their temper and direction from those very "middle strata." At the very least, there has always been something of a gap in this respect between those who suff ered the most in an unequal society and those most able to organize eff ective sustained opposition. In other words, those "most affected"-as the current activist catchphrase puts it-by 4 Interestingly; it's the constituencies v.rho have traditionally been written off as "anarchists."
246 DIRECT ACTION
feudal or capitalist structures rarely, if ever, organized openly against it. One can argue, like Jim Scott (1985, 1992), that the hidden resistance of the lowly is a great unrecognized force in world history-and surely one would be right. But rarely does this resistance take the form of overt rebellion.
When those disjunctions are superimposed over more prof ound ascriptions of diff erence-like race, culture, ethnicity-they become far more visible. But it seems to me they are always going to be there in some form or another. They are simply one of the inevitable side eff ects of social inequality.5
Of course, in the case of the globalization movement one common popular perception is that we are not even talking about members of a middle stratum, but about members of the elite. This idea has become so deeply entrenched, in fact, that it has become common wisdom not only among conservative commentators, but to some degree, to the public more generally. Before going on, then, let me briefly take on this perception: one which is, of course, a social phenomenon in its own right.
feudal or capitalist structures rarely, if ever, organized openly against it. One can argue, like Jim Scott (1985, 1992), that the hidden resistance of the lowly is a great unrecognized force in world history-and surely one would be right. But rarely does this resistance take the form of overt rebellion.
When those disjunctions are superimposed over more prof ound ascriptions of diff erence-like race, culture, ethnicity-they become far more visible. But it seems to me they are always going to be there in some form or another. They are simply one of the inevitable side eff ects of social inequality.5
Of course, in the case of the globalization movement one common popular perception is that we are not even talking about members of a middle stratum, but about members of the elite. This idea has become so deeply entrenched, in fact, that it has become common wisdom not only among conservative commentators, but to some degree, to the public more generally. Before going on, then, let me briefly take on this perception: one which is, of course, a social phenomenon in its own right.
