#noplatform

Not long after arriving in Cambridge, a certain angst started to build within me – incited first of all by the no-platforming of Linda Bellos, a long-time anti-racist activist and a radical, lesbian feminist. Based on her record, any Feminist Society hosting her should feel proud and grateful for the opportunity. As it happened, Peterhouse’s feminism and gender society – the Beard Society - had a different idea. 

There have been a lot of articles written online on this issue so I do not want to repeat what has already been said: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/06/feminist-linda-bellos-women-trans-male-violence. And those interested in what Linda Bellos in the end did say in Cambridge can watch her speech on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec0mG6B6b9M&t=3s (Could we plausibly argue that this is hate speech or that it could deeply upset students?) 

I do however want to use this particular case as a stepping stone to explain some ideological premises of radical feminism. So, let’s take a look at Beard Society’s self-conception as a society for feminism and gender – a troubling description, because it suggests a misunderstanding of basic feminist theory.  Feminists started to use the gender as an alternative conceptualisation of notions such as sex-roles, sex-based oppression and similar ideas, meaning to explain the difference between biological reality (the sexual dimorphism of humans) and the superstructure of female oppression that was built on it. The Women’s Liberation Movement was, by definition, against women’s subjugation and they located the source of this oppression in the socialization of the sexes.  We usually understand socialization as a process through which boys and girls are made to learn the attitudes, behaviour, etc. that are associated with their sex-group (i.e. gender). By using gender, we try to highlight the difference between being born into a sex and then being socialized into a gender. Gender is thus a useful conceptual framework by which feminists can debunk the sexist idea of the existence of an innate female (or male) nature. Moreover, gender, in contrast to sex, doesn’t describe the sexual dimorphism of humans but a hierarchy. Non-liberal feminists widely share the understanding of gendered socialization as the means of perpetuating male-superiority.

Just like there is no radical account of class without exploitation, there is no radical understanding of gender without seeing the relations between the sexes as they are. It would be odd to have a Marxism & Class Society, since Marxism itself is the theory and practice of fighting against the existence of class. Similarly, the original, radical version of feminism was the fight to abolish the gender-hierarchy.

Of course, there are now as many feminisms as there are stars in the sky, and feminism is very rarely understood in the way I outlined above. If I had to guess, I would assume that Beard Society included gender in their description because they subscribed to the idea of understanding gender as an identity that could be chosen on an individual basis. If one accepts the idea that gender can be self-proclaimed, based purely upon the self-identification of the agent irrespective of socialisation, then biological males with ‘non-binary’ gender identities will appear to be just as oppressed as (or even more oppressed than!) women. I believe that the Beard Society has withdrawn the invitation of Linda Bellos because those setting the agenda of the society are more concerned about catering to this ideology of gender than they are committed to women’s freedom. After this incident, I believe it’s time for university Feminist Societies to decide between the feminist understanding of gender - it is something to get rid of because it upholds the patriarchy (as gender is inherently a system of hierarchical classification) - and the postmodernist/queer understanding of gender, where it is something to be celebrated and increasingly elaborated upon in the construction of more and more gender identities.

We are left-wing LGBT+ activists supporting the motion (408A) about freedom of speech and open discussion that will be discussed at this month’s NUS LGBT+ conference. We think that open discussion is vital to the left and to liberation. “No platform” needs to be understood as a tactical response to movements of organised violence, not a tool for tackling bigoted and right-wing ideas. We need to deal with those through argument and protest, rather than bans.

You can read the motion here: https://goo.gl/djTTyp

The left and liberation struggles need to fight a battle of ideas

Liberation struggles exist precisely because reactionary ideas and bigotry are not marginal but dominant and widespread across our society. So changing minds – billions of minds! – is therefore completely vital to what we want to achieve. There is no shortcut and we cannot proceed by hoping to gain control of various little pockets of society (like student unions) and make them ideologically pure through imposing regulations from the top down. No regulation or speaker policy can change hearts and minds. The left has to confront the world as it is, and debate and discuss with people to win them over.

At worst, attempting to apply no-platform policies to widely-held ideas means denying ourselves a platform. When we refuse to share a platform with people who hold bigoted or right-wing views, very often our opponents get a free ride. So NUS LGBT+’s policy mandating our representatives never to engage with various bigots is self-defeating. It is our job as a movement to go out and compete against them to spread our ideas.

It can be exhausting and distressing to go out into a hostile world and confront dominant ideas that attack our freedom and our very right to exist. But that’s why we build a collective movement. No individual can or should be expected to fight every battle, but organised together with everyone contributing as much as they are able, as a collective we can meet those challenges.

Open discussion within the left and liberation movements is also vital – it’s the only way to ensure that our movements are democratic, and that we constantly challenge ourselves to re-examine, refine and improve the ideas that drive them.

Attacks from the authorities

More broadly, progressives and the left always face attempts to silence us, and there is no reason to be complacent about this. In India right now, student activists opposing the right-wing government are being arrested for “sedition”. Our best defence is a society where willingness to defend open discussion and free speech is as widely and firmly embedded as possible.

Freedom of speech on campuses is also coming under attack from the authorities. The Prevent agenda is imposing restrictions on speakers coming to campuses, and policing the ideas and attitudes of Muslim students in particular. The higher education reforms are attacking academic freedom and imposing business interests onto teaching and research. Many of the right-wingers who criticise no platform policies hypocritically support these attacks.

We need to stop these attacks, and an argument about defending free enquiry, free debate and free speech is essential to winning that fight. There are differences between restrictions imposed by the state and those by student unions, but we can’t win the argument for the value of open discussion if we are inconsistent, if we are simultaneously imposing our own regulations of which ideas can and cannot be expressed.

What’s different about fascists?

Offensive, bigoted speech can be difficult to confront and can have an impact on our wellbeing, and it is not unconnected to violent actions. But we still have to draw a distinction between ideas and words on the one hand, and violence and aggression on the other. Violence must be defended against, but we will never beat ideas with anything other than different, better ideas.

We don’t think that fascist ideas cross some arbitrary line of being too distressing or offensive to be heard: we don’t want to ban fascist texts from libraries.

Instead we use no platform as part of a militant anti-fascist strategy. Fascist groups are an organised movement of physical violence in the streets, working to terrorise, crush, and ultimately murder oppressed groups, the workers’ movement and the left. Antifascists are forced to respond by doing whatever we can to disrupt fascists and their efforts– from blocking their marches to breaking up their meetings. Not granting or sharing platforms with them is one logically obvious part of this approach.

A similar logic applies to speakers who directly and explicitly incite violence, or are themselves physically violent or explicitly and personally abusive – it is reasonable to exclude them to protect direct and immediate physical safety and to allow real discussion.

Joining the argument 

If you agree with us, please support the motion we have put to NUS LGBT+ conference, please put similar motions to your student unions and to other parts of NUS, and please join us in arguing the case within the left and the student movement. And get in touch via [email protected].