When the court usher told me to move from the witness box, where I had given evidence to the magistrates, to the dock, I knew that I was going to prison. As he led me in, for some reason he felt the need to say, Im not actually locking the door. The magistrates were still out of the room and I carried on talking to my friends, who were sitting next to the dock. I told them the story of when I was first finger-printed.
At that time the law said that the police could not use force to take your fingerprints (or your photo). This was changed later and its possible I had something to do with the change, as on a later occasion I successfully complained to the Police Complaints Authority about having my fingerprints taken by force. Anyhow, I had decided that I was going to resist fingerprinting. I was going to non-cooperate. I was going to lie down and go limp and refuse to take part. I was called to the fingerprint room. Before I had collected myself enough to lie down and go limp a huge bear of a policeman growled at me, give me your hand and keep it completely relaxed or your fingers will break. I silently approached him and silently held out my hands!
I was just about to tell them a similarly undignified story about my first court appearance when the return of the magistrates was announced. Two custody officers appeared behind me. The chief magistrate (of the three on the bench) said they had no alternative but to send me to prison as I had refused to give them any information about my circumstances or my property. 28 days. I responded with a thank you.
I wondered later about that thank you. It was an automatic politeness, and an acknowledgement that the court had treated me with respect, in particular by allowing me to speak freely for two minutes about Fallujah and so on.
A custody officer hand-cuffed me and led me down stairs I waved to my friends as I disappeared. Several of them had also been taken out of a dock in the same way.
I was locked in a large cell by myself for several hours, and given a vegan meal. I walked in circles for over half an hour luxuriating in the spaciousness of the cell, knowing that soon I would be unable to stride around.
How did I feel? Somewhat distant from myself, entirely calm, mildy positive. There was a slight unreality about the situation, but that may have been because I only had three hours sleep the night before, trying to tie up loose ends and settle my affairs. Before being locked in the cell I had a pat-down search and almost all my possessions were bagged up and removed. Talking to the guards I was amazed to find they were private security guards. They seemed very young, rather inexperienced, and barely trained. They were pleasant enough though. They asked me questions, including my date of birth, which I refused. I have never given my date of birth to the police. I give my name and address to get bail, and thats about it. Several times during the afternoon security guards came to my cell asking for my date of birth, or even my age to the nearest decade. I declined politely to co-operate and explained my view of the relationship between the citizen and the state. I was warned that I would be put on the block and mistreated when I got to prison. Actually, my friend Stephen Hancock, the first person I knew who went to jail, refused to give his date of birth at Winston Green prison and was immediately punched in the stomach.
For some hours the guards said they couldnt find any space in any prison (allegedly partly because of my non co-operation).
Double-handcuffed to a security guard (my hands handcuffed together, then handcuffed to him) I was led into a new prisoner transport van. The last time I was in one, it took about eight prisoners. This new van took only three in roomier compartments and was brand new. A guard sat just outside the cells, playing the radio, with shouted requests. Cells still dont have seat belts. I thought about what would happen to us in our locked cells if there was an accident.
It was lovely to see the sea and the sunset, and the green fields of Sussex. We arrived at Lewes just after dark. I was last off the van, but first to be called to the desk. The reception desk sergeant was head-shakingly disappointed with my refusal to answer all his questions. Because I didnt give my date of birth, he didnt know my previous record I could be a convicted sex offender, who should not have phone privileges therefore I would not have phone privileges. He rang up the reception (induction) wing and told them so, in my hearing. I was photographed this was turned into a photo badge that I have to wear the whole time and digitally fingerprinted (thumb on top of a plastic box) and led off to Property. First I had to take off my clothes, including my underpants. I got to put those back on, and prison T shirt, sweatshirt, track suit bottoms. (I should have asked for boxer shorts and socks, as the older hands did.)
Then I went to the property desk. Id brought over a dozen books I was allowed to keep 10 for my cell. All my pens, paper and stamps were allowed. My mini radio was not not still in its packaging, I was told by a prisoner later this was the reason. I was allowed to keep my newspapers and papers. Irritatingly, all the bits of paper bookmarks Id put into the Quran were plucked out to be checked for drugs I imagine. I now had a huge clear plastic bag full of books and paper and pens and so on. Oh, and envelopes. This meant I could write a letter as soon as I arrived in reception and post it when I got taken to K wing, reception wing. Theres an office and put it in an outgoing tray (elsewhere theres a post box).
So three of us got led to K wing, arriving after supper but an orderly (trusted prisoner) gave us access to the kitchen for food. Later, when I had to throw away the excess food (you are always given three times more than you can eat) I went into the kitchen and got told off there were bins outside and a sink for washing. I forgot to say that at reception I got given another big bag with toilet rolls, plate, bowl, mug, spoon, fork, knife (all plastic) which are mine for the duration.
On K wing we saw a nurse straight away; lots of questions about drugs and so on. We also got interviewed by a senior officer (never call a senior officer officer) with lots of questions about drugs and so on. He was fairly pleasant, but exasperated by my refusal to answer most of his questions. Pain in the arse and polite but obstinate were his two verdicts. Then four of us there was another new arrival, were led off K wing, because the prison was too full.
If wed stayed on K wing wed have been processed the next day induction to prison, introduction to gym, etc. etc., then taken onto a normal wing the following day. This is not going to happen. We are on a special regime, just because of prison overcrowding. So we are in old-style cells, with in-cell toilets. The cell is 6 9 wide and 12 5 long with a bunk bed, a shower curtain around the toilet, a metal sink, two cupboards, two chairs and one table, and a hot water pipe (thin) and another hot water pipe (fat) which provide heat. There is a window set high on the wall (the cell is about 9 high) which is 2 by 26, roughly. It has bars just outside the glass; we can open and close the glass windows.
The biggest difference between this cell and Pentonville ten years ago is that there is now a television in here. There is also supposed to be a kettle, but it doesnt work. (Actually, apart from the TV and the kettle this is very similar to Pentonville ten years ago.) The television stays on from first thing to lights out (the light switch is in here, we get to choose when its on or off).
Television is a drug. television is the opium of the prisoners. Television is the world.
No. 11. Dimensions
(Monday 21 November 2005)
Another way of looking at movements (and organizations) is by placing them in a three-dimensional space. There are 3 axes: atomization. empowerment and, er, I forget the third dimension for the moment. Atomization means that the membership of the movement or organization is a largely-unrelated mass of individuals. The socialist author Lu Xun described this as a dish of loose sand in 1920s China. He argued for social organization to overthrow feudal tyranny and colonial domination. This can come about through either authoritarianism or simple dis-organization; what has been referred to as either the tyranny of tyranny or the tyranny of structurelessness. If there is a committee or leadership and the membership is simply a mass of individuals, thats one form of atomization. This is the sort of position now in many Western parliamentary democracies. The opposite of atomization is a movement composed of strong, democratic and autonomous local groups, who relate to each other, and who are the source of ideas and actions and strategic direction.
The empowerment axis shows, at its worst, a movement that relies on the repetition of slogans, that is intellectually shallow. At the other end of the axis would be a movement of mutual education, and continual skill-sharing, a movement with the ambition of building a knowledge and skills base in each and every activist, to turn each and every activist into an educator, a public speaker, a confident and capable group participant/leader, and so on. A movement of real intellectual and practical skills.
Now, what was that third dimension again? (I first drew this diagram two weeks ago, in the margins of a Fellowship of Reconciliation conference of Young Peacemakers.) Im not sure but I think the third dimension was top-down/grassroots-led. The first dimension was just whether the group was composed of unrelated atoms, or organized groups. This third dimension is whether the movements ideas, action and strategy arise from and are decided upon by a small committee (however selected) or whether the grassroots of the movement exert real leadership. (Im not sure whether grassroots is/are singular or plural.)
Do these factors have any effect on the effectiveness of a movement (or organization)? Well, in the long-term, it is hard to see how a movement aiming to make a truly democratic society (national or international) can hope to do it if it is not itself deeply democratic. For most people engaged in any particular movement, the most important thing is the immediate objective pf the movement. The war, greenhouse gases, trade rules. And so on. Do thee factors affect the ability of an organization to achieve its immediate objectives? Well, it depends on your picture of how social change happens, but if grassroots mobilization is a critical factor in creating the political pressure for policy change, then it seems very likely that a movement of empowered local groups which pays attention to the knowledge and skills and confidence of each activist in each group will achieve its goals faster than a movement of atomized sloganeering individuals.
One again, this diagram is merely a way of assessing and describing a movement or an organization. It does not and cannot indicate how to move from one point to another, more effective position. Perhaps in the next eight days another diagram will emerge to help with this?
No. 12. Personal Power
(Monday 21 November 2005)
Constantly flooded with corporate propaganda and elite culture that denigrates the activist movements, we have to struggle to keep our groups and movements together. For many movements, facing seemingly insurmountable odds, keeping up morale and bringing in new recruits can be difficult. Some causes can seem to be relics of the past. Bizarrely, despite the increasing risks of nuclear war, the nuclear disarmament movement is widely seen as obsolete, a considerable victory for the nuclear state.
For long term movements, whose goals involve challenging core elements of the state or the corporate system, there are dangers involved in an architect mode of activism. Abolishing nuclear weapons, for example, is an extremely long-term goal, as nuclear weapons are central to the status and power of the great powers. What shorter-term goals can there be that move the state towards disarmament and that also give that hands-on, perceptible change experience the hairdresser mode of activism?
Much the same could be said of many other major causes, including climate change, the war on terrorism (including Iraq), world development (including trade justice) and so on.
There are shocking, unexpected victories, like Seattle, when a blockade stopped world trade liberalisation in its tracks; or the earlier derailment of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI).
In a way, however, it is still hard to connect any particular actions to the collapse of the MAI, and the victory in Seattle is inspiring but somewhat distant for most activists who werent there.
The hairdresser experience is hands-on, face-to-face, and has visible results in a fairly short time period. Are there hairdresser experiences available even in the most unpromising fields of activism?
In a sense, the massive rally or march is an immediate, hands-on, face-to-face experience with visible results. But it can be hard to connect such events with desired changes.
The problem is that the target policy change- is extremely hard to achieve. The question then is what other relevant targets activists can aim to influence that are easier to affect in a visible way, preferably in a short time frame.
Well, at the most personal level, the face-to-face encounter which alters someones attitude to the core issue is the closest thing to the hairdresser moment. Building a mobilised majority is a crucial part of any of these long-term movements and a majority is built person-by-person.
What change could we aim for? To move someone one circle towards being a connected, engaged activist who organises others to carry out actions that pressure decision-makers. (see earlier piece about the concentric circles.)
How can we know whether weve changed someone in the right direction? Often by asking them to do something tangible like sign a petition or make a donation or buy a publication. Its not whether they do it, necessarily, but the way their attitude changes, which can manifest itself in doing something physical (easier if it is financially costless), or making a pledge (perhaps to go to a meeting).
Political parties are based on a multi-stranded approach to campaigning but one key task in the electoral cycle is knocking on doors and soliciting pledges to vote from potential voters.
This is powerful communication, and also exactly the hairdresser experience.
On a large scale, the structure of public opinion can be measured, and campaigns to alter public opinion (either locally or nationally) can be assessed in quantitative and qualitative opinion polls. Local street polss can be educational opportunities and (in a rough and ready way) generate numbers to indicate the direction of public opinion.
In the face to face encounter, what matters is not whether someone signs the petition, but whether they move closer to the centre. If they are already supporters, what is important is to bring them into closer connection to the movement to persuade then to be on a mailing list, to come to a meeting, to make a real commitment with some lasting value to them and to the movement.
The value of the concentric circles analysis is the way it re-focusses our attention, and makes us rethink what we are doing.
The value of the hairdresser analysis is the way that it focuses attention on producing satisfying activist experiences. These are not of course the only ways of framing activism. The over-arching need is to create pressure on decision-making, and in those terms what matters most is how many signatures there are. The point of these and other frameworks for re-thinking is to stimulate creativity and fresh ideas, to strengthen groups and movements. The emphasis in all these remarks is the interior life of the activist and of the movement. To discuss political activism simply in terms of the institutions and policies we confront os to tie one hand behind our backs and blindfold ourselves in the middle of the struggle.
We need to be effective and we need to feel effective if we are to have the strength to carry our campaigns to a successful conclusion.
No. 13. Incomplete
(Monday November 21 2005)
The two prisoners in the next cell are both on methadone, a powerful heroin-substitute use for detox inside and outside prison. Others in our group are also on meth. Drugs crop up in conversation continually. One young prisoner, after executing a sidekick in the air, said he had done karate for six years, and would now have been working his way through the various grades of black belt if two years ago he hadnt become involved in drugs, and stopped entirely.
The induction process into prison lays heavy emphasis on drugs, and offering drug rehab assistance and counselling. Opposite our cells is a notice board with powerful messages about drugs. One stresses the need to learn CPR to help your friends survive an overdose. Another warns of the lowered tolerance of addicts just released from jail (after a long period of abstinence). These seem realistic and likely to have an impact whether they can change behaviour I dont know.
I have met a prisoner who believes he has spent £100,000 on cocaine and crack regularly spending £1000 each weekend. Even allowing for prison exaggeration, it is clear he has spent an enormous sum on an addiction he freely admits he does not control.
Drug addiction, alcoholism, compulsive spending, and various other forms of addictive behaviour account for a considerable part of the prison population. Are the current methods of handling addictive behavioiurs working? Clearly not.
My own feeling is that both the problem and the solutions are being misdescribed and misunderstood. It is probably much more helpful to see a whole range of behaviours and conditions, including workaholism and various other mental illnesses as rooted in the same basic human situation.
We glibly say that human beings are social animals. What does that mean? The general sense is that human beings prefer to be in company, in the herd, that we are generally sociable. But that isnt what social means.
Being a herd animal doesnt mean that we prefer to be part of a group; it means we need to be part of a group. It means that each individual is incomplete, and cannot feel complete unless part of a human group.
Q. What has all this to do with activism?
A. I am not sure, but lets see where he is going with all this.
How is this incompleteness engineered? By making the animals sense of self, and estimation of self, partly dependent on the esteem of its peers, or more accurately what it perceives to be the judgment of its peers.
Human beings are the most complex and complicatedly social of all animals. We have an extraordinary capacity to be conscious not only of how others see us but also of how others perceive our ability to cope with how they see us, and so on, into ever more intricate halls of mirrors. I would not be at all surprised if human consciousness which puzzles us so much did not arise precisely from this increasingly complex interplay of self consciousness, in an ever more complex social environment,
At the apogee of this detour, I will point out that unlike other large mammals, human beings have very considerable whites of their eyes visible at all times. In other large mammals, showing the whites of your eyes is threatening. In humans it is routine, perhaps because knowing who is looking at who, and with what emotion, is fundamental to judging the balance of power and esteem in a human group. It is a crucial part of the self-reflexive web of human society.
(Now be honest. If this wasnt dumped into a prison notebook, would you have sat down to read such groundless speculation?)
What other people (seem to) think of us is crucial to our sense of self, to our position in society and to our physical and emotional health. There is a lot one can say here about studies of inequality, stress and health. I will focus on one aspect: emotional health linked with addictive behaviours and other disorders.
Why have rates of alcohol and drug addition been so high amongst Native Americans, or the Irish? Because both have experienced national defeat and colonization on a grand scale. It is nothing to do with genetics; it is to do with an internalized sense of defeat. When you look at other colonized people, you find the same thing. The frame of reference in which such people live is the imposed cultural and political and economic framework of the conquerors. The conquerors insist that they are the relevant peer group, and in the eyes of these peers the colonized are worthless.
Racism has this dynamic. Addictive behaviours in western Black populations arises precisely in the situation where white people insist that they are the norm (and that it is other people who are coloured.); that they are the relevant peer group, and in that peer group the attributes of Black people are shameful and/or comical. One can say the same thing about class, where the upper middle class lifestyle is regarded as the norm, and the failures to reach this norm are felt as shameful.
Even amongst the most materially successful, drug addition is rife because what matters is not deprivation but relative deprivation, relative failure, in relation to the dominant peer group. As the gradations of social failure become finer, they cut more deeply. Those lacerations can lead to the damaged sense of self that leads to alcoholism, addition or other forms of self harm and emotional disconnectedness.
The situation of the alcoholic is that s/he regards her/himself as worthless in relation to the peer group, and living in this world is painful for that reason, because all around are people who can observe and condemn her/his past and present worthlessness. Something is needed that can remove the pain of other peoples perceived contempt.
The situation of the workaholic is that they regard themselves as worthless in relation to the task (as s/he defines it), to the peer group, and to the unseen judge who determines the quality and adequacy of the work that is done. Living in this world is painful because all around are people who can observe and condemn their past and present worthlessness and inadequacy. All around is the invisible Judge who can observe and condemn the failure of their efforts to complete the task (as s/he, the workaholic, believes the Judge has defined it.)
Something is needed that can remove the pain of the perceived contempt from other people and from the Judge. In truth, the workaholic feels inadequate to the world of human society.
And who said this column wasnt about acitivism?
Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam had startling results in rehabilitating addicts because the emphasis was on replacing the mental and cultural framework of white racist society with the mental and cultural framework of Black nationalism, Black Power and Black pride.
The emphasis was on harnessing the talents and energy of the addict into struggle for the benefit of the Black community. There were less savoury aspects of the programme also the mirror image racism towards white people, for example. But the point I want to make is that this worked.
A new peer group, constructive work towards a desirable group purpose, a new evaluation of self within a new framework, some way of expunging the shame of the past and replacing it with pride and confidence, and respect and full membership of the new peer group. These are the new hallmarks of successful rehabilitation programmes, whether in Black Nationalism, al-Qaeda (as among the Leeds bombers) or Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes.
What is the relevance of all this to activists? Well, there are obvious dangers around workaholism, which must be countered if we are to have healthy groups and healthy movements. One long-suffering, resentful and dominating workaholic who refuses to delegate and who refuses to share work and responsibility can put off dozens of potential activists and drag the activity and energy of a group down to the lowest possible level above brain death. (And no, I dont want to receive lots of letters from past victims of my behaviour along these lines, thank you).
Workaholism is an emotional problem, not a heroic sacrifice for the cause.
A little bit more generally: what we want are groups that can replicate the best characteristics of re-orientation and rehabilitation groups. Groups that can build up our confidence and self-esteem and help us to define our own peer groups, and establish our values of society. Groups that are not defensive, but self-confident, grounded in our communities, rooted in traditions of social change, and open to innovation. We can complete ourselves, our societies, and the world.
No. 14. Comfort Zones
(Wednesday 23 November 2005)
Yesterday (22 November) I received a letter from Nottingham Student Peace Movement, musing on the scope and limits of university activism. (Incidentally, the letter is dated 21 November, so you have some idea of how fast things are turning around at this just-in-time (or is that stuck-in-time) prison.)
Dan Robertson expresses frustration at the unwillingness of many students to leave their comfort zone to take more radical positions. Now I think by now you know what is going to happen. Im going to take some of Chomskys comments on the topic, reproduce them in somewhat less elegant language, and embroider them.
As an academic, Chomsky has had a lot of time to think about the topic, but hes rarely written about it. One point he has made about the academic scene is that there is a dramatic change of attitude between students and even young faculty, who are only a year or so away from being students themselves. He also points out the recurring pattern of students going of for summer jobs at commercial law firms, for example, thinking they are only going to earn some money, to help them with their debts, and then coming back with an entirely different outlook, often wearing different clothes.
Every radical student knows about the hidden agenda of the classroom; and the tacit lessons taught unobtrusively in the course of the school day, lessons in obedience and conformity. The same is true, even more powerfully, of the re-shaping that goes on under the surface at work even at university.
Another foundational remark from Chomsky concerns the objectives of university reform. Now barely detectable as a live issue, university reform (in a liberatory sense) was a major concern thirty years ago. Chomsky pointed out that what mattered was not alterations to boards of trustees or such like, but the content of the curriculum and the relationship between staff and students.
In passing, one might note the same about industrial relations, and the workplace. As we have seen in Germany recently, putting a few token trade unionists on a board is more likely to lead to corruption of the labour movement leadership than real changes towards industrial democracy on the shop floor.
Universities are locations of enormous privilege and provide students and faculty with intellectual skills, wide resources and considerable leisure, which can and should be used to contribute intellectually as well as bodily to movements for social change.
Chomsky says that intellectuals should make their ideas dominant by their excellence. Quite a challenge, but its hard to see what the alternative there is.
Okay, back to comfort zones, and student activism. Why should someone become active, and take some part in a movement join the movement? Why should they take a more sceptical attitude towards the mainstream media and official propaganda let alone the accepted framework of the social sciences, for example?
The only reasons that move someone would be (a) a compelling and irrefutable picture of something that they find outrageous and (b) compelling and irrefutable arguments that undermine official lies and received wisdom.
What often provides the key for change is something that makes the picture or the argument human.
Chomsky is very self-deprecating about his own tactical judgements. One example he has given is the sanctuary offered by MIT students to a US soldier who had gone Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) in protest against the Vietnam War. Chomsky argued against it I think because he thought it would receive too little support, and would fall flat.
In the event, the sanctuary was a massive success, with students flocking up to the hall where Mike (I forget his surname) was staying. Teachers moved their classes there, students slept there; the sanctuary apparently changed opinion on campus. Instead of arguing in the abstract, students were confronted with a young person much like themselves, facing an appalling decision, and they changed their minds as the arguments were put in this new human framework, with a new sense of immediacy. (Face-to-face, hands-on immediate involvement. Familiar?) The sanctuary ended when Mike was arrested and taken off to face military courts. The effect on MIT seems to have been substantial and lasting.
So why would someone move out of their comfort zone whether on campus or anywhere else? There are lots of reasons not to. In marketing, in the commercial world, there is an emphasis on understanding and resonating with the attitudes of those you are trying to influence, repeating your message regularly and in a variety of ways. Advertising is based on manipulation, campaigning is about honesty and persuasion, but there are useful lessons that we can learn, nevertheless.
Dan writes, quite rightly, even the realisation that those calling for radical change are not easily pigeon-holed and derided [as] hippies or nihilists, but are compassionate and intelligent human is actually an important step in some cases. This applies outside university as well.
Finally, there is another attitude shift which is of equal importance, which is for intellectuals, whether radical, liberal or conservative, to rid themselves of the delusion that their form of literacy and education means that they are both more intelligent and (therefore) more suited to dominate and rule the less-highly-schooled.
Intellectuals must free themselves of the contempt for the masses which has undermined movements for social change in the past. If they can form a true partnership with other working people, intellectuals can help rather than hinder social progress.
No. 10. Being Processed
(Saturday 19 November 2005?)
When the court usher told me to move from the witness box, where I had given evidence to the magistrates, to the dock, I knew that I was going to prison. As he led me in, for some reason he felt the need to say, Im not actually locking the door. The magistrates were still out of the room and I carried on talking to my friends, who were sitting next to the dock. I told them the story of when I was first finger-printed.
At that time the law said that the police could not use force to take your fingerprints (or your photo). This was changed later and its possible I had something to do with the change, as on a later occasion I successfully complained to the Police Complaints Authority about having my fingerprints taken by force. Anyhow, I had decided that I was going to resist fingerprinting. I was going to non-cooperate. I was going to lie down and go limp and refuse to take part. I was called to the fingerprint room. Before I had collected myself enough to lie down and go limp a huge bear of a policeman growled at me, give me your hand and keep it completely relaxed or your fingers will break. I silently approached him and silently held out my hands!
I was just about to tell them a similarly undignified story about my first court appearance when the return of the magistrates was announced. Two custody officers appeared behind me. The chief magistrate (of the three on the bench) said they had no alternative but to send me to prison as I had refused to give them any information about my circumstances or my property. 28 days. I responded with a thank you.
I wondered later about that thank you. It was an automatic politeness, and an acknowledgement that the court had treated me with respect, in particular by allowing me to speak freely for two minutes about Fallujah and so on.
A custody officer hand-cuffed me and led me down stairs I waved to my friends as I disappeared. Several of them had also been taken out of a dock in the same way.
I was locked in a large cell by myself for several hours, and given a vegan meal. I walked in circles for over half an hour luxuriating in the spaciousness of the cell, knowing that soon I would be unable to stride around.
How did I feel? Somewhat distant from myself, entirely calm, mildy positive. There was a slight unreality about the situation, but that may have been because I only had three hours sleep the night before, trying to tie up loose ends and settle my affairs. Before being locked in the cell I had a pat-down search and almost all my possessions were bagged up and removed. Talking to the guards I was amazed to find they were private security guards. They seemed very young, rather inexperienced, and barely trained. They were pleasant enough though. They asked me questions, including my date of birth, which I refused. I have never given my date of birth to the police. I give my name and address to get bail, and thats about it. Several times during the afternoon security guards came to my cell asking for my date of birth, or even my age to the nearest decade. I declined politely to co-operate and explained my view of the relationship between the citizen and the state. I was warned that I would be put on the block and mistreated when I got to prison. Actually, my friend Stephen Hancock, the first person I knew who went to jail, refused to give his date of birth at Winston Green prison and was immediately punched in the stomach.
For some hours the guards said they couldnt find any space in any prison (allegedly partly because of my non co-operation).
Double-handcuffed to a security guard (my hands handcuffed together, then handcuffed to him) I was led into a new prisoner transport van. The last time I was in one, it took about eight prisoners. This new van took only three in roomier compartments and was brand new. A guard sat just outside the cells, playing the radio, with shouted requests. Cells still dont have seat belts. I thought about what would happen to us in our locked cells if there was an accident.
It was lovely to see the sea and the sunset, and the green fields of Sussex. We arrived at Lewes just after dark. I was last off the van, but first to be called to the desk. The reception desk sergeant was head-shakingly disappointed with my refusal to answer all his questions. Because I didnt give my date of birth, he didnt know my previous record I could be a convicted sex offender, who should not have phone privileges therefore I would not have phone privileges. He rang up the reception (induction) wing and told them so, in my hearing. I was photographed this was turned into a photo badge that I have to wear the whole time and digitally fingerprinted (thumb on top of a plastic box) and led off to Property. First I had to take off my clothes, including my underpants. I got to put those back on, and prison T shirt, sweatshirt, track suit bottoms. (I should have asked for boxer shorts and socks, as the older hands did.)
Then I went to the property desk. Id brought over a dozen books I was allowed to keep 10 for my cell. All my pens, paper and stamps were allowed. My mini radio was not not still in its packaging, I was told by a prisoner later this was the reason. I was allowed to keep my newspapers and papers. Irritatingly, all the bits of paper bookmarks Id put into the Quran were plucked out to be checked for drugs I imagine. I now had a huge clear plastic bag full of books and paper and pens and so on. Oh, and envelopes. This meant I could write a letter as soon as I arrived in reception and post it when I got taken to K wing, reception wing. Theres an office and put it in an outgoing tray (elsewhere theres a post box).
So three of us got led to K wing, arriving after supper but an orderly (trusted prisoner) gave us access to the kitchen for food. Later, when I had to throw away the excess food (you are always given three times more than you can eat) I went into the kitchen and got told off there were bins outside and a sink for washing. I forgot to say that at reception I got given another big bag with toilet rolls, plate, bowl, mug, spoon, fork, knife (all plastic) which are mine for the duration.
On K wing we saw a nurse straight away; lots of questions about drugs and so on. We also got interviewed by a senior officer (never call a senior officer officer) with lots of questions about drugs and so on. He was fairly pleasant, but exasperated by my refusal to answer most of his questions. Pain in the arse and polite but obstinate were his two verdicts. Then four of us there was another new arrival, were led off K wing, because the prison was too full.
If wed stayed on K wing wed have been processed the next day induction to prison, introduction to gym, etc. etc., then taken onto a normal wing the following day. This is not going to happen. We are on a special regime, just because of prison overcrowding. So we are in old-style cells, with in-cell toilets. The cell is 6 9 wide and 12 5 long with a bunk bed, a shower curtain around the toilet, a metal sink, two cupboards, two chairs and one table, and a hot water pipe (thin) and another hot water pipe (fat) which provide heat. There is a window set high on the wall (the cell is about 9 high) which is 2 by 26, roughly. It has bars just outside the glass; we can open and close the glass windows.
The biggest difference between this cell and Pentonville ten years ago is that there is now a television in here. There is also supposed to be a kettle, but it doesnt work. (Actually, apart from the TV and the kettle this is very similar to Pentonville ten years ago.) The television stays on from first thing to lights out (the light switch is in here, we get to choose when its on or off).
Television is a drug. television is the opium of the prisoners. Television is the world.
No. 11. Dimensions
(Monday 21 November 2005)
Another way of looking at movements (and organizations) is by placing them in a three-dimensional space. There are 3 axes: atomization. empowerment and, er, I forget the third dimension for the moment. Atomization means that the membership of the movement or organization is a largely-unrelated mass of individuals. The socialist author Lu Xun described this as a dish of loose sand in 1920s China. He argued for social organization to overthrow feudal tyranny and colonial domination. This can come about through either authoritarianism or simple dis-organization; what has been referred to as either the tyranny of tyranny or the tyranny of structurelessness. If there is a committee or leadership and the membership is simply a mass of individuals, thats one form of atomization. This is the sort of position now in many Western parliamentary democracies. The opposite of atomization is a movement composed of strong, democratic and autonomous local groups, who relate to each other, and who are the source of ideas and actions and strategic direction.
The empowerment axis shows, at its worst, a movement that relies on the repetition of slogans, that is intellectually shallow. At the other end of the axis would be a movement of mutual education, and continual skill-sharing, a movement with the ambition of building a knowledge and skills base in each and every activist, to turn each and every activist into an educator, a public speaker, a confident and capable group participant/leader, and so on. A movement of real intellectual and practical skills.
Now, what was that third dimension again? (I first drew this diagram two weeks ago, in the margins of a Fellowship of Reconciliation conference of Young Peacemakers.) Im not sure but I think the third dimension was top-down/grassroots-led. The first dimension was just whether the group was composed of unrelated atoms, or organized groups. This third dimension is whether the movements ideas, action and strategy arise from and are decided upon by a small committee (however selected) or whether the grassroots of the movement exert real leadership. (Im not sure whether grassroots is/are singular or plural.)
Do these factors have any effect on the effectiveness of a movement (or organization)? Well, in the long-term, it is hard to see how a movement aiming to make a truly democratic society (national or international) can hope to do it if it is not itself deeply democratic. For most people engaged in any particular movement, the most important thing is the immediate objective pf the movement. The war, greenhouse gases, trade rules. And so on. Do thee factors affect the ability of an organization to achieve its immediate objectives? Well, it depends on your picture of how social change happens, but if grassroots mobilization is a critical factor in creating the political pressure for policy change, then it seems very likely that a movement of empowered local groups which pays attention to the knowledge and skills and confidence of each activist in each group will achieve its goals faster than a movement of atomized sloganeering individuals.
One again, this diagram is merely a way of assessing and describing a movement or an organization. It does not and cannot indicate how to move from one point to another, more effective position. Perhaps in the next eight days another diagram will emerge to help with this?
No. 12. Personal Power
(Monday 21 November 2005)
Constantly flooded with corporate propaganda and elite culture that denigrates the activist movements, we have to struggle to keep our groups and movements together. For many movements, facing seemingly insurmountable odds, keeping up morale and bringing in new recruits can be difficult. Some causes can seem to be relics of the past. Bizarrely, despite the increasing risks of nuclear war, the nuclear disarmament movement is widely seen as obsolete, a considerable victory for the nuclear state.
For long term movements, whose goals involve challenging core elements of the state or the corporate system, there are dangers involved in an architect mode of activism. Abolishing nuclear weapons, for example, is an extremely long-term goal, as nuclear weapons are central to the status and power of the great powers. What shorter-term goals can there be that move the state towards disarmament and that also give that hands-on, perceptible change experience the hairdresser mode of activism?
Much the same could be said of many other major causes, including climate change, the war on terrorism (including Iraq), world development (including trade justice) and so on.
There are shocking, unexpected victories, like Seattle, when a blockade stopped world trade liberalisation in its tracks; or the earlier derailment of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI).
In a way, however, it is still hard to connect any particular actions to the collapse of the MAI, and the victory in Seattle is inspiring but somewhat distant for most activists who werent there.
The hairdresser experience is hands-on, face-to-face, and has visible results in a fairly short time period. Are there hairdresser experiences available even in the most unpromising fields of activism?
In a sense, the massive rally or march is an immediate, hands-on, face-to-face experience with visible results. But it can be hard to connect such events with desired changes.
The problem is that the target policy change- is extremely hard to achieve. The question then is what other relevant targets activists can aim to influence that are easier to affect in a visible way, preferably in a short time frame.
Well, at the most personal level, the face-to-face encounter which alters someones attitude to the core issue is the closest thing to the hairdresser moment. Building a mobilised majority is a crucial part of any of these long-term movements and a majority is built person-by-person.
What change could we aim for? To move someone one circle towards being a connected, engaged activist who organises others to carry out actions that pressure decision-makers. (see earlier piece about the concentric circles.)
How can we know whether weve changed someone in the right direction? Often by asking them to do something tangible like sign a petition or make a donation or buy a publication. Its not whether they do it, necessarily, but the way their attitude changes, which can manifest itself in doing something physical (easier if it is financially costless), or making a pledge (perhaps to go to a meeting).
Political parties are based on a multi-stranded approach to campaigning but one key task in the electoral cycle is knocking on doors and soliciting pledges to vote from potential voters.
This is powerful communication, and also exactly the hairdresser experience.
On a large scale, the structure of public opinion can be measured, and campaigns to alter public opinion (either locally or nationally) can be assessed in quantitative and qualitative opinion polls. Local street polss can be educational opportunities and (in a rough and ready way) generate numbers to indicate the direction of public opinion.
In the face to face encounter, what matters is not whether someone signs the petition, but whether they move closer to the centre. If they are already supporters, what is important is to bring them into closer connection to the movement to persuade then to be on a mailing list, to come to a meeting, to make a real commitment with some lasting value to them and to the movement.
The value of the concentric circles analysis is the way it re-focusses our attention, and makes us rethink what we are doing.
The value of the hairdresser analysis is the way that it focuses attention on producing satisfying activist experiences. These are not of course the only ways of framing activism. The over-arching need is to create pressure on decision-making, and in those terms what matters most is how many signatures there are. The point of these and other frameworks for re-thinking is to stimulate creativity and fresh ideas, to strengthen groups and movements. The emphasis in all these remarks is the interior life of the activist and of the movement. To discuss political activism simply in terms of the institutions and policies we confront os to tie one hand behind our backs and blindfold ourselves in the middle of the struggle.
We need to be effective and we need to feel effective if we are to have the strength to carry our campaigns to a successful conclusion.
No. 13. Incomplete
(Monday November 21 2005)
The two prisoners in the next cell are both on methadone, a powerful heroin-substitute use for detox inside and outside prison. Others in our group are also on meth. Drugs crop up in conversation continually. One young prisoner, after executing a sidekick in the air, said he had done karate for six years, and would now have been working his way through the various grades of black belt if two years ago he hadnt become involved in drugs, and stopped entirely.
The induction process into prison lays heavy emphasis on drugs, and offering drug rehab assistance and counselling. Opposite our cells is a notice board with powerful messages about drugs. One stresses the need to learn CPR to help your friends survive an overdose. Another warns of the lowered tolerance of addicts just released from jail (after a long period of abstinence). These seem realistic and likely to have an impact whether they can change behaviour I dont know.
I have met a prisoner who believes he has spent £100,000 on cocaine and crack regularly spending £1000 each weekend. Even allowing for prison exaggeration, it is clear he has spent an enormous sum on an addiction he freely admits he does not control.
Drug addiction, alcoholism, compulsive spending, and various other forms of addictive behaviour account for a considerable part of the prison population. Are the current methods of handling addictive behavioiurs working? Clearly not.
My own feeling is that both the problem and the solutions are being misdescribed and misunderstood. It is probably much more helpful to see a whole range of behaviours and conditions, including workaholism and various other mental illnesses as rooted in the same basic human situation.
We glibly say that human beings are social animals. What does that mean? The general sense is that human beings prefer to be in company, in the herd, that we are generally sociable. But that isnt what social means.
Being a herd animal doesnt mean that we prefer to be part of a group; it means we need to be part of a group. It means that each individual is incomplete, and cannot feel complete unless part of a human group.
Q. What has all this to do with activism?
A. I am not sure, but lets see where he is going with all this.
How is this incompleteness engineered? By making the animals sense of self, and estimation of self, partly dependent on the esteem of its peers, or more accurately what it perceives to be the judgment of its peers.
Human beings are the most complex and complicatedly social of all animals. We have an extraordinary capacity to be conscious not only of how others see us but also of how others perceive our ability to cope with how they see us, and so on, into ever more intricate halls of mirrors. I would not be at all surprised if human consciousness which puzzles us so much did not arise precisely from this increasingly complex interplay of self consciousness, in an ever more complex social environment,
At the apogee of this detour, I will point out that unlike other large mammals, human beings have very considerable whites of their eyes visible at all times. In other large mammals, showing the whites of your eyes is threatening. In humans it is routine, perhaps because knowing who is looking at who, and with what emotion, is fundamental to judging the balance of power and esteem in a human group. It is a crucial part of the self-reflexive web of human society.
(Now be honest. If this wasnt dumped into a prison notebook, would you have sat down to read such groundless speculation?)
What other people (seem to) think of us is crucial to our sense of self, to our position in society and to our physical and emotional health. There is a lot one can say here about studies of inequality, stress and health. I will focus on one aspect: emotional health linked with addictive behaviours and other disorders.
Why have rates of alcohol and drug addition been so high amongst Native Americans, or the Irish? Because both have experienced national defeat and colonization on a grand scale. It is nothing to do with genetics; it is to do with an internalized sense of defeat. When you look at other colonized people, you find the same thing. The frame of reference in which such people live is the imposed cultural and political and economic framework of the conquerors. The conquerors insist that they are the relevant peer group, and in the eyes of these peers the colonized are worthless.
Racism has this dynamic. Addictive behaviours in western Black populations arises precisely in the situation where white people insist that they are the norm (and that it is other people who are coloured.); that they are the relevant peer group, and in that peer group the attributes of Black people are shameful and/or comical. One can say the same thing about class, where the upper middle class lifestyle is regarded as the norm, and the failures to reach this norm are felt as shameful.
Even amongst the most materially successful, drug addition is rife because what matters is not deprivation but relative deprivation, relative failure, in relation to the dominant peer group. As the gradations of social failure become finer, they cut more deeply. Those lacerations can lead to the damaged sense of self that leads to alcoholism, addition or other forms of self harm and emotional disconnectedness.
The situation of the alcoholic is that s/he regards her/himself as worthless in relation to the peer group, and living in this world is painful for that reason, because all around are people who can observe and condemn her/his past and present worthlessness. Something is needed that can remove the pain of other peoples perceived contempt.
The situation of the workaholic is that they regard themselves as worthless in relation to the task (as s/he defines it), to the peer group, and to the unseen judge who determines the quality and adequacy of the work that is done. Living in this world is painful because all around are people who can observe and condemn their past and present worthlessness and inadequacy. All around is the invisible Judge who can observe and condemn the failure of their efforts to complete the task (as s/he, the workaholic, believes the Judge has defined it.)
Something is needed that can remove the pain of the perceived contempt from other people and from the Judge. In truth, the workaholic feels inadequate to the world of human society.
And who said this column wasnt about acitivism?
Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam had startling results in rehabilitating addicts because the emphasis was on replacing the mental and cultural framework of white racist society with the mental and cultural framework of Black nationalism, Black Power and Black pride.
The emphasis was on harnessing the talents and energy of the addict into struggle for the benefit of the Black community. There were less savoury aspects of the programme also the mirror image racism towards white people, for example. But the point I want to make is that this worked.
A new peer group, constructive work towards a desirable group purpose, a new evaluation of self within a new framework, some way of expunging the shame of the past and replacing it with pride and confidence, and respect and full membership of the new peer group. These are the new hallmarks of successful rehabilitation programmes, whether in Black Nationalism, al-Qaeda (as among the Leeds bombers) or Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes.
What is the relevance of all this to activists? Well, there are obvious dangers around workaholism, which must be countered if we are to have healthy groups and healthy movements. One long-suffering, resentful and dominating workaholic who refuses to delegate and who refuses to share work and responsibility can put off dozens of potential activists and drag the activity and energy of a group down to the lowest possible level above brain death. (And no, I dont want to receive lots of letters from past victims of my behaviour along these lines, thank you).
Workaholism is an emotional problem, not a heroic sacrifice for the cause.
A little bit more generally: what we want are groups that can replicate the best characteristics of re-orientation and rehabilitation groups. Groups that can build up our confidence and self-esteem and help us to define our own peer groups, and establish our values of society. Groups that are not defensive, but self-confident, grounded in our communities, rooted in traditions of social change, and open to innovation. We can complete ourselves, our societies, and the world.
No. 14. Comfort Zones
(Wednesday 23 November 2005)
Yesterday (22 November) I received a letter from Nottingham Student Peace Movement, musing on the scope and limits of university activism. (Incidentally, the letter is dated 21 November, so you have some idea of how fast things are turning around at this just-in-time (or is that stuck-in-time) prison.)
Dan Robertson expresses frustration at the unwillingness of many students to leave their comfort zone to take more radical positions. Now I think by now you know what is going to happen. Im going to take some of Chomskys comments on the topic, reproduce them in somewhat less elegant language, and embroider them.
As an academic, Chomsky has had a lot of time to think about the topic, but hes rarely written about it. One point he has made about the academic scene is that there is a dramatic change of attitude between students and even young faculty, who are only a year or so away from being students themselves. He also points out the recurring pattern of students going of for summer jobs at commercial law firms, for example, thinking they are only going to earn some money, to help them with their debts, and then coming back with an entirely different outlook, often wearing different clothes.
Every radical student knows about the hidden agenda of the classroom; and the tacit lessons taught unobtrusively in the course of the school day, lessons in obedience and conformity. The same is true, even more powerfully, of the re-shaping that goes on under the surface at work even at university.
Another foundational remark from Chomsky concerns the objectives of university reform. Now barely detectable as a live issue, university reform (in a liberatory sense) was a major concern thirty years ago. Chomsky pointed out that what mattered was not alterations to boards of trustees or such like, but the content of the curriculum and the relationship between staff and students.
In passing, one might note the same about industrial relations, and the workplace. As we have seen in Germany recently, putting a few token trade unionists on a board is more likely to lead to corruption of the labour movement leadership than real changes towards industrial democracy on the shop floor.
Universities are locations of enormous privilege and provide students and faculty with intellectual skills, wide resources and considerable leisure, which can and should be used to contribute intellectually as well as bodily to movements for social change.
Chomsky says that intellectuals should make their ideas dominant by their excellence. Quite a challenge, but its hard to see what the alternative there is.
Okay, back to comfort zones, and student activism. Why should someone become active, and take some part in a movement join the movement? Why should they take a more sceptical attitude towards the mainstream media and official propaganda let alone the accepted framework of the social sciences, for example?
The only reasons that move someone would be (a) a compelling and irrefutable picture of something that they find outrageous and (b) compelling and irrefutable arguments that undermine official lies and received wisdom.
What often provides the key for change is something that makes the picture or the argument human.
Chomsky is very self-deprecating about his own tactical judgements. One example he has given is the sanctuary offered by MIT students to a US soldier who had gone Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) in protest against the Vietnam War. Chomsky argued against it I think because he thought it would receive too little support, and would fall flat.
In the event, the sanctuary was a massive success, with students flocking up to the hall where Mike (I forget his surname) was staying. Teachers moved their classes there, students slept there; the sanctuary apparently changed opinion on campus. Instead of arguing in the abstract, students were confronted with a young person much like themselves, facing an appalling decision, and they changed their minds as the arguments were put in this new human framework, with a new sense of immediacy. (Face-to-face, hands-on immediate involvement. Familiar?) The sanctuary ended when Mike was arrested and taken off to face military courts. The effect on MIT seems to have been substantial and lasting.
So why would someone move out of their comfort zone whether on campus or anywhere else? There are lots of reasons not to. In marketing, in the commercial world, there is an emphasis on understanding and resonating with the attitudes of those you are trying to influence, repeating your message regularly and in a variety of ways. Advertising is based on manipulation, campaigning is about honesty and persuasion, but there are useful lessons that we can learn, nevertheless.
Dan writes, quite rightly, even the realisation that those calling for radical change are not easily pigeon-holed and derided [as] hippies or nihilists, but are compassionate and intelligent human is actually an important step in some cases. This applies outside university as well.
Finally, there is another attitude shift which is of equal importance, which is for intellectuals, whether radical, liberal or conservative, to rid themselves of the delusion that their form of literacy and education means that they are both more intelligent and (therefore) more suited to dominate and rule the less-highly-schooled.
Intellectuals must free themselves of the contempt for the masses which has undermined movements for social change in the past. If they can form a true partnership with other working people, intellectuals can help rather than hinder social progress.