Betrayal

A Critical Analysis of Rape Culture
in Anarchist Subcultures
Disclaimer

We're fcking sick of disclaimers. We resent having to provide apologies and
justifications for our words before we even speak them. We're bitter about how
Specialized discussions of rape, sexual assault, and abuse have become. We
feel insulted and embarrassed that we have to constantly point out that we
aren’t speaking on behalf of all survivors, as though that were even possible.
Sure, we appreciate a well placed trigger wamning. It's just good etiquette. But
when fanatical attempts to avoid triggering each other serve as tools to relegate
discussions of interpersonal violence to the margins, to wrap the issue in a neat
little box which is only brought out on special occasions, when an illusion of
safety” can be guaranteed., well..then we start to get pissed. If we only speak
of our oppression from the position of safety, we'll be forever silent. If we can't
learn to work through being triggered amongst friends and comrades, we'll be
ill equipped to work through it in their absence. An atmosphere of nervousness
permeates the discussion, and we confer to the advice of specialists partly out
of fear of saying the wrong thing. But all we're talking about are our own
experiences, a topic on which we are all experts. So we long for the day when
we won't need to place ourselves under disclaimers, or any other banner for
that matter.

But at the same time we recognize that we're not there yet. These topics
axe still so charged, and the support available still so sparse, that our words
hold the tremendons potential to do harm. So in the meantime we must take
care when we speak, 5o as to not become inadvertent allies of the forces we
mean to oppose. With that in mind, we offer a few clarifications before we
begin

Some of the authors of this piece are survivors, others are reflecting on
their own role as people who have been abusive in the past, but they all share
& commitment to the strugsle against a Culture of Rape. When we say “we.”
we are not referring to “survivors,” or even to the authors, but to everyone
who agrees with the statement made, and perhaps more broadly, to everyone
who sees themselves a part of this struggle. There are surely survivors whose
experiences will seemingly contradict the arguments made here. But of course
the examples cited throughout this text are not meant to be exhaustive or
all encompassing. We do not see our own experiences as exemplary of the
experiences of all survivors, o even most survivors. They do, however, provide
examples of how Rape Culture has materialized in our own lives, a point we
thought worth sharing,

We would be rightly eriticized for focusing so heavily on the anarchist milicu,
which of course most survivors will not identify with. But we saw litle use in
trying to extend ourselves beyond our own experiences in the hopes of becoming
more “relevant.” It is also our hope that an anarchist analysis of both Power and
struggle provide a useful framework for deconstructing the functioning of Rape
Cultre, and could perhaps provide insight even to those who are unfamiliar

with the anarchist subculture. 1t is onr belief that the dynamics we described
will be echoed in other milicus as well.

Our gentle reader will also notice that we have chosen to use gender neutral
language throughout. Of course the majority of survivors are women or peo-
ple who don’t conform to patriarchal gender identities, whereas the majority of
perpetrators are cis gendered men. The neutrality of onr language obscures the
systemic nature of not only this, but also the way that interpersonal violence
has consistently been a tool of colonial invasion, imperialist occupation, and
the maintenance of white supremacy. It obscures the way in which organizing
against interpersonal violence has historically been co-opted by white middie-
class feminists, leaving women of colour, poor women, queer and trans folk
with less access to support Tesources. 1t was not our intention to depoliticize
the nature of interpersonal violence with language that is gender neutral (cer-
tainly, when it comes to gender, we are not nentrall). But having said that, we
also wanted to recoguize that people of all idenities, from all walks of lfe, can
be both survivors or perpetrators, or even both at the same time. We didn't
want. those whose expericnces don't fit neatly into oppressive binaries to find
themselves even Rurther marginalized here.

Finally, we offer a few definitions, not so that we can dictate how these words
st be used, but so that it can be understood how their use was intended here:

Rape Culture: A culture which secks to excuse, condone, normalize and
encourage interpersonal violence.

Interpersonal Violence: A catch all term commonly nsed to describe
different forms of violence which are inflicted on an interpersonal basis, yet
have their roots in expansive systems of power. Rape, sexual assault, sexual
harassment, as well as sexual, physical and emotional abuse within relationships
axe all examples of interpersonal violence,

Survivor: A person who has experienced or is experiencing interpersonal
violence, as defined by the survivor themselves,

Perpetrator: A person who has inflicted interpersonal violence onto an-
other person o persons, as defined by the survivor(s).

Survivor Autonomy: The theoretical foundation upon which most radical
upport worlk is based. Survivor Autonomy is the concept that a survivor should
be given the power and autonomy to decide for themselves how to deal with
their own trauma, and that the role of supporters i to cmpower and encourage
this autonomy. This stands in contrast to other approaches which do not see
the survivor as having the best understanding of their own needs or recognize
each survivors needs as truly unique and different, but instead seck to impose
the “proper” way to heal upon them.

Apologist: Those who, through action or inaction, seck to uphold cither
the power of a perpetrator(s) and /or the disempowerment of a survivor(s), th
reproducing Rape Culture

Accountability process: A process through which a perpetrator attempts
to be accountable to the people they've hurt, and engages in self refiection with

the ultimate goal of making long term changes in behavion.

It would seem that throughout the anarchist milieu, wherever you tum, there
is & community being ravaged by rape, by sexual assault, and by abuse. These
eyeles are neither new nor unique to anarchists. At first glance it seems surpris-
ing that our communities find themselves at least as vulnerable as any other to
interpersonal violence. After all, don’t we begin from the starting point of op-
position to domination, without which interpersonal violence conld not exist”
And yet, the one thing that tics these communities together, a supposed shared
polities or political analysis, i often the weakest point in anarchist responses
to interpersonal violence. Despite being a community which is explicitly politi-
cal in nature, anarchists often depoliticize interpersonal violence and divorce it
from its roots in systemic power. For instance, the need for good consent prac-
tices becomes confused with the belief that informing people about consent will
transform our communities, as though rape were the result of ignorance and
misinformation, rather than deeply entrenched structures of power. Strategies
that anarchists have adopted, such as the accountability process, more often
than not fail to address the interpersonal violence in our midst.

The apparent failure of the accountability process to transform our com
nities is usnally viewed outside the context of that failure, withont examining
the broader social forces that contributed to it. This oversight is a result of the
accomntability process and also a precursor to it. The accomntability process
narrows our focus: it both confronts us with expansive systems of power while

suring us that dealing with individual instances will deconstruct them. We
speak of patriarchy, colonialism, heterosexism, but we deal only with a perpe-
trator. In our casual conversations, we agree “power concedes nothing without
the threat of force,” yet our attempts at accountability wsually take the form of
moral suasion, relying on liberal-bourgeois notions of choice. As if our choices
were more than a calculated reaction to the material conditions we find our-
selves in. OF course aperpetrator chooses to pursie o reject accountability,
but what makes this choice possible? What conditions fostered their feclings of
entitlement over amother person? I is these conditions that, when viewed from
the terrain of struggle, must be recognized as what they are: enemy territory.
1t is from this realization that we attempt to luunch our attack

The insistence that interpersonal violence is perpetuated by more than just
the actual perpetrators is not. meant to shift accountability away from those
perpetrators. On the contrary, it’s a recognition of the many factors that
entitle them to sidestep accountability. Just as the suburban yuppie requires
avast and complex: social system to mask the negative consequences of their
destructive lifestyle, a perpetrator who refuses accountability is often cnabled
by & similar social network. Such networks aren’t only comprised of those
who explicitly defend a perpetrator, but of all those who ensure the balance of
power remains tipped in their favour. What this looks like in practical terms

will vary. Silencing, repression, recuperation, ot most often combinations of
several of these methods are used against survivors and their struggle. The
defining factor will always be what most effectively reprodices Rape Culture.

Silencing the Struggle

“In the end, it won't be the words of our enemies we remember,
but the silence of our friends.”

The term “silencing” has been popularized in our communities, but only with
a limited definition. Calling a survivor a liar, conjuring their sexual experi-
ences, deviancies, or style of dress to shift blame, or otherwise insimating that
they were “asking for it,” are all behaviours most anarchists would frown on,
though they rarely bother confronting them. This hypocrisy hints at a larger
problem, revealed by a closer look at our conception of what is “silencing” The
aforementioned examples only apply to the survivor who has called out. their
perpetrator, or else talked openly about their expericnces. But of course many
survivors never get even this far.

So what silences them? Is it the other members of their affinity group,
who maintain a false separation between the struggle against the state and
the struggle against other systems of Power (especially the ones they benefit
from)? Is it the roommates who never acknowlede fucked up dynamics for
fear of “triggering” someone, as if an offer of support would be more triggering
? Is it the other show goers who write off the struggle as
pety, too personal, or mere “drama,” as if a survivor who struggles against
their oppression is being dramatic? s it the fellow collective member who
regrets that they are “not in the place” to offer support, while still being in the
place to hang ont with a perpetrator on a regular basis? I it the acquaintance
who claims 0 be in no position to confront a perpetrator because they are
not even friends, or is it the acquaintance who claims the same becanse they
axe? Is it the people who organized that cvent, the ones who say they know
nothing about the situation, while doing everything in their power to make sure
they never do? Is it the band mate who claims they can see “both sides,” or
eschews sides altogether, as if this wasn't a fucking war? We've even seen rape
apologists turn survivor autonomy on its head, claiming that they'd received
10 explicit instructions from a survivor, so of course they had no choice but to
carry on a completely uncritical friendship with their attacker! Perhaps it
not the silence of survivors, but of those around them, which is truly revealing,
With 1o one to say otherwise, a survivor can only assume that they will be
given the same treatment as every other survivor before them.

If we broaden our definition of what is “silencing” to mean everything that
works to maintain silence, then we aren't merely defining a few grosh
tive remarks. Instead, what we've implicated s the totality of our culture.

So what then, of accountability? Abuse, assault, a total lack of account-
ability: all are business as usual in the world as we know it. But normalcy is
wmore cffectively maintained through the complacency of masscs than through,
the brutality of their masters. While violence provides the foumdation upon
which Rape Cultnre reproduces itsel,it also poses certain risks: that it's shared
experience can create bonds of solidarity, that lines of confict will be drawn
more clearly, that people will fight back. The process of normalization secks
to undermine these risks by making vielence invisible. The obvious apologists,
the goons who say “slut” like it's a bad thing and think the perpetrator is the
victim, dow't do nearly as much to further normalization as their more subtle
accomplices, the ones who maintain complete silence on the subject. These
mare sophisticated apologists share space with the perpetrator; they march
alongside them at demonstrations and dance alongside them at partics, with-
nt ever uttering even a single word about interpersonal violence. When forced
0 speak on the subject, they sigh and say “it’s complicated..” They may even
claims t0 be disgusted by the violence, though mostly theyre sad that you had
to disrupt their event to confront it. They lament, “If only I had known!” while
keeping their heads planted purposefully in the sand.

Unleashing Repression

This conspiracy of silence seeks not only to end a survivors struggle before it
even begins, but also to provide the back drop for what will happen to the few
survivors who refuse to be muzzled. For a survivor to speak apenly of their
experiences in such a climate can only be understood as an act of resistance,
and as with all acts of resistance, repression is a likely outcome. This repression
is more nuanced than the clubs of police officers or the guns of soldiers, though
these too have been turned on survivors. The repressive forces are more likely
€0 be mentally and emotionally devastating. The agents of such repression are
not. familiar to s through uniforms or badges, but as our supposed comrades
and former friends. Many of us are accustomed to seeing only the police in this
repressive role, ! and of course they have their part to play in the reproduction
of Rape Culture as well. But in our own radical communities, the state’s role in
this reproduction seems downplayed. After all, there’s little point in the state
expending the resonrces while so many self-deseribed anarchists are willing to
do the job for frec.

Those who doubt the brutality of this internal repressive apparatus have
likely never been on the receiving end. The “communities” that are so often
turned to with the expectation of support are more often mobilized against

Amongst most anarchists at least, the police are a faceless cnemy. Wo don't have to scc
them tuck their kids in at night, they don't tel us okes over beers, they do not confront s
with the contradiction of their own humanity. Thi is not the case for those who are called
ot for assanlt o abuse within anarchist circles, a reality which wany perpetrators use to
their full advantage.

the survivors on behalf of their perpetrators in a stunning connter attack. It's
difficult to properly illustrate what so many survivors have had to endure at
the hands of their supposed anarchist comrades. To call it a smear campaign
hardly does it justice. Of course speaking generally will never fully encompass
all the complesitics of a person’s experiences, but there are many patterns we
can identify within the anarchist milicu, all of which faithfully reproduce the
patterns of the broader culture.

One glaring example is the character assassination of the survivor. No as-
pect of their life is spared from scrutiny, all in search of any detail that can
be used against them. These details, whether genuine or fabricated when nec-
essary, are often used towards invalidating their experiences of violence and
valorizing the perpetrator. Few will be so clumsy as to blatantly aceuse a sur-
vivor of lying, though there are more self described anarchists willing to do this
than even we care to admit. Instead, most will utilize any number of slight
variations as  way of saying the same thing. Perhaps a survivor gave no clue
of abuse as they endured it, perhaps they consented to certain sexual activ-
ity but ot all of it, perhaps they felt the need to disclose certain experiences
and withhold others, perhaps they needed time to process their trauma and
only revealed it gradually, perhaps they have their own issues with power or
boundaries. We could g0 on, but of course what's important s not the details
themselves, but how they can be twisted, taken out of context, or else used
to undermine a survivors credibility. Past histories, addictions, coping mecha-
nisms, debis, insecurities, even a survivor's political identity, all are fair game.?
When this strategy is successful, survivors are villainized and their attackers
are recast as the victims of lies and manipulation. But even if the apparent
objective of discrediting a survivor in the eyes of community fails, the process
itself can still be effective at forcing survivors out of that community. Knowing
that simply walking into an anarchist space means that nearly everyone therc
has discussed your personal life at length creates a tremendous barrier, regard-
less of the conclusions people may have reached. Survivors may fel compelled
to pre-cmpt this dynamic by engaging their critics. Often, this plays into de-
mands for “proof” or details of assaults or abuse. The retraumatizing aspect of
this s yet another further attack on the survivor, and often fecds rather than
undermines the conflct

As tension

grow, it begins to spill over into new arenas. Previously un-
involved parties who may not even know the survivor or perpetrator become
caught up in the mounting bedlam, and organizing becomes disrupted. Of
course, at this point normalization has been broken, and the repressive appara-

*This same process s often extended to & survivor’s support network as well In fact,
focusing mainly on supporters sametimes allows the agents of repression to continue pos-
turing as being supportive of the survivor, while at the same time sabolaging any gemuine
support. Such hinly veiled aitacks, though possibly dovastating to supporters, must still be
understood primarily as attacks on the survivor, however indircet. I worst caso scemarics
such attacks resul i a dogenerated confic betweon the accomplices of Rape Culture and
Support network, once again leaving the survivor sidelined and discrporered.

tus no longer has anything to lose by not holding back. Anarchists who would
otherwise scorn the politics of liberals now tur to their ideology for reinforce-
ment. “These divisions are hurting us!” they cry. O course, such divisions
are never blamed on the perpetrator or their actions, but on the survivor for
insisting that the trauma they've experienced cannot go unanswered. They are
blamed for tearing the community apart and ultimately for undermining “the
struggle? The importance of this last point camnot be overemphasized. The
previous sals of the broader community, which hinted that “the strug-
gle” merely excludes survivors and their needs, are now clarified to reveal that
in fact these struggles are diametrically opposed. To be perfectly clear, anar-
chists who feel their struggle is undermined by a survivor are in fact engaged
in a struggle against survivors, they are active defenders of a Culture of Rape.
They will often liken the survivor's struggle to a “witch bunt,” when they them-
selves share more in common with the exceutioners than with those who burn
at the stake.

As mentioned carlicr, if a survivor can be silenced, and their experiences
nommalized into a culture of Rape, repression will become redundant. It follows
that the lack of such ontright repression, when paired with a lack of support
for survivors and a lack of accountability for perpetrator
am absence of Rape Culture, but the opposite: it reveals a Culture of Rape that
is totally ingrained, like an occupation that has become so entrenched as to
render the tanks and soldiers unnecessary.

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em

As alluded to earlier, these repressive measures can actually split the ranks
of the more moderate rape apologists, undermining the common front against
the survivor. At the same time, repressive measures are deemed necessary
at the very least when the usual process of normalisation is broken. This
points to one of the biggest contradictions within Rape Culture: that the very
violence it relics on to reproduce itself also reveals its true nature for all to sce.
‘This contradiction is xesolved by recuperative forces within radical communities
which seck to co-opt support for survivors and redirect it against them. Many
will claim to support a survivor while actually undermining their autonomy.
This is usually done by limiting the possible scope of a survivor’s respon
to exclude anything that might further upset the social peace. These false
upporters work to uphold the image of a supportive comnunity, and in the
process prevent any truly critical engagement with commuunity. Their tools are
the language and organizing frameworks which were forged by survivors and
their supporters, appropriated for the purpose of disempowerment and twisted
t0 usurp the survivors’ struggle.

Initially, the creation of words and new frameworks to use them was nec-
essary, as the language for survivors to even talk about their experiences did

not exist. Unfortunately, words are casily recuperated, and we can now see the
inevitable limitations of relying on them so heavily. Once upon a time, radicals
championed the use of the word “perpetrator” as an attempt to sidestep the
stigma of harsher words. The once prevalent framework of Restorative Justice
emphasised a person’s ability to change. “Rapist” or “abuser” hardly under-
lined these values, and many felt it kept the rapists and abusers locked in those
roles, just as referring to survivors as “victims” potentially kept them locked
in a moment of subjugation rather than underlying their strength and perse-
verance. OF course now we are faced with a new wave of anti-violence activists,
who lament the stigmatized nature of the word perpetrator, and now advocate
the even more watered down term “person who causes harm.” Perhaps it’s time
to realize that if a perpetrators capacity to change is not broadly recognized,
that s a xesult of their own actions more so than the words we use to describe
them. This s not to say that we should not choose our words strategically,
or that we should not use them with strong intention, but only that our ap-
parent obsession with language has serious drawbacks. At best, it leaves
canght in a never ending loop to find the right words rather than addressing
our more meaningful shortcomings. At worst, it preserves the power dynamics
of Rape Culture by attributing fault to survivors and their supporters rather
than perpetrators and their apologists.

This bizarre reversal, where a perpetrators refusal of accountability s viewed.
at least partially as a result of flaws in a survivor's response, s a common
pattern scized upon by the recuperative forces of Rape Culture. Zines and
pamphlets lst strategies towards accountability which seck to avoid making
& perpetrator defensive, which are perhaps betier understaod as strategies to-
wards accountability which seck to accommodate a perpetrators defen
The only thing such an approach avoids is a recoguition that being defen
not something forced on a person by others, but a reactionary respon:

which
must be realized and worked through for any gennine accountability to be pos-

ible. Many will use the term defensive without ever asking,
what?”

Of conrse many survivors who anticipate defensiveness and the repressive
apparatus activated by it have made good use of such strategies in the short
term to initiate dialogue, or else to make demands concerning immediate safety
withont the goal of transforming a perpetrator. We have no interest in question-
ing the choices survivors make or discouraging the dissemination of potentially
useful strategies (because, of course, how useful any given approach might be
can only be decided by survivors themselves). Our concern is when the accom-
modation of defensiveness or the strategies implied by it become a tool of false
supporters to limit the possible choices available to survivors, or to eriticize
those choices they disapprove of after a survivor has made them. Discussions
of how to call ont a perpetrator rarely centre on the survivor's needs. “Avoid-
ing defensivencss” provides the pretence to shift the discussion back to the
needs of the perpetrator. Once a perpetrator has been called out, a similar

in defence of

framework is used to undermine support for a survivor. The false supporters
endlessly reassure us that they are not angry that a perpetrator was called
out, it’s only fhe way they were called out. The fact that a survivor would
speak openly about their experiences is scemingly taken as more violent and
controversial than the violence of those experiences themselves, which warrant
very little discussion by comparison. How a survivor's public response might
reflect their necds does not seem to oceur to the false supporters as they are
S0 preocenpied with their need to preserve an artifical social peace. Again we
sce liberal tendencies rearing their head, as the false supporters” insistence on
denouncing the resistance of survivors, on claiming to also despise the Culture
of Rape while simultancously diminishing any fight against it is reminiscent of
liberals who claim to agree with the grievances of protesters and yet condemn
amy actions they might take to address them. The liberal complains that inten-
sity and ferocity sabotages the struggle, but of course the anarchist knows the
real problem is that we haven't gone far enough.

As mentioned earlier, this is all part of a larger pattern to maintain the
power dynamies that Rape Culture relies upon. There are countless other
examples. The accountability process itself can be a double edged sword. Rad-
ical communities often divorce the accountability process from its place within
the broader Restorative Justice framework, offering it as the sole response to
intimate violence while simultancously avoiding any further attempts at pre-
empting violence before it happens. This false support places the needs of the
survivor secondary to the question of how to deal with a perpetrator, once
again prioritizing the needs of the perpetrator and maintaining the pattern of
domination. What little support is offered survivors often replicates th
dynamic. One of the most common models of support used, that of making
demands of the perpetrator,? once again leaves all agency in the perpetrator’s
hands, especially when there is no contingency plan if the perpetrator should
refuse. Survivors who become emotionally invested in such models as a path
for healing are often devastated when the demands yield nothing, or worse,
when they incite a new barrage from the perpetrator and the repressive forces.
T the amarchist milien, where it is widely recognized that demands are mostly
useless when not accompanied with the threat of force, it is quite revealing that
such models preva

In addition to its role in the wider context, the internal workings of the
accontability process itself have the potential to be hijacked and used against
asurvivor. The concept of Survivor Autonomy, which once formed the theoret-
ical foundation of the accountability process, is often discarded, transforming
the process into a toothless form of liberal conflict resolution. Without being
informed by a clear analysis of the power dynamics at work, of course the de-
fault power of the perpetrator is upheld. The goal is still the rehabilitation of
the perpetrator, and most likely their continued participation in the com:

Pl sorme instances demands are made o the broader community as well often to the same
effect,
nity, but the false supporters who have hijacked the accountability process can,
now do so at the expense of the survivor, sclfishly defining the perpetrators
“rehabilitation” in any way that is convenient for them. In the most extreme
cases, nccountability processes wil be initiated against the explicit wishes of
a5 an attcmpt to legitimize the perpetrator in the cyes of others. The
pretence of making it  “commuity issue” allows the false supporters to not
only take control out of the survivors hands, but also to portray survivors who
xefuse to coaperate with their own disempawerment as a barrier o accountabil-
The embarrassingly common farce of false supporters informing a survivor
that actuall, their perpetrator has “worked on their shit” stems from this or
similar dynamics

In less extreme cases, the survivor's participation will be permitted but only
S0 long as it falls within paramcters set by their false supporters. Reprisals
against a perpetrator, physical or otherwise, are completely off limits. Even
questions of immedinte safety, such as sharing space with a perpetrator, are
subject to the discretion of false supporters.  Again we sce radical linguage
turned against survivors, as their demands for space within their community
e wisted by false supporters and likened to the prison system (for not making
rehabilitation the only goal, or “punishing” a perpetrator) or openly referred
t0 as an attempt to “banish” the perpetrator. Of course the insincerity of these
concerns are revealed as they provide the pretext to banish the survivor from
the commnnity instead.

The perpetrator’s role in the hijacked accomntability process’ also repro-
duces their power. In some cases they are allowed to make demands of the
survivor or clse place criteria on their own participation. Perpetrators, or their
apologists, all too commonly respond to being called ont by making defensive
“eallouts” of their own. As discussed caslie, they will accuse the survivor of
any wronsdoin they can think of, or clse make some wp when actual misdecds
axe not forthcoming, Rather than recognize thesc pathetic attempts at slnder
a5 the manipulative transgressions they are, the false supporters usually join
the perpetrator in absurd calls for “acconntability” from the survivor From
this newlound position of righteousness, and with the complicty of the false
supporters, the perpetrator is frce to alter the very character of the accomnt-
ability process. What began as a callont becomes more like a negotiation, as
perpetrator’s cooperation becomes contingent on the survivor addessing their
concerns. Perhaps some of these concerns might cven be valid, but of course
what's important is not their validity but their role in undermining the sur-
vivor's struggle. The survivor must now earn not only the accountability they
et from the perpetrator, but also the support they gt from the community.
Those survivors who are wnvilling or unable to jump through all the hoops will

This is not to say that ssues of ntimate violence are not community issucs, but that
sonuine community will s o emper it survivors and enconrage thelr autonoray. Aspocts
of a comumunity that find theie own interests i conflict with that of survivors are revealed
10 not be part of an anarchist community at al, but of an enemy garrison i our midst

be written off. In a final perversion of the accountability process, the survivor
will be the one blamed for its failure, the one who was unwilling to “work things
out” By this point the so-called “Restorative Justice” framework has been so
distorted that it succeeds only in “restoring” the pover dynamics of a Rape
Culture which had been ot herwise compromised by the survivors’ struggle.

Bad Apples

In radical communities especially, apologists will not always rally behind a
perpetrator. In certain cases the contradiction of doing so would be so bla-
tant that even their own self image as “anarchists” would not survive it. Once
again, liberal ideology comes to the rescue. Just as apologists for police brutal-
ity will insist. that it results only from a “few bad apples” as a plea to avoid any
structural analysis of the police or their role in society, the Rape apologist will
attempt. to scapegont the individual perpetrator, sacrificing them to the altar
of Rape Culture. They may reference their own disgust with a perpetrator, or
brag that they no longer talk to them, as though these things were proof of
how “supportive” they are. Of course, disapproval of a perpetrator’s action
does not automatically equal support of a survivor. In some instances vii
ing the perpetrator will contradict the survivor's wishes, while in others the
perpetrator and survivor can be ostracized simultancously, as the repressive
apparatus carries on the patterns of domination in the perpetrators absence.”
The mere ostracization of perpetrators as the only response has been heavily
eritiqued elsewhere, but we'd like to emphasize that such an approach serves
to protect Rape Culture by avoiding direct confrontations with it. In doing so,
apologists can externalize the negative aspects of Rape Culture as something
separate from themselves. By projecting everything onto a lone perpetrator
(o perhaps all perpetrators) the apologist can deflect any amalysis of the social
relations that produce perpetrators, especially their own role. By singling out
afew bad apples, they distract from the fact that the whole bunch is rotten
Of course this also avoids the whole question of support for a survivor, and
seeks a resolution (for example, getting rid of the perpetrator) that does not
address the needs of the survivor. This is revealing of Rape Culture’s true
priority, as seapegoating a few perpetrators will still leave oppressive social
structures intact, whereas survivors who are able to struggle successfully against

SO course once bijacked 1 Is no longer a process towards accountabiliy, and whatever
words the false supporters use to describe it whether it's & mediation, a confict resolution
r a healng circl, the result will not be accountabilty.

Oheanwhile, the repressive forces are not so concilstory, and instead use the defensive
allogations solly 10 attack the survivor. Perhaps this explains why so many survivors cngage
‘it the charade o the false supporters, ifonly because they don' seem so bad by comparison.

"That bein said, sometimes survivors will want their perpetrators ostracized.  This is
both a vald and understandable responso and should be respected. ‘There's nothing mutually
exclusive about analyziag power systems and rejecting perpetrators
those structures threaten their very foundation. The Culture of Rape values
the perpetrator abont as much as any imperialist army values its foot. soldiers.
It will happily sacrifice them if necessary, because of course it is the subjugation
of the survivors, their perpetual state of victimhood, which must be maintained
at all costs. Just as with Empire, it is only through this subjugation that the
Culture of Rape can reproduce itsclf.

Waging War on Culture

The functioning and reproduction of Rape Culture is too complex to be fully
explained or documented. The erude generalizations and caricatures we've laid
out here are too simple to faithfully recreate the dynamics we experience in onr
daily lives. While we've tried to categorize and define for the sake of clarity, to
 shape to oppressive structures with the hope of making them recogniz-
able, in reality most individuals will oscillate between roles. Even those who at
times may step outside social confines to provide enuine support may in other
instances serve as Rape Culture’s most brutal shock troops. Even
themselves can take on repressive roles towards each other, seduced by the
prospect of being one rung higher on the social hierarchy rather than offering
solidarity to their peers. People’s roles are not static and systems of oppression
axe not congealed. The interplay between the silencing, repressive and recuper-
ative forces of Rape Culture is not conspiratorial. These sometimes separate
but always collaborative clements do not meet to strategize or divvy up the
tasks. But of course, collaboration is not so contingent on actual associations
as it is on a shared interest. Those with shared interests will reach similar
conelusions or clse work towards similar goals without ever having to interact
Through this Rape Culture is revealed as being not merely a vague concept,
but the concrete material conditions which lead people to conclude, consciously
or not, that their interest lies in silencing a survivor, in being complicit in their
contined subjugation, or in actively countering a survivor’s strugle.

The complaint that people “just do the easy thing” partially articulates this
problem, but also atributes it only to moments of moral weakness amongst
individuals. This sidesteps the more obvious question; why are our radical
communities still structured in such a way that supporting a survivor is not
“the casy thing?” What makes it difficult? A more materialistic view of our
responses to interpersonal violence, one that looks not to someone’s politics
or sense of decency, but instead to material conditions such as their social
dependencies (for example, who are they close with, who do they live with,
who do they organize with, what are their support networks, what do they
depend on and how would these things be affected by genuinely supporting
urvivor?) conld provide more insight into how onr own interests are controlled
and shaped by a Culture of Rape.

Perhaps the most significant mitigating factor of these conditions is Power.

Both the power a survivor holds in the community as well as the corresponding
power of a perpetrator are key to shaping that commmity’s response. When
& perpetrator holds very litle power in comparison to a survivor, or when
the perpetrator is not even part of the community, a token show of support
costs lttle and helps maintain the benevolent vencer of Rape Culture. OF
conrse, this is rarely the case. It has commonly been urged that support of
& survivor should not be hindered by a perpetrator’s position of power in the
community, but the position of power itself receives little scrutiny, as does any
possible correlation betxween that position of power and interpersonal violence
(which is itself a brutal expression of power). The failure to establish thi
link is like asking what came first, the chicken or the eag, and then insisting
that the chicken and the ezg have nothing to do with each other. This blind
spot s especially curious amongst anarchists, who claim to oppose all forms of
hicrarchical pover.

It follows that a genuine analysis of the functioning of Rape Culture must
also include an analysis of the relationships of Power that govern our lives.
This implicates not only the hierarchies, formal or otherwise, which persist
even in anarchist spaces, but also the larger systems of power which inform
them, such as Patriarchy, White Suptemacy, Colonialism, Ableism and o on.
We must acknowledge Rape Culture’s rightful place within Capitalist society.
Through this we can recognize Rape Culture as a mechanism for social control,
as it reinforces these systems of Power and domination which in turn reproduce
it as well. It then becomes necessary to undermine the hierarchical di
which serve to both facilitate interpersonal violence itself as well as shape the
interests of those in a position to respond to it. Many anarchists rightly reject
the navel gazing of identity politics, but a sharp analysis of systems of Power,
the ways in which these systems offer privilege to some of us, yet oppression
to others, and the ways in which our experiences of these systems of Power
influence the ways we fight against them, is crucial to genuine resistance. To
uccessfully attack a Culture of Rape, we must strike at the roots of this Power.

The Image of Community

Many anti-violence activists begin from the precarious presumption of comm-
nity: that a survivor has a social base they can turn to for support, or clse
a support network that escapes the influence of the Power we just discussed,
Here community is defined rather nebulously o not at all. Ts your community a
‘seographic space, such as the neighbourhood you live in? Is it a shared identity
or experience, such as being queer or black? Is it the people you spend your
time with, such as your family, coworkers or friends? A cor
combination of all these things, yet none of these things point to an inherent
position of support.

What is often referred to as “the anarchist community” is perhaps more ac-

curately described as a youth subculture.* 1¢'s transicnt and temporal nature
make it ill equipped for the long term project of healing from trauma. Fur-
thermore, both the reliance and the reinforcement of Rape Culture by other
systems of Power pose a particular challenge to the predominantly white, mid-
dleclass and often male dominated anachist comumunities of North America.
1Vs ot uncommon for such communities to be so compromiscd by their own
positions of privilege that they end up far too subservient to various systen

of Power to risk any meaningful attack against them. Tn such cascs, the anar-
chist “community” is revealed not as a radical space from which to attack, but
as a xeactionary body meant. to squash these attacks. 1t is “anarchist” and a

“community” in image only.

Many anarchists do not even realize the importance and interconnectio
between building community and attacking systems of oppression, and those
of us who do rarely make use of this realization beyond our rhetoric. And, per-
haps more to the point, we often make the mistake of assuming that the targets
of our “attack” only lie outside ourselves. Here, attack is not understood as the
near militaristic approach that relics solely on the destruction of property and
physical battles, a position put forth by many anarchists. Rather, attack is the
process throngh which we recognize the forces which oppress us and seck to
destroy them. The question of violence, of what it will take to destroy systen
of Power, is largely out of our hands. Capitalism, with its standing armies
and myriads of prisons, has made its own position on the matter perfectly
clear. Those comrades amongst us who inevitably carry the baggage of white
supremacy, patriarchy, and colonialism, those who find themselves in the posi-
tion of the apologist, can hopefully exercise a wider range of choice. They can
choose to join with us. They can choose, as we have, to attack those aspects
of themsclves which recreate the old world, and to bolster the attack against
those who choose otherwise. It should be this choice that defines the anarchist,
which sets us apart from our enemies and guides us to our comrades. It is from
this choice that all genuine struggle becomics possible.

SThat i, if we are willing o describe it as it actually exists, rather than defining it
according 1o our fantasios.
“Damaged people are dangerous.
They know they can survive.”

Originally published by Words to Fire Press (circa 2013)
wordstofireGriseup.net

Republished by Scrappy Capy Distro (2022)
serappy-capy-distrotriseup.nct - scrappycapydistro.info