2ac v calvert hall ls.docx - state-based politics cannot be...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 6 pages.

state-based politics cannot be reconciled with mutual aid Spade ’20 (Dean Spade; Solidarity Not Charity: Mutual Aid for Mobilization and Survival. Social Text 1 March 2020; 38 (1 (142)): 131–151. doi: )poodala Feminist and antiracist movements building mutual aid projects have disseminated insights gleaned from this work about how co- optation of mutual aid projects happens and what practices might help resist it . In the written resources produced by mutual aid project participants, as well as at gatherings where activists share their work, discussion of the necessity of maintaining community control of mutual aid projects and the dangers of accepting funding that limits activities or eligibility and of collaborating with law enforcement are prevalent . 35 Feminist scholars and activists have traced how the anti– domestic violence movement shifted from centering mutual aid projects, such as community, volunteer- run shelters and defense campaigns for criminalized survivors , to formalizing and taking government money that required collaboration with police and that increased criminal penalties and made arrests mandatory on domestic violence calls . These shifts increased the criminalization of communities of color, made the services less accessible to the most vulnerable survivors of violence, and provided good public relations for police, prosecutors, and courts as protectors of women . 36 This history and others like it highlight the necessity for mutual aid projects to cultivate autonomy from elite institutions and government and accountability to the populations made most vulnerable by the existing systems. Mutual aid projects also work to maintain community control by structuring decision making to avoid concentration and hierarchy. Co- optation of projects and organizations often happens through co- optation of individual people , often charismatic leaders or founders of projects who get bought off by elites through access to increased funding, influence, job security, or other forms of status. 37 When one or a small number of people have the power to shift the direction of a project, it can be hard to resist the incentives that come with co- optation. Often, charismatic leaders are people who are not the most vulnerable inside the participant group, because being regarded as charismatic, persuasive, important, or authoritative relates to hierarchies of valuation and devaluation that also determine vulnerability. As a result, a single individual or small group running a project may not be the same people who would have the most to lose if the project veers toward elite interests. It is those most vulnerable within the participants who are most likely to have objections to the shifts that come with co- optation, such as new eligibility requirements that cut out stigmatized groups. To return to the example of the queer youth center described earlier, the adults who had the power to make decisions about accepting additional funding and agreeing to run warrants on youth were people who would

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture