Sanctioning Attack Politics



Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:12:53 PST
Sender: California InterNetwork of M H Clients
     <cinmhc@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>
From: Peter Piper <pisaster29@hotmail.com>
Subject: [CIN] sanctioning attack politics


To the list:

A lot of people understand the problem with the California Network wrongly, I think. I see many versions 'out there' of blaming some prominent activist(s) for being corrupt or for accommodating dysfunctional activism. But I don't think that the persons who are corrupt totally dominate things, nor do I think the bulk of the activists are advocates of low-functioning behavior. In my opinion these phenomena are real, but they are secondary, and the main problem is WHAT HOLDS THIS SCENE TOGETHER.

A reason for opposition could be ambition, a desire to compete to join/replace those in control. This type of "opposition" is entirely compatible with keeping the 'scene' going pretty much the same way. The politics of attack, the abusive behavior that dominates leadership disputes, will go on pretty much the same even if there is some change in leadership. The real question of opposition is if you are willing to challenge the entire structure and tradition of what holds the client political process together.

I never used to think of myself as especially competitive in the clients movement, because I have never been especially ambitious. But long and bitter experience showed me that the people who SANCTION the dominant process, the 'Old Guard', are absolutely determined to keep things the same way. They tell us who is naughty and they tell us who is nice, and they let everything hang out while they manage and TRIGGER at their pleasure. So I came to see that 'opposition' really means challenging the arrangement itself which sanctions the politics of attack - the principles themselves which govern the process.

This week the matter comes before the CNMHC Board of ending the probationary status of the Network E.D. and consolidating the political backsliding known as 'revitalization'. Supposing that this will indeed happen, for me it will serve as a symbol of our failure to come to grips with reality, our failure to overcome attack politics. What is needed is a new politics, a politics of ACCOUNTABILITY with a new sanctioning arrangement, where clients take responsibility for triggering other clients. We are QUALITY human beings, we are not tokens; we are persons worthy of respect, not persons irretrievably condemned to disempowerment.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps