Some frustration and some hope in a Wisconsin co-op house

By Colin Bowden

I've been bugging lately...What can I do to get people to think, to feel for one another around my house? How can I draw on the empathy we all have during the cold winter days here in Madison, I thought. I've been feeling a bit dragged down by the snow, the cold, the lack of sun, and the finals students have all around me, and so I thought about something to do that involves others and is fun as well.

I like reading the news and learning about history in the making. I, frankly, like to learn and try to understand history. So, I've decided an idea is to put up a board with news articles from around the world as well as local articles.

And of course, there was the notion that I could use the opportunity to start discussions on the news affecting communities traditionally unheard from; this could be an opportunity as well to educate, and my negativity turned to positivity, and my mood improved, improving others' moods around me, and so on and so forth. I have yet to see how people will take to the new news thing-y, but I know it's made me feel a lot more comfortable because there is somewhere where conversations about things other than parties and late-night studying, as important as those are, can be started. That can be a starter for house-level change, space use change, leading to organizing and maybe even local cultural change and beyond.

Now, beyond the jump, I'll share some of my frustrations with communication and privilege defending itself in a mostly white co-op.



I wanted to start this post with a positive note from the week because I think it's just so hard to think, "Okay I see these difficulties and barriers, what's my role in helping overcome them?", unless one has something/someone positive to lean back on as support. Not impossible, of course, just a lot harder.

That said, I have encountered setbacks since the both NASCO Action Camp in Kerrville, Texas and Institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan, when it comes to addressing my house's accessibility* for more than just the dominant Madison cultures (mostly white, middle-class, young, overwhelmingly secular, straight and much more able-bodied folks) or lack thereof. Considering the house is set up with the unwritten but oft-stated luring people whose experiences are much different than our own, (It's the International house) I've been disappointed in how far the house would have to go to become a space that would be accessible to and feel comfortable with radical anti-oppression activism and organizing going on.

I remember being very assertive and to the house and individuals equally at the beginning of my stay about what I was hoping to share with and enjoy about the house -- a friendly, inquisitive place where discussions of things like ecological conservation and anti-oppressive justice can be given serious discussion and possibly talk about making the house into a space for allowing events that help organize around social justice causes. I remember having that vision not shared, which is fine.

However, when I mentioned white privilege, the house stopped hearing me out. After that, most of the white people in the house got tired of talking to me altogether unless they were unhappy with something I had done, like my dish shift, or if I wasn't being nice enough to them. It was irritating, and made me think about why I had even tried to be upfront in the first place.

Some white people in the house talked about how racist I was, apparently, for bringing up the topic of white privilege using the checklist mingwei just posted, and it wasn't until I was outside the house with other co-opers, also mostly white, but from different houses, when I heard about it from a housemate recounting their feelings about how I had oppressed white people in the house.

I didn't know how I felt then, nor how to finish that discussion, also on privilege. I only now, when writing this realize that I was being put in my place. I was at the time and still am in a position of some influence in the organization, Madison Community Cooperative, (MCC) that owns our house, and at that public MCC committee meeting, I was being told that talking about racism and racial privilege was a no-no by white members. That was a very discouraging moment, but not one that has made me stop talking about racism, privilege and oppression. It just really hurt, because I had a need for community that was flagrantly ignored. That's probably the worst, but other, much smaller things happen that helped make sure views on oppression of any kind were not to be heard.

This is kind of the background for my question here. An environment that nurtures not just racism and white supremacy, but patriarchy and gender normativity and definitely ageism and ableism, not to mention whopping amounts of overt classism. Now, one of the main things people here seem stuck on is whether people are direct enough in their communication with others.

I have realized recently that I am becoming less and less direct; I am saying less often what my concerns are to an individual's face, if at all, thinking it'll be more trouble than it's worth. I am not bringing up issues I have with the house at meetings or in discussions. I am just shrugging my shoulders and moving on when people not only do small ign'ant stuff, but even when it's outrageous, like instances of overt ageism, and gender bigotry. Oddly, white folks who have seen me try to engage others in the house to no avail often tell me I should be more direct, and sometimes they're the same people who have shut me down in meetings or discussions.

On the one hand, shouldn't I be consistently upfront with people in the house? I'm the only person so far who's even talking about oppression and the first to mention the word privilege out of a house of almost 30, from my recollection. I think I would be less able to cope if I did not speak up and I feel I may be getting worse at coping the more I stay passive.

On the other, maybe I'm the only one talking about this because I was too abrasive. I am confident that I was too impatient and tried to rush the new house into getting a horde of concepts discussed and understood through various means, and that was a mistake. Still, I feel like that mistake is leading me to going too far back to near-passivity. Not to mention, I feel like previous instances like what happened at the MCC (organizational not house) meeting show me that the whole "let's be direct as a house" thing to be a farce, so why bother?

The final questions, I guess, are: Is talking upfront and directly to people whenever you have a concern truly feasible? And when one is confronted with oppressive cultural practices like parliamentary tactics and putting target groups in their place, even when they have the rare position of influence, how can one in an agent group justify telling those in target groups how to communicate their concerns to everyone or at all, really? How can the same people who shut you down tell you to come back for more?

*Thanks mingwei for a great description of a much more useful term! Instead of being a place where we just add new parts to an existing and previously more monocultural whole, this is about focusing on who has the ability to get and do what in the space. I like that idea, as I see it, at least.