DISCUSSION: “Attitude Problem” and The Right To Conscience

I am posting an article from the  March 16, 2007 issue of Voice of Revolution*, which speaks to the issue of peoples’ Right to Conscience which is currently being attacked by the forces and defenders of monopoly capital, and in particular, attacking this right by attacking youth, national minorities, workers and immigrants on the basis of having a “bad attitude” and exhibiting “bad behavior.”  The reason I am placing this article and this post under the issue of Adoption issues is to orient the reader to how the world outside of ourselves, independent of our thoughts and feelings affect our thoughts and feelings. For adopted persons, their thoughts and feelings can not be separated from their direct experience. For many parents of adopted children, I hope this article may give some food for thought on how displacement with regard to society, family, social and cultural identity plays a major role in the development of the individual who is adopted, even if one does not agree with the politics of “attitude” and “behavior”. 

In general, I feel this discussion article is very important in terms of how we are to organize politically ourselves and that of society.  First however we need a definition of what attitude means and how the ruling classes uses this to crush political attitude of the working class and people.  - SR]

DISCUSSION

GOVERNMENTS MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL BEING
OF THE PEOPLE AND ENSURE THEIR BROAD PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS

Reject the Notion of “Attitude Problem” as an Attack
on the Right to Conscience

One of the broadest forms of wrecking now being unleashed by the failed U.S. state is its attack on the notion of social responsibility. Public programs for the health, education, and the cultural well being of the people are being eliminated. Almost the entire social product is being handed over to the monopolies under the banner of “fiscal responsibility.” In an attempt to mask this attack, the ruling circles have stepped up their ideological offensive stating that all social, political and economic problems emanate from individual failings — not the failings of the U.S. state. The people, and particularly the youth, are branded as having an “attitude problem” and exhibiting “bad behavior” when they do not “adapt” to the chaos unleashed by the increased attack on their communities, their schools, their healthcare and cultural centers, their economies. This branding serves not only as a basis for their punishment, as in the past, but now also their civil death, mass detention and imprisonment in ever larger numbers.

The current notion of “attitude problem” promoted by the bourgeois politicians, academicians and monopoly media shows the limits of bourgeois rule for affirming the human person and politically empowering the people. As a class, the bourgeoisie has never been able to affirm the right to conscience or the right to be of either individuals or their collectives, as increasing attacks, especially on minorities and immigrant workers, attests.

As the effects of a failing state tear asunder the social relations that bind people, the ability of the people to unite and contend with the wreckage left in the wake of failure — the violence, the social, cultural and political degradation — is of the utmost importance. Taking up broad discussion on the reactionary essence of the notions of “attitude problem” and “behavior problem” will contribute to a politics that empowers and unifies.

The Notions of Attitude and Behavior
In the course of social living, human beings develop thoughts and feelings towards one another and the work they undertake together. Over time, these thoughts and feelings become stable, reflected in a person’s behavior, even their posture. Today, attitude is defined as the “settled behavior or manner of acting, as representative of feeling or opinion.”

Attitude falls in the domain of conscience. The way that society understands the nature and origin of this dynamic is central to its ability to unleash the human factor/social consciousness for the resolution of problems that emerge in the course of living, in the course of advancing society and the interests of all its members.

Beginning in the seventeenth century, thoughts and feelings that are reflected in an action were named “attitude.” Originally, attitude was the studied object of artistic expression for figures in paintings or statues. Attitude was given as the “posture of the body proper” such that it implied “some action or mental state assumed by human beings.”

The notion of behavior was also emphasized with the rise of the bourgeoisie. It is a conception intrinsically connected to one’s being in public, in that behavior is defined as the “manner of conducting oneself in the external relations of life.” That the word behavior is suggestive of the word manners derives from the bourgeoisie’s need to divide the society into social classes, where etiquette distinguishes the “gentleman” from the “masses.” In this sense, etiquette stands as a symbol of class membership and political rights.

The bourgeoisie originally set limits on participation in governance based on social criteria, such as owning property. The people have fought and won the right to participate in public life and politics irrespective of any consideration other than membership in that body politic.

Like attitude, behavior is thought to reflect the internal life (thoughts and feelings) of the individual, his or her conscience, and in this way, attempts to control behavior are in fact attempts to control thinking. A brief review of twentieth century social science in the U.S. will reveal that the “Orwellian nightmare”, “behavior therapy” and “thought control” are not inventions of communism, but rather “modern” bourgeois psychology! Behavior therapy (commonly used against youth and students) is in fact defined as training an individual to adapt to the status quo or “function in society.”

But, for its time, the bourgeoisie’s emphasis on individual actions, thoughts, and feelings was progressive, and served to create space for the fight for the right to conscience and ultimately for collectives of workers and people to organize in their own social interests. Giving place to individual thoughts and feelings legitimated demands of the people to improve their social, political and economic conditions, and gave place to direct experience in informing their action. It served to counter the medieval arrangements that negated and degraded personhood and it fostered a role for the public and public opinion in governance.

The Logic of Making Attitude the Problem
People express their thoughts and feelings regarding what is right and wrong, what is and what ought to be, when they reject their marginalization, oppression, and exploitation. This is an expression of the right to conscience and serves to advance the social interests, To label the problem as one of attitude is to demand that one separates their thoughts and feelings from their conditions of life, to demand that one change their attitude absent change in their conditions of life. It is tantamount to saying that no one has the right to challenge his or her conditions of misery, of oppression, of exploitation.

Such a notion calls on human beings to deny their direct experience of the operation of cause and effect, of their origin of their misery in the present political and economic arrangement, of rule by monopoly capital. The disinformation of the notion of “attitude problem” is found in its effort to disassociate the conditions of life from the thoughts, feelings and actions of human beings that correspond to those conditions of life and their desire to change those conditions.

Thus the problem rests, not with people’s attitude, but with the conditions of life that spark discontent, frustration, and rancor. In this way, it can be seen that attitude plays a crucial role in advancing the society as it represents the conclusions of human beings stemming from their direct experience, including the experience of the necessity for change.

The Notion of Attitude Problem Negates Rights
and the Aim of the Revolutionary Transformation of Society
The notion of “attitude problem” that emerged during the 1970s signaled the bourgeoisie’s complete rejection of its earlier progressive stand and its counter-revolutionary program, especially targeted at the youth. The notion is consistent with tyranny and fascism, and an outright rejection of individual conscience and the struggle to affirm the rights of all. Underlying the notion of “attitude problem” is the claim that having an attitude that is not supported by the existing authority is a crime. Attitude is increasingly being treated as a crime, as can be seen in the fact that students are routinely punished in schools on the basis solely on their attitude. Who is it that is consistently identified as “having an attitude”? It is those oppressed and marginalized by the present set-up. Who is never identified in this manner? But the real point is that no one, no official, no government has the right to make attitude a crime.

The notion of attitude problem thus works to justify criminalization of youth, national minorities, immigrants, protesters, workers, all those who resist current conditions. This aims to block their fight to improve their conditions of life. It aims to justify the civil death of entire sections of the people and the elimination of a role for public opinion — the general feelings, attitudes and views expressed especially in respect to decision-making in the body politic.

The notion of attitude problem is anti-political. It presumes no legitimate interests of the holder of the attitude and questions on principle the right to conscience, the right to disagree, to resist. it dismisses the claims of members of society to participate in the affairs of society. It challenges the right of individuals and collectives to redress wrongs and participate in developing solutions.

Attitude can never be the source of the problem since it is by definition a response to definite social conditions. How dare the bourgeoisie promote the notion that if only people correct their “attitude problem” all would be fine. On the one hand, their media increasingly promotes the wary iconoclast, the “bad boy,” the individual with an “attitude problem,” and on the other hand, their policies increasingly criminalize any expression of discontent with the present social arrangement. One’s career in Hollywood is advanced by the degree of “attitude” one can muster, while schools outlaw rap music and punish youth for expressing frustration with police attacks, the “war on drugs,” the so-called opportunity of joining the U.S. military.

Youth are often labeled as having an “attitude problem” when they mock, jeer and refuse to respect a social system that offers them no future but that of war and repression. Does reason not call on everyone to join with the youth in opposing such a dire situation? Do not those in positions of authority have the responsibility to defend the youth and represent their interests? Is the youths’ refusal the problem, or the beginning of the solution? Who is served by efforts to criminalize this refusal by fixating on its form without examination of its content?

The Need for Political Attitude
and the Defense of the Right to Conscience
The peoples’ organized forces identify the need to adopt a political attitude as a key ingredient to solving problems and to advancing the political aim of empowering the people. This is evident at demonstrations where people collectively take up their social responsibility for food, transportation, housing, medical support and more. All is done with a spirit of broad participation and taking decisions together.

While it is incorrect and reactionary to identify a person’s attitude as the problem, it is also misguided to ignore the role of attitude in advancing struggle for the new. What is needed is a political attitude toward problems emerging from life. Concretely, this means placing struggle to defend the right to conscience at the center of political work as a main means by which to unite all the political forces in the interests of advancing humanity and averting the dangers ahead.

A political attitude affirms, first and foremost, the right to conscience. It means, on the one hand, working to harmonize all the various interests; on the other hand, it means targeting the class enemy and not the people’s attitudes as the root cause of social problems. Taking a political attitude means assuming that neither the source nor solution of problems is to be found in individuals, but rather in remaking the social relationships human beings enter into the course of living. A political attitude recognizes the rights of all as a basic premise of sorting out conflict and finding solutions.

Getting workers, youth, and so on to adopt a political attitude is an important task, but it must be understood that adoption of this attitude is voluntary and occurs in the course of organizing and conscious ideological struggle. To affirm individuals and their collectives, change in attitudes must coincide with change in their conditions of life and the manner and basis upon which they are brought into solving problems. The use of coercion must be soundly rejected, as it negates the very idea of conscious participation as a basis for solving social problems.

Thus while it is correct to render the absence of a political attitude as a problem to be solved, it must be understood that the presence or absence of any attitude turns on the existing social relations. The political attitude targets the social relations, not individuals, as the source of the problem and the basis for finding solutions. Thus the absence of a political attitude, and in particular, the bourgeoisie’s effort to eliminate political attitude among the people as part of its wrecking of public opinion, is a problem of the absence of attitude.

Just as problems emerge in the course of social living, so too problems emerge in the course of organized political work. The way in which the political forces understand and approach this dynamic is key to their ability to survive in the present period of retreat of revolution and the increasingly fascist character imposed on everyday life.

*Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization

Affirming Identity whilst in a State of Abandonment: Introduction II

The following entry is the continuation of Introduction I and is part of the groundwork for another entry I am working on regarding identity and memory.  This entry, like the previous one before it, was writtened to our Colombian Adoptee Search and Support (CASAS) Group and can be found in the CASAS archives dated June 2, 2006 - a good two years after my trip to Colombia in April 2004.  This entry has been slightly updated in order to emphasize some of what I have to say, which was not possible posting to CASAS.

Fri Jun 2, 2006:

Dear listmembers of CASAS,

A month ago I was in NYC to attend the May Day immigrant rights and anti-war demonstrations. It was one of many that were held throughout the country, such as Chicago and Los Angeles. It was an extraodinary experience for me and since then I have been trying to find the best way to express my thoughts and feelings on the demonstration itself and how it impacted me as a US citizen and an adoptee of Colombian national origins.

Thus far, my life as an adoptee has been divided into two stages, the life I led before my trip to Bogota and the life I am trying to create for myself since that trip. Comparatively, these two stages are very different in character. Coming back from my April 2004 Colombia trip has not done away with all the issues that came with my being adopted, but it has tremondously calmed these issues to a degree in which I could begin to breathe. Therefore, my trip has helped me to move on to other things. However since my return from Bogota, several questions from my earlier period did remain with me, not as crushing and persistent as before, but important nonetheless and no less demanding of an answer. They were, of course, questions of identity, nationality, and most importantly, my own role with regard to country, nation and society - and where did I fit and belong?

With help from others and my trip to Colombia, I’ve gained a little ground to begin to wrestle with these very big and important questions. In the course of struggle and political organizing work some of the pieces to these questions were beginning to slide in place. Like my trip to Colombia, my experience with the May Day demonstrations has been another turning point in my life.

* * * * * * * * *

May 1, 2006 it was a Monday morning when I set off with a fellow friend to meet up with a contingent of Fillipino migrant domestic workers - all of them women.  I met many immigrants and workers of many nationalities during this demonstration, but the Fillipino women impacted me the most.

It was arranged that an interview would take place and then to join the march at Union Square. During the course of the interview, it was understood that the Fillipino domestic workforce consisted of “documented” and “undocumented” workers and some of which were participating in the demonstration. The first part of the interview focused on how in general, Fillipino workers, regardless of status, faced racism, discrimination, sexism in the course of their work. The fact that there were “undocumented” domestic workers made it much harder to struggle for human rights on their behalf because of the technicalities that were involved. The second part of the interview focused on more specific areas of the problem, the myriad of situations that the Fillipino women faced in terms of obtaining documentation and citizenship as well as trying to provide themselves and their own families through contributing to society by their labor.

There were many issues that were brought up in the course of the interview, all of which were very important to address, but one struck me the most. The separation of family was a critical issue for the Fillipinos. In fact, one of the signs they carried in the march declared very boldly “Imperialism separates families! No deportation!” Many found out that they could not reunite with their families whom were left in the Phillipines or were already here in the US as citizens. The issue of the separation of family is cropping up more and more in American current events, most notably in the aftermath of Katrina, where many families were dispersed throughout the country and have had no contact since.  There is an ongoing movement now among Katrina survivors for the right of return and the right to reunify with their lost loved ones. Separation of families has been, in my own budding realization, an increasingly common characteristic and feature of imperialism and colonialism [although the history of colonialism is awashed with such offenses] . As an adoptee, separation in and of itself has been a sensitive issue for me. My being adopted into another family wouldn’t have taken place without separation. There is of course differences that distinguish between types of separations, just as there are many types of migrations. Such areas are worthy and in dire need of exploration, in my opinion, but I digress.

Upon reflection my feelings and wonder of this experience are summed up in the question Ernesto “Che” Guevara asked himself after his experiences and encounters with the working poor and peasantry while traveling across South America with his best friend on a motorcycle: “How is it possible to feel nostalgia for a world I never knew?”

The demonstration was to start at 4 in the afternoon and as the time drew near, we volunteered to help carry some of the many banners and signs the Fillipino women made. To get to Union Square we had to walk a fair amount of distance and take the subtrains. Along the way, we met some Latino youth who heard about the demonstration but didn’t know the way, so they joined us on our very own migratory journey.

I was very much prepared to participate in the demonstration. I was very much unprepared for how much it would affect me. I’ve been to many large anti-war and anti-globalization demonstrations, but this demonstration was very different, not just in terms of size, but in terms of its celebratory spirit. As we entered Union Square, I saw countless contingents of working people and immigrants from all nations coming together in one big mass. As I looked, I could see immigrants whose nationalities were Mexican, Colombian, Irish, Fillipino, Korean, Indian, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Honduran, Ecuadorian, etc.  I do not know how many nationalities there were or how many were represented, but there were many and side by side. I have never seen so many people from all walks of life, who hail from different nations concentrated in one location  standing for their rights as dignified people and in unity. I was witnessing the unity of nations and people standing and moving as one. And among them, I saw entire families, grandparents, grandchildren and all. In the current of this migration of nations I was literally swept away and found myself “lost” and “found” in a sea of humanity rising.

Up to this point, in my head, I had already accepted and defended the equality of nations, people and language on principled grounds. I already came to the conclusion that all people have rights to their nationality, no matter what country they are a citizen of, no matter what polity they are a member of, simply because their national right to be is a fundamental human right. Citizenship and nationality are two different things and cannot be substituted one for the other. By this time I also accepted that those who produce the wealth, development, of society are the real genuine builders of the polity known as the United States and have legitimate claim to issues that most affect them, such as education, benefits, medical care and attention, etc. The loftiness in which I held these views was soon demolished as I saw with my entire being, and all its sensory functions, the word made flesh.

Since my trip to NYC to demonstrate among the working people and immigrants, regardless their citizenship and status, my sense of what my role is has become much more clearer. That is, the principles that I embraced have become like steel in me, unbreakable - unshakeable. In fact when I was among the sea of nations in Union Square, admist waving flags of many colors and celebratory chants in different languages, their voices surging through my body, I knew where I belonged and most importantly, my place.

* * * * * * * * *

After coming home from Colombia, I took some time to read the writings I had contributed to CASAS. Truly, I felt like I was reading the writings of someone else. I noticed that one of the things that this other “me” [from some other time] kept deliberating on, was the need to feel and be authentic, genuine and legitimate. I remember that time of anguish, confusion, rage and darkness.  During that time, the question of who I am and my identity hung over me like the sword of Damocles and I could not answer as I was afraid.

My name is Joshua Minchen and I am an international, inter-country adoptee. I am an American citizen and my nationality is Colombian, but I am first and foremost, a human being. I am a Proletarian Internationalist Freedom Fighter.

Damoclean sword, swing if you must, but know that will not save you.

With that, I leave you with a passage from The Motorcycle Diaries of the young Ernesto Guevara. In this passage, Guevara is addressing an elderly man that he has met on his journey, yet the content of what he says is not just for the elderly. I can easily attribute this to the migration of labor, the working people, people of all ages, as well as to us adoptees international and otherwise who have sacrificed much in terms of identity, history, self-knowledge, name, in search of family, nation, place and belonging.

“All of them, all those who can’t adapt - you and I, for instance - will die cursing the power which they helped bring about with often enormous sacrifices. Revolution is impersonal, so it will take their lives and even use their memory as an example or as an instrument to control the young people coming after them. You will die with your fist clenched and your jaw tense, the perfect manifestation of hatred and struggle, because you aren’t a symbol (some inanimate example), you are an authentic member of the society to be destroyed; the spirit of the beehive speaks through your mouth and moves through your actions. You are as useful as I am, but you don’t realize how useful your contribution is to the society that sacrifices you.”

Joshua

Affirming Identity whilst in a State of Abandonment: Introduction I

The following entry will be the introduction and the groundwork for another entry I am working on regarding identity and memory.  It was my first entry to our Colombian Adoptee Search and Support (CASAS) Group.  This entry can be found in the CASAS archives dated May 17, 2002 - two years before my trip to Colombia in April 2004.  

Fri May 17, 2002:

I wrote this out of fustration one day, and thought I’d share it with everyone. I like to write and originally it was to be part of my disasterpiece* because thats what being adopted feels like…. I am just beginning to look for my birthparents also.

According to some official papers, my sister and I were abandoned in Colombia, South America July 4, 1981. According to the same papers, a woman by the name of Mrs. Martha Rodriguez, on that day brought two minors to Fundacion Los Pisingos, a private home for children and orphans. The two minors were brother and sister, my sister and I. Mrs. Martha Rodriguez, according to the papers “attested” that she had been sent by Mrs. Beatriz Socoloff, a volunteer of this private home. After being questioned Mrs. Beatriz Socoloff denied this, she “said she had sent no one.” According to these papers, Mrs. Martha Rodriguez only gave her phone number and had left the children at the orphanage. Other sources have said that “a mysterious woman” promised to return but didn’t. Whether this promise was made or not cannot be known. After the children remained 2 or 3 days in the institution, Mrs. Martha Rodriguez was called at the number she had left. The number corresponded to a place called the Techo Hippodrome**. It could have been a cinema, an auditorium, or a theatre but this cannot be known either. Whoever answered said that they didn’t know her.

According to the papers, photographs of the children were published in a newspaper of national circulation, La Republica, on the 4th of September 1981. The results were negative. It was resolved in this document that my sister and I were in a “state of abandonment” and to proceed with the legal procedures to put us up for adoption.

From the time we were left at the orphanage to the time we left with the American couple that adopted us in December 1981 we had been in a “state of abandonment”. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the “state of abandonment” would become a familiar state of being as I grew up in the United States. I was to find that, personally and in contrast to the official documents, that I have always been in the “state of abandonment” and that this state never officially ended with being adopted. I took it with me to a new world and a new family.

According to certain individuals, the official papers became the official history of these two children. It was a beginning to a new life, a new experience, and new relationships to build upon. According to certain individuals. According to me, the official papers became the official excuse to deny my history and identity. It became a history to live up to, to get used to and to accept. The fact remains, I have never lived up to it, I never got used to it, and I never accepted it. Since I was little, I’ve had to carry memories and a past of Colombia before being adopted. My memory, I always thought, was the key back to Colombia, back to “me” as Colombian, back to my mother, land, history and past. I thought it was the key to rest and peace. My memories are not enough. As the years went by and I began to grow up, the “state of abandonment” has grown up with me in its full realization. The realization that if I am to be abandoned then the world deserves to be abandoned too by me.

The official documents were supposed to be the beginning of a new life for me. But in the long run, it has had the opposite effect. The official documents became the end of the world for me, as I knew it.

[Note: *The disasterpiece has been completely swept away by another literary project I am currently working on - a mythological history of another world]

[Note:**The Techo Hippodrome was the name of a track used for horse-racing and betting in a section of Bogota, known as JFK (named after John F. Kennedy).  It is now abandonned.]

Introduction to be continued…

One Fate, One Destiny

“…Show me a way I can live and I’ll grow,
There is a way that we can learn for ourselves…” - Sepultura

I am, by my curious nature, a bookworm. Although I am a Writer, there are three factors that contribute to my being a Writer: 1) My experience within objective reality 2) Music and 3) worming and scouring through various texts, papers and pamphlets. Whereas writing is my attempt at making coherent my world of confusion as I perceive it, perusing through literature is a state of refuge for me, especially when issues of adoption accentuate and intensify. When this becomes the condition, I find myself (and my experience) torn over and squaring off with objective reality. In such situations I have a tendency to detach myself from the world I am a part of and become increasingly attached to my comfortable notions of safety and security. The kind of fight that is required of me will be a fight to re-establish, re-attach, and re-affirm my rightful place in the world. That is, to understand my experience within the context of objective reality. As of now, I fear to be losing this fight. A growing armour threatens to cover me head to foot, choking my ability to communicate, express, and interact, and blocking my ability to move, learn and develop. Because I am choosing to express this means I am still in the fight. I am resilient and persistent and I must remain so.

Before I get into the final report on St. John’s University Conference on International, Transracial and Transcultural Adoption, a word or two about the adoption community in general. First to reckon with the facts: 1) There exists an adoption community and 2) there exists also a world in which all of us belong to, the real world as is, consisting of many communities, the adoption community included.

There exists among these two points a disconnect that whatever happens to one community bears no relation to what happens to another and as such bears no relation to the world at large. The very nature of adoption itself, as can be seen from the families who make up the adoption community, tells us otherwise. The very events and developments (whether social or economic) that lead to acts of relinquishment, placement/displacement and exchange of children (bordercrossings), and fostering and adopting itself tells us that different communities are not separate worlds unto themselves. In fact, the adoption community tells us that different communities in existence today is an integral part of the fabric of the world and society that gave rise to it, the adoption community is no exception. The idea that one community is separate from the other is, in my view, false. The fate and destiny of the adoption community is intricately linked and tied up with the fate and destiny of all communities and as such the world at large and vice versa.

The most important thing at this point is how the adoption community views itself in relation to these matters. In doing so the adoption community will most certainly have to square off with objective reality. There are indications that the adoption community is doing just that. With that I encourage the adoption community to keep pressing forward, even in the face of the most difficult questions and challenges that adoption has brought forth, to be persistent in finding out.

[Note: Posted to the Yahoo! Colombian Adoptee Search and Support Group under thread entitled "Our Fates and Destinies Intertwined"]