The Revolution Will Not Be Boring

Originally published in SHIFT Magazine Issue #8 "Power to the People"

When British comedian turned activist/presenter, Russell Brand, released his latest book, Revolution, several mainstream media publications personally attacked him for being all talk — a “champagne socialist” — and for using his fame and status to egotistically hijack the struggle of the working poor. Little did they understand or anticipate the fierce direct action and practical campaigning that would follow as a result of the book’s message; after a sustained campaign last year by London residents, including Brand, US property conglomerate Westbrook (also known as “Westcrook”) was defeated in its plan to privatise social housing in East London and punish low-income tenants. And this was only the beginning.

Revolution is Brand at his most impassioned and authentic. In recounting his own struggles with addiction, mental illness, fame and divorce, we catch an intriguing glimpse inside the mind of a high-profile celebrity, conditioned to seek fulfillment in the hedonistic indulgences of the upper 1%. Sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, first class luxury and coveted success — it appeared as though the Trews creator was living the dream. But inside, Brand confesses, he felt spiritually impoverished. Determined to turn his life around and give back to the community, Brand took up the cause of transcendental meditation and a health-conscious lifestyle as part of his recovery journey — he is now collaborating with the David Lynch foundation to advocate for at-risk youth and sufferers of addiction.

The ideas in the book are not new, but repackaged in a more engaging and accessible form than the scholars and political theorists that came before him. Citing leading thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Piketty and Naomi Klein, and drawing on his own involvement with the Occupy movement, Brand explores the notion that political divides are perpetuated by outdated models of existential separateness. Inspired by his awakening to a collective need for greater meaning, wellness and compassion, Brand articulates a compelling vision of a more egalitarian society: communal anarchism offers an ethical, sustainable alternative to crony capitalism, corporate domination and global inequality. Written with verve, wit and subversive audacity, Revolution is a hilariously lucid and provocative manifesto for today’s generation.

With his revolutionary vision, Brand is optimistic, but not naïve; he recognises that before we can see any widespread, lasting change, there needs to be a revolution in consciousness. His unwavering belief in grassroots action over traditional partisan politics has caused a stir among establishment defenders, which fortunately hasn’t deterred clued-in fans and activists from planting new seeds of a more joyful, culturally-creative paradigm. The underlying message will certainly resonate with those who have ever questioned the system, or experienced even the slightest dissatisfaction with the status quo. If that’s you, it’s worth giving this book a glance. It will open your mind, make you laugh, and hopefully ignite a little fire in your spirit to shift your bum off the couch and become the change you want to see in the world.

Fifty Shades of Miscommunication

when fifty shades of grey came out a few weeks ago, my news feed was flooded with angry rants from radical feminists, well known journalists, mental health professionals and those in the bdsm scene, who vehemently accused the film of glamourising misogyny, abuse, sexual and domestic violence, non-consensual kink and stereotypical gender roles. a campaign was even started, urging prospective viewers to boycott the film and spend their money donating to women’s services instead.

But was such alarmed attention, fuelling the media circus, really necessary? If anything, all the negative reviews only caused more hype and publicity for the already commercialised, multi-million dollar franchise. I finally went to see it last Friday with the SWWNAWW ladies, who had read the ‘trigger warning’ memo, but wanted to make up their own minds about the film’s potential flaws, shortcomings or redeeming elements. 

Like most people who were insistent on having a preconceived opinion, I haven’t read the books. (I’ve been told the books include significant missing context, which puts the story into more perspective.) *spoiler alert* Alas, the plot isn’t majorly deep: timid, innocent, quixotic college student, Anastasia Steele falls for wealthy, dominant, emotionally unavailable businessman, Christian Grey. Instead of love letters, he writes extensive D/s contracts and negotiates the "terms and conditions" through some rather raunchy “business meetings.”

"Foreplay" is inclusive of but not limited to: dirty talk that kills me because it’s so hilariously bad, scenes where he takes her out in helicopters, buys her a laptop, buys her a car, plays sad songs for her on the piano, prescribes her medicine, invites her to stay indefinitely in his mansion, gives her a bath, then nonchalantly stalks her when she tries to leave. Christian Grey is essentially the perfect sugar daddy. Oh and there’s the part where they have a bunch of formally negotiated, kinky sex, which goes somewhat pear shaped/anticlimactic towards the end. (I suspect it wasn’t just the disappointing branded lube EL James was literally sued for.)

The vanilla world may have its knickers in a knot over the confronting power dynamics portrayed in Anastasia and Christian’s relationship, but to be fair, a fantastic soundtrack wasn’t the only positive. Moreso than any other film, the controversy surrounding Fifty Shades of Grey has managed to open up constructive, much needed dialogue surrounding healthy relationships, sexual diversity and the need for adequate sexual education in a dangerously repressed culture. The hashtag #50shadesofmisinformation is currently trending on tumblr, encouraging bloggers to share and expose some of the most unhealthy myths they’ve been taught about gender, love and sexuality, either by society or the media.

Actually, THIS is what I'm really like...

If I had to weigh in on my own perception, the most damaging message which could've been taken from Fifty Shades isn’t the not-so-perfectly-consensual S&M. It’s the implication that a woman’s love/beauty/purity can “save” or change a man, as though her nurturing allure and unconditional devotion will somehow “complete” him with emotions he never knew he was capable of feeling or living without. What seems like a romantic notion on the surface is often the reason many women stay in abusive or unfulfilling relationships; they fall in love with a man’s potential and lose sight of how they deserve to be treated, absolving men of the responsibility to integrate their anima and take charge of their own growth and transformation.  

Throughout the movie, Anastasia responds to Christian’s emotionally disengaged, hot and cold behaviour with heightened affection and infatuation. (Sound familiar, ladies?) Their attachment styles both follow a typically unequal, codependent pattern, where the anxious partner pursues and the avoidant partner retreats. Anxious-preoccupied types often attract avoidant personalities because it reinforces an unconscious belief that their need for emotional closeness isn’t worthy of being met. Since the ego primarily uses defense mechanisms to protect itself, dismissive-avoidant types are also drawn to anxious personalities to reinforce the belief that intense lovers are too clingy or needy. 

Maybe I didn’t find the film triggering because I interpreted it as a psychological case study, rather than a feminist or BDSM purist issue, given how clearly damaged and emotionally immature the protagonists were. Christian Grey became a sadistic dominant because his mother was a neglectful crack addict and his first female role model was a dominatrix, who taught him that the only way to cope with pain was to maintain power and control. It’s not exactly a self-help manual most people would be eager to seek life advice from, nor does it follow that everyone who’s into BDSM must be seriously messed up. 

The bottom line is Fifty Shades portrays a dysfunctional BDSM relationship, though I see no reason why that can’t or shouldn’t be represented in a fictional context. Did it ever claim to portray a healthy one? How many examples of unhealthy relationships exist already in life, porn and the media, yet people aren’t making as big a fuss about it? The film's popularity is likely attributed to its transgressions and ‘fantasy’ aspect, not because people wanted to see a realistic portrayal of a BDSM relationship. Although I understand that challenging media representations is an important step in achieving a culture of consent, Hollywood isn’t going to change as a result of us bitching and whinging. It’s only going to change when more people start writing and producing better stories.