Presentation of, “Interrogating the Intersections of
Colonization, Class, Race and Addiction,” by Amelia Saunders as part of
the talk, Sobriety As Accessibility: Interrogating Intoxication Culture,
at the Reclaiming Our Bodies and Our Minds conference on March 16,
2013.
Shared from http://livingnotexisting.org/essays/sobriety-as-accessibility-interrogating-intoxication-culture/intoxicating-spaces-colonialism-nationalism-and-consumption/
For the next fifteen or so minutes, I will be discussing the idea of
‘intoxication culture’ as a colonizing tool that has, over time, been
used to hail certain bodies in nation statehood, citizenship and
patriotism while damning others to be left in the margins. Also, I aim
to look at how this relationship between alcohol, drugs, nationalism and
colonization is structured through space. I will be engaging with these
ideas through a lens that is critical of colonialism.
My work is drawn upon the research I have done in areas of
colonialism, law, race, and space theory. I mainly draw upon the work on
Sherene Razack and Nick Riotfag, in tandem with the ideas and theories
of Judith Halberstam as they relate to identity and space construction.
The position with which I approach my research is that of a white
cis-gender, queer woman from a low-income background. I also come from a
background of alcohol and drug abuse and am myself a recovering addict
and alcoholic. As I am merely presenting my thoughts and ideas and the
research I have done on this topic, I can only share from my position of
experience and research.
The main questions of my research are: how does colonialism speak
to and construct the addict and a culture of intoxication? How is this
produced in time and space? How does intoxication culture continue to
oppress certain populations, while rewarding others?
First, What is Intoxication culture and why is it important for the discussion of race and space construction?
I first came across this idea in Nick Riotfag’s anarchist zine
‘Towards a Less Fucked Up World’. This specific zine is titled “Sobriety
and Anarchist Struggle”. I consider intoxication culture to be a
culture in which intoxication is not only normalized but also expected.
For the purposes of my research, I understand intoxication culture to be
a culture within which spaces have been constructed in order to
normalize the capitalistic enterprise of inebriation, pushing those who
do not wish to engage in such a transaction to the margins of
intelligibility(9 – 15).
I express that the idea of intoxication culture is important to the
conversation of race as it relates to alcohol consumption and space
construction, because I take the position that intoxication culture is
itself a tool of white supremacy. I argue that this tool aims to
encourage the passivity of racialized communities and
individuals(Riotfag, 12). I argue that it does so while constructing
spaces that structure the relationships with alcohol and drugs with
oppressed communities and racialized indivuals as something ‘abnormal’.
Nick Riotfag addresses the prevalence of addiction within oppressed
communities. Riotfag discusses drug and alcohol use in Black
communities, Indigenous communities and queer communities. Nick Riotfag
also acknowledges the role the state has played in the development of a
dependant relationship between oppressed communities and drugs, such as
the CIA involvement in the introduction of Crack in urban black
communities in the United States(12).
As example of a form of resistance, that I would argue position
sobriety as a tool of decolonization, the Black Liberation Movement
rectified policies of prohibition within their communities; The
Zapatista societies of Mexico are dry communities; Indigenous
communities across Turtle island ban alcohol from their communities and
reserves as a form of identity reclamation and culture regeneration(12).
Riotfag quotes Frederick Douglass as stating, “when a slave was drunk,
the slaveholder had no fear that he would plan an insurrection; no fear
that he would escape to the north. It was the sober, thinking slave who
was dangerous, and needed the vigilance of his master to keep him
slave”(13). As I have stated, I think it is important to acknowledge
these relationships and their utility for state rule and citizen
pacification. For the purposes of my research, I have sought answers to
questions that pertain to citizenship and patriotic rhetoric which I
argue has been instrumental in the development of relationships of
dependence and the introduction of drugs and alcohol into oppressed
communities. What I find of interest here is the spaces in which the
relationship oppressed communities have had with substances that, has
encouraged a relationship of dependence, addiction and a larger societal
stigmatization. Similarly, I have noticed that the rhetoric of recovery
follows similar nationalistic, white supremacist, capitalistic
discourses (which I unfortunately will not have time to go into today!).
Drawing from this, I plan to discuss racial categories and identity
as a system that deciphers who can access nation, land and citizenship
and how this interacts with alcohol, drugs and recovery.
Razack states that race and space are constructed through “Racial and
spatial boundaries, as to keep the colonized in their place, which is
to be out of place”(61). Razack is stating that the ways in which spaces
are constructed specifically in our North American, white supremacist
culture, is to reduce the visibility of racialized individuals and
communities while selling the idea of assimilation to these communities
through various means. I would argue one of these means being the
‘proper method of intoxication and substance usage’. The construction of
a proper method of intoxication creates a binarism that constructs an
improper method of usage, as Geoff has stated earlier in the
presentation. As Razack argues that the prospects of white supremacy are
reliant on the construction of space in racialized terms(*), I will, in
tandem, argue that ‘improper usage’ or ‘improper inebriation’ within
oppressed communities is seen as a complication for nation statehood and
as a threat and problem for white supremacy.
Sherene Razack considers the relationship between alcohol policies and land settlement in British Colombia in her book,
Race, Space and the Law. In
Chapter two Razack states that process of colonizing British Columbia
was contingent on the strict enforcement of liquor laws(65). The liquor
laws enforced by white settler government dictated who could drink,
where and with whom. As Razack suggests, “the regulation of liquor was
about space”(65).
As such, alcohol was once only available to citizens of the Canadian
state, not inclusive of Indigenous folks, before the idea of the status
and non-status Indian came into existence(Razack, ). It was also
available only to those citizens who could reproduce state nationalism
through a heterosexual discourse. It has become evident through my
research that colonialism plays an important role in the establishment
and normalization of heterosexuality(Razack, 67). Upon discussing this
with my colleague, Clementine she summed it up as such ‘If you control
who drinks together, you control who fucks’. At first, I laughed at this
thought but then realized its truth and profundity. The relationship
that alcohol, colonialism and race have is such to continue a white
statehood through heterosexual procreation. It is space construction
that insures the continuation of a ‘pure’ white race which would
continue the legacy of the nation state.
What I find interesting about this relationship is that the
consumption and purchasing of liquor was once only limited to the white,
heterosexual patriot subject. Where white settlers were the only ones
allowed to purchase and drink alcohol, Indigenous folks and people of
colour were not allowed to by legislative rule. We can see these
attitudes still prevalent in the marketing of certain alcoholic
products, such as Geoff mentioned earlier with a product such as Molson
Canadian. Upon watching a commercial for the product, it is almost
impossible to not recognize the nationalistic rhetoric prevalent in much
of the companys marketing, where Canadian pride is built on the
consumption of this beverage, and once having purchased and drank this
product, you are able to claim ‘I am Canadian’.
We can see this nationalist discourse manifest in certain spaces
constructed for the purposes of buying and consuming alcohol. For
example, imagine yourself walking down King Street West on a Friday
night. The bars are full, and everyone is trying to get laid. Who do you
see? Who is in the bars? How old are they? What colour is their skin?
What is their gender presentation? Now, how about if you walk by Queen
West and Bathurst at any given time of day or night… Who do you see? How
are they drinking? Are they using drugs in a public space? Are they
racialized or are they white? Spaces such as these that are constructed
with invisible borders, are dictated by race as constructed by white
supremacy.
In her research, Razack focuses on the illegality of alcohol
consumption for Native folks which defined a racial boundary that was
integral to the heterosexual policing of Native folks in British
Columbia; the Native identity was constructed as a non-heterosexual,
non-white ‘other’ who threatened the white, Eurocentric compilation of
nationalistic identity. This, in turn, was concretized as heavily
policed liquor laws and laws pertaining to inter-racial sex relations.
As Razack notes in her work, liquor laws, and the construction of
spaces and borders are also very much about sex(67). They are about the
mixing of cultures, an idea that reiterates eugenic ideas. It is through
the colonization of space that race can be managed, heterosexuality
solidified and the ‘legacy of white Canadian statehood’ continued(67).
This nationalistic consumption and intoxication is undoubtedly
reified through systems of white supremacy. I would argue that, as Geoff
stated earlier in this presentation, that the ideology of ‘othering’ is
used for people to identify as addicted or non-addicted people. The
idea of ‘othering’, as David Goldberg states is used for white
supremacy, constructs itself by conceptualizing order anew, and then by
reproducing spatial confinement and separation in renewed terms’(*). If
we apply this idea to the construct of the addict, we can see this as it
relates to spatial construction in urban areas. I think that is
important that we question how these spaces have come to exist, and
through which process can the invisible borders, tied up in race,
addiction and discrimination begin to be dismantled?
In her article, Razack discusses the legalization of alcohol for
Indigenous folks in Canada and the “problem of Indian drunkenness” the
state was then presented with(66). This was faced with policies that
once again outlawed the sale of alcohol to indigenous folks. The anxiety
the white Canadian state faced in regards to the “problem of the
drunken indian” related to their desire to build and reform a
respectable white society, as the pervasiveness of alcoholism and
addiction in communities deeply affected and destroyed by colonialism
presented a problem to the sustaining of this patriotic imaginative.
I would like to briefly use an example that I have come across in my
research. In 2001 John Stackhouse, a journalist for The Globe and Mail,
published an article called “Welcome to Harlem on the Prairies”. The
article as discussed by Craig Proulx, a Metis professor of Anthropology
at McMaster University, claims to be written to empower Aboriginal folks
who live in this ‘Harlem on the prairies’, while asking the reader to
be the judge of the plausibility of peaceful Aboriginal – Settler
relations(143). Instead, what Stackhouse does is utilize what I have
discussed here, white supremacist discourse and rhetorics of nationalism
and racism, to construct both the identities of racialized folks who he
silences, and the white authoritarian settler who he puts on a
pedestal(147). Pictures that accompany the article are those of ‘drunk
Indians being carried to police cars’ and ‘concerned white police
officers looking on’ and doing their duty for the nation state by
sweeping the streets of this Canadian Harlem clean of the problem of
race integration in the pursuit of maintaining borders constructed
around race and alcohol and drug consumption. In the article, the only
racialized folks who are given voice are those who work directly for the
government through judicial services. Upon investigating this
relationship, Proulx quotes Jeanne Guillemin in saying “Since the police
and other keepers of the peace in urban and reservation areas have the
same values as the rulers of American society, they perceive public
inebriation as an ultimate degradation, a fall from civilization. They
judge Indians who drink publicly even more harshly than the individual
white, because Indians as a group seem to have been born uncivilized
with no shame about their categorical degradation”(148). I urge all you
to read the article ‘Welcome to Harlem on the Prairies’ by John
Stackhouse and draw your own conclusions on what is being said and what
it reifies.
The privilege of those who are able to drink in certain spaces, such
as at bars on weekends and Friday nights, over lunch with the buddies,
or with mimosas at brunch with the girls are constructed upon their
relationship within racial borders that dictate who is not allowed to
access this privilege. It is this privileged relationship to alcohol and
drugs that is a large part of the patriotic imagination, which boasts
‘proper consumption’ as a nationalist duty.
That statement I wish to close with is this: Given the nature of our
culture as one of intoxication and seeing the connections that
intoxication has with colonialism and racism, how can we work towards a
community and a society that operates in a framework of accessibility?
This means an accessibility for racialized folks, status and non-status
Natives, immigrants, queer folks, and the addicted and the non-addicted
alike. I ask what this would mean for you personally? Does this mean you
interrogate your own relationship with substances and alcohol? Does it
mean you are more conscientious of the spaces in which you drink? Or
does it mean that you work with your community to make events dry and
alcohol-free and accessible for all?
To interrogate intoxication culture we must truly investigate the
ways in which intoxication, alcohol and drugs have shaped our lives and
our experiences, as well as how it has worked to construct ideas,
identities and the spaces associated with those identities. It has
become evident to me, through my research, that to interrogate
intoxication culture is to interrogate a deep-rooted racist,
nationalistic, colonial discourse. If we truly want to create a culture
of accessibility, then we must redefine our relationship with that which
aims to render us incapacitated to do so, both individually and
collectively.
Work Cited
Proulx, C., “‘An Analysis of ‘Welcome to Harlem on the Prairies”’ in
Aboriginal Peoples in Canadian Cities: Transformations and Continuities., pp.,143 – 171, Wilfred Laurier University Press, Waterloo., 2011.
Razack, S., “In Between and Out of Place: Mixed-Race Identity, Liquor and the Law in British Columbia, 1850 – 1913” in
Race, Space and the Law: Unmapping a White Settler Society., pp., 47 – 71, Between the Lines, Canada, 2002.
Riotfag, Nick., “Towardsalessfuckedupworld: Sobriety and Anarchist Struggle”. Independent., 199-.
