love + healing in the face of violence: language as a weapon

if you wna truly love + heal, you have to completely destroy everything you know abt the two -- bc it is most likely ... absolutely certain, really ... that yr understanding of these words is at least in part based in the way they have been constructed to best serve structures founded upon + sustained by violence

part of this has to come from a better, less superficial understanding of how language functions -- language is not simply a concise delivery mechanism for meaning; language has been n actively is constructed in order to serve a social purpose, n in its use + construction it also constructs n informs social reality -- words + their definitions are inextricably linked to the social realities they exist within

that is: language can [n does] function as a system of violence


n we know this! we know this bc there are words that are inherently violent, for whom we can clearly see their direct roots in violence, whose use is violent n incites/heralds other kinds of violence, whose use we can trace to the information + sustenance of other violent systems

however, words whose meanings are not overtly violent can be [n often are] just as violent -- in fact, words which seemingly point to the diametric opposite of violence can be [n often are] violent -- n the danger is that their violence is not at all evident from their given, commonly-understood meaning; we use these words uncritically n thus invoke this violence

following this ... hopefully, when I tell you that our current conceptions of love + healing are almost completely irredeemable + unsalvageable, n require a complete rebirth, you will have an easier time understanding what I mean

we have to ask ourselves how these words function within these systems -- we cannot simply repurpose them if they have their point of origin in the very thing we organize against; it is only in the critical deconstruction of love + healing that we can discover their place in the anti-violent imagination

~

the conceptions of love + healing that I am familiar with were constructed within a Western, US-centric socio-historical context -- the structures n systems of violence I'm referring to aren't just capitalism; they also include imperialism, settler colonialism, nationalism, n militarism

Love

as far as love is concerned, especially romantic love, it is rooted in a synonymity with ownership [specifically ownership of women] -- including:

• ownership of the means of (re)production + what is produced, n
• ownership of labour (domestic, emotional, sexual, n so on) n the means of such labour

love becomes a nationalist, imperialist, capitalist, n settler colonial project, where women are not only responsible for (re)producing the state [specifically White women], the workforce, the military, n bodies representative of men's wealth ... we are subsequently responsible for tending to these systems n to men, n this becomes our role as the owned body in love

this also means that, right off the bat, certain ppl are barred from love -- particularly those who cannot engage in the aforementioned systems, n those who "should not" because their doing so would be non-conducive or threatening to these systems

further, it isn't just the act of ownership that constitutes our definition of love -- love is an inherently affective term, meaning that it is inextricably bound to emotion

so love is the emotion associated with owning n being owned... or, to use more familiar, context-appropriate terms: of belonging to someone or of someone belonging to you -- n it is an experience that is given an almost invariably positive connotation, to the point where overt manifestations of violent love are normalized n viewed as positive

this is because love is generally understood as a positive emotion -- this understanding obfuscates love's true purpose as constructed, transactional, n contractual violence -- because emotions are viewed as immutable, innate, n inexplicable, defining love as pure emotion makes it seem as though a) it cannot be inherently violent, b) it cannot be shaped, constructed, or informed -- n thus, c) it is beyond criticism n analysis

n if we understand that under capitalism, all people are viewed as currency n commodities [some more literally than others] ... then we can also understand that love is guided by whether the ppl we love are representative of our capitalistic worth: who is worth enough to be owned by me? who is worth enough to own me?

n with respect to romantic love, I'll just reiterate: the origins of this definition are inherently heterosexist n exclusionary for a reason -- this is another facet of its violence, in that any relationship that does not ultimately benefit these systems is invalidated, delegitimized, n becomes a target for violence

however, this definition is the one we have all been socialized to accept n to use, even outside of a heterosexual context ... so even when we engage in love outside of a heterosexual context, it can still retain its roots in ownership n violence -- non-heterosexual love absolutely can n does still uphold systems of violence as long as it does not challenge/defy them n does not seek to destroy them

love-as-ownership also gives rise to a hierarchy of love which is defined by proximity to ownership -- this is one of the reasons why "romantic" love is privileged over all "other" forms of love [in a Western context]: it is one of the most literal manifestations of love-as-ownership, apart from parent-child love [where children are products n possessions; this also happens to be the context for the beginning of our education abt love] -- this makes it so that we aspire to own n to be owned by each other -- ownership n violence in love become explicitly desirable as a result

the privileging of romance n romance-as-aspiration also partially contributes to the isolated nature of romantic relationships, where romantic love is supposed to fulfill us in ways that no other kind of love can or should because of its place in the hierarchy -- even though love-as-ownership is fundamentally unfulfilling ... really, it empties, n that emptiness is labelled fulfillment ... n we are made to feel shame abt finding fulfillment thru love anywhere else

Healing

healing is an inherently-vectored word -- that is, it has a direction: one heals away from an unhealed state n toward a healed one; under capitalism, this healed state is defined by productivity: the ability to serve systems of violence, namely capitalism

productivity is reliant on the privileging of the service of violent systems over one's own health n the health of others -- productivity is violent n serves violence

Western positive psychology + wellness culture is centred around productivity n the individual: it faults the individual for being "unwell", n thus places the onus of healing squarely on their shoulders -- it advocates a "bootstraps" method of healing, in which isolation is considered healthy n rewarding

it obfuscates the fundamental role of violent systems in the "unwell" state of the individual -- it pathologizes our traumatized state by deeming us "unwell" n thus, deviant ... as opposed to viewing this state as a reasonable n expected response to living under systems of violence ... which is especially troubling, because our traumatized state directly benefits these systems of violence, n so does the healed state that wellness culture says we must strive for

worse -- although we are all given the message to heal toward productivity, that message is only really meant for some [namely white, able-bodied ppl]; the rest of us are either to be used as near-literal fuel, or to disappear completely from public view -- ultimately, our place in the social constellation is death

which brings me to the heart of the matter: it is fundamentally impossible to heal in any way if the sustenance of a system is dependent upon the infliction of violence against you ... if the sustenance of a system is dependent upon yr traumatization

any method of healing that does not primarily implicate these overarching systems of violence, that suggests that one can flourish within these systems of violence, n/or that does not seek to dismantle these systems ultimately benefits them

~

I will not pretend that I know perfectly what love + healing look like outside of the context of violence -- violence is all I know; it is all any of us know

I am also not suggesting that none of us know anything abt what love + healing are -- in fact, I think that we as the traumatized know better than anyone else what it means to love n to heal, because we have survived violence

ideally, we would rebirth our conceptions of love + healing in contexts that are absolutely devoid of violence -- but that's impossible

what we can do, then, is rebirth love + healing in contexts against violence -- constructing definitions of love + healing that kill violence where ever it lives, that exist in complete defiance of violence ... n that prioritize survival, health, humanity, n truth