Net Communities

[Keynote lecture for Doors of Perception, Amsterdam, November 1995. Please bear in mind that this was, indeed, 1995.]

I WAS INVITED TO discuss Internet, and more specifically: whether there is such a thing as net-comminities, and, if so, whether they are in any way comparable to communities as we know them in daily life. But I’d like to make a preliminary remark. When discussing Internet, it seems as if everybody focusses on the World Wide Web. On homepages. Or, to be more precise, on the form of homepages. Homepages are hardly ever discussed on their merits as to contents, nor are they presented as the best tool for information retrieval, which indeed they can be; instead, homepages are hailed and applauded for their blitzy graphics, their fancy Netscape 2.0 backgrounds, their interlaced gifs, their dazzling lay-outs and what have you.

And I just fail to see why. Homepages are the least interesting part of Internet: they are static, highly un-interactive, and no matter how intricate their design, they become boring rather quickly. As an experienced Dutch Internet journalist once put it, the largest part of the Web is just another slide show, a collection of display windows that the owners would like you to marvel at, mouth agape, saying ‘Oooh…!, Aaahhh…!’ and ‘Isn’t it great what they can do now?’, while all you can do is watch passively and click a button in order to make the next slide appear on your screen. The Web is rapidly evolving in just another exercise in zapping.

I must admit, I have a homepage too. In fact, next month I will even be put on trial because of it, as Scientology took an instant dislike to it. It is the first time in Holland that somebody is sued for the contents of their homepage, so in a strange way I feel obliged to defend my little nook on the net. But the plain truth is I don’t care much for homepages. Some of them are very useful – it’s where I get my information on other ligitations from CoS from, and where I read about all those lawsuits, affidavits, memorando opinio, verdicts and court transcripts – and presently I would be at a loss without them. But I don’t really care for them. I need them, I use them, but I don’t love ’em.

Usenet is where the action – and the interaction – is. No fancy nothings – just plain text. The liveliest medium, as I will try to show you. Here goes.

*

INTERNET, COMPUTERS AND modern technology somehow revive an old dream: cleanliness. The ablity to be pure, to be mind only, to forget about bodies and other physical entities and discard them as irrelevant.

‘Travelling has become obsolete’ is a popular slogan. Distance has lost its meaning. Tokyo, Milwaukee, the Mona Lisa in the Louvre and the coffee pot in the Trojan Room are closer within reach than the newspaper in your snail mailbox. The world is just a click away. A journey around the earth will now take a mere 80 seconds.

‘On Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog’ is another slogan. Appearances do not matter, this is a truly democratic medium: the only merit is in the value of one’s words. Whether one is ugly or beautiful, male or female, black or white, old or young is of no importance. All that matters is one’s words. You can be anybody, anything you wish, just by saying you are. At last you can be free from your body and maybe even be free from your personality. You can reinvent yourself.

Bodies do not matter on Internet. That’s what they say, anyway. Let’s see.

*

I SUBSCRIBED TO a Dutch newsgroup a few weeks after I got an Internet account in November 1994. The group, nl.misc, or *.misc as the regulars like to call it, is a rather busy one; there are about 300 messages each day and about a hundred people who post regularly; some post three messages a week, others twenty each day. Discussions range from current IRL news to chatter and gossip, and include debates about sex and editors, health or lack of it, the existence of god, fascism, immigration policy, music, work, cats and, of course, discussions about the weather (my first posting was a complaint because it was snowing outside; it meant I couldn’t go out, because my wheelchair becomes uncontrollable). Many people have come to know each other through this newsgroup.

For instance, it is common knowledge on *.misc that Christian studies music, writes sonatas and tends to fall hopelessly in love with contraltos; that Gerard is in the hands of a cult called ZetaTalk and believes himself to be Nancy’s messenger; that Johan does not like foreigners and is engaged to Mirjam, with whom he practices ballroom dancing; and that Pien has recently bought a piano, partly to remedy her broken heart. And everybody is chatting away about everything. Theads get entangled in no time whatsoever, because every subject is a free for all and the same subjects reappear time and again. There is also a homepage listing the regulars of *.misc, which contains little stories about all these people.

In a way, *.misc is the Internet-version of the cafe just around the corner, where you drop by after work or during your lunchbreak to see some familiar faces, to relax, to read a newspaper and hear some stories. But then: most of these people have never met. They only know each others’ text. And text is, as we all know, rather flexible.

So, according to this claim that bodies do not matter and personalities are flexible on the net, it would follow that one can pretend, one can tease, one can personify, one can mystify, one can change and one can impersonate on Usenet. All these regulars on *.misc can be whoever they want to be and create or recreate their own image. And being text, and thus being clean and pure and bodiless, there are no real, valid and lasting ties or obligations.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is sheer nonsense. There are several very interesting phenomena which I’ve witnessed – or engaged myself in – on this newsgroup that prove otherwise. Think of these observations as a preliminary investigation into net-anthropology.

*

FIRST OF ALL: it is indeed a group, a small net community. And a rather tight one, too. People worry about each other. When Izak hadn’t posted for a week, the regulars noticed and he got lots of e-mail inquiring about his well-being. When Christian got back from his holiday in Indonesia, many of the regulars were relieved to have him back and wanted to hear – read, I should say – his stories; when did not elaborate enough, he was rebuked. And of course he was quickly briefed on what had happened during his break from *.misc. It has by now become a habit to announce a temporary leave from *.misc, so as to not have the others worried.

It is just text that we miss? Or people?

Secondly, there is Truus. She started posting about two years ago when the Dutch journalist I mentioned earlier started writing about Internet on Internet; that is, he posted the articles he’d written about Internet and Usenet for the newspaper he works for, on *.misc. Of course everybody jumped on him, flaming him for technical errors and questioning his authority – who was he to write about them in their forum? Truus came to his rescue and defended him. Ever since, whenever journalism or the press is mentioned on *.misc, Truus posts praising this journalist. She also makes derogatory remarks about nerds and is quick to point out that a discussion is diverging into sex and editors yet again. She only posts one-liners, such as ‘Mr. van Jole is a very good journalist’, or: ‘Nonsense’, or: ‘Sex again’. Some readers love her, others hate her with a vengeance.

The funny thing is: Truus does not exist as a person in real life. Truus is an e-mail account, somebody’s pseudonym, an alias, a virtual entity, and therefore as bodiless as can be. She might be one of the regulars posting under this alias, or she might even be a group of people using the same login name.Yet she does have a recognizable face: her texts. And what is most interesting: while other regulars can from time to time adopt her style and while it has become a kind of in-crowd game to impersonate or parody Truus, she cannot change. She is fixed. If her subjects or her style were to change, the regulars would immediately doubt the authenticity of those postings. For instance, when some very rude one-liners signed Truus were posted a couple of weeks ago, many people almost instantly assumed that those postings must have been forgeries, as indeed they turned out to be.

Truus is what novelists refer to as a flat character. She is text and she is, in the most literal sense imaginable, a fixed style. She is thus doomed to be this one-line poster who is at war with one half of the newsgroup and the jester who is doted upon by the other half. She cannot evolve. She can only discontinue, remove or cancel herself – all synonyms for virtual suicide.

Thirdly, there is this immense hunger for more than just text to go by. The regulars long for things such as physical descriptions of each other, they invent body language to communicate affinities and sympathies with, they want to know about everybodys personal circumstances and search for ways to express a sense of friendship. What is slowly transpiring on *.misc, is a very specific way of engaging in make-believe: introducing real life on screen.

For instance, when Patricia – who’s known to be very sociable on *.misc – spots a newcomer in the group, she usually welcomes them. She would write something like: ‘Ah, we’ve not yet met. Do come in, sit down and make yourself comfortable. Would you like some coffee? Yes it’s crowded here, I know, but you’ll get used to it. Would you like a little refreshment? Here’s some cake. Icu had no time to eat it, his presence was urgently requested in a different newsgroup. I bet something fishy is going on there. But don’t worry, he’ll be back. I’ll introduce you later,’ etc. etc. Patricia is indeed the perfect hostess; but what is striking is that she in fact writes as if *.misc were a tangible cafe – or even a house, her house – with chairs inside and people to touch and glasses and plates and cups to pass on and people to shake hands with and faces to smile at.

While Patricia has cultivated this attittude to almost unattainable heights, many people engage in similar behaviour. People ask other posters to move closer, because they want to whisper something that the others mustn’t hear; people blush, giggle, yell, shuffle their feet out of shyness; people embrace each other, punch somebody in the eye or ask permission to sit on each others lap. All on screen. All in text. It’s not real life, of course. But it is not make-believe either. It’s a virtual copy of life.

Fourthly, this virtual copy of real life is effectuated from time to time. Not usually, but it does happen.

This summer for instance, I suddenly became severely ill. I had to be taken to the hospital overnight. A very good friend of mine, who’s also a regular in *.misc, posted a message on my behalf explaining my absence. During the weekends, when I was on temporary leave from the hospital, I posted updates (see here and here), explaining what was wrong with me and how I felt and how scared I was (I have multiple sclerosis, but that was not what was ailing me; it turned out I had had a brain haemorrhage).

Of course I got lots of wishing-wells e-mail from readers and posters of *.misc, all in all more than two hundred messages. But what’s more: I received over fourty postcards through snail-mail and three *.misc members that I had never met before, came to visit me in hospital. Somebody send me a book; somebody else sent me flowers. When I was finally discharged from hospital, an envoy from *.misc who had been collecting money from the regulars through bank transfers, came by to present me with a huge bouquet, courtesy of *.misc.

Quite frankly, I was very surprised, and truly moved, to receive all these expressions of sympathy. And although I knew that ties on *.misc run deeper than one would expect, I was truly amazed at this abundant and tangible proof that virtual sympathy does indeed equate real-life sympathy.

And so, because I wanted to communicate both my personal gratitude and this sociological observation, I posted a joking message on *.misc in which I stated that:

  • I had not been ill at all and
  • I had never been me anyway, because I was just
  • a researcher posing as a poster, in order to perform a participating investigation into the value and effects of on-line communication and ditto affections, and that
  • I could now congratulate *.misc for having proven that on-line communication was indeed as good as the real thing, but that
  • naturally, more research into such matters was called for.

The reactions to this message were, of course, utterly confused. Some people got the joke. Some people simply did not understand it and discarded the message in puzzlement. Others were furious and thought they had been taken for a ride, albeit a complicated one, and felt that their emotions had been played with – they had really been sorry for me, they had shared my fears and my grief and had felt for me – and now it turned out that all these feelings had been based on nothing? On fiction? On text?

I had to apologize profoundly, explaining that I had been me all along and not some researcher, but that I felt that their earlier reaction – the mail, the flowers – had indeed proven something: that text is enough to give rise to empathy.

The funny thing is, we had all made a grave mistake. I, because on *.misc people have to believe each other on… well, not at face-value, but at text-value. And they do. Which is why we cannot change and cannot de-mask. What is written there, is the truth. What you say about yourself is true because you say it. You write, therefore you are. The only thing you have to bear in mind is consistency. There are no outer criteria your fellow-readers can refer to. And thus, text is a very serious business on Usenet, flippant as it may be. It is you.

And others had made the serious mistake of forgetting that the same problem usually applies to real life. Why do you all out there in this hall believe that my name is Karin Spaink? Because somebody told you. Somebody you trust: a friend, or somebody who did meet me before, or because both the host of this afternoon and the program say that I am her. Why do you believe I have multiple sclerosis? Only because I said so, and because there’s nobody with some kind of higher authority who jumps up and says that I am lying.

Of course it’s possible to whip up a whimsical description of yourself and of your life, both on and off the net; but you must never forget what you made the others believe you look like and what you told them about yourself and what they are able to find out on their own. One has to maintain a coherent story. If Pien were suddenly to say that she’s a middle-aged man, nobody would believe her; and if it transpired that she does not have a piano, everybody would feel cheated. Just as you would feel cheated if you would find out that the Church of Scientology was not suing me. (But believe me, they are. Check out the newspapers. Or walk over to the bar: I am on television right now. I think. The journalist who interviewed me told me I would be, anyway. I have no way of knowing that they’ve told me the truth. I’m not sure until I’ve seen the tape.)

And sixth, wanting to know whether their affinities and antipathies would hold and stretch into real life and prove to be really real – and of course to satisfy the curiosities of the regulars, who all want to know the faces behind these texts and names – it has at one time been decided that *.misc should meet every once in a while. And so, there are regular ‘Samenscholingen’ (‘Gatherings’) where everybody debates exactly the same issues as they do on the net, where people are aghast that ‘jeez I can’t believe that you are really so&so’ and talk about why they had expected somebody to look a certain way, and where of course everybody once again tries to find out who Truus is and whether she might be among those present.

*

FINALLY, I’D like to tell you about an instant net community that came into being in the course of just these last two months. An instant community that is not primarily social, as *.misc is, but political. But first I need to tell you about Scientology.

The Church of Scientology (CoS) sells its followers expensive courses which, if students study them carefully, are supposed to set them free (‘clear’ them). One of their members, Steven Fishman, was jailed because he committed several crimes in order to get the money to pay for these courses. Scientology urged him to get the money any which way he could, he stated.

During his years in prison, he renounced the cult. In an interview in Time magazine, he explained about the criminal behaviour of the cult and how they coerce their members. Scientology thereupon sued him for slander. In that trial, Fishman showed parts of Scientology’s secret materials to prove what he’d said in Time. These higher materials of the cult – the so-called ‘OT-levels’ – were accepted as evidence and thereby became public material: anybody could go to the court library and read them. CoS, fearing that its sacred secrets would be revealed, had some of their people going to the library every day to take out these documents to prevent other people (read: non-Scientologists) to read them. Nevertheless, the Fishman Affidavit got copied (it was also available through the clerk of the court, for a mere $36,50) and has been travelling on Internet ever since.

The funny thing is, when you read the document, you’ll just see a bunch of gibberish. Apart from the instructions of how to treat non-Scientologists – almost every means is allowed to silence them; lying is common sense; cheating is part and parcel – there’s just this silly and badly written science-fiction tale about Xenu, head of the Galactic Universe who nuked earth 75 million years ago and who through his body thetans even now controls all of us people, except (of course) the few Scientologist who managed to clear themselves. Well, L. Ron Hubbard was indeed an sf-writer.

Scientology does not want their followers to know whats in store for them: they forbid everybody to read this material until they’ve done lots of courses, stating that it would kill those who are not yet ready for it; but more probably because people may stop believing Scientology once theyve read this lousy sf stuff. And of course Scientlogy asks their followers massive amounts of money for the privilege of studying these OT-levels.

But the Fishman Affidavit got out on the net. Ever since, CoS has been hunting it, all the while screaming hell about copyright infringements. They’ve forged cancel messages, they’ve tried to remove the newsgroup where critics and former members discuss the cult; they’ve raided anon.penet.fi, an anonymous remailer, in order to get the name of one of their critics; they’ve raided FactNet, an on-line archive on the cults activities; they’ve raided Erlich and Lerma, members of FactNet who posted the Fishman Affidavit on alt.religion.scientology and have seized their computers.

Scientology does not argue with people who do not agree with them. They prefer to harass, start crazy lawsuits, have people followed by private detectives, and generally intimidate them. They do not sue in order to win; they sue in order to intimidate and harass and to ruin their critics.Their motto is: ‘Never defend, always attack and they stick to it.’

Some people in Holland had at one time or another heard about this. Most of them weren’t very interested: just another crazy US cult US. So, what else is new?

Now, XS4ALL is Hollands first public Internet provider. Due to their past activities (they were parented by the now dead but famous Hack-Tic) and due to their present activities (they put up a free local provider for Amsterdam, the Digital City or DDS; they provide good and rather cheap access; they are usually the first provider to experiment, propagate or evaluate new developments, both technical, social and legal), they are held in very high esteem.

It was this provider that Scientology raided on september 5; the Fishman Affidavit was on an XS4ALL user’s homepage. CoS seized the XS4ALL computers and threatened to sue XS4ALL if they did not remove this homepage. XS4ALL refused to do so, stating that the content of peoples homepage is of no concern to them and that they are not responsible for what their clients put there. FonsS voluntarily (well, what would you do if you knew CoS was after you?) removed the Fishman Affidavit. That was the end of it, it would seem.

But it wasn’t. Many Internet users in The Netherlands were shocked to learn that some cult wanted to interfere with XS4ALL and with users’ rights to publish public material. The indignation was quite immense. Newspapers covered the issue extensively, there were some items on television and many Dutch Usenet-newsgroups debated the issue. Most people were truly outraged.

And suddenly, Fishman homepages started appearing – one after another. An e-mail letter was circulated, asking people to review what was going on and to consider putting up a Fishman homepage as well. More or less renowned people became involved: first myself, later on a member of Parliament, then a laureate writer, a network, a magazine. Homepage after homepage. Fully knowing that CoS would at some time have to sue, more and more people joined.

As of today, there are one hundred and three Fishman Affidavit homepages in the world. One is in the UK, one in the US, one is in Germany; and there are exactly one hundred homepages in The Netherlands. There is a daily bulletin which all Dutch participants receive. There are t-shirts. There are people compiling Dutch versions of FactNet. There is now more information available in The Netherlands about the cult than there ever was – and none of it very positive, I must say. FactNet, Lerma, Erlich, Klemesrud, Fishman – people and organisations who are or have been sued by Scientology because of this Affidavit in the past two years – are eagerly waiting to see what’s happening here, for a positive verdict for us here would have bearings on their cases in the US. There is by now a massive correspondence between some of the regulars of alt.religion.scientology and people involved in this Dutch Net protest, as all critics of Scientology would like us to win. Some of the regulars of *.misc are preparing a defend fund for those who are being sued by the cult.

Two days ago Scientology filed charges against four Internet providers – XS4ALL, DDS, Cistron and Dataweb – and me. Scientology still believes they are fighting single persons and single institutions. We, on the other hand, know that they are facing a net-community.

And I, I am having a real net life.

Scientology: squeezed

[Originally published in Het Parool; translation by Patricia Savenije.]

ALL ACROSS THE planet, Scientology is hunting down copies of a court document that contains a part of their material. This document, the so-called Fishman Affadavit, is considered the umptieth proof of the fact that Scientology brainwashes its adepts, intimidates its critics, commits fraud, plans to murder people, abuses the legal system, etcetera. This particular court-document is different from all the others, in that ‘Fishman’ contains quotes from the expensive lessons that Scientology sells to their high-levelled adepts. It is a ridiculous scrap of a space-opera, with all the galactic federations and overlords that come with the genre. The most elevated lessons teach how to communicate with plants and animals.

Claiming that its copyright and trade-secrets are violated in the court file, but more probably because the cult is afraid to lose members and subsequently a source of income, Scientology filed a great number of lawsuits on people who made the document available through Internet.

They wanted Fishman out of the Netherlands as well. At first, it was only accessible on Fonss’ homepage at XS4ALL. After the cult had seized the XS4ALL-computers for that reason, more and more Dutch netizens joined a mass-protest and made the documents available themselves. At the moment, the Fishman Affidavit can be found at over eighty sites in the Netherlands. Amongst those the homepages of Oussama Cherribi (member of parliament), Marcel Möring (writer), the ‘Groene Amsterdammer’ (a weekly magazine), the Tros (a tv network) and myself.

All Internet-providers that thereby got involved in the case, have by now received letters of the law firm that represents Scientology in this matter: Nauta Dutilh. The lawyers summoned providers to remove the document and threaten to sue them if they refuse to do so. But such a case is very complex, even without considering whether or not the cult’s claim is valid: is the provider responsible, or should the account-holders be addressed individually? And is a provider allowed to delete homepages of its subscribers? As of yet, there is no jurisprudence on the subject.

Participants in the protest therefore supposed that the cult would, in order to avoid a long procedure over the responsibility-issue, rather sue an individual than an Internet-provider. But the latter weren’t to eager to give the names and addresses of their users. Therefore the cult was forced to look all by itself for information about people who made Fishman available on their homepage. Well: they’ve found it: I was the only one of the then sixty participants they tracked down. Cherribi was apparently too big a fish for CoS, even though information about him can easily be found in the records of the Dutch parliament.

I’m not afraid to appear in court. But the real question is whether Scientology feels the same way. They have an extremely weak case: their own material is of course copyrighted, but court documents are public property and can thus be distributed freely by anyone who feels like it. The document doesn’t contain the complete higher level courses, only fragments of them – which isn’t considered a copyright-infringement. Apart from that, public interest is served by making the Fishman Affidavit available: the document proves that the cult uses illegal and criminal means to achieve its goals. And especially this public interest is emphasized by the massive protest and because well-known people participate in it – a member of parliament, a writer, a television network, a weekly and a publicist.

Mr. Bakker Schut, XS4ALL’s lawyer, has used this argument in his reply to the demands of Nauta Dutilh, but still hasn’t received their reaction. The law-firm only sends exactly the same letter to other providers who got involved in this affair as they sent to XS4ALL a month ago. That’s why Bakker Schut sent a rather irritated letter to the CoS lawyers. In ordinary language, this said: “You’re not even taking the trouble to answer me and meanwhile you insist on sending exactly the same threatening letters to other providers? What are your arguments worth, and how about your threat to take this case to court? Is this only bluff and intimidation?”

That could very well be the case. Losing the trial in this country will have international consequences for the cult. In the USA, CoS has filed several similar complaints for a supposed copyright and trade secret infringement. And with each trial, Scientology loses more: one US judge has barely ruled that Fishman can’t contain trade secrets because the material has been available to the public for years, or another judge wonders whether or not their copyright claim has any legal value at all. At this moment, they’re losing on all frontiers. A Dutch ruling in which the publication of the entire Fishman Affidavit is allowed because it simply is a court document, will certainly be more than CoS can take. After all, that would mean that the document that the cult so desperately tries to remove from the public eye, is declared officially free in the Netherlands. And as far as Internet is concerned: any document that is available in the Netherlands can be downloaded all over the world.

The other question is whether Scientology can afford to refrain from taking this matter to court. It would mean that their secrets are literally ‘out on the street’ – on the information highway, bit for bit – and obtainable for everyone who owns a computer and a modem. Apart from that, it would make a most strange impression on a US judge if he found out that the only thing Scientology did in the Netherlands was to have their lawyers send some crappy threats.

Scientology is being thoroughly squeezed. Instead of having to deal with only one Fishman in the Netherlands, they are now facing eighty of them. And meanwhile, more people in this country have learned about Scientology than in the last ten years. All kinds of people are roaming the Internet in search of information, and almost everybody comes to the same conclusion: this ‘religion’ stinks beyond imagination.

Scientology is caught in the Net

[Expanded version of article originally published in de Groene Amsterdammer; translation by Patricia Savenije.]

ACTUALLY, THE TESTIMONY of Scientology-member Gerry Scarff is much more horrifying. Scarf was questioned under oath in 1993, and elaborated on the behaviour of Scientology’s lawyers (of the Bowles & Moxon-firm, who are of course members of the cult too).

The complete declaration covers hundreds of pages that make your flesh creep. For the sake of good taste, I’ll just quote the summary that the defendant’s lawyer, Mr. Berry, gave to the court: “In his deposition, Mr. Scarff testified about various criminal and wrongful activities directed by or discussed in the presence of attorney’s from the law offices of Bowles & Moxon, including: death threats, Scientology’s Fair Game doctrine, plans to kill Cult Awareness Network president Cynthia Kisser and attorney Ford Greene, threats against witnesses, instructions to commit suicide, misdirecting and misleading investigations and prosecutions of Scientology, the filing of frivolous lawsuits, financial scams, lies and fraud by Scientology and similar activities.”

This list is far from exceptional. Because of similar crimes as mentioned above, Scientolgy is involved in a big Spanish trial. In it, the cult was forced to pay 160,000,000 peseta’s (over 2,000,000 guilders) to guarantee the financial responsibilities that could be declared pertinent.

*

THE CULT WAS established by sf-author L. Ron Hubbard. In 1950 he published ‘Dianetics’, a so-called psychotherapeutic manual. Hubbard managed to gather a group of people around him and changed the Dianetics-movement into ‘Church of Scientology’ when his organization got into legal trouble. Thanks to the religious status, the cult furthermore doesn’t have to pay any taxes. It’s a very hierarchically structured organization. CoS aims at total world control and has its own intelligence agency, the ‘Office of Special Affairs’ – a secret service that, according to many people, could well be a source of envy for many a middle-sized country. The cult’s renegades are systematically intimidated and CoS tries to eliminate them by ‘dead agenting’ (spreading gossip and doubt).

Articles, books and television programs in which CoS is criticized, are frequently attacked by the cult. Library books are stolen, full editions of magazines bought and pages of the copies that reside in public libraries are cut out with a razor blade by members of CoS. Usually, critics are considered to be ‘fair game’ to the cult – i.e. the hunt is on. CoS has a habit of sueing magazines and network-stations. ‘Time’, ‘The Washington Post’, Reader’s Digest’ and CBS have already been ‘honoured’ by such attention. This month, both a British and an Australian television-program won the trial in which CoS tried to prohibit them to put the program on air. The Dutch televison company ‘EO’ still remembers how they had to leave the studio under police-protection a few years ago, just because they wanted to braodcast a BBC-documentary about the cult.

*

CURRENTLY, THE CULT is fighting the accessibility of another testimony, which has been available to the general public for some time: The Fishman Affidavit. This testimony was given by former cult-member Steven Fishman. He was arrested in 1988 and convicted for fraud; once imprisoned, he turned his back on the cult, with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Geertz. In 1991, when the two of them were interviewed by ‘Time Magazine’, they made highly negative statements about CoS – whereupon the cult immediately sued them. In his defense, Fishman stated that the cult was guilty of ‘illegal and criminal practices’ and had ordered him to commit these frauds. He delivered documents to prove that CoS had manipulated, intimidated and brainwashed him.

Before his arrest, Fishman was a relatively prominent cultist. According to the discipline of the cult, each member has to follow courses to reach a higher level. These courses are very expensive, and there are quite a number of them. Before having ‘cleared’ yourself and having attained some position in the internal hierarchy, you can easily lose tens of thousands of dollars. Reaching OT IX will cost you an estimated $350,000. Fishman had paid his dues and studied hard, and had thus acquired a great many of these OT-levels. People who have succeeded in mastering all OT-levels, have (in Scientology-terms) ‘crossed the bridge’ and are thereby part of the most elevated people in the world.

Fishman brought the OT-material into his trial and thereby made them officially public. His declaration could be asked for at the court’s library. Upon request, the court provided people with photocopies of his statement, that has become known as the ‘Fishman Affidavit’.

The OT-levels Fishman provided look like a mixture of a bad sf-novel and exhausting cross-interrogations. The condensed version: millions of years ago, the planet Earth was used as a dump by Xenu, the head of the Galactic Federation. All cosmic criminals were banished to our planet. When the planet got overpopulated with this band of disorderly rogues, Xenu arranged some nuclear explosions. All criminals died, but their particles remained in the Earth’s atmosphere. These ‘body thetans’ still exist and cause humans to be sick, miserable, psychically unstable or otherwise not quite in their right mind. Scientology teaches its members how to ‘clear’ themselves of these ‘thetans’ – and that is what is described in these OTs, the ‘Operating Thetans’.

The prescribed procedures consist of classical techniques to render people numb. An example taken from OT II: under the supervision of a so-called ‘auditor’, the zealous student has to repeat contradictory concepts and drum them into his head – a certified way to drive somebody crazy: ‘You should survive. You shouldn’t survive. You Can Survive. You Can’t Survive. He Must Survive. He Mustn’t Survive. He Should Survive. He Shouldn’t Survive.’

Once you’ve made it to OT VII, you’ll get assignments like these:

  1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them individually until you know they received your communication.
  2. Go to a zoo or a place with many types of life and communicate with each of them until you know the communication is received and, if possible, returned.


– From OT7-48

*

EVEN THOUGH THESE OT’s were already known outside Scientology, the mere fact that they were now officially available, tickled people’s curiosity. Many wanted to know what these high-level courses amounted to. But at all costs, the cult wanted to prevent outsiders or its lower-level members from seeing the documents. It took their measures. Helena Kobrin, RTC’s (a sort of umbrella organization for CoS) lawyer, explained me in an e-mail how this was done: “These materials are of such significance to my clients that they had people at the court checking out the files every day before they were sealed, so that others could not obtain access to them.” The cult claimed copright to the quoted OT’s, and also stated that publishing the material was an infringement upon their trade secrets and thereby damage CoS’s revenues (after all, the OTs are sold at high prices). CoS demanded that court would seal the files. After years of legal battle, the Fishman Affidavit was temporarily sealed on August 15, 1995, pending a new investigation. The judge also ruled that no new copies were to be distributed.

*

BUT BY THEN, the document was already widely available outside the court’s library. After all: for only half a dollar administration fee per page, the record office had sent it to all those interested. The complete affidavit had been scanned and was available on Internet, could be read on bulletin boards and had been posted almost daily in alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s), a newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the cult. Consequently, Scientology decided to wage a war against Internet; an exhausting battle ensued. Messages that reported the whereabouts of the document were cancelled by forged cancel-messages; CoS tried to remove the newsgroup a.r.s as a whole by sending a special cancel-command; providers were bombarded with letters of law-firms. An anonymous remailer (a system that removes the name and adress of the sender) that many critics used as a precaution when posting in a.r.s, was raided. A number of people who had made the document available and whose name could be discovered, were faced with law suits.

For instance, the cult had the computer-system of FactNet (‘Fight Against Coercive Tactics’, an on-line archive about the cult) seized. Last week the judge pronounced the seizure illegitimate and he ordered CoS to return the material. But according to Hubbard, it’s no big deal that CoS has lost this trial: “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway [..] will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If posible, of course, ruin him utterly.”

*

NOW IT IS Holland’s turn. On September 5 an usher, a locksmith and two American CoS-computer-experts that had been flown in, entered the XS4ALL-office and took possession of their computers. The reason: one of the provider’s users had the Fishman Affadavit on his homepage. (By the way, the real reason probably was that a former XS4ALL-based remailer had been used to post anonymously in a.r.s) The cult demanded removal of the document by XS4ALL, but they refused. They see themselves as a service-provider: what the users do, isn’t XS4ALL’s responsibility. The user involved, Fonss, removed Fishman from his homepage when his provider informed him about the situation.

These events caused a giant commotion in Holland. XS4ALL received a tidal wave of support messages and startled reactions. And what’s more: another user, Johanw, in no time put the document on his homepage. After he received an e-mailed warning by CoS, he removed it and told so in several newsgroups. In protest, other users started putting the same document on their homepage at other providers and made an announcement: D’VanGeely at DDS, myself at Planet Internet, Newkid at Cistron. All did so because they were adamant that public documents should indeed be publicly accessible. Nobody contested that parts of the published texts could be copyrighted, but all were convinced that this copyright was not violated when the court document was published as a whole.

When member of parliament Oussama Cherribi (VVD) also put the document on his homepage on September 22, the snowball started growing rapidly. His decision generated much publicity for the case. And a.r.s was baffled: a politician who dared to put Fishman on his homepage? More people followed, amongst them Marcel Moring, a laureated Dutch writer, and later that week ‘TROS-online’, a television network’s homepage. Ever since, dozens of people have joined: the Fishman Affidavit appeared on one Dutch homepage after the other. At the start of October, there were almost sixty of them.

*

WE NOW AWAIT CoS’s response. A number of people and providers have received e-mail from Kobrin in which she threatens with legal action. A few smaller providers – Cistron, Luna and Dataweb – have by now received letters from the law-firm Nauta Dutilh, that represents Scientology in the Netherlands. They demand that all participating homepages be removed; rumour has it that even Euronet has received such a letter. XS4ALL already received the letter some time ago.

A number of people is determined to continue, and face a law suit. They are convinced that they have the right to publish his legal document, and what’s more: that it is necessary to do so. Partly because Scientology’s misconduct on Internet is unacceptable, with all these cancel-messages and their pursuit of critics on the Net. But there are other reasons too. How can a text that has been public for quite some time – the OTs having been public for years already – be removed from the Affidavit? What is this religion, that doesn’t want to be spread and that prohibits its adepts to know what’s in store for them? That regards her rites as ‘trade secrets’ and asks exorbitant prices for them? Participant Marcel Möring: “All major world-religions are transparent. Their source-materials can be studied by anyone and may be freely quoted. If a movement claims to be ‘clerical’ or ‘religious’, why shouldn’t we have the right to demand that anyone should have the opportunity to gain insight in the texts that this movement and its convictions are based upon? That all scriptures regarding rituals, conduct etc. are accessible to anyone?”

Meanwhile, the newsgroup a.r.s is watching breathlessly. If this case is taken to court, and if Scientology loses, Fishman will finally be free on the Net. For it doesn’t matter in which country you can find the document. When you’re on Internet, you can download it from anywhere on the globe.

Sources:

  • Der Spiegel, september 25, 1995;
  • L. Ron Hubbard: The dissemination of material (part of the Fishman Affidavit);
  • Court of Madrid / Previas 2663/84, December 1994;
  • Steven Fishman: Statement, april 29, 1994;
  • Fishman Affidavit: Central District Court of California, Case no. 91-6426 HLH (Tx), April 4, 1994;
  • Scarff’s declaration: Central District Court of California, Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx), May 3;
  • Helena Kobrin’s e-mail to me, dated September 29, 1995;
  • alt.religion.scientology.

Scientology: Technique 88

[Originally published in Het Parool; translation by Patricia Savenije.]

‘TECHNIQUE 88’: it sounds like a name for a hardcore-band. The lyrics fit the image. Fans all over the world holler along with the song that gets so much airplay. The rhythm is pounding, monotonous, repetitive, hypnotizing and ineluctable, carried by African drums, the call of warriors waging war. Boom – boom – boom, enter the monsters of Doom:


THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.
You can write that down in your book in great big letters.
The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
When you find an individual is lying to you,
You know that the individual is trying to control you.
One way or another this individual is trying to control you.
That is the mechanism of control. (..)
Check these facts, you will find they are always true.

By the way, the song is called: ‘Never defend, always attack.’ And it sells like mad.

But alas. This isn’t a hardcore-band, it’s the Church of Scientology (CoS), a well-organized cult that gains its wealth by selling this kind of lyrics, in which it explains its adepts the true nature of this world.

What CoS exactly advocates, what methods it uses and what gospel it spreads, has for a long time remained a well-kept secret; the CoS tolerates no onlookers. ‘Members of Scientology are never allowed to be interviewed by the press’, the cult commands. But in spite of that, some of the inside affairs of the CoS occasionally leaked through to the outside world. Sometimes journalists studied the cult and wrote elaborate articles or books about it. But because their sole information unevitably came from people that were at war with the cult – renegades, or people that had seen their relatives disappear in the black hole of the cult – the CoS could always discard such criticism as libel and lies.

Apart from that, it took a fair amount of courage to persist in criticizing the CoS. The cult has a long tradition of intimidating, pursuing, phone-tapping, spying and otherwise cornering its opponents. Many people have been financially and psychologically ruined. ‘We have to sue people for libel even on the smallest possible ground, in order to prevent the press from even daring to mention Scientology’, it says in one of the cult’s official internal documents. When the Washington Post was planning an article about Scientology a few weeks ago, the cult took the case to court in an attempt to prevent publication. After CoS had lost the case, they posted billboards with the journalist’s picture and an incriminating byline all over town.

The cult loses many of these lawsuits, but this hardly helps the defendants: CoS immediately files an appeal or starts a new trial. And because the party that loses the trial doesn’t have to pay the trial-expenses (as is the case in the Netherlands), a fair amount of the people that have won such lawsuits, against CoS are confronted with bankruptcy – a true Pyrrhus-victory. Most of the cult’s opponents are afraid to go to court, no matter how strong their case is. So they decide not to do it. Fighting the battle to the end is too costly, especially for individual victims.

But things are changing. Former Scientology-members are stepping forward now and speak freely about the cult’s methods and teachings. They do so on Internet, where a person is less seizable than in the life on this side of the monitor-screen. On Internet, you only have an e-mail adress and no house that can be put under strict surveillance in order to get a grip on its inhabitants. The latter enabled CoS in the past to harass the mother, the child or the loved ones of the critic.

Opponents of the cult (some of whom are ex-members) now communicate through a newsgroup (alt.religion.scientology) and have set up homepages where people can find authentic information about the cult. These pages contain internal documents in which Scientology elaborates on its methods: they speak about tax-evasion, about breaking and entering the IRS-office in order to falsify data that was kept there; and about the way the cult deals with its opponents. There are numerous guidelines that instruct cult-members how to put opponents under suspicion and how to ruin these critics.

Furthermore, the teachings of the cult are now widely available. In the past, all there was were some vague stories about the nature of the cult’s beliefs. CoS could wrathfully maintain that this nonsense had all been made up by by vile opponents whose sole interest was to damage the cult. But now it’s in black and white, bit by bit.

Their religion is a bad science fiction-story. Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, actually was an sf-writer, and unfortunately a very mediocre one. According to CoS, Xenu (the head of the Galactic Federation) nuked our planet millions of years ago. The remainders of earth’s former inhabitants are still floating around, and have entered our mind and body. These ‘Thetans’ are dangerous and only Scientology can teach us how to free ourselves from them (‘clearing oneself’). Cult-members have to pay a lot of money to learn all this nonsense. Tens of thousands of dollars.

That is why these documents have to remain secret, no matter at what cost. They are Scientology’s major source of income. (A strange religion by the way, that demands payment for revelations and doesn’t want its gospel spread freely). But now, these stories are wandering around the Net. The most important document is called the Fishman Affadavit. It consists of court documents that contain some of the cult’s scriptures. The CoS pursues everything and everyone that makes this document available. They cancel other people’s messages on Internet, try to remove a newsgroup, raid Internet-providers, demand the immediate removal of the document from homepages and are sueing themselves witless. They lose each and every case.

And every time the CoS succeeds in having someone remove the document, it emerges somewhere else. The protest against CoS is like a dragon: cut off one head and six new heads will grow overnight. Technique 88 is ineffective. You can’t control everyone, not even when you are Scientology. And contrary to the cult’s conviction, not everybody is willing to be controlled by lies.

Your roots are showing

(Originally appeared in De Groene Amsterdammer.)

IN 1991, TYPE O Negative toured Europe. They were controversial, as everybody knew, but why was less clear. There were rumors that Type O Negative sympathized with fascist ideas. Type O’s singer, Peter Steele, had formerly been the leader of Carnivore and used to sing quite unintelligible lyrics on the third and fourth world war. Carnivore put lots of death, nuclear winters, machismo and barbarism in their songs; they were in a way the musical accompaniment to the Mad Max-films.

After Carnivore split, Steele started Type O Negative. Their first cd Slow, Deep and Hard (1991) combines metal with hardcore. The songs burst with clever changes of tempo, mixtures of symphonic music and gothic metal. The record was received well; untill the lyrics were studied. Especially Der Untermensch, a song about junkies and jobless people, had to take it in the neck because of sentences such as: ‘Why don’t you get a job … Get off society’s back … You’re a waste of life … Send you back to where you’re from.’

It is not a very friendly song, but it is put in another perspective by the song immediately following it, Xero Tolerance, in which Steele sings about an ‘type A personality disorder’: ‘Hatred obsessing me, hatred possessing me, anger burning me, anger turning me into someone I don’t know.’ In this scrap and in others, it becomes clear that the singer is thinking things he’d rather not think. He comments upon himself. He laments the babies of junkies, cracked at birth, and the women whoring for their addicted lovers; he sings about his lover who is unfaithful and should therefore die, and interrupts these diatribes with idyllic lapses in which he describes other thoughts: ‘I gave till it hurt, thought it was right’ or ‘there is no pain like that of desire’.

Apparently he gets frustated in these romantic longings time and again, which arouses his anger, and finally he becomes a stranger even to himself. The record sounds like the angry, desperate resistance of somebody who’s at the point of collapsing. And the origin of that feeling was amply explained by Steele. Something with a girlfriend who’d left and Brooklyn going crazy. The world could just go to hell, as far as he was concerned. She first.

The rumors, based on these lyrics and on scraps of interviews, that Type O doted on fascism and racism, elicited a clear denounciation from Steele: ‘I am no fascist and do not want to be branded as one. I do not condone violence.’ From Brooklyn he sent heaps of faxes to Europe in which he explained that although he thought junkies should not be pampered, that did not make him a racist. His expression of regrets hardly had any effect. In Berlin punks and squatters issued a call for action and there were even posters which asked to murder Steele. Almost all gigs in Germany and Austria were cancelled or disrupted due to threats, bomb alerts, and demonstrations by leftist activists.

There were five bookings in Holland. The first gig was at De Melkweg in Amsterdam. By chance there was a radical demo that day. John van Luyn, programmer at the Melkweg: ‘Something against Shell or other. Some people handed out flyers against Type O Negative. They just walked on. A hundred and fifty activists made their way into the Melkweg. They cut the wires: electricity, telephones, the lot, and demanded that we cancel the gig that evening. Also, they had informed ethnic groups and broadcasting services, and they raised hell too. None of them had ever heard of the band, but suddenly they were all quite sure that Type O Negative was at fault. It was a complete chaos and we had to cancel the gig.’

Gert Gering, programmer of Atak in Enschede: ‘We knew they were controversial, but we had never eschewed that. Musically they were a breakthrough. I have read their lyrics. He is not a political buddy of mine, but then again: what’s serious and what’s not? And once you start to study lyrics, no rap group would ever get booked. Indeed, nobody ever mentions that there are always lots of skins at ska gigs. As for the protests, during that period the stricter right of asylum, expulsions and the neo-nazi attacks on migrants in Germany were a political issue. But what did these activists do? Block the airports to prevent the expulsions? No, they spread flyers against Type O Negative. We had trouble here too. A representative of the mayor came and told us that they wanted to post two juridical experts in the house to screen the group’s lyrics and who might intervene. Under those circumstances we did not want the gig, it was outright censure. So we cancelled. Anyway, I saw only two skins that evening. A few weeks ago we had Laurel Aitken, ska, and there were at least sixty skins. He even dedicated a song to them.’

Harry Hamelink, programmer of Nighttown in Rotterdam: ‘The occupation of the Melkweg was on all news programs. We had to decide what we were going to do and we thought it best to cut the protest’s head off. We cancelled.’ Noorderligt in Tilburg did too.

Only Scum in Katwijk held their ground. Marcel van Tol: ‘Of course we knew about the unrest, but we wanted to persevere. We got threatening calls and letters from activist who stated that “they would not refrain from using violence”. We talked with the police and the mayor and got their full cooperation. We refused to yield to such idiot activism. We were carefull though, we armoured the windows and the police promised to keep an eye on things. But Steele could manage no more. The riots had gotten to him and he went back to New York. In the end, only two members of the band played here. We were terribly disappointed. Their first cd is still being played here so much it’s completely worn out. They are a great band.’

Type O remained clad in rumours, no matter what. Just last year the music magazine Oor wrote: ‘The question whether Steele and his companions are fascists and/or racists, remains open. The protesters should have gone to court. Then we would have had an independant verdict on Type O Negative and its utterances.’ Beg your pardon?

*

THE YEAR FOLLOWING this disastrous tour, Type O released The Origin of the Feces, a faked registration of a live gig at Brighton Beach, Brooklyn. It’s a fight between a group and an audience. Even before they have started, the audience treats the band to a chanted ‘You suck, you suck’. Steele has a riposte: the public has paid to see them while they are getting paid, ‘so who’s the real asshole here?’ During the gig the venom is almost palpable. There is a – real or fabricated – bomb alert. Dogs howl. Sirens roar. Somebody throws a bottle or a glass which audibly shatters quite close to Steele. The anouncement that this is their last song, evokes cheers.

The album includes Kill You Tonight, a combination of previously record songs. In Kill you tonight Steele sings about an adulterous girlfriend who goes out on a Saturday night to pick up guys: ‘Where there’s a womb, there’s a way’. He sings about the dupe who is trying to suppress his anger, who soaks himself with booze and gets in the grip of a green monsters called jealousy. He finally gets up to sharpen his axe and to search her out. When he finds the wayward lover plus her one-night-stand, he does not only kill her but also the gent in dispute. He is, quite politically correct, an adherent to the priciple of equal treatment, also matters such as these: ‘I’m an equal opportunity destroyer’.

Yet another songtext that didn’t go to well, especially not among feminists. (There was talk of flippantly advocating the killing of women.) Played live, there is much more to it. The background vocals are even nastier than on the studio-version, where they already were rather hilarious. Steele grumbles angrily: ‘I know you’re fucking someone else’; teasingly, in a cheerful up-tempo, the rest of the band repeats after him: ‘He knows you’re fucking someone else’, and that ten times or so (‘I knohow’ – ‘He knohows’ – ‘I knohow’ – ‘He knohows’ – ‘I said I knohow’ – ‘He said he knohows’, faster and faster, ad infinitum, ad nauseam). Just before the double murder is about to occur, Steele kindly warns the listeners: ‘Second verse. Worst than the first!’

Embedded in the song is a restatement of Jimi Hendrix’ oldtimer about Joe who also waged a war against his adulterous lover. A few words apart, the lyrics are identical: ‘Hey Joe, where are you going with that gun in your hand?’ got turned into ‘Hey Pete’ with an axe and Mexico was relocated to Brighton Beach. Hendrix got away with it, with this chopping down of women, but then again: he was quite popular and was labelled politically correct.

For those adversaries of Type O who wallow in taking apart and songs, here’s a few hints that point differently. The lyrics contain lots of jokes and many sneers to political correctness. One number is called The misinterpretation of silence and it’s disastrous consequences, and it offers sixty-four seconds of sheer silence. Singing about hatred and doing so under the label ‘type A personality disorder’ seems an ironical reference to Adorno’s theories on the authoritarian personality. Recording a song on all-too-lustful lovers and mockingly titling it Unsuccessfully coping with the natural beauty of infidelity. Singing about suicide and then yelling: ‘I can see God!’ I think they’re just into fun death metal.

The third cd Bloody Kisses (1993), more gothic and with more doom than ever, really dollops it out. To erode any accusations of racism, they do a song consisting of the one line ‘Kill all the white people, then we’ll be free’, with background vocals by a bunch of black singers. In another song Steele explains that the left takes them to be fascists and the right accuses them of communism – so why the fuck bother with anybody’s opinion at all? Black No. 1, more or less a hit thanks to MTV, contains the joke I like best. Steele sings about a fake vampire lady with dyed hair: ‘Your roots are showing. Dye ’em black.’ Roots, of course, do not only refer to the undyed hair at the roots of one’s scalp, it also functions as a codeword in politically correct thinking (somebody’s roots are apparently untouchable, the ultimate retorical bromide that kills off any possibility of debate). For those who abhor all essentialism, this one is priceless. And to top it off, on the t-shirt accompanying the cd Type O claims responsibility for almost all major disasters of the past two millennia: from the crucifiction of Christ and the decay of the ozon layer to the Gulf-war and aids.

*

LAST WEEK, TYPE Type O did their first real tour in Holland. There were thankfully no riots, partly due to a reserved press policy, partly due to the fact that Type O gave a return game with their applauded Bloody Kisses. All three gigs were sold out and there was nothing wrong with the audience, except perhaps that they were overdoing the sing-along. ‘There were some tall stories during the pre-sales, but everything was fine. There were two skins present at their gig here,’ says Van Luyn of the Melkweg, ‘but then those two are here almost every night. We call them the family skins. But really, skinheads have no use for this music. It is not mean, aggressive, in fact it’s rather romantic. As if one were to translate the Sisters of Mercy to the present time, but on a higher level. I like their sense of drama.’ Harry Hamelink, programmer of Nighttown: ‘It was a great gig. Many laymen consider Steele to be a macho, but instead he was very open, he really tried to make contact with the audience. He’s a lot less bitchy than most metal musicians.’

And Steele himself? I sat on a chair in the dressing room. Steele, who is over two meters high, towered over me with his arms folded. He looked downwards, suspiciously, and started explaining right away.

‘Again, I do not condone violence. I did not want these riots. I would have thought people were smarter.’ The explanations and excuses that by now have become lock, stock and barrel, tumble out; but I do not care to hear them. I told him I enjoyed the gig immensely. He peered down once more. The distance was indeed huge. He sat down next to me. ‘Relieved. The sound was not as good as it might have been, but we were finally able to play.’ Are his lyrics a comment upon political correctness? ‘Oh yeah -What you eat, what you think, who you see, who you have sex with and how – nowadays everything is scrutinized and analyzed. All we want is to play. We’re just four musical clowns from Brooklyn, I do not want to be taken that serious, not in this way.’ He was very friendly towards the audience, I mention – he even warned the stagedivers to take notice of where their friends were, to prevent them from crashing. (There was this guy who had taken Gravity a bit to literal and who had to be taken out with a nasty head wound.) ‘I just react. When the audience is sympathetic, it works: then we can establish some kind of contact. But when they are aggressive I must first of all keep my footing. By abusing them and scowling, if I have to.’ We continue talking. He is amiable but I can’t think of any good questions. Do I want whisky? A beer? No, he’s never heard of Adorno, but it sounds interesting. Type A personality? ‘That’s me.’ He seems restless. He wants to go into the house. Meet some fans.

‘I think they should tour the clubs once more, to rid themselves of this crazy legacy,’ says Hamelink of Nighttown, ‘and then they’ll break through. They are good enough to become a major band.’ ‘Next time I won’t be able to book them,’ says Van Luyn of the Melkweg. ‘They’ll be too big.’

But he advises them to take on a tour manager. ‘They didn’t even check tickets sales. You can bet your ass that in Germany they’ll be swindled out of three thousand per gig.’

Infernal din and serial killers

[Translation of my essay ‘Grafherrie en seriemoordernaar’, which appeared in an anthology about music.]


‘I didn’t hear voices. It was a conscious decision on my part. Umm – I didn’t hear voices. It was… it was a power, with me, it was more of a power thing. Because of… my fantasies, I act on my fantasies, you know. It was a conscious decision on my part.I didn’t hear voices. I didn’t hear voices.’
– Godflesh: Streetcleaner

A deadly monster is being created

LACKING TEMPERANCE, NOW there’s a familiar feeling. It’s all or nothing and life is best lived in peaks and dumps. I’m no fan of Guns’N’Roses, but Axl’s habit to start shrieking when he’s only reached line three or four of a song agrees with me. Moderation is of no use. Putting on a spurt is important; it simply helps. Like wearing shoulder pads to shape up in order to better bear with the world, or buying shoes one size too big and hoping you’ll grow large enough to fit them and will have to take on a brisker pace meanwhile anyway. (Sometimes this strategy doesn’t work, no matter how high one takes off: the promise is not redeemed, the energy and audacity remain surface, form without content, noise without weight.)

I like uneasy listening, scraps of noise in my ears, volume controls wide open. Post punk with reverberating gothic male voices and grasping hunting chased female voices. Death and thrash metal, full of fanged riffs, low bass lines and men gurgling blood in their throat, who when seemingly singing sound like a drainpipe badly in need of a plumber. Music that could function as the overture to a horror movie. Fair but foul. Music of which people in America think it drives you mad. Music of which people in Holland think it’s dangerous.

(Follows a description of a Bolt Thrower gig in the blackest terms possible, quoted from a recent Dutch novel. The author compares what’s going on on stage to something devilish: ‘an amorphous monster is being born, a baby made up out of sweat, beer and noise, compared to which Rosemary’s was angelic.’ Then, as a counterpoint, a description of a deathmetal gig that I attended. Quite a friendly atmosphere.)

The music is the symbol

Death metal is usually referred to as creepy and dangerous. The music is reputedly aggressive, crude and unwieldy; the lyrics – in as far as they’re intelligible – often deal with death and decay; bands have a distinct preference for names denoting nasty illnesses and physical defects; some musicians dote on satanism and serial killers; several young devotees take the lyrics far too serious and flirt with murder and suicide. Some serial killers habitually played heavy- or death metal, sometimes for days at a stretch.

‘Heavy metal [is] the music of a culture feasting on death. I think that this underlying message explains why so many desperate people are fanatical listeners of the genre,’ novelist and journalist Joost Niemöller argued in an essay on serial killers. From his article it transpires that he considers deathmetal to be highly dangerous, although he’s refuses to commit himself: ‘but the music is not the cause, it is the symbol.’ 1

Shortly before, Niemöller published his novel The Muscle (1993) which reads as a catalogue of grindcore and death metal acts; almost every band that has a name to speak of – from Dismember, Cannibal Corpse and Carcass to Cemetary, Cathedral and the Spudmonsters – are mentioned.

In The Muscle Albert, a journalist, travels the United States. He continually plays deathmetal tapes and empties can after can of Budweiser. In fact he’s zapping the States: he visits lots of towns and meets lots of people, but nothing makes an impression. The only thing that sticks with him is his headache, which takes on various shapes. At times it seems as if he glimpses a memory; he wonders whether memories are connected to headaches. Meanwhile he is gathering information on Lee Harvey Oswald and when he stops making notes intended to solve the riddle of the murder, and of the murderer of the century, he thinks about killing.

Albert is afraid that he’s being monitored. They might spike your drink or do things with music. You never know. All you can do to ward them off is to cut open your victims to check whether their guts are may have been bugged. And of course you have to take lots of showers and play loud music, movies taught him that is the best way to disorder bugs and taps. He’s not quite sure who he really is, the headache has attached itself to him like a leech and if he has any thoughts at all, the headache makes them murky and useless by meddling with them.

Albert starts killing; or he thinks he does. All reviews took it for granted that Niemöller’s anti-hero actually works his way up to become a serial killer; the reviewers took the music Albert is listening to be as circumstantial evidence. But all through the book, Albert proves himself to be an utterly untrustworthy narrator who is unable to distinguish between fantasies and fears, who sees or does things which can’t have taken place. There are goldfish in his whiskey, Russian tanks crowd the streets and there’s blood dripping on the windows instead of rain. And who in the world would believe that a murderer could dissect his victims and hack off their toes with one of these tiny, always blunt knifes from a K-mart pedicure set? Without having to sharpen it even once?

And it is rather thin, plot-wise, to pass a character of as a serial killer merely by letting him listen to death metal. Uhm – How do we prove him a creep? Got it! Let’s make him a deathmetal fan! Brilliant. But it worked. Dutch critic Arjan Peters yelped in de Volkskrant that such music would certainly drive him crazy too. Niemöller and Peters both take the danger of such bands for granted. But I don’t buy this notion that death metal is shorthand for death & decay. (The members of Carcass, who have lyrics that boil down to endless lists taken from anatomical companions, all happen to be confirmed vegetarians. Singing about something and dissecting or eating it are two quite different things.)

There are, contrary to what Peters and Niemöller believe, hardly any satanist metal bands. Deicide is in fact the only one of any fame. Deicide worships the devil and, concurrently, wallows in blasphemy; during gigs they celebrate black mass and their singer has an upside-down cross burned in his forehead.

White metal is much more frequent than black metal. White metal is rock’n’reli: ‘Beautiful music, and they all spread the word of the Lord,’ as a visitor of the Spring Rock Festival put it. 2 The Spring Rock Festival, which has taken place thrice by now, is an offspring of Flevo Totaal, also a pop festival devoted to religion. Spring Rock programs the heavier variants such as Stryper, Decision D, Bloodgood and Bride (who consider Guns’N’Roses to be devils, not because of their music but because of their lyrics and Axl Rose’s behaviour; nevertheless Bride’s singer likes to imitate Axl when he’s singing ‘Knock knock knocking on heaven’s door’, a song Guns’N’Roses in turn borrowed from Dylan). White metal bands are musically very similar to other heavy or death metal bands, but their lyrics mainly consist of biblical scraps, confessions of faith and conversion stories.

I like Decision D best. They’re an authentic death metal band, whose singer Edwin Ogenio is a minister. Every Sunday he sweetly preaches in a church in Utrecht, on stage during weekdays he’s screeching for Christ to his heart’s content.

Dutch Death Metal Night, Paradiso, 7 January 1994

The guys in the audience often have angelic faces – but then again, perhaps its only their long hair, their tender age, the clear skin, the lack of wrinkles and facial hair. They are terribly un-scary. The only bother with them is their length: the amount of people over 1.90 seems larger among deathmetal fans than among any other genre. Perhaps that’s why they insist on bending their head: they headbang to keep track of the floor.

The singer of Donor, the second act, has received (or taken) too much from Metallica‘s James Hetfield. Donor doesn’t amount to anything much. Besides, a good donor is usually a dead one.

Lots of appropriate t-shirts. Letters like corpses, a mere skeleton remains while the flesh drips from the carcass. The metal fans of the first generation, the Ozzy die-hards, have loads of hair on their upper lip, chin, jaw, arms and chest and, judging by their tummies, they like beer.

Deadhead. The band is more intent and massive than the previous ones, and slowly the audience starts moving. A few headbangers. Stage divers. Or, well, diving: it’s more like paddling, tentative toes dipped in to check whether the water is warm enough to go in, the music strong enough to carry one. They don’t jump, they test for supporting power, their arms wrapped protectively over their head, preparing for a breaststroke instead of a long-fly or a sturdy crawl. Stage diving. The general idea is to walk on the music, to be carried by it, to glide the thick sound layers that the bass, the guitars and the drums lay down, to skim the staffs stretched through the house. You float on the music. You jump as if you could bounce, a stone skimming over the surface of the water.

Six guys come up to me and surround me. They hand me a Deadhead t-shirt. They explain to that the band threw the t-shirt into the audience when they left the stage; this group had gotten hold of it and started a fight over it and had pulled it and stretched it and tugged at it until one of them remarked that obviously, this way there would soon be no shirt at all. He’d proposed to give it to somebody who couldn’t fight. The others had agreed and they had stalked the house to find a suitable recipient. They had chosen me, and would I…? I thank them profusely.

The Gathering. Death metal risks, just as happened in science fiction when authors started exploring other, non-existing worlds, to end up somewhere in the Middle Ages and get caught in mere fantasy. The Gathering bathes in pastel coloured backlights with lots of smoke: let’s pretend we’re all fairies and magicians and knights. The blowing of horns. Violins. Synthesizer. A wispy, dreamy lady’s voice. Yuck. Two girls climb on stage. For a second I think they’ll dive. But girls hardly ever dive, for historical reasons. Instead they clutch their arms around the neck of the singer and the guitarist and kiss them on the cheek.

Enter Gorefest. My favourite of the evening. And within two minutes there’s a true metamorphosis: all heads bang up and down and up and down and up and down and the divers flutter from the stage like autumn leaves, they are coming and going in a never-ending stream, the prospective divers should really draw numbers first. They throw themselves in the crowd with poise, this music is strong enough to carry six seven people at the same time, and what’s more, one can even double-dive: two guys shoot themselves simultaneously, with a graceful bow, in the same direction. Others try a dive with effect and throw themselves into the mass with a twirl.

A fresh trick, now: a big guy on stage carries a girl in his arms, he wants to throw her in the crowd, perhaps because she wants to dive but is afraid to, or perhaps because she doesn’t and he wants her to anyway. They both hesitate. He dumps her into the audience, watches her go with an anxious look on his face and then he jumps too. Later on, they are at it again. The same hesitation. But now because their timing is wrong; the song’s just finished. The guy stands there, wondering whether they’ll go down anyway or perhaps it’s better to wait for the next song. Hollering into his microphone, Gorefest‘s singer enquires: ‘Will she or won’t she?’ The crowd cheers. ‘Well dammit, throw her!’ says the singer, and heave ho there she goes.

Later on I finally see a girl diving. Guy-like. And there’s another one who does it in a most ladylike, refined manner: she makes a handstand on the edge of the stage and lets herself fall backwards on the headbangers’ heads.

Punk is dead, long live death

Death metal is pre-eminently the current offspring of punk; in the super-short and super-fast songs of Napalm Death this affiliation is most clear. To the inexperienced ear, death metal sounds (as did punk at the time) loud, mean, crass and awkward; groups have equipped themselves with a musical style that wards off almost everybody and that might in fact even be intended to incur the wrath of the righteous; songs deal with the backside and the downside of life, unintelligible lyrics that run counter to polished images and slick stories. Their physical appearance centres on the unrestrained, the fray and tat of leather, long hair and oversized shirts, in answer to the over-stylised, streamlined, steeled perfection that is tied in with a culture of attractiveness, success and health.

Punk excelled in cynical political texts and was, unlike mainstream pop music, not at all interested in emotional or psychological phenomena, let alone in rendering yet another love song. In as far as the emotional domain was examined at all, it was in its darker regions: anger and hatred were lots more interesting than love, juvenile uncertainty or the lost-lover syndrome. ‘Ooh baby why don’t you come back’ was gladly traded for ‘Get the fuck out of here’.

Punk came into being during a period in which Thatcher stressed that England was a nation to be proud of, that every citizen of the country was single-handedly responsible for his or her personal success, and that prosperity was well within reach for everybody who’d care to put some effort into the task. Meanwhile racism abounded, there were mass-dismissals, the government advocated a most conservative morality and many people lived far below the substance level. Politically, there was no room to move.

Punk brought the anger about this situation to the fore and offered a platform for protests. ‘The daily attacks on Asians, West Indians, leftists, women, gays by skinheads and right-wing groups are intensifying (two people killed in Coventry in the last couple of months) … The most disturbing thing about this is how little the establishment as such acknowledges what is a kind of continuous guerrilla warfare … more and more I feel I live in a society that bears no relationship whatsoever to the way it is perceived / conceptualised by Thatcher, Foot, the BBC etc. Rock is the only medium that makes any sense of life – aesthetically or politically – at all.’ 3

Death metal acts in similar ways. It grounds a stray feeling of discomfort or distress that roams many people’s minds, and brings it into the open. Most bands are not wholesome dealers of political lyrics, as was punk (although Napalm Death, Extreme Noise Terror, Nuclear Assault, Sepultura and Gorefest do not shun these in the least, and hardcore bands such as MDC, Suicidal Tendencies and Biohazard, who combine punk and thrash metal, often have political lyrics); most of their lyrics are unintelligible anyway. However, many people experience a sense of disunity and conflict, and death metal voices and validates that feeling. If only by clamouring and shouting.

In our culture, there’s not much space for suffering, death, despair, hatred, disgust, repugnance and anger. Dying people are known only from news shows, mortal terror only from horror movies and thrillers, sincere paroxysms of rage are confined to indoors and are outdoors immediately quenched by calming, soothing or derogatory comments. In daily life most people meet with relatively little actual violence, although they might live in perpetual dread of it; but violence is not common practice, precisely because people are bent on keeping it under taboo. And when violence does indeed occur, most people are severely shaken, a reaction which emphasises its impropriety and extra-ordinariness.

Which is o.k. However, there’s a serious rub between the rather controlled interaction people have managed to cultivate and the amount of fear, despair, anger & hatred swirling in the average human brain. Fear and hatred of madness, of violence, of love & loss, of rape & murder, of dreams & demons, of politics & people, of others and of oneself, of death and suicide. There’s hardly any acknowledgment of such ‘negative’ or ‘destructive’ feelings: there is no stylisation or formalisation which makes them easier to handle or safer to express, as is continually the case with those emotions which are defined as ‘positive’.

Silent witnesses and eloquent devices for the latter are abundant. We are reminded on a daily basis of the option to present gifts as a token of friendship, esteem or reconciliation; factories concoct boxes of chocolates that go by the brand name ‘Merci’ to provide us with a silent but meaningful gift; we don’t have to grasp for words when wanting to express greetings or best wishes, ’cause they are pre-printed on postcards; we have learned to consider jewellery and flowers as love-tokens; there are ready-made forms to arrange relationships, such as marriage and cohabitation contracts; magazines teach us how to set up a ‘nice’ dinner or a ‘comfy’ evening; soaps show that things may get out of hand but that talking things over is the universal remedy. In short, we learn about normalcy and about the maintenance of that blessed state.

But what about everything beyond this range of the normal, the decent, the advisable? There are hardly any clues or leads on how to handle them. Because we ought to simply get rid of them, preferably as soon as possible. Faced with somebody’s distress, despair, rage or disgust people usually are at a loss and revert to sending a condolence card, advising anti-depressants or an encouragingly whisper that ‘things can’t be that bad’ or that ‘they are bound to get better’. And there you are. Because things do not improve, or they might take a turn for the worse once again. And perhaps you don’t know what to do. When you want to celebrate you might throw a party, but what to do when there’s something to hate or abhor?

Scream, for instance, if need be by following the tracks of a snarling band. Quite relieving. Or state most explicitly and decidedly that you don’t care in the least, that indeed, as far as you’re concerned, everybody might as well drop dead. Right now. There’s even a bonus to it, when it’s done with gusto. This understanding was inherent in punk, too: ‘…and finest of all, the hate and delight Rotten put into the chorus of “Pretty Vacant”: “AND WE DON’T CARE!” Finest of all, because the force of his negation brought such pleasure: a thin edge of affirmation.’ 4

Perhaps these feelings needn’t be put away or masked. Perhaps they can be expressed. Perhaps they can even be utilised or exploited. I know I do. A sense of dread, far from being something to get rid of, is a purchase on life that can be sought out, tested and renewed. Dread and anger give you an edge. It shapes diffuse feelings, gives a laugh weight, strips away mystification and reveals paradox.

Death metal is, like punk was before and horror movies still are, a sanctuary against normalcy. They give awkward but real emotions their full due and right there people scream, drivel, squeak and yell amply. Deathmetal and horror counterbalance the shallow, false picture in which everybody is happy and everything annoyingly harmonious. The world does not turn without friction, and hence you may want to scream occasionally. Death metal and horror at least offer a perspective and a context to diffuse fears and antipathies.

Of course they might go astray, too. Vague fears can be shaped in many directions, including the wrong ones, and strong feelings are not always charitable. Punk also attracted people obsessed with hatred and violence and became the birth place of Oi, that is, nazi-punk. Whether it was an involuntary move or not is a matter of dispute: some punk bands (like X, Black Flag or Fear) excelled in nasty lyrics which spat on every thinkable minority. 5 With most groups however, it was quite obvious that they engaged in political ironies or just kicked some dogmatic legs. Titles such as ‘Kill the poor’, ‘California über alles’, ‘Holiday in Cambodia’ or ‘I kill children’ might be suspicious to some, but when you hear the Dead Kennedys sing these songs their intention becomes immediately clear. Yet political intentions and affiliations (if any) are always a matter of speculation and interpretation.

Type O Negative for one has suffered such many controversies. In 1991 they toured Europe and activists kicked quite a fuss over them, because their political stance was considered to be despicable. 6 Especially Steele was under attack, because the his lyrics to ‘Der Untermensch’ in which he rants about the jobless and junkies. The lyrics are indeed not very friendly, but there’s another perspective to them. On the album, ‘Der Untermensch’ is immediately followed by ‘Xero Tolerance’, in which Steele sings about a ‘type A personality disorder’ (‘hatred possessing me, anger burning me, anger turning me into someone I don’t know’), which is an adequate reference to Adorno’s definition of the authoritarian personality who’s supposed to be susceptible to fascist ideas. ‘Xero Tolerance’ could easily be construed to be a critical comment upon ‘Der Untermensch’. 7

‘Kill you tonight’ became the subject of outrage too. Steele sings about a woman who has cheated her lover and who is killed by the latter as a result. Feminist protests abounded – but the song is plainly hilarious. I for one can’t help laughing when Steele angrily grumbles ‘I know you’re fucking someone else’ and the rest of the band teasingly repeats him: ‘He knows you’re fucking someone else’. But there’s more to it: the song is interrupted by a cover of Hendrix’ old-timer about Joe who went on the warpath because of an adulterous ladylove. Apart from a few words, the lyrics are almost identical: ‘Hey Joe, where are you going with that gun in your hand?’ was changed into ‘Hey Pete’ with a gun and Mexico became Brighton Beach. Hendrix got away with lyrically killing ladies, probably because he was immensely popular and was considered to be political correct. Type O was neither. The Melkweg, where Type O would open their Dutch tour, was occupied by radical activists and the house had to decide to cancel the gig. Of the five gigs booked, only the one in Katwijk didn’t fall through.

What to think of Type O Negative? They make me laugh: I believe they poke fun at radical dogmas and political correctness, I have a hunch they’re into fun death and I would under any circumstance maintain that their music is terrific. The t-shirt which the band sells accompanying their latest album, is typical for their approach: they manage to turn the criticism fired at them inside-out by taking on full responsibility for quite some stunning disasters of the past few millennia. 8 I don’t think they’re scary or evil; instead, I’m intrigued. But at some gig I met a guy who told me that his friends studied the lyrics of Type O meticulously in order to find out how much time it would take them to kill the female population world-wide and which means are available to further this aim. But then again, I also know of somebody who stoutly claims that when you play their albums backwards, you can hear them sing ‘we love you, we love you, we love you’ in between the grooves.

Hardcore Evening, Paradiso, 15 January 1994

A vicious night. The music ranges from Biohazard to something not yet labelled. A full house.

The Spudmonsters whip up the audience: they request that those who are on the balcony jump down, they incite those in front of the house against those at the back. And suddenly the crowd shatters as if somebody has thrown a stone into a pond, furious waves ripple through the house and I’m not fast enough, the tide clashes against me and my wheelchair and we both topple over. I am stuck in between feet and a platform and can’t turn in order to get up, I thrash my limbs about like a bug on its back. Some guys help me to get up. (At gigs I sit sort of on top of my wheelchair. Gives me a better outlook, but it’s rather unsteady.)

Life of Agony. Hardly any divers. The house seems very unrestful, slightly aggressive, as if the energy that’s usually released through diving has now gotten stuck and is seeking to discharge in tiny sparkles whenever two people bump into each other – or perhaps it’s all in my imagination, because I just got flung off my chair and am too much on the alert. There are more caps, there’s more short hairdos, more rings through noses and less amicable faces than usual. The band is okay, good vocals, firm music, but the audience seems too distracted to listen.

A bulky first-generation metal fan passes. I look at his shirt, something with a giant heart pierced by a dagger, and try to decipher its lettering. He stops right in front of me. ‘Great shirt, isn’t it,’ he says. Bon Jovi. ‘Everybody here takes a dislike to it. Which is why I am wearing it in the first place. At Metallica I wore one of Billy Joel.’ I like this strategy, so I tell him that at the last death metal gig I attended, I saw somebody in a Nijntje shirt. [Nijntje is the most innocent children’s figure ever.] Somebody wearing a shirt with ‘SCUM’ printed on it walks by; probably in blissful ignorance about it. I wonder whether he’s ever heard of Valerie Solanas’ Society For Cutting Up Men. Or wait, isn’t Scum that venue in Katwijk? The one that managed not to cancel Type O?

Pro Pain. The house starts to move. Loud music has, or so I start to believe, something to do with miraculous transformations: finding out whether you can turn sound into water. Sound and water both move in waves, don’t they, and in both you can drown. And suddenly I understand stage diving better. It’s what we used to do at the swimming pool: throwing each other in, clothes and all, showing of at the edge, diving with histrionics. All the tricks we tried are repeated here: making a bomb of your body (clutching your pulled up knees to go down as fast as possible), pushing & pulling at each other until one or both tumble in, making swan dives and long-flies, belly flopping and splashing. As if to prove my point, tonight people are practising somersaults: they roll from the edge of the stage over the crowds’ heads back into the audience. And this habit of handing over bodies and moving them to & fro is of course an attempt at floating.

With my unstable legs I should perhaps ask a couple of guys whether they’re willing to toss me in hand and feet. We used to do that in the swimming pool too. But girls were supposed to fake resistance. (I never got that part. I truly resisted and the boys usually didn’t get me in.)

Carcass. It seems they’re still dealing in body parts. The singer hisses like a cat. But there’s something strange going on: they do not tolerate divers. The musicians think the stage is theirs, the audience thinks it’s collective ground. Carcass has instructed security to sweep all prospective divers back into the waters. And thus there’s an old-fashioned struggle over stage rights: at the left side, three people crawl up, security dashes towards them and starts pushing, which enables people at the right side to quickly climb, turn & dive. Several times the struggle verges on a punch-up, but finally a compromise is reached: divers are tolerated at the utmost edge of the stage but every step towards the musicians is severely punished. Carcass is starting to smell funny.

An ode to Richard

It takes practice to appreciate death metal. It is not music which scores straightaway or that can be enjoyed without effort or prescience. Coming to grips with it requires the intention to establish affinity, a preconceived desire to understand it. Deathmetal is in other words an achieved and cultivated preference – just as opera is, by the way.

The first time I encountered thrash and heard the grunting and growling – at MTV’s Triple Thrash Treat on Headbanger’s Ball – I didn’t much care for it. Incoherent screeching; a bit dirty, too. Heavy was o.k., but there are limits – even to noise. After mediation by Metallica, I grew more accustomed. After I had heard the solidity of Godflesh and had attended a breath-taking ballet in which their ‘Streetcleaner’ was part of the score, I sought out similar music and bit by bit a framework for industrial thrash, death metal and hardcore took shape. I learned to distinguish in this massive wall of noise.

Those who listen to such music on a regular basis, become apt at discerning the patterns in this blanket of soundbites. Under the hacking drums and pounding guitars there’s often a larger rhythm, a broad wavelike movement that tries to engulf you; an undertow that strangely reminds me of classical music. An association which many bands also consciously attempt to make, for instance by using cellos or flutes and by arranging their songs in an orchestral way as My Dying Bride does (good name, by the way; something like Rome for death metallers: die first, then marry), or by referring to classical structures in their titles: Lovelorn Rhapsody, Symphony of Sickness, Serenades.

Death metal is music one has to learn. Death metal is massive, poignant, overdone, grotesque, overwhelming, pompous and brims with huge emotions. Death metal is the Wagner variety of pop music.

Besides, screaming guitars and swampy voices are the only appropriate entourage to suitably cover the complexities of love or the acidity of life: the contradictions involved in such giant terms are captured better in hardcore, death metal, punk or thrash than in four-part songs accompanied by sweet notes. When Therapy? shrieks about love as an addiction (‘I’m fixed, I’m fucked’), that makes more sense to me than when boys raised on milk and honey cajole their sugary sonnets. The sparse tender passages of these bands – for instance Anathema‘s Lovelorn Rhapsody: ‘I hear your voice’ (restrained), ‘it sings so softly’ (audible tears in his voice), ‘WROOAAH!’ (the music cracks in, of course mate, life sucks. So what? So yell!) – are not pre-given, they do not fit a tradition there for the taking; such scraps sound as the result of weighing words & notes and conflicting sides being taken. It has been thought over; its been felt through. That’s why I trust them better, my moon musicians. Marked by life, seen all corners of their own mind, and therefore wanting to growl or snarl; then it’s okay by me to do thrown in the odd nice & sweet bit without coming across as unbearably naive. It simply cuts deeper. Such tough guys, and yet so disarming. Occasionally anyway. ‘Aahh,’ I can’t help but think, endeared all the way down to my middle ear, ‘there’s hope. Perhaps.’

Some believe that death metal necessarily has to get nastier and meaner in order to keep producing the desired effect. Accustomization. Inflation of the senses. Because the trick is to be taken by surprise, to be swept off your feet, as in horror movies; but as soon as you become acquainted with the structure and methods of such movies, you’ll recognise the spots where directors try to get at you. Seasoned directors know that you think that they think that you think &c, and go for something more bizarre or unusual, until you’re used to that one too. Escalation is the name of the game; burglars and cops tied together in a double helix, spurring each other onward to even more inventive levels of bolts & crowbars.

But this mechanism can abruptly be broken out of by changing to another tune. Metallica sings a heart-rendering love song (‘Nothing else matters’), thereby setting its audience, that would ordinarily shirk sentimental moods, on a different footing. The greatest surprise is when you discover that you’ve come full circle.

Music at least can be switched off

In 1991, Bret Easton Ellis published American Psycho. A fascinating but unsettling novel, to put it mildly. Everything in the life of its main character, Patrick Bateman, is surface: what one wears, where one eats, which clubs one attends and which people one meets are the only valuable things in his world. In conversations, people only want to score and meanwhile they talk about nothing; in between conversations people snort coke and try to make reservations for restaurants that are the in-thing that particular week.

Bateman has a tumultuous inner world and it is threatening to drive him crazy; he’s in the grip of images of mutilation and murder. From time to time he attempts to tell his friends about these obsessions and fascinations, but every time he mentions it to them they take it as a joke. ‘My life is hell on earth,’ Bateman says when dining, but nobody bothers to listen. The split between his inner world and his outer world increases; he slips and sort of disappears in between the crack. He kills, in the most brutal fashion; of the deformed slaughters he engages in, some are described in great detail. He cuts off the fingers of his victims while they are still alive, he pushes a famished rat into somebody’s vagina and cooks soup from a corpse. Some of his victims are people he happened to see on the streets; most killings however are carefully planned and meticulously executed.

There are obvious similarities between American Psycho and The Muscle. Patrick Bateman and Albert are both not characters in the classical sense: they have no morality, no history, no ties with others, no emotions apart from a vague sense of fear that keeps them moving. Nothing they do, see or experience affects them. Both are harassed by thoughts they can’t or won’t fully remember and by images – demurs – they take to be deeds and events. 9 There are two main differences: American Psycho is a great book, and while Albert listens to death metal, Patrick doesn’t. His taste is considerably more commonplace.

Just as in Less Than Zero, Ellis’ first book, music is unobtrusive but always present. Wherever Patrick is, he faithfully reports which music he hears: on the radio, on his disc man, at home in the jukebox, in cafés, in disco’s, on the streets. He identifies strongly with what he hears – or perhaps the music that’s being played only gets through when it means something to him. Almost all titles he mentions are related to his life: ‘Party all the time’, ‘I wanna be happy’, and time and again INXS‘s ‘New sensation’ seamlessly changes into their other hit ‘The devil inside’. During his most brutal crime he plays Frankie Valli’s ‘The worst that could happen’ and soundlessly sings along.

In three chapters Patrick dwells on his favourites: Genesis, Whitney Houston and Huey Lewis & the News. These chapters, or rather lectures, appear out of thin air. They form an absolute counterpoint to his usual attitude. Bateman reviews his favourites from album to album, from song to song, and strives to make a connection between composition and lyrics. And although he allegedly aims for a balanced opinion, he extols these middle of the road artists to the skies whenever he hits upon the suggestion of complexity or intensity. Especially albums or songs that reflect his own state of mind and longings are applauded. About Genesis for instance he states: ‘Again the songs reflect dark emotions and are about people who feel lost or who are in conflict … [although] the themes of loneliness, paranoia and alienation are overly familiar to Genesis it evokes the band’s hopeful humanism … so beautiful that it’s almost impossible to shake off because every song makes some connection about the unknown or the spaces between people … reaching new heights of emotional honesty.’ Whitney Houston provides him with the hope that ‘it’s not too late for us to better ourselves’. Huey Lewis, who according to Bateman has improved to no end ever since he said goodbye to the nihilism of Elvis Costello with whom he used to play, is appraised for his ‘maturity’ and because he has ‘found himself’ ‘in the passion and energy of rock ‘n’ roll’.

Their integrity, their maturity, their humanity, their sincerity, their intensity, their ability to connect with others… For the first time, Patrick is not at a loss for words. These chapters are the most intimate and lyrical passages in the book: not only the most emotional ones, but in a way – his lousy taste notwithstanding – the only normal ones, in the sense that they are not devoid of feeling. His ability to find in music what he lacks in life is simply phenomenal. It is surprising how much of his fascinations he is able to pour into this overproduced, over-polished music. If only our hero could have had a friend who’d acquainted him with death metal: his state of mind would have improved immensely.

‘An important theme in heavy metal … is chaos, and related themes are death in general, satanism, sexual aberrations, mutilation of genitals and the likes. It is clear that there is a seamless connection with the serial killer’s mind … What these psychologically disturbed people really listen for, I think, is something that reminds them of the noises and voices that they believe have taken up residence in their mind.’ 10

I think it’s just the other way around. One of the pleasant aspects of such music is that playing it at least assures you that these voices are outside your own head and are therefore locatable. It’s not you that’s crazy, it’s the music; and music can at least be switched of. Or the volume can be lowered.

Without a doubt, this is ground for a whole new range of therapies. In times of need you can armour yourself with music that breaks down vicariously, muzak for maniacs, so as to enable you to go on, recharged and fully restored. Music so loud you can feel it, music so loud it stops you from thinking, music to bamboozle thunder & lightning. Smother big feelings and grand desires in nasty noises. It keeps them manageable. When Godflesh explodes in animal howling framed by piercing guitars and louring drums, I can’t help but smile and suddenly my eyes start to sparkle. Anger and hatred give heaps of energy, provided one knows whence to direct it: follow that bass! And we turned the volume a bit higher.

There’s still hope for Patrick Bateman.

Eddie Vedder

What does Eddie Vedder think of death metal? Haven’t the faintest. I don’t care too much for his opinion, either. But Vedder does seem to know something about music and death.

While zapping I stumbled into the MTV Awards Show 1993. The award for the best clip went to Pearl Jam for ‘Jeremy’. Jeremy tells the story of a lonely and troubled child that has nobody to relate to and who eventually – it might just be a dream – puts out his classmates with a machine gun.

Granted, it’s a rather romantic picture of mass killers that Pearl Jam presents us with (if only we would arrange for happier childhoods…) but upon hearing and seeing the clip it transpires why such circumstances might invoke thoughts of killing. The clip is suffocating: in black-and-white the boy is chased by the camera, he attempts to ward off this obtrusiveness but his efforts are ineffective, the pursuit never stops, the camera seems to cling to him, there is no relief. From time to time this scene is interrupted by Vedder depicted sideways: his singing is oppressed and he’s visibly affected by the impotence of the child and all its pent-up sadness. He understands the needs of the boy, he wants to do something and help him but he can’t reach the boy: of course not, he’s in another film frame. The only thing Vedder can revert to is singing, hoping that at least his voice might get through to the boy and offer some consolation. Romantic, but it works.

Eddie Vedder came on stage to receive the award for ‘Jeremy’; at his side there was this boy, fifteen or sixteen years old, his son or the boy from the clip, impossible to tell. Vedder put the newly won prize in front of him on the lectern, looked at it for a few silent moments, put his arm around the boy next to him in a protective gesture and draped his long body over the top of the lectern. He took a breath, halted, glanced at the boy again, took another breath, wiped his hairs from his face and said: ‘If I hadn’t had music when I was a kid, I probably would have ended up like Jeremy. Music saved my life.’ He stopped, let his hair fall back over his eyes, picked up the statue and handed it to the boy. Together they left the stage. Arms over each others shoulders.

It was the most sincere statement about music I’d heard for years. Music saved my life. Knowing that others too might want to scream; crying for somebody else’s misery while recognising your own distress; hearing the score to your own oppressive questions and troubles, not in your own mind but out of the speakers, which tames them considerably. Music saved my life. I cheered, endorsing Pearl Jam.

Notes:

Show 10 footnotes

  1. Joost Niemöller: ‘The magical world of the serial killer’, de Groene Amsterdammer, January 12, 1994.
  2. God be with us. Angels and devils’, an article on religious rock in Watt number 4, June 1993.
  3. Letter from Simon Frith to Greil Marcus, written in the twilight of punk, July 1981. Quoted in Greil Marcus, Ranters & Crowd Pleasers, p. 188.
  4. Greil Marcus, Ranters & Crowd Pleasers, p. 22. A cheerful statement that you don’t care a sodding fuck gives much more energy that seeking shelter in the dark and yearning for consolation. (And of course it’s arrogant. So what?)
  5. Black Flag (as of then without Henry Rollins) released their album ‘Damaged’ in 1981; in ‘White Minority’ Ron Reyes sang about minorities in terms which would certainly be hailed by neo-nazi’s: ‘Gonna be a white minority, all the rest will be the majority, gonna breed inferiority’. Rollins too had a period in which he celebrated the use of violence.
    Something definitely brewed in Los Angeles, the origin of most of these bands. That’s why the designation ‘LA-punk’ was usually not intended as a flattering term: many of these bands directed their anger and hatred towards people who were often even less well off, just because they were ‘different’: black, gay, female or poor.
  6. Type O Negative is the band Peter Steele formed after the deathmetal band Carnivore, of which he was the singer, fell apart. Type O plays New York-hardcore (music which because of its angry and aggressive lyrics is also known as ‘hate-core’) and has recently moved towards gothic metal, whilst retaining the death grunts.
  7. Either Steele is smarter than most people think, or I just think he’s smarter than most people think. Anyhow, he is not bothered by the criticism that was the group’s lot, on the contrary: on their last album, Bloody Kisses, he thanks the European left ‘for making me so rich & famous’.
  8. The t-shirt reads: ‘Type O Negative is to blame for: the Persian Gulf war; the aids virus; Midwest flooding; the Waco incident; Bill Clinton; slavery; global warming; World Trade CTR bombing; the war in Bosnia; Amy Fisher – Joey Buttafuoco; the Vietnam war; teen illiteracy; the budget deficit; crucifixion of Christ; sinking of the Titanic; GG Allin’s overdose; their own destruction.’
  9. As with The Muscle, reviewers of American Psycho took it for granted that Bateman has really committed the murders he describes. Elizabeth Young however pointed out that Bateman is the prototype of the unreliable narrator. There are strange lapses and errors in his remarks, and some of his stories do not match those of others; Young concludes that Bateman is probably innocent. See Shopping in Space. America’s Blank Generation Fiction Writers, p. 85-122. (We read about them anyway. Whether they are Patrick’s fiction or an objective truth within the fictional world of this novel, they are described extensively. Within a book, all murders are text, but that doesn’t make them any less gruesome to read.)
  10. Joost Niemöller: ‘The magical world of the serial killer’, de Groene Amsterdammer, January 12, 1994.

Criminal ladies

Battering, incest and other household refuse

[Originally appeared in Opzij, a feminist monthly, in October 1990.]

VOLUMES OF RESEARCH and study notwithstanding, no final explanation of the origins of (sexual) violence against women has yet been put forward. Nowadays most people – and not only feminists – accept that these forms of violence have a structural cause, and that the differences in power between men and women are of overriding importance. But what is the value of these theories when it is women themselves who commit such violence?

The final blow for the lesbian utopia

IT IS GRADUALLY becoming clear that there is a form of sexual violence, and of battering, that is completely at odds with feminist theories on the subject: sexual violence within lesbian and gay relationships. On the basis of the sparse information now available, it appears that among women especially battering is so frequent that it is no longer possible to look upon it as an exception. Sexual violence committed by lesbian women – for instance, rape or sexual harrassment – is much less reported; either it really is less frequent, or perhaps it is as of yet even less debatable than battering.

Among homosexual men such a-typical violence has been reported too. In its annual review of 1984, the Dutch organization Op Je Flikker Gehad?! (Been Bashed?!), an emergency centre which registers violence against gay men, reported two cases of men who had been battered by their partner, and an unspecified number of rapes committed by homosexuals. The organization refers to this phenomenon as ‘internal violence’. An American survey from 1983 among people who dealt professionally with homosexuals (social workers, lawyers, barkeepers, political activists etcetera) gave a much higher number for the incidence of battering: 86 percent of the interviewees had met homosexuals who had at least once experienced violence in their relationship. 1

In the Netherlands, violence among lesbians was first reported, as far as I have been able to trace, in 1984. In that year, a local women’s magazine published in Nijmegen, Vrouwentongen, ran two anonymous interviews with women who had been sexually assaulted and battered by a female friend or acquaintance. Since then, more stories have started to circulate about lesbians committing (sexual) violence. In 1987, SEK, the magazine of the Dutch organization for homosexual men and women (COC), published a number of short interviews with both victims and perpetrators of battering; their experiences ranged from a single fight to an attempted strangulation. Spare Rib printed a letter to the editors in which a woman told how she was sexually assaulted by another woman who had offered her a ride home from the pub. And any woman who has a ready ear or who does some straightforward inquiring about violence between women, will learn more than she’ll probably want to.

The amount of ‘internal violence’ is as of yet merely a matter for speculation, but there are some indications of its dimensions. In a preliminary study on conflict management by lesbians, 7 out of 23 respondents answered that they had at some time used physical violence in their relationship. 2 At the moment, a survey is being conducted which tries to establish more systematically what amount of violence is going on between lesbians. The Dutch government has commissioned a study into the scope of violence against lesbian and bisexual women and girls by third parties. 3 Diana van Oort, who is carrying out this study, has inserted a separate paragraph in her questionaire in which she asks about experiences with violence among lesbians. She is not yet able to give numbers – the final results will not be available until next year – but according to Van Oort the number of interviewees who have had experiences with violence within lesbian relations, is ‘surprisingly high’.

The Schorerstichting, a centre for assistance and relation therapy for lesbians and homosexuals, has had several clients over the past few years for whom violence in their relation was either the direct or indirect reason to apply for help. Two years ago the Schorerstichting tried to organize a therapygroup on the subject, but their efforts failed: not enough people registered. But apparently, the tide is turning. When the Dutch COC devoted a public debate to the subject, over sixty women attended the evening.

In some other countries, battering in lesbian relationships is by now a matter of discussion, although still to a very small extent. Several years ago, a workshop was organized in Berlin which was attended by both inflictors and victims of lesbian battering. In the USA, a group of lesbians who have been battered by their female lovers has been trying to start a more serious discussion since the beginning of the eighties. Their collective efforts led to the publication of the first book about battering within lesbian relationships: Naming the Violence.

A list of the kinds of violence these perpetrators subject their lovers to can be gathered from the afore mentioned sources. It is not a pretty one: confinement, strangulation, weekly battering, threats with a gun, smashing the partner’s furniture to smithereens, killing her cat or other pets, force her to prostitute herself, attempts at killing her, beating her with high heels or broken bottles, poisoning her, breaking her fingers… the works.

The taboo and the blind spot

WITHOUT A DOUBT, the lesbian community harbours a taboo when it comes to battering. Some may be scared that the outside world will use stories about lesbian battering as a proof to refute homosexuality and lesbianism. “I can’t even begin to think about the possibility of my family seeing this. All the years I’ve spent trying to convince them of the validity and positiveness of my lifestyle… Well, that’s really the crux of it for the whole lesbian community, isn’t it? Who wants to admit that anything can be wrong with lesbian relationships?” (Naming the Violence, page 123).

But inside the lesbian community there is hardly any room for discussion. The utopian idea that lesbian relationships are by definition less invested with power games and are more equal than heterosexual relationships may have lost ground by now, but it still has a strong hold. Those who further the breaking down of that ideal had better not expect the same solacing shoulder or practical help a heterosexual battered women is sure to be offered by the feminist movement. Lesbian skeletons obviously must remain in their closets, and the cohesion of the group must be protected at all costs. As one of the American pioneers put it: “By probing into this subject, we risked the possibility that the issue of lesbian abuse might split our community; we risked the same dynamic that heterosexual have been up against: expose the abuse and be criticized for ‘breaking up the family’.” (Naming the Violence, page 91). Others fear that a public discussion about violence committed by lesbians might boomerang into the debate on (sexual) violence committed by men. “For a very long time I have believed that violence among women should remain a secret, because men might use this knowledge against us. But since I keep hearing new stories about violence among women, I decided to tell about my experience.” (Vrouwentongen 1984/4).

The notions about violence which are generally upheld by both feminists and lesbians, are yet another obstacle. Most women think of sexual violence and battering within relationships as occurences which are confined to heterosexuality; when a similar phenomenon crops up within their own circles, there is no fitting frame of reference. Not even when it happens to themselves. Or, as one women tersely phrased it: “I did not fit my image of a battered women.” The usual depiction of battering as affecting heterosexual women and caused by men bars all understanding and creates a blind spot. “We were so clear about violence as a mechanism for control and domination of heterosexual women. We did not make the connection necessary to recognize the violence in lesbian relationships.” (Naming the Violence, page 10).

But worse is that many lesbians knowingly refuse to see what is going on in their immediate surroundings, even when they suspect or realize what is happening. There are countless women who have trivialized this kind of violence, who have refused help, who have excused the offender and blamed the victim. They insist that a friend’s black eye was caused ‘by falling down the stairs’, or smooth things over by assuming that ‘she must really have provoked her’. Exactly the same old excuses that used to be offered when a man had beaten up his wife or partner; they sanction the perpetrator.

The victims: “I have very often wanted to confront her in order to tell her what I think of what she’s done. But I was always stopped by women who would say: you’ve got more sense than that, you shouldn’t take her too seriously, and besides, she’s going through a really bad period. (..) I hated the way people would cover up for her or even defend her, just because she’s a women. Whereas I was a mess for a long time.” (Vrouwentongen 1984/4). “The response of the local lesbian community to the arrest of my former lover was demoralizing. Lesbians were upset – even angry – that I had called the police. ‘I can see turning in a batterer and calling the cops,’ said one women, ‘but a lover? What does that say about your ability to be intimate with anyone?’ Several women put a lot of pressure on me to drop the charges. They said things like: ‘Oh, come on. Haven’t you ever hit a lover? It wasn’t all that bad.” (Naming the Violence, page 159). “As I was standing by a window in my home, an axe smashed through the window, landing before me. I called some of my/her friends, to tell them what she just did. They said they could not help. They would not confront or stop her. One implied I had asked for it.” (Naming the Violence, page 127).

It is alarming that even a simple warning about someone with a bad record is apparently asking too much. Many offenders have a history of violence, but usually nobody thinks it worthwhile to inform the lover-to-be thereof. “Actually, after we separated, some of the women said they could have told me I was in for some rough times with her, but they had chosen ‘not to get involved’.” (Naming the Violence, page 149). No lesbian or feminist would accept such tolerance when a men was concerned. Now, who was it that mentioned double standards?

Differences with heterosexual women

THE STORIES THAT these battered lesbians tell are very similar to those told by heterosexual women who have been battered by their husband or boyfriend. In almost all cases, the first show of violence is proceeded by periods in which the future offender curtails her lover’s freedom, has fits of rage or jealousy, and adopts a disparaging attitude towards her. Floods of severe scolding appear to be ominous. Usually the future victim tries to adapt to these new demands, and makes an effort to understand what is going on; usually she excuses her partner’s behaviour by blaming it on stress, a dismal past, uncertainty or fear. Usually she pushes her limits and tries to staunch the emotional pain her partner is apparently suffering under – but most often, to no avail. Hope, reconciliation and tenderness alternate with fear and tension.

For lesbians, as opposed to most heterosexual women, economic dependency is hardly ever a reason against leaving. But then, many lesbian women are actuated to stay for a reason just as important to them: they can not afford this relationship to end. Sometimes because they want to prove, literally at all costs, that lesbian relationships are no one-night-stand or a nine days’ wonder, at other times because their life is isolated from other lesbians; leaving their partner would mean that they would lose all options to live as a lesbian.

The motives for violence would appear to be similar as well. Jealousy and insecurity are frequently mentioned, just as alcohol abuse and differences in social status (money, class, ethnicity). But the theme that crops up in every story is the pursuit of dominance.

A significant difference is that those victims whose stories have been documented, fight back more often than heterosexual women. In some cases, this reaction causes the violence to escalate, but it frequently makes the perpetrator come to her senses, albeit often temporarily. The drawback is that fighting back occasions spells of vexing soul-searching on the part of the victim, and provides easy excuses for the outside world: wasn’t it after all a case of mutual battering’, shouldn’t both partners share the blame equally?

The main difference between heterosexual and lesbian victims of battering is that the latter can’t rely on being offered help, neither practical nor emotional. Many lesbian victims refrain from seeking help from official sources, fearing that their homosexuality will be pointed out as being the ‘real’ problem. Although those women who have called in the police or other authorities usually received assistance without problems and without poor jokes, this strategy is not always feasible. Women who have out of necessity been secretive about their sexual preferences, are often scared of the obligatory coming out such a step entails; they might fear to lose their job as a result of asking for help.

And it is not at all clear where to turn to. The women’s shelters are often no option: many of them will not stretch their care to encompass lesbians. Besides, the women’s shelters are less safe for lesbians. Their adresses are often no secret among women, and thus not among female batterers. And whereas a man is by definition barred entrance from a women’s shelter, other women are not. There have been several cases in which a lesbian batterer posed as a victim at a women’s shelter, in order to get the opportunity to seek out her former lover there. 4

It is thus no surprise that lesbian victims of battering set such great store by getting support from the lesbian community. They want others to confront or decry her former lover. “After the attack, I needed other lesbians to recognize how terrorized I was and how unsafe I felt. I needed other lesbians to realize that I was a victim of a kind of violence particularly hard to deal with. I needed the community to acknowledge that my former lover broke the law. The attack was a criminal act. I wanted other lesbians to recognize that my basic rights to privacy and safety in my own home were violated.” (Naming the Violence, page 160). Yet this a most painful issue. In many cases, both victim and perpetrator move in the same circles and they often share friends and acquaintances. Sides have to be taken. But, being an outsider, whose side will you be on? Who is to be believed? And how must one behave towards the offender: ostracize her, or make an effort to understand why she did it? Very often those who take side with the perpetrator, twist things round and launch a counter-attack on the victim. Especially when she has turned to the ‘outside world’ in order to get help; in some circles asking heterosexuals to help solve problems between lesbians amounts to nothing less than high treason.

Becoming wise after the event

MOST TEXTS THAT have been published on the subject merely try to draw attention to the problem. Only Naming the Violence tries to offer some theories about lesbian violence, but sadly enough it is precisely this part of the book which falls short of expectations. Thus, after having given a lengthy explanation of how violence is used by men as a mechanism for control and dominance over women, many contributors will simply state that violence within lesbian relationships is caused by ‘the violence of society’. That seems like an easy way out, for these men as well. Other contributors blame ‘internalized homophobia’, which strikes me as being a very psychological approach.

Another hot potato has simply been avoided: sadomasochism. From the introduction to the book we learn that a serious argument has broken lose between the Lesbian Task Force on the one hand, and the SM movement on the other: but no explanations as to the whys and wherefores are offered. From some of the articles I gathered that several groups who are concerned about lesbian battering have taken a public stance against lesbian sadomasochism; again, without any further explanations. A single paragraph in the book elaborates on the matter: “Questions that arose that were left unanswered included: Have we developed a concept of healthy sexual relationships and does it include s/m? What does consent mean and what are the limits of consent in this culture? Can s/m be a healthy / therapeutic form of dealing with power or is s/m sanctioned battering? Are s/m couples at high risk for battering?” (Naming the Violence, page 93). No wonder that relations with the SM movement have flagged, considering the paternalizing phrasing.

It is quite obvious that SM may serve as a cover, for instance when dominance is established under the guise of a game, or when a perpetrator insists that the abuse was part of the game and the violence merely ‘symbolic’; but then, the same goes for alcohol and drugs. So why single out SM?

Nevertheless, there is still something to be learned from Naming the Violence. I was impressed with the efforts of the victims to put their own behaviour in the right perspective. They relentlessly explore how their own attitude kept both the relationship and the violence going. One of the remarkable insights most of them gained, is that they were suffering from a what I would call a positive bias towards their former lover. On the virtue of her being a women they accepted more and shifted their limits, whereas they would have been more cautious towards a man.

Social workers and therapists encountered the same prejudice: “While I did not consciously think about these things, I acted as if violence in lesbian couples was somehow different than violence in heterosexual couples, as if lesbian batterers were less manipulative and more likely than men to choose to control their violence, as if a lesbian batterer had a legitimate ‘demand’ when insisting on seeing a lesbian advocate (men often make many ‘must have’ demands because of their ‘unique’ and ‘special’ circumstances), and as if my seeing both people individually and in couples work was not a way of the batterer keeping tabs on their partner. I also acted as if somehow lesbian couples would immediately benefit from couples work, although I knew that this was never the case with men and women.” (Naming the Violence, page 74-75).

Another lesson Naming the Violence teaches us is the need to reconsider the concept of the women’s shelters. If the American experiences with assistance given by the lesbian and feminist movement to lesbian victims of battering hold good for Europe as well, it is necessary that feminist institutions are opened up for lesbians as well, and offer them real safety. Moreover, it is crucial that feminists and lesbians become more sensitive towards battering, realize that there are criminal lovers among lesbians too, and allow themselves to consider whether a friend’s black eye or broken arm was really caused by tripping off the stairs.

A final, yet delicate remark. From many contributions it becomes clear that the lesbian movement tends to sympathize more with the offender than with the victim of lesbian battering. In all probability, this is due to a healthy dislike of the victim role. But when an affinity with power turns into a dislike of victims or even into blaming them for having become one, we find ourselves on a dangerous course. If it is true that the lesbian and feminist movement identify with the power displayed by the perpetrators and hold their victims in contempt – they must have been weak to start with, or why else could they have allowed themselves to let this happen to them anyway? – their identification is really with offenders and violence. This identification raises many questions. For instance, why do lesbians and feminists, a group thoroughly aware of the ins and outs of violence and victimization, still insist upon blaming the victims? And if even women, with all their knowledge about and understanding of violence, look down upon victims of battering, how would men – who are definitely more often perpetrators of battering than women – regard these victims?

More dirty dishes

ALTHOUGH LESBIANS AS as perpetrators of (sexual) violence are totally at odds with all feminist theories on the subject, they are not the only ones. In the case of heterosexual women as well the actual practice is much more complicated than theory would have it. Take a look at child abuse, for instance. From the data collected in the first annual report of the Dutch Landelijk Buro Vertrouwensarts inzake Kindermishandeling, the LBVK (a national organization where confidential reports of suspected cases of child abuse can be filed by teachers, neighbours, GP’s etc.) which was recently published, we learn that 9400 reported cases of child abuse were undisputably proven. In 48 percent of these cases – that is, in almost half of them – the offenders were women. 5 Women commit incest as well: the stories of women who have been the victim of parental incest show that at least some of the mothers deserve at least some of the blame, to put things mildly. The data published by the LVBK are more than just a corroboration of these stories. The same annual report proves that a surprisingly high percentage of sexual abuse of children was committed by women: 12 percent of the reported and proven 1900 cases. This amounts to 228 cases in which women are the perpetrators of incest. 6

Other sources, however, show a much lower number of female offenders. Tegen Haar Wil Amsterdam (Against Her Will, a local centre which women can phone to talk about their experiences with sexual violence) had 69 calls in 1988 reporting sexual violence perpetrated by mothers, aunts or sisters; this amounts to only 2,9 percent of the total number of reports. The annual report of the related organization Werkgroep tegen seksuele kindermishandeling binnen het gezin (Working group against sexual child abuse within the family) mentions 9 mothers as perpetrators, which is 4,8 percent of the total number of reported cases.

Criminal ladies appear elsewhere on stage, too. Handen Thuis (Hands Off), a centre where complaints about sexual harrassment are registered, has had three reports in the past few years of women harrassing men or women. (The harrassed people were either peers or lower in rank.) Three is not a shockingly high number, but it proves that harrassing women do exist. Straightforwardly questioning men on the subject yields a much higher number: a survey on sexual harrassment encountered by students showed that a fourth of the male students had experienced it, to various degrees. In one out of four cases, the person harrassing these male students was a woman. 7

And finally, there is queer-bashing: it is common knowledge that when it is a streetgang or a group of youngsters that attack gays or lesbians, girls are often partaking.

The futility of indispensable ingredients

HOW CAN WE reconcile all (more or less) feminist theories about battering and sexual violence that have been proposed in the past years, in which women only hold the stage as victims, with the appearance of these female perpetrators? If we acknowledge that these kinds of violence are not only committed by men, then what remains of all these theories in which the power relations between the sexes are depicted as the perennial cause of sexual violence and battering?

I would like to quote from a government note that was hotly debated and – at least by Dutch feminists – warmly applauded because it stated in feminist terms the context in which sexual violence should be regarded: “Because of the similarities between the various expressions of sexual violence against women and girls, as well as their relation with the social position of women, this general objective (i.e. contribute to the banishment of sexual violence, which in this note includes battering – KS) can only be arrived at by simultaneously pursuing a policy which aims at diminishing the existing unequal power balance between men and women. The implementation of the right of women to paid work and an independent income is – combined with the realization of an independent position in relationships, in behaviour and in sexual relations and reproduction – one of the conditions for a society in which sexual violence against women and girls will be non-existent.” (page 13) Are sexual violence and battering by definition caused by the differences in power between men and women? Is gender really the all-embracing and ubiquitous explanation for sexual violence and battering?

What Op je flikker gehad!? refers to as ‘internal violence’ among men might still be explained with a plea on ‘the social structures’ – perhaps by pointing out the reputed tendency of men to bend their partners to their will, literally if needs be, or their supposed familiarity with violence as a means of securing and safe-guarding their position, or even the agressive disposition with which their upbringing encumbered them. But then, that is hardly convincing, is it? Especially not when one considers the fact that this accursed economic dependency, which has always been regarded as an indispensable ingredient in both the cause and the continuation of sexual violence 8, is usually absent in gay relationships. When trying to comprehend violence between lesbians, references to social factors are no help at all. There is no inherent, socially supported inequality in such a relationship, nor of character formation towards agressive dominance. As for being not to blame, which is invariably a woman’s lot according to these ‘structural’ theories: at least one of the two women it takes to make a lesbian couple can’t be exonerated. However, this it-is-social-structures-that-are-to-blame argument loses its final shred of validity when (heterosexual) women are sexually besieging men.

Obviously, other factors must be at work with these criminal ladies. Perhaps they encounter conflicts which have hardly any or no connection at all with the personal side of social power relations, and which are so vehement that the use of violence seems to be the only solution left. Perhaps there are people who rely on the use of violence to impose their will upon others, and ought we to accept this fact without immediately unleashing one social explanation after another.

Perhaps we ought to realize that searching at once for the social origins of (sexual) violence clouds our view rather that clarifies it. Or perhaps a completely different kind of power relations could be at stake: those between generations – where incest committed by women is concerned – , between classes or between ethnic backgrounds. But according to the stories collected in Naming the Violence, criminal ladies are just as often less strong than their victims, or poorer, or black, or non-drinkers. One of the authors makes quite an effort to bring this fact home: she sketches a profile of batterers and immediately sets out to destroy it. “There is no profile of a lesbian batterer – no personal attributes or circumstances which permit reliable prediction or identification of the lesbian who will batter her partner.” (Naming the Violence, page 182).

Perhaps the familiar power relations and the factors described as causes in feminist theories about sexual violence, are futile and of no overriding importance after all: it might simply and crudely just be the blunt pursuit of dominance within a relationship which is at stake. Little by little, I have lost my believe in our litany of possible and probable social causes. When all is said and done, these power relations seem to be the pretext rather than the origin of sexual violence; and pretexts are always abundant when one is looking for one, as all battered women have experienced. There is only one thing left of which I am sure: the forms of violence and battering mentioned in this article are in no way rooted in the power relations between the sexes, although the resemblances with ‘classical’ forms of sexual violence are bloody striking.

What does such a statement mean when considering (sexual) violence against women perpetrated by men? Pondering that question level-headedly I can’t help myself from drawing the rather disconcerting conclusion that within heterosexual relationships there must be cases of such violence which are completely personal, or to put it differently: that at least part of the sexual violence which women encounter, a phenomenon which we insisted had a political origin, is nevertheless due to a conflict that has no connections whatsoever with social relations. A fierce collision between individuals and their respective interests, but not a social struggle. A case of people abusing and maltreating another person, child or adult, because of their own personal problems or their lousy character. And perhaps some kind of social difference exert their influence to a certain degree; but power relations between the sexes are obviously not by definition and not exclusively the cause of sexual violence and battering. This forces us to acknowledge that we can no longer consider the existence of sexual violence and battering to be the ultimate proof of the wickedness of men, nor as an ideological legitimization of feminism.

This does not invalidate any protest against – what shall I call it: classical sexual violence? – on the contrary. It is never justified, under no circumstances, to harrass, rape or batter another person; neither because of the power relations between the sexes, nor because of a mere dislike. But it is also unjustifiable to put all the violence that is going on in relationships (whether heterosexual or homosexual) down to social origins as a matter of course, and to believe that the discussion is thereby closed. Such a line of argument may charm us by its simplicity and is most certainly luring because of the clear and straightforward solution it implies (“if we could just arrange society in a different way…”), but it only serves to create illusions.

There is more in life than just power relations and social structures – especially where relationships are concerned. Even when relationships are based on equality and society is arranged as we would have it, violence can’t be ruled out; but in that case, and in that case only, women finally stand a good chance to wrest themselves from their traditional role as victims. A touchstone to assess the state of affairs between men and women is not the disappearance of rape and battering, but that women will act as perpetrators as often as men, and men will stage as victims as often as women; and that violence in relationships is as frequent in homosexual relationships as in heterosexual ones. Perhaps we should even hope that the worn-out objection that men occasionaly get beaten up by their wives as well will be proved to be right in the fullest sense. In this light, the opening of the first Men’s Shelter could be regarded as a sign of the impending victory.

Literature:

  • The Advocate, March 4, 1986.
  • Annual Report 1988, Stichting Tegen Haar Wil Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1989.
  • Naming the Violence. Speaking out about Lesbian Battering, edited by Kerry Lobel for the Lesbian Task Force of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), The Seal Press, Seattle 1986. The book contains a collection of stories by women who have experienced violence in their relationship, and a theoretical part.
  • SEK 2, 1987; 7, 1989.
  • Report concerning the policy to counteract sexual violence against women and girls, Rijswijk 1983.
  • Vrouwentongen 4 and 5, 1984.

Notes:

Show 8 footnotes

  1. The Advocate, March 4, 1983.
  2. This study is mentioned in Sybilla Claus, “Krabben, slaan en schoppen” (Scratching, hitting and kicking), SEK 7, 1989.
  3. This study is conducted at the Department for Homosexual Studies at the University of Utrecht, and is being paid for by the Ministry of Health, Care and Culture. The study will probably be completed in the last months of 1991.
  4. The same problem hampered the afore-mentioned discussion night at the COC. It was not at all clear whether there were any perpetrators among those present. A situation like that is not really conducive to creating a relaxed atmosphere.
  5. NRC Handelsblad, November 14, 1989. The LVBK distinguishes between physical abuse (36 percent of the proven cases), neglect (13 percent), emotional abuse or neglect (26 percent) and sexual abuse (20 percent).
  6. The Dutch feminist monthly Opzij ran an article in April 1990 by José Rijnaarts, which dealt extensively with incest committed by women. Rijnaarts correctly points out that it is not only girls who are victims of incest. Woet Gianotten was the first person in Holland to mention boys as victims of incest (in an interview in de Volkskrant in november 1988). The Annual Report: 1988 of Against Her Will Amsterdam reports 38 calls from boys who were sexually abused (1,6 percent of the total number of reports).
  7. he study was conducted by the Project Groep Female Labour of the University of Groningen, and described in de Volkskrant (april 26, 1990) and Vrij Nederland (april 28,1990). The number of harrassed men is however somewhat disputable: it appears that whereas men tend to describe a situation in which they feel uncomfortable as sexual harassment, women would not yet label it thus.
  8. The focus on economic independency in strategies against sexual violence is more extensively criticized in: Karin Spaink, Daar sta je dan met je goeie gedrag (Look what I got for my efforts), a paper I submitted for the conference Men, Violence, Sexuality, Driebergen 1985.