Liberatory Intimacies: Constellations of Co-Resistance in Parliament
Liberatory intimacies are the everyday relationships between Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) folks in which they seek to affirm and relate to one another counter to the matrix of domination. It is the foundational, every day advocacy and resistance necessary for transformative change. Equally, it is these affirming relationships which allow new knowledge to be expressed and shared to tangibly further strategies and solutions for transformative action. All the while, liberatory intimacies are the invisible, emotional labour to care for the well-being of BIPOC organizers to continue this work every day. Ultimately, this research seeks to understand if racialized MPs on the Hill exhibit liberatory intimacies in ways that affirm their sense of belonging and well-being on the Hill and supports their political work for social justice. It argues that BIPOC MPs on the Hill do demonstrate liberatory intimacies within and across party lines as aligned with their varying party conceptions of space and social justice. Their understanding of these intimacies as well as nature and extent to which they exhibit and invest in them is framed differently across party lines.
Rayna Charanjit Sutherland
Rayna Charanjit Sutherland was a participant in the Parliamentary Internship Program in 2021-2022.
Introduction
Grassroots organizing spaces depend and are built upon the connections, relations, and emotional labour of racialized activists committed to visions of social justice and a vision outside of the current social order structured by the matrix of domination. In this case, the matrix of domination refers to the overlapping structures of oppression that shape our social order and world such as racism, sexism, ableism, Islamophobia, colonialism, homophobia, xenophobia, colonialism, etc. In the unseen of the everyday, racialized organizers relate to and connect with one another counter to structures of oppression, intentionally, and in their collective effort to transform these dictating structures.1 Where racialized bodies are devalued and dismissed, Black, Indigenous, South Asian, and Latinx geographies inform spatial relations which affirm one another, exercise care for mutual well-being, and share knowledge and strategies to further social justice. These are the liberatory intimacies which are the undergird of movements. These tiny, unassuming connections weave to challenge the rigidity in which racialized bodies are coded and act as stars which aggregate to a constellation of connections, knowledge-sharing and reciprocity necessary for social justice.2
While the personal and messy natures of these ethical intimacies have been documented at the grassroot level, it is unclear whether and how these relations exist in political organizing at Parliament Hill.3 Parliament is the centre of so many of structures of power antithesis to liberation. It is equally, however, an institution where many work to challenge these power structures, as they saturate Canada from the inside. If this is the case of this space, it may also be the case that liberatory intimacies provide BIPOC MPs at Parliament, as a hub of power structures which actively devalue them, the care due to them and their well- being to stay in Parliament. Further, these relations can and could form the foundations of constellations of co-resistance as critical to their ongoing efforts to bring transformation from the inside.
Knowing this intimate, feminized labour is often rendered invisible, do these ethical intimacies exist in Parliament, and if so, what is their impact? Can these liberatory intimacies help BIPOC MPs feel affirmed and find meaning in this place that seeks to displace them and render them without value or meaning? Can these liberatory intimacies help move MPs, and Parliament, towards new forms of knowledge, strategies, and solutions for transformation?
Ultimately, this research seeks to understand if racialized MPs on the Hill exhibit liberatory intimacies in ways that affirms their sense of belonging and well- being on the Hill and supports their political work for social justice. I argue that BIPOC MPs on the Hill do demonstrate liberatory intimacies within and across party lines as aligned with their varying conceptions of space and social justice. Their understanding of these intimacies as well as nature and extent to which they exhibit and invest in them is framed differently across party lines.
Theoretical Framework
Space must be understood together with power and conquest.4 The production of space upholds an uneven world, materially and philosophically as per the hierarchies of white supremacy, racial capitalism, and heteropatriarchy. These “violent conditions of conquest” shape the formation of spaces which mirror power dynamics endemic to our societies and become places through which power is transmitted and relations are made.5 Space may be constituted in a way that not only recognizes the subjugation of BIPOC, queer, trans, and poor people’s lives, but also insists that these “‘alternative’ spatial genealogies offer integral frames to understand space itself”.6 In this way, BIPOC peoples “mediate, disrupt and refuse conquest and carcerality of conquistador violence across space through intimate spatial relations which allow Black and Indigenous peoples to weave the fabric of radical transformative change”.7 The “livingness” of their bodies as “tiny territory” can then grow into “spatial constellations” built on these woven liberatory intimacies. Space is then seen as the embodiment of interrelations in formation.8 This embodied scale, built on mutual recognition, trust, and accountability, is the co-constitutive necessity of organizing for decolonial and abolitionist futures. Part of this intimate theorization and labour is engaging fear of difference to be together, in generative ways, in conversations of sovereignty, coalition and ethics, in new terms. That is, in ways which build new forms of knowing and ways of relating to and being within one another.
Daigle and Ramirez argue that large-scale organizing, be it protests or blockades, exist by virtue of the daily actions and interactions between BIPOC communities, ongoing engagements which are often unrecognized but critical to liberation efforts. It is these intimate spatial relations which “begin to crumble the impasses between Black, Indigenous, and POC life, allowing us to see and feel the ways that we come together to weave the fabric of radical transformative change”.9 Goeman affirms that transformative work such as abolition and decolonization require the dismantling of oppressive power structures that affect our lives “in the everyday.” The everyday liberatory intimacies are the foundation of the embodied scale of mass movements and are co-constitutive to more visible forms of on-the-ground political organizing. This is the intimate and messy work so often acknowledged in liberatory theory and activism. It is the invisible emotional labour that fuels, maintains, and sustains activism and well-being to continue each day. It is feminized and thus, displaced and depoliticized and “can be seen as accessorial despite being a crucial component of organizing”.10 These intimate labours, which move communities towards new forms of knowledge, strategies, and solutions, are political and gendered spaces. It allows communities to form meaning in places that seek to displace them and render them without value or meaning.
In short, liberatory intimacies are the everyday relationships between BIPOC folks in which they seek to affirm and relate to one another, counter to how we are socialized and dictated to view racialized bodies. It is the ties of close BIPOC friends and colleagues who affirm the presence and contributions of one another, especially in places which seek to other and dispel their identities. BIPOC identities and bodies are re-framed outside of the hegemony of the matrix of domination to push a transformative narrative and embody a reality of existing in care and respect for one another and dismantle oppressive power structures that affects our lives in the everyday. It is an everyday disruption of power rooted in a generative culture of care. When we add these tiny everyday relations and acts of resistance, it is not only the culture but also the ongoing labour necessary for transformative change. Equally, it is these affirming relationships which allow new knowledge to be expressed and shared to tangibly further strategies and solutions for transformative action. All the while, caring for the well-being of BIPOC organizers to continue this work every day.
Methodology
Method and Sample Size
As this research explores the personal and messy nature of relationships, organizing and feelings of belonging of BIPOC MPs on the Hill, semi-structured interviews were used as the primary method. Eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with racialized MPs across all federal political parties which include racialized MPs. Semi-structured interviews are most appropriate in this case given their “give and take” structure between researcher and research participant.11 In that the interviewer may sway from the loose set of questions to follow the research participant’s narrative and insight, there is a recognition of and opportunity to explore experiential knowledge as valuable knowledge. Moreover, this allows the researcher to prepare dutifully as per their investment in the research, but also allows participants the freedom to guide the conversation for the researcher to follow with due prompts and follow-up probing.12
MPs were selected through snowball sampling methods until a representative sample size was gathered. The MP participants represent diverse genders, both Anglophones and Francophones, five racial groups, five religions as well as residents of five provinces and territories to represent Eastern Canada, Western Canada, Québec and the North.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed through inductive and deductive thematic methods. First, the data was reviewed in an initially exploratory scope and inductive codes were noted as they emerged naturally.13 As the data was reviewed a second time, the codes were finalized based on relevance to the research, meaning some of the inductive codes were deleted and additional deductive codes were added to ensure the research question would be answered with due nuance.14 Once the coding tree was set and confirmed, any data that had not been analyzed in relation to the full coding tree was reviewed once again. Once the codes were collected, they were mapped out into themes to draw connections. In this form, the themes and their interrelations were interpreted writ large to generate broader implications.
Positionality and Limitations
Given that this is a research project that explores sensitive and personal realms such as relationships, discrimination, mental health, identity, and belonging, it is deeply personal and intimately complex. In relation to this subject matter, or narrating any experience outside of one’s own, reflection on positionality is critical. Given that this research is conducted by a biracial white-passing person, this reflection on positionality is further important.
“Insider” and “outsider” dynamics in research never cease to exist.15 As a white-passing person who has very limited experience and understanding of navigating space as visibly racialized, the researcher’s understanding of personal themes of the research will always be short of that of participants sharing their narratives, especially within the short time frame of this research. Facilitating true understanding would require more frequent and deeper community engagement, not permitted by the time frame of this research. Conversely, the researcher hopes that their time as a Parliamentary Intern in the offices of government and opposition MPs, both bearing reputations of great trust and respect on the Hill, formed a degree of an “insider dynamic.” The hope is that this would have allowed participants to feel greater comfort and trust to share more freely, fully, and honestly in the discussions of this research despite the researcher’s visible identity as a white- passing person.
Findings and Discussion
This research seeks to understand if racialized MPs on the Hill exhibit liberatory intimacies in ways that affirm their sense of belonging and well-being on the Hill and supports their political work for social justice. As outlined, the theory of liberatory intimacies is premised upon an understanding of space which is informed by power. As noted, Parliament is the centre of many structures of power antithesis to liberation. Through the lens of liberatory intimacies, it is important to, first, broadly explore how the participant MPs conceptualize the Hill and whether they feel a sense of belonging on the Hill or feel othered and devalued by the institution. Thereafter, the impact of liberatory intimacies themselves can be explored to inquire whether they foster a sense of belonging, disrupt feelings of being othered by the dynamics of the Hill, and/or provide a foundation for organizing around the objectives of social justice.
Rather than assume BIPOC MPs on the Hill intentionally relate to one another and come together in support of this aim, it is important to first unpack how social justice is indicatively understood by, and whether it is a priority of, participants.
Notions and Objectives of “Social Justice”
The Conservative MPs interviewed expressed visions of social justice as a Canada without hate and where newcomers and Canadians have access to the “Canadian dream.” The nature of hate was not freely elaborated upon nor was the root or source of hate; be it xenophobia or racism, neither was specifically named and identified. In other words, the impacts of structural violence were recognized by BIPOC Conservative MPs, however, the concept of space being dictated by structures of power, in line with the theory of liberatory intimacies, was not included in their discussion of social justice in Canada or the Hill. The neoliberal narrative accepted by the party was reflected in their vision of “justice” as being something to enable individualistic access or opportunity for prosperity disconnected from any broader structures of oppression and facilitated by hard work. The motive of MPs in contributing to this vision is to serve as a voice for visible minorities in this dream and mentoring them and instilling them with confidence and platforms to bridge their own prosperity.
The Liberal MPs interviewed mainly upheld the party’s accepted narrative of social cohesion and representation as indicative of Canada as it stands and the ongoing image to strive for and uphold. In recognition that many communities in Canada have faced discrimination, by way of their gender, race, sexuality, etc., they understood the vessel for change was to ensure all such communities are represented and are able to connect and collaborate, including being at the table of the federal government. For this reason, values of bringing one’s own communities to the Hill or even of coming to the Hill as a rare or first representative of one’s own community was a cross-cutting narrative articulated with pride. Serving as an MP was often linked with a desire to continue the community work they had previously engaged in and to amplify the community’s voice. They communicated that civic participation is important, that political work has positive impacts, and that the Hill is a place to serve Canadians at large.
In this way, the majority of Liberal MPs expressed a view of liberation as that of connection across difference and relating to one another with respect to the inherent values of one’s cultural identity, for sake of unity, acceptance, and coexistence. Therefore, this narrative does not highlight liberatory intimacies’ theory of foremost recognition of the power structures which shape how we have been socialized to view and treat one another for sake of upholding structural violence and hierarchies. Nevertheless, the Liberal narrative does align with the theory of liberatory intimacies in the everyday intentions to affirm and connect with one another differently than the matrix of domination would dictate. However, the structure of the matrix was not always named or centred in discussion or strategy. In this way, in both the Liberal and Conservative narratives, the source of power goes unspoken, though their vision is for a reality in which it does not shape our collective experience. It should be noted that structures of power such as racism, colonialism, and white supremacy were mentioned by a minority of Liberals MPs.
Finally, the NDP MPs interviewed envisioned social justice as being achieved through an anti- oppressive approach and with transformative visions. They articulated a desire to further efforts of decolonization, to tackle capitalism, and to dismantle white supremacy. Their motives for serving as an MP included engaging in harm reduction by viewing Parliament as an institution that has and continues to inflict harm through its weaponization of power. Equally, as a central body of power, structured upon systems of oppression, they noted an objective to disrupt power and “shake up the establishment of politics.” In this way, the NDP narrative does recognize space as shaped by power and conceives social justice as actions which intentionally work counter to structures of power, both in the everyday, but also ultimately with an intent to transform said structures.
Conceptualizations of the Hill and Connotations of Belonging
In terms of conceptualizing the purpose of the Hill and their respective feelings of belonging within it, rhetoric and relations varied distinctly across party lines.
First, the Conservative MPs interviewed did note that they believed discrimination existed, but that it was not something they experienced within the Halls of Parliament. Instead, Parliament was described as a place that felt like a family, distinctly, within their party as well as something they attributed as a feeling they held across the Hill. The positive environment within their party was attributed to their “robust nomination system.”
A few Liberal MPs interviewed agreed that they had not experienced any overt discrimination on the Hill, while the majority acknowledged that racial or gendered bias and associated microaggressions were some things they had seen and/or experienced. In most cases, bias and microagressions were not attributed to feelings of not belonging on the Hill, in part, because of the overarching, welcoming culture of multiculturalism within their party. A few MPs noted that racial bias influenced the professional upward mobility and general well-being of some staffers on the Hill. More broadly and widely, the narrative was that the Hill was a place of opportunity, one in which MPs loved working and living, and a place where many felt they belonged. These feelings were widely attributed to the Liberal Caucus itself, as one that reflected the mosaic of Canada. It was credited as being one of the most diverse, multicultural, and representative caucuses in Canada and possibly in the world. The Liberal narrative of representation and multiculturalism was attributed to feelings of belonging on the Hill. Ongoing efforts to bring cultural events to the Hill and to represent and connect the diversity of Canadians to the Hill was cited as an increasing pattern and norm. One MP said this created a sense in which “Parliament [now] belonged to them.” Once again, the Liberal MPs expressed visions of liberatory intimacies in which the everyday acts affirmed one another’s cultures. Sharing in expressions of their cultures, across difference and with pride, transformed a space they implied had not been built for them to a space that felt as if it belonged to them. Moreover, while the structures of power which built this institution to exclude racialized organizers were not emphasized in their role in shaping space, they expressed the persistent intention to relate to one another counter to the matrix of domination, brought feelings of transformation.
| Party | Vision of social justice,motive on the Hill as an MP | Realms of socialjustice efforts |
| CPC |
|
|
| LPC |
|
|
| NDP |
|
|
Finally, the NDP MPs interviewed described the Hill very differently. They described it as a place of male whiteness and as being a settler colonial system founded on the “gentry landed class of landowners from the House of Commons [….to] the Senate.” It was a place where historically, and not long ago, their ancestors were hung and killed. Coming into this place as MPs, they noted that by virtue of this history and the ongoing and connected systems of oppression which still saturate the Hill, no one was opening doors for them, and they did not hold the intergenerational privilege of access and connections. Instead, they articulated a desire to take up space and an acknowledgement and sense of contentment that any discomfort this should bring is a necessary element of disruption, change, and transformation. At the same time, however, they highlighted the struggle of being made to hustle within the competitive culture of the Hill, specifically in relation to the competition for airtime for issues of importance to them and their communities. This competition is counter-intuitive to their cultures and cultural values, including for staff of their communities.
In this narrative, the theory of liberatory intimacies is overt. Space is understood as innately shaped by structures of power to dictate who has not only been accepted into institutions of power, and conferred power unto themselves, but who has experienced violence at the hands of these power structures which inform institutions of governance. The associated view of social justice is to actively, in the everyday, disrupt these normalized structures of power by commanding space that the matrix of domination dictates is not for them. The everyday feelings of discomfort this brings are framed as a necessary process for transformation. Similarly, relating to one another counter to capitalist white supremacy and its competitive culture is deemed as a necessary labour to change not only the culture of the Hill and their well-being within it, but a strategy of organizing to further social change in and through the institution.
| Party | The Hill and senses of“belonging” within it |
| CPC |
|
| LPC |
|
| NDP |
|
BIPOC Relationship: Nature and Extent of Investment Within Them
Finally, the crux of this research is an objective to understand if racialized MPs on the Hill exhibit liberatory intimacies in ways that affirm their sense of belonging and well-being on the Hill and support their political work for social justice. In their conceptions of the Hill, their experience within it, and their views of social justice, all parties expressed narratives which aligned with the theory and objectives of liberatory intimacies to some degree. Generally, in both the Liberal and Conservative narrative, power goes unspoken (to varying degrees between the parties), though the vision is for a reality in which said power does not shape our collective experience. Liberal MPs expressed examples in which the persistent intention to relate to one another counter to the matrix of domination, such as affirming one another’s cultures, brought feelings of belonging and transformation. Differently, the NDP articulate an understanding of space which is innately shaped by structures of power. These structures of power not only dictate who has been accepted into institutions of power, and conferred power unto themselves, but also dictate who has experienced violence from the structures informing institutions of governance. The associated view of social justice is to actively, in the everyday, disrupt these normalized structures of power.
Building on these broad value systems and visions, I argue that BIPOC MPs on the Hill do demonstrate liberatory intimacies within and across party lines as aligned with their varying conceptions of space and social justice. Their understanding of these intimacies as well as nature and extent to which they exhibit and invest in them is framed differently across party lines.
The Conservative MPs interviewed did confirm that they have and do come together with those who have shared lived experiences, such as immigrants, to work to ensure people like them will not face the same obstacles. There was an expression of the distinctness of the bond between BIPOC identities, united by an understanding of shared struggle and a desire to unite in a sense of belonging in Canada. Both Conservative MPs interviewed mentioned several MPs, past and present, belonging to their same ethnic and religious identity, who (i) mentored them and to which they attributed to their success, (ii) they mentor, and (iii) invest in friendship with, in and beyond realms of work. Examples of such relationships were given within and across party lines. At the same time, however, it was noted that collaborative professional networks are not bound to lived experience. Any MP who holds knowledge or commitment to a community issue, for example, by virtue of the demographics of their constituency and relevant policy interests, is someone they can and have collaborated with; in doing so, they have developed relationships with one another. The MPs expressed that identity caucuses can be valuable tools for organizing among BIPOC MPs and more broadly, however, they should be focused on action as opposed to cyclical dialogue.
Moreover, even without perceiving space through the lens of liberatory intimacies in the sense of the nexus of space and power, Conservative MPs did still evidence liberatory intimacies. They invest in the distinct connection between BIPOC MPs in shared experiences of struggle, to mentor and share in relation to one another, as well as work together to effect change so other BIPOC Canadians do not experience the same struggle. Conservative MPs engage in liberatory intimacies based on their conceptions of space and social justice. Generally, collaboration amongst and between BIPOC MPs are not framed counter to structures of power, as they remained unnamed. However, they internationally connect through their individual experiences of struggle and focus on relationships of action, for change. Change is not framed as transformative or structural, and struggle is not linked to structures of oppression, but they see justice work as facilitated by aiding or preventing the individual experience of struggle.
Liberal MPs interviewed similarly and widely expressed the sentiment that relationships and connections, both personally and professionally, were not limited to those of shared identity of lived experiences. Similar examples of collaborating with MPs representing shared demographics and advocating for similar policies were noted. Equally, the importance of identity caucuses was stressed as an avenue of connection and collaboration for social change. Identity caucuses and the MPs’ positions on them were framed and perceived across a varied but small spectrum. Generally, it was held that identity caucuses, be it Women’s Caucus, Muslim Caucus, Liberal Black Caucus, Parliamentary Black Caucus, Indigenous Caucus, etc. were places where BIPOC MPs felt supported and affirmed. These were described as places where their personal experiences could be affirmed as political issues of resonance. Connections of solidarity and support were forged and strategy for action and policy change is pursued. There is a perception of some MPs that making these caucuses open to those who do not share this identity (for example, settlers in Indigenous Caucus) is an equally important vessel for MPs to understand not only one another’s experiences on the Hill, but the struggles of Canadians of these identify groups and best support collective action. For some, this was tied to the conviction that the Liberal Caucus and Parliament generally should not become balkanized or insular by identity politics. A select few MPs noted that by virtue of the distinct connection and understanding of specific struggles among those of shared identities, there is a time and place for closed gatherings, such as the Muslim Caucus, in which MPs can share more openly, safely, and freely. Across the board, however, it was affirmed that there is a universal thread of shared experiences among BIPOC MPs, and more specifically among those of shared distinct identities. This connection offers encouragement, emotional support, and the feeling that a BIPOC MP is “not alone.” It was noted that BIPOC MPs do come together in numbers to better affirm and legitimize advocacy for shared social justice issues of importance. One MP noted that BIPOC MPs must navigate the weaponizing need for “unity” among racialized people as a condition of action. That is, the advocacy of BIPOC MPs can be discredited if they do not have the support of all those who represent that identity or issue, leading them to need to be aware of and prepare for these politics and to strategize internally, accordingly.
Generally, Liberal MPs spoke to liberatory intimacies as experiences in which BIPOC MPs come together to share their experiences, affirm one another, and mobilize this experiential knowledge sharing to generate strategies and solutions for policy changes. Like the Conservative MPs, Liberal MPs believed that collaborating to effect change on issues of race, Islamophobia, xenophobia, etc., can cross-cut other difference, including amidst non-BIPOC MPs. While these relations are encouraged to avoid balkanization, there is a distinction between what BIPOC MPs share and offer in relation to one another in shared experience and affirmation to connote feelings of belonging.
Finally, the NDP MPs interviewed expressed their relationships differently. An important aspect of BIPOC connections to these MPs is to act as an accountability framework. BIPOC MPs can hold one another accountable to remain true to their values, communities, and their initial motives for becoming an MP. There is a sense of encouraging one another to not allow the Hill, and the proximity to power within it, to change them. A relatable element of these solidarity intimacies is supporting one another to self-reflexively unpack and shed their own white supremacy, coloniality, etc. These MPs affirmed this project as an ongoing priority and continual effort which can be crushing given the interrelation of their own oppression by these systems and how they have been socialized within these structures to adopt consequential biases.
In this way, NDP MPs exhibit liberatory intimacies in the everyday work of supporting one another in staying true to themselves and work that runs counter to the matrix of domination, as opposed to allowing themselves to be influenced by proximity and access to power. They note that enabling these systems of power, even when they benefit from it, will not facilitate transformative change. Relationships continue to further the emotional labour and strategic thought behind transformative change.
In recognition of this, the NDP MPs all admitted to the existence of lateral violence between BIPOC MPs, including within the NDP Caucus. Importantly, then, the MPs expressed a network in which they learn from one another how to act in solidarity with one another. Acts of solidarity included affirming one another’s struggle without needing explanation as identifying their marginalisation on the Hill and explaining the root of white supremacy and other oppressive systems was draining. It is an added layer of marginalisation and frustration. Having BIPOC colleagues who can meet them in these conversations to support and affirm shared understanding as opposed to requiring further emotional labour on their behalf is important. As living and working on the Hill can be “soul crushing” in how it was made to “other” and push out BIPOC folks, one important contribution BIPOC MPs offer to each other is holding space for one another’s joy; they sought to encourage and affirm their right to joy and to show each other how to hold onto it, rather than allowing the Hill to rob them of it. Finally, the MPs spoke of how they valued other BIPOC MPs using their social and/or political capital to “stick their neck out for one another.” Although the argument is often made that white allies have disproportionate power and privilege to the point that it is expendable; as such, as allies they should affirm the work of racialized folks. However, the NDP BIPOC MPs decried that this is rarely the reality; rather, it is both disappointing to note this deficit on the part of some of their white colleagues and, equally, a testament to the solidarity of some of their BIPOC colleagues. The meaning and weight behind this reality is even greater considering the NDP participants spoke of pushing issues which are more than just policy issues; there are challenges the participants and their communities know and have experienced. These issues include denying their basic human rights when it is not politically expedient to move on a particular matter. The BIPOC NDP MPs expressed that this failure to act feels dehumanizing.
Overall, the NDP MPs evidenced liberatory intimacies in affirming one another’s work to further its escalation within the party and Parliament, caring and holding space for one another, and self- reflexively acknowledging the necessary emotional labour to support one another’s mental health and sustainability in doing transformative work. This is the everyday work and foundation necessary for movements, as framed by the theory of liberatory intimacies.
Although all parties noted the existence and possibility of liberatory intimacies across party lines, the NDP were the only party members to critique the ways in which BIPOC MPs of other parties engage with other BIPOC folks and take up BIPOC representation. These critiques were explicitly noted as not meant to be an ill-intent to discredit or harm those who are already marginalized, but to point out the broader patterns of white supremacy as they saturate space, including ways of relating to one another and the politics of race.
Conclusion
Liberatory intimacies are the everyday relationships between BIPOC folks in which they seek to affirm and relate to one another counter to how we are socialized and dictated to view racialized bodies. They are the ties of close BIPOC friends and colleagues who affirm the presence and contributions of one another, especially in places which seek to other and dispel their identities. BIPOC identities and bodies are re-framed outside of the hegemonic matrix of domination to push a transformative narrative and embody a reality of existing in care and respect for one another and to dismantle oppressive power structures that affect our lives in the everyday. It is an everyday disruption of power rooted in a generative culture of care. When we add these tiny everyday relations and acts of resistance, they influence not only the culture, but also the ongoing labour necessary for transformative change. Equally, these affirming relationships allow new knowledge to be expressed and shared. This action tangibly advances the strategies and solutions necessary for transformative action while also caring for the well-being of BIPOC organizers to continue this work every day.
Based on the narrative of their respective parties’ values, framing of the Hill and Canada as well as visions of social justice, MPs evidenced liberatory intimacies as aligned and would be expected given the philosophical and/or policy stances of their party. Generally, in both the Liberal and Conservative narrative, power goes unspoken (to varying degrees between the parties), though their vision is for a reality in which power does not shape our collective experience. Conservative MPs internationally connect through their individual experiences of struggle and focus on relationships of action. Change is not framed as transformative or structural, and struggle is not linked to structures of oppression, but justice work is seen as facilitated by aiding or preventing the individual experience of struggle. Liberal MPs evidenced liberatory intimacies based on affirming one another counter to the matrix of domination and by conferring feelings of belonging and social cohesion. Differently, NDP MPs understood space as being innately shaped by structures of power. Liberatory intimacies, for the NDP, were evidenced in affirming one another’s work to further its escalation, caring, and holding space for one another, and offering the necessary emotional labour to support each other’s mental health and sustainability while doing transformative work.
Notes
- Daigle, M., & Ramírez, M. M. “Decolonial geographies.” Keywords in radical geography: Antipode at 50, 2019, pp. 78-84.
- Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017.
- See: Simpson; Daigle and Ramirez; Goeman, M. Mark my words: Native women mapping our nations. U of Minnesota Press, 2013; McKittrick, K. Demonic grounds: Black women and the cartographies of struggle. U of Minnesota Press, 2006; and, Brady, M. P. “Extinct lands, temporal geographies.” In Extinct Lands, Temporal Geographies. Duke University Press, 2002.
- Daigle and Ramirez
- Ibid., p.2.
- Goeman; McKittrick; Brady; and Daigle and Ramirez, p.2.
- Daigle and Ramirez, p.3.
- Ibid., p. 4.
- Ibid., p. 3.
- Ibid., p. 4.
- Reid, C. Greaves, L. Kirby, S. “Chapter 1: Demystifying Research.” Experience Research Social Change (3rd. ed.). University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2017, p. 14.
- Denscombe, M. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2017.
- Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
- Satzinger, F. M. (2014). “ Dancing to the Tune of the Donor”: Donor Funding and Local Implementation of Initiatives to Assist Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Uganda, 1986–2011. University of Toronto (Canada).
- Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. Feminist research practice: A primer, 111148.