Once again, I have to apologize for not being a faithful blogger. Six months ago, I was working on a series on pacifism, and then life happened... I haven't had a chance to get back to blogging until now. I intend to pick that pacifism series back up in the next few days. But before that, I want to address an issue that is a little more timely and in some ways overshadows it [E1]: how do you make a difference in the world?
Of course, there are many ways to make a difference, [E2] but I am asking
specifically how you can fight against the deep, systemic problems in our
society, such as racism, inequality, and the climate crisis. Despite the fact
that many people agree that these – along with other issues – are major problems,
we can’t seem to uproot them. Part of the problem is that we don’t know how to uproot them. Whenever we try to
make a difference, there are people who argue that our efforts are pointless, ineffective,
and naïve.
For example, SNL recently did a sketch making fun of people who share articles on Facebook and count it as activism. [E3] Fair enough, but it raises the question, what would SNL prefer for those people to be doing? Perhaps the answer is to have them “hit the streets.” We have all been inspired by the protests and marches of the Civil Rights era, so perhaps that is what real activism looks like. [E4] But marching has been done so often over so many issues in the last year, that some argue that it has become nothing more than an act of self-expression. [E5] So what’s a better alternative: should we write our legislators? Nah, in most cases the letters don’t even reach them. [E6] Perhaps the key is voting, so that you can put people in office who listen to you? But there are several people out there who claim that your vote doesn’t matter. [E7] So where does that leave us? What can we do that would actually make a difference?
For example, SNL recently did a sketch making fun of people who share articles on Facebook and count it as activism. [E3] Fair enough, but it raises the question, what would SNL prefer for those people to be doing? Perhaps the answer is to have them “hit the streets.” We have all been inspired by the protests and marches of the Civil Rights era, so perhaps that is what real activism looks like. [E4] But marching has been done so often over so many issues in the last year, that some argue that it has become nothing more than an act of self-expression. [E5] So what’s a better alternative: should we write our legislators? Nah, in most cases the letters don’t even reach them. [E6] Perhaps the key is voting, so that you can put people in office who listen to you? But there are several people out there who claim that your vote doesn’t matter. [E7] So where does that leave us? What can we do that would actually make a difference?
The problem with that question is that it gets us looking
for a single deed that we can do that will make a difference, an activity that
you participate in, after which you can step back and say, “Wow, I changed the
world!” [E8] But the reality is that society is complex, and in order to change
it, we have to be willing to engage in complex ways. That’s not to say that
it’s impossible, but I would argue that there are five key elements to really
making a difference. If we just do one or two of them in isolation, they won’t
be effective at bringing about change, but when combined, they almost certainly
make an impact.
1) We Must Change Our Thinking
Beliefs matter. The way that we think about issues shapes
the way that we respond to them. As long as people continue to believe various
myths about society – for example, that wages are low in the United States
because immigrants are taking “American” jobs or that African-Americans are
imprisoned at a higher rate than whites because they are more prone to
criminality – as long as these kinds of myths exist, nothing will change. So we
have to do the work of educating ourselves, of unlearning destructive myths that we have internalized and of learning new ways to think about the
world. This comes from reading books and articles, listening to people who are
marginalized, engaging in difficult conversations, and carefully studying and
fact-checking controversial claims.
In Isolation: As is true for all of these strategies, there is a danger in changing our thinking if it is done in isolation from these other actions: that thinking might become a substitute for speaking and acting. There are some people who feel that they can’t engage social issues until they “have it all figured out first,” but the problem is that they never get to the point where they feel satisfied enough with their knowledge to act. You have to learn as you go, doing this alongside of the other steps that are necessary to bring about change. [E9]
In Isolation: As is true for all of these strategies, there is a danger in changing our thinking if it is done in isolation from these other actions: that thinking might become a substitute for speaking and acting. There are some people who feel that they can’t engage social issues until they “have it all figured out first,” but the problem is that they never get to the point where they feel satisfied enough with their knowledge to act. You have to learn as you go, doing this alongside of the other steps that are necessary to bring about change. [E9]
2) We Must Change Our Lifestyles
Progressives have a tendency to blame elites for all of the problems we have in our society. They point the finger at corrupt politicians and business executives who put profits over people, etc. Certainly, elites bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility, but their power depends entirely on the complicity of the everyday choices that average Americans make every day. If we really want to make a difference, we have to be willing to make that difference in our own lives: such as refusing to buy products that may have been produced by forced labor, avoiding the kind of wastefulness that ruins the environment, paying attention to our own prejudice and correcting our tendencies to discriminate, etc. We must be willing to live into the new realities we are demanding. We must be the change we want to see in the world. [E10]
In Isolation: Conservatives have a tendency to argue that personal changes by themselves should bring about change, and that if we want to address climate change or income inequality, we should do it solely within the boundaries of the free market. But this reasoning fails to understand how powerful forces in society influence individual decisions, often coercing them to make choices that are destructive to everyone. Tackling big issues shouldn’t be an “either-or” between personal changes and public advocacy but a “both-and.”
3) We Must Speak Up
The myths and narratives that justify injustice flow through
society like blood flows through the veins. They are the default mode of
thinking. Systems and institutions have been built around them. Most people
accept them without thinking. In order to make any kind of difference, you have
to speak out against them. You have to find platforms on which you can be heard
and be willing to ruffle some feathers. This is where marches and protests can
be really valuable. Protesting, when done correctly, is a way of calling attention
to an injustice. The best protests are those that expose the evils they are
fighting against. [E11] But “speaking up” takes other forms as well. It can
come in the form of Facebook posts or personal conversations with friends and
loved ones. Whatever gets the message out there, whatever challenges the
dominant narrative, is worth saying and doing.
In Isolation: When speaking up is not rooted in fresh thinking and when it is not followed by action, then it becomes background noise. Anyone who speaks up in any form will be called to account for their own integrity, so it’s essential to be connected in other ways as well.
In Isolation: When speaking up is not rooted in fresh thinking and when it is not followed by action, then it becomes background noise. Anyone who speaks up in any form will be called to account for their own integrity, so it’s essential to be connected in other ways as well.
4) We Must Organize
In order to move from speaking to acting, you have to work
together with other people. Politicians and business executives have neither
the time nor the interest in listening to every single complaint, but once you
reach a critical mass of people who all agree that a certain change is needed,
then they have to pay attention. How do you do this? You organize. You find out
who else is working for change in your community, and you brainstorm together
about what you can do. This is hard work. It requires the initiative to go out
in find people whom you didn’t know or work with before. It requires the
commitment of meeting together and working out a plan. It requires compromise in
order to honor everyone’s values. But if you do this work, then you’ll find
yourself emboldened to take on the powers that be, now that you are not just an
individual but part of a community.
In Isolation: Done in isolation, organizing will
naturally draw people into the grooves that are already dug deeply in our
society. In the United States, our two-party system really pressures people to
buy into either-or thinking: there’s a liberal way and a conservative way,
you’re a Republican or a Democrat. And if we fall into that, we won’t change
the system. We’ll end up reinforcing it. We need to change our thinking, change
our lifestyles, and engage new voices that are speaking out to bring about real
and substantive change.
5) We Must Follow Through
If you do the work of organizing, a plan of action will naturally emerge. New policies will be proposed, new responsibilities will be assigned, and everyone’s help will be needed. This can be very exciting – at first. But it’s hard to keep up the momentum over time. It takes discipline to follow through on what you agreed to do, but this is the final step in bringing about change.
In Isolation: There are people who are very good about following through because they have developed habits: they always vote, they always contact their representatives, they always engage in certain ways, etc. But the system is clever enough that it can co-opt any of our habits and use it for its own good if we are not vigilant. For example, if you always vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate at every election, then there is no accountability for that person. Candidates will eventually start running under those labels without honoring the principles of those parties because they know they have your unquestioning support. Without the other four elements, even your political faithfulness can be undermined.
In Conclusion…
Any one of these strategies, when done in isolation, is not likely to make a dent in the system. But when these five elements are combined, then you will make a difference. Guaranteed. You may not win every political battle, but even in losing, your actions make ripples: you push the conversation in the right direction, set boundaries for how far destructive forces can go, and create precedents that pave the way for future generations to finish the work. So if someone tries to tell you that something you are doing is a waste of time, respond by saying this: “If this was all I was doing, then you would be right. My words and actions by themselves are as light as a straw. But when combined with all of the other ways I am engaging, this very act could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
****
End Notes
[E1] It has been hard for me to talk about nonviolence in
the Trump era, not because I have stopped believing in it, but because it is a
negation of action, an insistence not to
be violent, at a time when action of some kind is needed. So I felt compelled
to write this article first, as a way of jumping back into the conversations.
[E2] In a broader sense, nearly everything we do makes a difference. If you make someone smile or hurt their feelings, if you paint a picture or watch a YouTube video, if you work hard and make innovations or stay at home and live as simply as possible, all of these have impacts on our society. But these aren’t kind of actions that change the rules of the game, the fault lines along which we all live our lives.
[E2] In a broader sense, nearly everything we do makes a difference. If you make someone smile or hurt their feelings, if you paint a picture or watch a YouTube video, if you work hard and make innovations or stay at home and live as simply as possible, all of these have impacts on our society. But these aren’t kind of actions that change the rules of the game, the fault lines along which we all live our lives.
[E4] This is a largely result of public education. Due to
the emphasis that many schools place on Black History Month, students get a
very small dose of black history, which usually focuses on a few key themes
such as the freedom riders, Martin Luther King Jr., sit-ins, and the March on
Washington. That’s better than nothing, but rarely do public schools spend time
studying these changes extensively (in the way that we study the Revolutionary
War, for example), and this results in an understanding of activism that is
superficial at best. That’s how you get things like the Kendall Jenner Pepsi
ad: with a superficial image of activism. If you look more carefully, you’ll
find that all five of the elements I list here were brilliantly engaged by the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, along with several other groups that
don’t get as much attention in public schools.
[E5] Here is one of several recent criticisms of the Women’s March: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/womens-march-washington-pointless-protest-middle-class-feminists-1599470 I tend to sympathize with this article, but I wouldn’t put all marches in the same light. The Black Lives Matter marches have been specific, focused on a certain goal, and paired with specific policy objectives (https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision). This has been, in my opinion, a very effective and appropriate use of protest. On the opposite extreme, the protest at UC-Berkeley against Milo Yiannopoulos was counter-productive, as it ended up expanding his platform. The point: protests must be connected to a bigger response if they are intended to be effective rather than therapeutic.
[E5] Here is one of several recent criticisms of the Women’s March: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/womens-march-washington-pointless-protest-middle-class-feminists-1599470 I tend to sympathize with this article, but I wouldn’t put all marches in the same light. The Black Lives Matter marches have been specific, focused on a certain goal, and paired with specific policy objectives (https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision). This has been, in my opinion, a very effective and appropriate use of protest. On the opposite extreme, the protest at UC-Berkeley against Milo Yiannopoulos was counter-productive, as it ended up expanding his platform. The point: protests must be connected to a bigger response if they are intended to be effective rather than therapeutic.
[E7] http://www.vox.com/2014/11/4/7156149/voting-case-against-political-scientis I have some nuanced ideas about voting
myself, but not quite along these lines. I’ll save that for another time.
[E8] Let me qualify this: Whenever you participate in a
political activity that is orchestrated by some group, that group will do
everything in its power to make you feel like you did something that mattered.
If you voted, you get to wear a sticker. If you attended a rally, the leaders
will credit you with a policy change, etc. There’s some value to celebrating
these things as minor victories, but take it with a grain of salt when people
tell you that any single act changed the world.
[E9] Or, on the opposite extreme, there are people who feel
“enlightened” after they have read a few books or articles, and they begin
claiming that they are “allies” or advocates of justice just because their
views have changed. Although this is the opposite of always needing more
information in some ways, they both share the same mistake: they let
preoccupation with thought substitute
for meaningful action.
[E10] That last line came from Gandhi, not me.
[E11] This reveals one of the differences between the Civil
Rights protest and modern attempts to imitate them. Sit-ins were a particularly
effective tool because they exposed how hateful those policies were. People
could argue that they were just about business rights or a separate but equal
segregation until they saw crowds attacking people or police forcibly removing
people from doing nothing more but sitting down. The power in that was that it exposed evil. I’m not convinced that the
die-ins that some people do today, which were modeled after sit-ins, have the
same effect. They are a dramatic gesture, but they don’t necessarily reveal or
expose anything about the people whom they are targeting. (Feel free to push
back on this.)
No comments:
Post a Comment