To be, or not to be; that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. (Hamlet, III.i)
I recently stumbled across a quote attributed to Lillian Hellman. Asked "Ms. Hellman, why haven't you endorsed gay rights?" she responded "The forms of fucking do not require my endorsement." This struck a chord with my foray into politics, more specifically, the Chilean independent, progressive, vote-of-dissatisfaction-with-the-current-way-of-doing-politics former presidential candidate Marco Enríquez-Ominami. Even moreso, it struck a chord with my interest in confrontational atheism.
The question at hand is "When should we fight?" Fight for change, fight against change; to rouse ourselves, to become interested in something outside our quotidian routines; to become an activist, to advocate, to argue, to take action. More specifically, when should people who are not prominent public figures attempt to change the minds of others (or, in the case of Hamlet, to take more dramatic action unto others). This could be arguing politics with friends. This could be wearing a Livestrong bracelet. This could be writing about a topic you care about in a public medium. This could be demonstrating in front of the UN.
Let us briefly consider some possibilities that might discourage us from acting. We (those not-prominent-public-figures of readers and myself wishing to change the minds of others) could be incorrect, or at least without all of the relevant information. The matter could be largely subjective. We could be forcing our views onto others. There are plenty of instances where two groups are convinced that they are right and the other is wrong.
One possibility is that the fight for change is not an onward push towards some lofty goal, but rather a constant struggle in the balance of power, between a multitude of individuals loosely arranged into various groups.
Another possibility is that activism can radicalize groups, hallowing the "Us," closing avenues of criticism, and demonizing "Them." Activism could encourage strongly held, superficial opinions.
Another possibility is that activism is a mechanism by which we show ourselves to be superior to others by demonstrating that they are wrong about something. This is typically, but not always, unconscious.
Finally, I want to cross two extremes off of the argument because they simply don't happen. 1) There is nothing that I would fight for. 2) There is no topic on which I will hold my breath.
With that prefaced, I move on.
To return to the quote that inspired this post, it is a statement of unity. It is not homo vs. hetero. Hellman's "forms of fucking" implies that anything that happens in the bedroom is not and should not be a public issue and it doesn't matter if it is between two men or not. It is a statement of support for gay rights. However, it is also represents the decision not to press the issue with others.
Politics on the other hand - specifically elections - constantly presses. "This is why I'm the only correct choice."
Blogging, in general, also presses issues.
I obviously speak out against several aspects of religion on this blog. I also have links on facebook to a variety of arguments against religion. Two important aspects are interest on the part of the receiver and space to develop a more comprehensive argument. In both cases, the reader has to come to me. I'm not interested in arguing if the other person doesn't listen to my words. They might not agree with my larger point, but if they are coming to me, they will at least read through the arguments.
When I worked with the Ominami campaign, action went further. Our major sources of contact were people interested in the campaign, but we wanted those people to spread the word. As an independent campaign (and thus with no history of supporters), we had to work harder to spread the message. We didn't have the funds to pay for as many advertisements as third party candidates, let alone the two major coalitions. Instead, the campaign heavily utilized the internet (where spreading the word to another city six hours away costs little, if anything) and advertising by supporters. There were flyers, banners, and signs that you could download and print out. Another advertising attempt was distributing tinted decals for the rear windows of cars. This was only partially successful because there was a fear (justified by at least two attacks) that putting a campaign decal on your car could prompt someone to single out your car in an act of vandalism or theft. What would prompt supporters to put themselves at risk to spread awareness about Marco's campaign?
There is a big difference between the private sphere and the public sphere in terms of action and behavioral norms. Imagine a gradient based on the number of strangers that you will encounter. In "public," everyone, for the most part, has minimal interaction with strangers. There is a lengthy discussion to be had about public vs. private that I'll save for another time, but one difference is that accountability is less for a face in a crowd than for example, a neighbor. It makes sense that politicians (who are by profession, public figures) would want to speak publicly. It makes sense that they would want supporters to support them in public. But why do supporters take public action?
One aspect is group identification. What do the Red Sox, Iron Maiden, and Obama have in common? They feature prominently on shirts. A person wearing an Iron Maiden fan is no longer a stranger to a an Iron Maiden fan.
Another aspect is demonstrating commitment to peers. Showing public support against breast cancer is looked upon favorably by others who want to support the fight.
Third (and closely related to the other two), public statements can represent a show of strength. When large groups of people unite, it is reassuring to the individuals that there are many other people like them. It also demonstrates the strength of the group to others. Politicians, for example, may be swayed by large demonstrations of group strength.
Fourth, one could simply think the cause important enough to fight for.
This is all modified by what is required of the person. If there is less danger, it is easier. If there is more work to do, it is harder.
It is never simply a choice not to endorse gay rights or support to Haiti or environmental issues. As much as the audience member or group leader or presidential candidate wants you to believe that their issue is of singular importance, there are many, many important issues out there. However, if there are things that we care about changing (for whatever reason), we may take up arms. I care enough about science denial to argue against it. I care about removing the negative connotations of "Atheist."
What will you fight for?
No comments:
Post a Comment