Now that we have a President that a lot of folks who are activism-oriented seem to like (at least from what I’ve read), what will activism mean?
I was at Red Emma’s Monday having lunch with a co-worker, and I wondered what things might start to look like among activists. Will folks continue to rail and rally against The State because certainly beaurocracy will block a lot of Obama’s plans, or even because some folks really just want The State to go away on principle? I found anarchism attractive while Bush was in office, especially the first time. Most of the people in the country didn’t want him for a President, but there he was. Obama has so many people inspired and seems so inspired himself that I have to wonder what we can get done in the next four or eight years without the help of The State? I don’t really know enough about anarchism to be able to answer that.
Will activism mean working with the Obama administration, against other parts of The Machine in order to change things? Will activism mean working with The Man? Or is it a misunderstanding of activism to suggest that working with the government is unusual or somehow makes something not activism anymore?
Community organizing, national service and working with government groups to get things done are all activism, no?
In my [first?] year of national service, I find the election of Obama inspiring, in that maybe some of the hurdles that hinder the kind of work we do may shrink or disappear with the new administration, that we will have more help in fighting the good fight, in addition to less resistance.
Maybe what we think of as activism can instead become known merely as participation? But that requires more than a new man in the White House. If we can continue the act of getting off our collective asses the way some of us have started to, with the huge voter turn-out this year, might we just begin to participate in our own democracy again to such a common extent that the concept of activism becomes obsolete?
This is a really good point. I’ve been thinking along these lines as well. We’ve been fighting against our gov. for so long now I wonder what it would be like to fight the good fight with it (gov.) more on our side. I like the notion of “activism” becoming more like “participation”. Afterall, that’s really what we want: To be able to participate in a process that we believe in and can make positive decisions in.
In this election all I have wanted was the idea of more autonomy for myself and my community to create the lives and neighborhoods that we want. We have already taken steps in public green zones, alley gardens, community recycling and collective bike shops. Imagine if we had better access to funding for all of these? Could we bring more people together in a sense of belonging?
I know that part is not gov’s role but society’s.
I dig your blog too.
Cheers,
Jamie
It means more of the same, but with less turnout as the Republican haters depart the movement and Obama’s wars get the Clinton treatment.
Pretty much. I heard a CNN anchor tell a Fox anchor “I’ll work as hard as I can to make this presidency the best one ever.” And the Fox anchor scolded him saying “That’s not your job!”. After all, we were hating Fox for doing just that to GW. I hope it’s not just another swing of the pendulum because the Fox guy was absolutely right. OMG! Did I just say the Fox guy was right?
I remember saying long ago “I can’t wait till the Rep’s are out of office so I can hate on Dem’s again. “
Participation!
Love your post, Pragmatik.
I have been waiting for a long time to feel trust in a leader to utilize my positive efforts. I will be listening intently to hear him ask more of me than to go shopping.
What an exciting time.
Very good, sorta related article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/386514_amyonline06.html
for the principled left, the far left, radical left et alia its still gonna suck: “mayday on the front line…” its a victory for democrats, sure; however, obama will not be a panacea. sorry. nonetheless, it is good that you have a slingshot organizer…
you will see the vast but subtle distinction between activism and faux-activism.
activism works for a goal.
faux-activism fights against a power structure, against someone perceived as high status. it’s a theatrical mask over an individual’s need for high status and an inability to see the world as other than a zero-sum game: tear somone down == build myself up.
to be clear, faux-activism capes itself with the nominal goals of activism, in order to parade and acquire the same “virtue”. pretending the same goals, but declaring with every betraying action the wildly different agenda.
it’s like sprinkling sugar on shit and declaring it steak.
or tofu, in your case ;)
You’re right, and I don’t want to admit how many “activists” I’ve met whose activism is a self-serving distraction or, at best, a hobby.
I know a lot of sincere and devoted people, too, who know how to spot success and how to work with other people/groups/causes. I hope they make up for the former bunch:)