(no subject)
I've been reading the anarchist literature scattered about Becca's digs, picking and choosing my way through. Most of my beliefs are well aligned with the anarchist movement, and I think this is often reflected in my writing. I can't really say any of it has challenged my thinking too much, largely because I already agree with what is being said.
However, I have often written in the past about enjoying Time''s Up for what it was, (Time's Up being a bicycle collective in New York that puts on Critical Mass, and usually fed us afterwards with food dumpster dived from where-ever) at the same time as I often felt I would never be hardcore enough for the Time's Up kids. That I could believe what they believed but until I became a smelly tatooed vagabond, I would never actually BE an anarchist. This superficiality largely bothered me.
Maybe what any movement can't avoid is a degree of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, which can unfortunately isolate the work of that movement. I don't think the self-righteousness reflected by the woman who drives by in a pink and white hummer is any different from the self-righteousness possibly reflected by a punked out anarchist bike rider. Both view the other, and those around them with equal disdain.
The belief dispelled in much of what I read, that those who choose a middle class suburban life are empty vessels, zombies really, doesnt give people enough credit, that they might actually be real people who have real experiences and feelings and struggles. I think people are very capable of doublethink, the ability to realize the hypocrisy of what they are doing, and to still go along with it. I think seeing change in the world requires giving people some respect and space to make their own decisions once presented with new information. And that's like 99% of the challenge, getting information out there in an accessible way, and to accomplish that, I think biases, assumptions, self-righteousness, and elitism need to be set aside because otherwise, there is a risk of being too isolating and reactionary.
It's easier to generalize about people, to take away their humanity. It's harder to accept that perhaps not everyone believes the same way or ever will. Vindication would be better. But maybe that's just the tricky nature of beliefs in the first place.
I wonder, is it any different to conform to a middle class lifestyle versus conforming to a counterculture lifestyle? Is there a way to choose a certain lifestyle without having to conform to a movement or a set of beliefs? Wanting to be a part of something, wanting to be accepted in to something, whether it's the middle class dream or the counterculture life, seems reflective of a common thread between the two, of having shared community and place. But inked on both sides can often be some irksome self-righteousness which can cause a gap difficult to bridge.
I prefer to live out my life without having to necessarily conform to one idea or another. I think maybe this is a reflection of having been isolated and rejected for much of my life, and feeling I will always be different largely because I can only be different in American life as a half-Irish half-Indian. I think there is sacrifice in conforming, in wanting to be accepted. At the same time, I see acceptance as an illusion. I pick and choose what I believe from what I see as good in different movements and philosophies, my identity and beliefs fluid, linear, and I want to be able to do so without being seen as somehow a sellout, not hardcore enough, or too typically middle class because I believe it's possible to be a punk bike riding anarchist, but not necessarily completely and utterly look and act as others believe a punk bike riding anarchist should look and act. I wonder, is such a look and act reactionary, then again, can counterculture be anything but reactionary?
When I took part in Critical Mass in New York a few months back, I spoke briefly with one of the riders who dressed up in a suit for the ride. He didnt normally wear a suit, but he felt the image the dirty punk anarchist riders presented isolated the people we passed in the streets who might have otherwise seen themselves in such a ride and who could have thus sympathised with our cause. He believed that by wearing a suit, he gave an air of respect and dignity to the movement, and allowed those he passed the ability to relate. I thought this was clever, and not at all a sellout move. Appearances can be deceiving.
In any movement, I think there needs to be a healthy belief in people and the ability of people you are trying to reach to make decisions for themselves. I think the exact opposite is often typified by arguments made by the conservative Christian Right. For instance, typical arguments on the issue of birth control and pre-marital sex for young women fail to give young women the benefit of the doubt to make their own decisions whether "right" or "wrong," once presented with proper information. This is also exemplified by the argument often made -- that young people who play video games are more apt to become violent. This assumes that the individual is merely an empty, unintelligent vessel who can't make decisions for him or herself and needs to be guided by the hand. It's patronizing, patriarchal, and insulting, and doesn't give people credit for being able to discern reality from a video game (they really aren't that realistic).
What bothered me about the international non-profits whose halls I briefly traipsed through was an air of self-righteousness in the undeniable belief of the good work being done. During staff meetings at Doctors Without Borders, as a presenter laughingly tripped over pronunication of places in the fields we were working in, or condescendingly commented on how the Central African Republic was at war again was the idea that somehow that presenter knew better, despite sitting in some clean office on the second floor of a brick building in New York far away from the reality on the ground. Whenever I was at The Nation, I felt I could believe in what we were doing, at the same time as I was bothered by how I could be sucked into an office space for eight hours to the point that if New York burned down around us, I would never know any better.
In a recent Adbusters, there was a poem a woman wrote which bemoaned the West for making that poor Bangladeshi girl sew our shoes, and that kid in China stitch together our shirts, etc. etc. I don't think that Bangladeshi girl thinks of herself or her life in such terms, or wants that pity. She wants respect for her decisions in life just as much as anyone else, for what she has produced, for what she has done with her days, all of which I'm sure she saw as her own choice, rather than something she was collared to, perhaps an illusion, perhaps not (I leave the argument of free will for another day). I think, dear poet, let's not forget we are all agents of our lives, agents of change. Perhaps she is working at that factory because it pays better than when she and her family struggled to get by as farmers, or because that money is putting her brother through college. Or perhaps she is there because of the political decisions that have placed her family in a position of poverty.
Or maybe, when all is said and done, I'm just postmodern and not much of an anarchist!
However, I have often written in the past about enjoying Time''s Up for what it was, (Time's Up being a bicycle collective in New York that puts on Critical Mass, and usually fed us afterwards with food dumpster dived from where-ever) at the same time as I often felt I would never be hardcore enough for the Time's Up kids. That I could believe what they believed but until I became a smelly tatooed vagabond, I would never actually BE an anarchist. This superficiality largely bothered me.
Maybe what any movement can't avoid is a degree of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, which can unfortunately isolate the work of that movement. I don't think the self-righteousness reflected by the woman who drives by in a pink and white hummer is any different from the self-righteousness possibly reflected by a punked out anarchist bike rider. Both view the other, and those around them with equal disdain.
The belief dispelled in much of what I read, that those who choose a middle class suburban life are empty vessels, zombies really, doesnt give people enough credit, that they might actually be real people who have real experiences and feelings and struggles. I think people are very capable of doublethink, the ability to realize the hypocrisy of what they are doing, and to still go along with it. I think seeing change in the world requires giving people some respect and space to make their own decisions once presented with new information. And that's like 99% of the challenge, getting information out there in an accessible way, and to accomplish that, I think biases, assumptions, self-righteousness, and elitism need to be set aside because otherwise, there is a risk of being too isolating and reactionary.
It's easier to generalize about people, to take away their humanity. It's harder to accept that perhaps not everyone believes the same way or ever will. Vindication would be better. But maybe that's just the tricky nature of beliefs in the first place.
I wonder, is it any different to conform to a middle class lifestyle versus conforming to a counterculture lifestyle? Is there a way to choose a certain lifestyle without having to conform to a movement or a set of beliefs? Wanting to be a part of something, wanting to be accepted in to something, whether it's the middle class dream or the counterculture life, seems reflective of a common thread between the two, of having shared community and place. But inked on both sides can often be some irksome self-righteousness which can cause a gap difficult to bridge.
I prefer to live out my life without having to necessarily conform to one idea or another. I think maybe this is a reflection of having been isolated and rejected for much of my life, and feeling I will always be different largely because I can only be different in American life as a half-Irish half-Indian. I think there is sacrifice in conforming, in wanting to be accepted. At the same time, I see acceptance as an illusion. I pick and choose what I believe from what I see as good in different movements and philosophies, my identity and beliefs fluid, linear, and I want to be able to do so without being seen as somehow a sellout, not hardcore enough, or too typically middle class because I believe it's possible to be a punk bike riding anarchist, but not necessarily completely and utterly look and act as others believe a punk bike riding anarchist should look and act. I wonder, is such a look and act reactionary, then again, can counterculture be anything but reactionary?
When I took part in Critical Mass in New York a few months back, I spoke briefly with one of the riders who dressed up in a suit for the ride. He didnt normally wear a suit, but he felt the image the dirty punk anarchist riders presented isolated the people we passed in the streets who might have otherwise seen themselves in such a ride and who could have thus sympathised with our cause. He believed that by wearing a suit, he gave an air of respect and dignity to the movement, and allowed those he passed the ability to relate. I thought this was clever, and not at all a sellout move. Appearances can be deceiving.
In any movement, I think there needs to be a healthy belief in people and the ability of people you are trying to reach to make decisions for themselves. I think the exact opposite is often typified by arguments made by the conservative Christian Right. For instance, typical arguments on the issue of birth control and pre-marital sex for young women fail to give young women the benefit of the doubt to make their own decisions whether "right" or "wrong," once presented with proper information. This is also exemplified by the argument often made -- that young people who play video games are more apt to become violent. This assumes that the individual is merely an empty, unintelligent vessel who can't make decisions for him or herself and needs to be guided by the hand. It's patronizing, patriarchal, and insulting, and doesn't give people credit for being able to discern reality from a video game (they really aren't that realistic).
What bothered me about the international non-profits whose halls I briefly traipsed through was an air of self-righteousness in the undeniable belief of the good work being done. During staff meetings at Doctors Without Borders, as a presenter laughingly tripped over pronunication of places in the fields we were working in, or condescendingly commented on how the Central African Republic was at war again was the idea that somehow that presenter knew better, despite sitting in some clean office on the second floor of a brick building in New York far away from the reality on the ground. Whenever I was at The Nation, I felt I could believe in what we were doing, at the same time as I was bothered by how I could be sucked into an office space for eight hours to the point that if New York burned down around us, I would never know any better.
In a recent Adbusters, there was a poem a woman wrote which bemoaned the West for making that poor Bangladeshi girl sew our shoes, and that kid in China stitch together our shirts, etc. etc. I don't think that Bangladeshi girl thinks of herself or her life in such terms, or wants that pity. She wants respect for her decisions in life just as much as anyone else, for what she has produced, for what she has done with her days, all of which I'm sure she saw as her own choice, rather than something she was collared to, perhaps an illusion, perhaps not (I leave the argument of free will for another day). I think, dear poet, let's not forget we are all agents of our lives, agents of change. Perhaps she is working at that factory because it pays better than when she and her family struggled to get by as farmers, or because that money is putting her brother through college. Or perhaps she is there because of the political decisions that have placed her family in a position of poverty.
Or maybe, when all is said and done, I'm just postmodern and not much of an anarchist!