Plod. Left
Today I helped out with a SAFE stall down on Queen Street, and things did not go quite according to plan.
About an hour in, a chap from the City Council dropped by, and asked to see our permit. We produced this but an issue arose over what exactly the permit actually permitted us to do. Apparently, we aren't actually allowed to have a table, or any significant furniture at all, or to hand out flyers to the public. All of which implies a rather strict restriction on what we actually can do, leaving us the appealing option of standing against the wall, and nodding to passerbys.
So, after some discussion, and phone calls, and contention over what exactly the word "conditions" meant, we packed it in, and called it a day. The bit with the "conditions" was that there are "special conditions" listed on the permit, which did not say we couldn't hand out flyers, or that we couldn't have a table (though there was something about items on the footpath), but apparently council chap takes "conditions" as specifying what we can do, whereas I take it to imply restrictions, stating what we can't do. This also lead to a discussion on what the difference between allowances, and requirements, and my mind was filled with predicate logic terms, as my thoughts creatively sometimes find themselves wandering.
The whole incident was interesting though, and lead to some ranty conversations with others at later moments. Of interest was the fact that one is able (I assume without a permit) to hand out flyers for political, or religious reasons if one so wishes. I have no problem with people doing such things, but it is worth pondering for a moment what such rules imply - that apparently it is more valid to confront people with a message of self-hatred, and non-questioning, than to question general institutions of our society.
By the last statement, I am thinking of my experience during Christian/Atheist week where I learnt that we are all sinners, and imperfect in God's eyes, and that it was, apparently, above and beyond the call of duty for God to provide himself in earthly form, such that we, in our imperfect sinnerness, can be saved (which we otherwise cannot), and that it makes no sense to ask what it means to say that God is good, because he is Good in His very Nature. This makes no sense to me, and the extra dramatic representation of such ideas by your average street preacher is even more acidic and offensive, but fully acceptable according to our laws. Whereas, to state that we are cruel to other animals treads thin ice.
Furthermore, SAFE is political. It, as an animal rights organisation, is making the claim that the lives of non-human animals is a political concern, that the concerns of animals fits into the realm of political concern. To count us as non-political is to make a specific assertion about what the political is, a political claim in itself.
Maybe they meant political in the sense of political candidates handing out flyers (like I shall hopefully soon be doing myself)? Again, this is a (hidden) statement of a political conception, which says that the realm of the political is very self contained, it does not extend to the agency of people, or to the "private". Democracy, apparently, rests in the realm of elected representatives, and the rule (the archy bit) by the people (the demos bit) is reduced to our voting ability (and the ability to put forward our candidacy). It does not rest in people confronting other people to re-evaluate their understanding of the world, and their ethical norms. It does not rest upon healthy dialogue within society, only from up high in the official "political" areana.
Also, what is the point of religious proselytizing? Well, I think it has a similar role to political proselytizing - to entice other's to one's particular conception of the nature of the world, and the nature of appropriate action and dispositions towards the elements of the world (and beyond). It serves to explain to others one's conceptions of how we should understand that around us, and what we should and should not value. From this vantage point, what SAFE does, is of a similar form. It promotes a view about how we should view non-human animals, and about the nature of the world around us - that animals are of the form of things that we should be concerned about and emphasize with. Why should this form of conception of the world be deemed less valid than other forms? By placing the emphasis on the label "religion" society is privileging a certain set of contended values.
I got thinking that a good articulation of one of the problems I see with our city/society is a general dislike of the idea of confronting our beliefs, and of questioning the general "correctness" of things. One thing I really would like to see more of is the public presentation of differing views (by public, I mean on the streets, community based, not via the tv). We all have many different views on things, it's just a fact. But, I feel the the typical city council view is that we must present a harmonious united community. To be a city of international standing implies that divergence in views about how the world should be do not gel well.
But that's not right to me - we do not agree, or conceive of the world in singular ways - and we should cherish this. People should feel confronted sometimes, and people should be able to confront others, and they should be able to have some power in confronting and questioning the assumed "essential truths" of our society.
Another point I thought about is that tables and chairs are of course allowed on public footpaths, if one is willing to pay. In particular, I'm talking about cafes and similar that have outside tables for customers (and sometimes other barriers). So, the table on footpath issue is not about public safety (and where SAFE put its table, and the exact dimensions of the table, in no way affected the ability of the public to walk freely in their merry ways - the footpath at the spot is very generous in "girth"). In this sense, the public is allowed to be confronted, but in this case, confronted by businesses.
In fact, we are often confronted with messages that tell us how to live and how to act. Advertising is rife, but its role as confronter, and indoctrinator is less visible. It's such a part of our world we may not even realise the values that are being instilled in us.
This almost gets us to my last random but connected point - a role of the state in a capitalist society. I think the state should act to ensure that a society can critically assess itself. It should work to support people who wish to question our society, and to enable to the general public reasonable exposure to confronting ideas. Active endorsement is required by the state, to enable us to "grow". There has to be an acknowledgement that the status-quo is, in part, dictated by a system with specific value - that system being one of market forces, and the need to convince others to buy ones commodities. This system is not strongly ethically self-reflexive, and needs voices outside that of the market to counter its messages (especially since many, whose voices are valid, may not have the power to be heard otherwise, given the allocation of power under the current system).
I put forward an example, that isn't animal-rights related, but feminist. We live in a world bombarded with messages that place certain value judgments on how people should see others, and how they should see themselves. When I travel on my bike through Auckland's apparent fashion capital - Newmarket, I am confronted with images that suggest a certain time of look as a beauty ideal, one that encourages people (women in particular, but men too, in different ways) as objects for others. The valuations present are also heavily weighted in racial terms - if the woman on the billboard is not white, she will be European looking, and will be as fair-skinned as possible.
I once thought that beauty-pageants would one day be a thing of the past, but they still linger, and we continue on with such wonders as X Top Model. I notice that the producers of NZ's Top Model must've taken heed of previous criticisms of the whiteness of last year's contestants - as it seems more diverse this year - but they are still rather homogeneous looking (thanks photoshop?) (favourite line "What makes it intriguing is that it is also a fascinating look at a diverse cross-section of young New Zealand women [they were girls up until this point] who are on the verge of something great - discovering themselves [as objects for others]").
NZ Top Model hasn't been without controversy. Apparently, it's okay to value a 16 year old as a sexual object, because "For all those concerned about the images ... the girls are not naked - they have bits on their bits", which seems to miss the point - it's not whether one can see nipples or whatever, it's the simple fact that one (only 16 years old) is portrayed as an object for view as an (sexual) object by others.
What kind of message are we sending people?
Now, I think it is quite reasonable to think that some people may have some legitimate claim to saying that they object to the way our advertising and entertainment industry is representing women, and how that may serve to teach girls and women (and boys and men too) to see themselves as objects in the eyes of others (I'm being a de Bouviour fan here...), and to value themselves according to a certain code that is constructed, and most likely unattainable (we like to create ways to help ourselves hate ourselves). A well functioning society would ensure that such a objection is able to gain traction in confronting the "hidden" message of the status-quo system of things. But, if such people have to go through loops to get permits that don't allow them to really confront people, all while billboards continuing on in their tireless idealogical quest - hasn't something gone wrong?
If our government works only to encourage economic growth, and to generate a perception on uniformity in ideas, but not to encourage or support the essentially self-reflexive criticism that a flourishing society needs, hasn't something gone wrong. Should we not be celebrating and supporting people who challenge our ideas, so that we can be better people - even if to strengthen our view of the world by giving something to argue against?
I guess I could go on to criticize the National's government work in axing the "excess bureaucracy" which served to critique society in a way that the market cannot provide, or the way universities are being led to focus on marketable "knowledge economy" gadgetry, instead of acting as a source of new ways of looking at the world - but then I'd sound like a humanities text book of some form, so I won't.