my lj continued
there have been moments when I've tried to influence the kids' politics, trying not to come across as dogmatic, especially as regards gender/sexuality (they are very homophobic). I hesitate to use the word "radicalize" anymore for anyone really, but especially coming from a position of privelege, dealing with people who suffer from more direct oppression than I do. using that word puts me in too paternalistic and dogmatic a perspective which tends to backfire on me.
what happens when I try to "radicalize" someone is I enter into conversations with an agenda and don't listen well, and especially for oppressed people the experience of being "talked at" isn't radical at all, but is just more of the same dehumanizing shit they deal with every day. I've come to feel that only experience truly radicalizes someone; for priveleged people, who are encouraged to avoid and ignore the truth, I think truth-telling and bearing witness on how things actually are can be a profoundly life-altering and important experience, especially when the words come from oppressed people.
but I think that people who have suffered more and been more traumatized by the "system" are radicalized differently, by feeling empowered and safe and by having their reality affirmed, all these through being a part of a strong and loving community. only then can people recognize and use their own power. if that involves conversation it's a very different conversation than the classic "radicalizing" one. regardless, it takes a lot more time, because a big part of it is building up trust, especially if you're a privileged person going into oppressed peoples' space. it's entirely right and healthy for them not to trust you. asking for and receiving that trust is a very humbling experience.
you can't rationalize or debate someone into recognizing their own power. you can encourage them, but that encouragement holds little weight if they don't trust you or don't love themselves. being politically active and empowered holds a lot more risks for someone who has less to begin with and to whom the system is already directly hostile, so in addition to trust and self-love people have to feel connected to a community that will help them through these risks. if you are very lucky you can be considered a part of that community, but you need to understand the meaning of that responsibility, you need to be willing to step back and be just a part of a whole much greater than and different from yourself, and you need to be willing to do some real work.
that mentality is very different from a "seed planting" radicalizing mentality, in which you, the Radical, go among the masses, planting seeds in everyone you meet and then moving on. Radicalizing can be a kind of patriarchal effort to reproduce your political offspring in everyone you meet, another notch in the bedpost, another score for your team. and it can be very useful as a tool, like Chomsky going on Crossfire to challenge the liberals and conservatives on their own turf, to beat them at their own game for a moment in TV time. and as I said, it can be a very important step for people encouraged to ignore everyone and everything which challenges their right to live off the fruits of other people's suffering without a second thought.
radicalization can be useful but I think it needs to be used with care. I feel like there is a small percentage of the population who can actually be effected by this technique. generally, they're old enough to have started to see how the world is and be angered by it, but young enough that they are still looking for answers and still believe in truth achieved through thought, discourse and debate. they often fetishize intellectualism. once "radicalized" they go through a period of intense thinking and reading and talking about "radical" issues. they claim "radical" as an identity and join one or another facet of the "radical" community. they are often from skin- and class-priveleged backgrounds, and are initially "converted" by people of similar skin- and class-backgrounds to themselves. they are often from what they consider "counter-cultures" previously. for them it's like a veil has been lifted and is akin to a religious awakening. it's like the sunglasses in the movie They Live. suddenly they see the world completely differently than before.
once that phase is over, for a lot of people that's it, and with their new identity they may get involved in a few groups but it loses the intrigue and excitement it had before. they may continue to move in the circles, they may continue to wear the clothes, but their day-to-day lives go pretty much back to normal.
there are others who get involved in intensely exciting work. they finally feel alive, like being in love. they finally take risks. for these people, taking risks is liberating. they have spent their whole lives living inside invisible boxes filled with their own comfort and complacency, with moments of oppression and pain that they now have a context for. they finally feel connected to other people, free of guilt and revelling in responsibility and the magic of solidarity. and then, inevitably, the honeymoon period is over.
those of this type who continue down the "radicalization" path, once the excitement has died down, tend to turn the gaze inwards, to look at themselves and the ways that oppression and privelege have shaped who they are. they may attend "white privelege" workshops. they may begin to look at women differently, at gay people differently, at poor people differently, at people of color differently, but generally they still surround themselves with similarly introspective white middle-class folks. they may at times feel paralyzed by their own introspection. they may blindly search around for something that made them feel as excited and alive as their first foray into radicalization, the "honeymoon period" of their political awakening. they probably won't find it.
eventually, they may learn to listen. they may be ready to hear people from less priveleged backgrounds.
beyond this, they may be able to form real, working friendships with people different from them. in their political work, they may be able to practice meaningful solidarity. they may be able to act without being in love with themselves as actors, and without being paralyzed by guilt or awkwardness. they may be worthy of the trust and respect of oppressed people. they may be ready to walk the walk of building a movement without delusions of grandeur.
beyond this, they may finally, really, actually, learn how to listen.
the fact is that there aren't any easy answers. there is only time, and what you do with it. there are only other people, and your interactions with them. there is only yourself, and your growth, and what you can and can't see at any given moment.
what happens when I try to "radicalize" someone is I enter into conversations with an agenda and don't listen well, and especially for oppressed people the experience of being "talked at" isn't radical at all, but is just more of the same dehumanizing shit they deal with every day. I've come to feel that only experience truly radicalizes someone; for priveleged people, who are encouraged to avoid and ignore the truth, I think truth-telling and bearing witness on how things actually are can be a profoundly life-altering and important experience, especially when the words come from oppressed people.
but I think that people who have suffered more and been more traumatized by the "system" are radicalized differently, by feeling empowered and safe and by having their reality affirmed, all these through being a part of a strong and loving community. only then can people recognize and use their own power. if that involves conversation it's a very different conversation than the classic "radicalizing" one. regardless, it takes a lot more time, because a big part of it is building up trust, especially if you're a privileged person going into oppressed peoples' space. it's entirely right and healthy for them not to trust you. asking for and receiving that trust is a very humbling experience.
you can't rationalize or debate someone into recognizing their own power. you can encourage them, but that encouragement holds little weight if they don't trust you or don't love themselves. being politically active and empowered holds a lot more risks for someone who has less to begin with and to whom the system is already directly hostile, so in addition to trust and self-love people have to feel connected to a community that will help them through these risks. if you are very lucky you can be considered a part of that community, but you need to understand the meaning of that responsibility, you need to be willing to step back and be just a part of a whole much greater than and different from yourself, and you need to be willing to do some real work.
that mentality is very different from a "seed planting" radicalizing mentality, in which you, the Radical, go among the masses, planting seeds in everyone you meet and then moving on. Radicalizing can be a kind of patriarchal effort to reproduce your political offspring in everyone you meet, another notch in the bedpost, another score for your team. and it can be very useful as a tool, like Chomsky going on Crossfire to challenge the liberals and conservatives on their own turf, to beat them at their own game for a moment in TV time. and as I said, it can be a very important step for people encouraged to ignore everyone and everything which challenges their right to live off the fruits of other people's suffering without a second thought.
radicalization can be useful but I think it needs to be used with care. I feel like there is a small percentage of the population who can actually be effected by this technique. generally, they're old enough to have started to see how the world is and be angered by it, but young enough that they are still looking for answers and still believe in truth achieved through thought, discourse and debate. they often fetishize intellectualism. once "radicalized" they go through a period of intense thinking and reading and talking about "radical" issues. they claim "radical" as an identity and join one or another facet of the "radical" community. they are often from skin- and class-priveleged backgrounds, and are initially "converted" by people of similar skin- and class-backgrounds to themselves. they are often from what they consider "counter-cultures" previously. for them it's like a veil has been lifted and is akin to a religious awakening. it's like the sunglasses in the movie They Live. suddenly they see the world completely differently than before.
once that phase is over, for a lot of people that's it, and with their new identity they may get involved in a few groups but it loses the intrigue and excitement it had before. they may continue to move in the circles, they may continue to wear the clothes, but their day-to-day lives go pretty much back to normal.
there are others who get involved in intensely exciting work. they finally feel alive, like being in love. they finally take risks. for these people, taking risks is liberating. they have spent their whole lives living inside invisible boxes filled with their own comfort and complacency, with moments of oppression and pain that they now have a context for. they finally feel connected to other people, free of guilt and revelling in responsibility and the magic of solidarity. and then, inevitably, the honeymoon period is over.
those of this type who continue down the "radicalization" path, once the excitement has died down, tend to turn the gaze inwards, to look at themselves and the ways that oppression and privelege have shaped who they are. they may attend "white privelege" workshops. they may begin to look at women differently, at gay people differently, at poor people differently, at people of color differently, but generally they still surround themselves with similarly introspective white middle-class folks. they may at times feel paralyzed by their own introspection. they may blindly search around for something that made them feel as excited and alive as their first foray into radicalization, the "honeymoon period" of their political awakening. they probably won't find it.
eventually, they may learn to listen. they may be ready to hear people from less priveleged backgrounds.
beyond this, they may be able to form real, working friendships with people different from them. in their political work, they may be able to practice meaningful solidarity. they may be able to act without being in love with themselves as actors, and without being paralyzed by guilt or awkwardness. they may be worthy of the trust and respect of oppressed people. they may be ready to walk the walk of building a movement without delusions of grandeur.
beyond this, they may finally, really, actually, learn how to listen.
the fact is that there aren't any easy answers. there is only time, and what you do with it. there are only other people, and your interactions with them. there is only yourself, and your growth, and what you can and can't see at any given moment.