Doing a little
Annex came and went. Then Earth Hour did the same.
There were a couple interesting discussions. And as usual I paid close attention to the way that people talked about action and issue, to the way that people constructed appropriateness and normalcy, and to the way that people talked about what is and what isn't. I noticed some common patterns, sometimes in places where it was disappointing to see them. I saw ties with the way people talk about activism, hot/popular topics, and making changes to their life.
Out of this I have an argument which I think needs to be made. Keep in mind that I am making this exclusively to 'Christians'. I assume that proper Christian action takes on the same model that proper faith does--complete loyalty to (the Patron and King) God. (If you can't get out of faith-as-(blind) belief, go away.) There is no such thing as trying out faith, or slightly following Jesus, or sort of believing. Let's not suddenly be idiots when it comes to the grimy shit: Jesus calls you to die.
That in mind, here's the argument. Suppose we have some 'social issue' that people (again, Christians) are considering taking action on. Let's say for purposes of illustration that the issue is racism.
I think that the decision to "do a little" is a sure giveaway that the severity and extent of a situation is lost or misunderstood. If, for example, someone is being raped, it would not be an appropriate response to go alongside them and speak comforting words. Rather, it would be appropriate to lay the smack down on the rapist... if not more.
To turn the critique to events, especially ones advertised in mainstream media, I think this giveaway is the strongest argument that those events are cathartic (something to release tension, make us feel good) objects of consumption. Okay, we might have an official day to eliminate racism, which would likely be capitalized upon by anti-racist / pro-equality groups... for the very reason that people in general don't actually care! We would not have any use whatsoever for an official day if anti-racism was a core part of our society: it would be like having a food day.
I think this argument poses major problems for the offered justification of "raising awareness." The kind of "awareness" that is raised is little more than a ridiculously simplistic view (especially since cathartic processes are in play). People would be "aware" if large masses changed their consumption habits and questioned the production processes of the companies they buy from. Rather, this deal of "raising awareness" is an essentially consumerist approach to action. People are informed about different ways of living or various agencies, and given a lame sales speech about values and environment and blah. The only thing they become aware of are more choices.
Do a little indeed. Maybe sidle up to the rapist and observe?
This critique is even more damning when we contrast ourselves with those who have taken appropriate action.
There were a couple interesting discussions. And as usual I paid close attention to the way that people talked about action and issue, to the way that people constructed appropriateness and normalcy, and to the way that people talked about what is and what isn't. I noticed some common patterns, sometimes in places where it was disappointing to see them. I saw ties with the way people talk about activism, hot/popular topics, and making changes to their life.
Out of this I have an argument which I think needs to be made. Keep in mind that I am making this exclusively to 'Christians'. I assume that proper Christian action takes on the same model that proper faith does--complete loyalty to (the Patron and King) God. (If you can't get out of faith-as-(blind) belief, go away.) There is no such thing as trying out faith, or slightly following Jesus, or sort of believing. Let's not suddenly be idiots when it comes to the grimy shit: Jesus calls you to die.
That in mind, here's the argument. Suppose we have some 'social issue' that people (again, Christians) are considering taking action on. Let's say for purposes of illustration that the issue is racism.
I think that the decision to "do a little" is a sure giveaway that the severity and extent of a situation is lost or misunderstood. If, for example, someone is being raped, it would not be an appropriate response to go alongside them and speak comforting words. Rather, it would be appropriate to lay the smack down on the rapist... if not more.
To turn the critique to events, especially ones advertised in mainstream media, I think this giveaway is the strongest argument that those events are cathartic (something to release tension, make us feel good) objects of consumption. Okay, we might have an official day to eliminate racism, which would likely be capitalized upon by anti-racist / pro-equality groups... for the very reason that people in general don't actually care! We would not have any use whatsoever for an official day if anti-racism was a core part of our society: it would be like having a food day.
I think this argument poses major problems for the offered justification of "raising awareness." The kind of "awareness" that is raised is little more than a ridiculously simplistic view (especially since cathartic processes are in play). People would be "aware" if large masses changed their consumption habits and questioned the production processes of the companies they buy from. Rather, this deal of "raising awareness" is an essentially consumerist approach to action. People are informed about different ways of living or various agencies, and given a lame sales speech about values and environment and blah. The only thing they become aware of are more choices.
Do a little indeed. Maybe sidle up to the rapist and observe?
This critique is even more damning when we contrast ourselves with those who have taken appropriate action.