I wanted to expand on a conversation which has been developing over on the Pop Occulture Magazine site. The conversation relates to a review I wrote of a book by Saab Lofton, and some of the points he raised in his arguments. But I don’t want to pull in all the baggage from that conversation (you can go engage in other aspects of it over there) - I just want to pull out one particular gem for right now and see if we can’t make it gleam.
While I don’t agree with a lot of it, one of the many points that Lofton keeps bringing up has to do with the idea of style, hipness or fashion within the realms of activism and the counter-culture. In his always racially-loaded arguments, he seems to believe that white people only engage in acts of protest when they are stylish:
[...] there’s plenty of Bush bashing to engage in! What’s that? Bush bashing is so passe? So last year? So out of style? Well, if you’re deluded enough to think that, you’ve just proved my point: When blacks protest, it’s out of survival. When whites protest, it’s to be hip and fashionable [...]
If we can have the dignity to rise above what I personally see as race-baiting, I think we can have a really interesting conversation around this idea. First of all, I have to fervently disagree about there being anyone protesting today who isn’t doing it out of survival. It’s easy to see that the world and our government are changing very rapidly. You don’t need to be black or white or anything other than simple awake and alive to recognize that survival really is at stake here. Survival of what? Of nations, of peoples, of ethnic groups, of belief systems, of ways of life, of the individual human spirit - all of that truly is at stake. Survival, after all, is the foremost instinct among all living beings - is it not?
The question of how best to ensure that survival, I think, is where people’s approaches begin to differ. Some people see a long game, where they are planning way down the road. Others are more interested in immediate goals. Some of us even see hope in spiritual rather than political solutions. I personally see this diversity of tactics to be important, creative, necessary and fundamentally human. We all ought to be going about this in accord with what we feel to be right for us.
I do see a certain kernel of truth to the idea that Bush-bashing has gone “out of style,” though. I do not think protest against him or what he represents has in any way lessened. But I do sense a general weariness among a lot of people. The weariness comes not from something falling out of fashion or becoming less “hip” - but because of the immensity of the situation. What does protest do, what does waving a sign in the street and chanting do - realistically - to stop bombs from falling, children from dying? I’m not saying that out of apathy, but out of a need to find a genuine answer to this question, because I myself have not found one.
As I see it, in order to believe that garden-variety acts of protest have an impact on government policy, you need to have an unshakeable underlying belief that the government is actually listening to you, actually cares what you think or feel, and is actually conscientious enough to act according to that. I personally lack the conviction that this is the case. They may be listening, they may have us under surveillance, but I do not believe they “care” (or that an institution is capable of “caring”) or that there will be resultant action based on that non-existant care.
I could be totally wrong about these things. I could be simply white and spoiled as Lofton argues, but I think the issues at stake here are much larger than simply fashion and calling Bush names. I mean, what is Bush anyway? A leader? A figurehead? A focal point and a symbol for a frustration that should, at this point, be systemic? If we focus our efforts on “beating Bush” then what happens when we get our way and he is replaced by the same beast wearing a different mask, costume and political party?
I do not believe politics is the way out of this maze, but neither do I have the map of what really is the way out either. Nor do I think it is fashionable to say so. When has it ever been fashionable to admit your own uncertainty, your own stupidity, your own weakness? Because I am all of those things and more. And it seems that only in recognizing my own failings, and my own contributions to the greater problems facing us that maybe I will begin to be able to unravel them.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Bush Family Fishing Trip
- Bush to be greeted by jousters, but not protestors
- top search google 12 december 2008
- Pat Robertson does something right for once
- Shameless Scare Tactics
18 Comments
I’ve also been thinking heavily on what I think may be a very important topic, but which may seem sort of a tangent from this main discussion: behaviorism and/or behavioralism:
Or, as I have quoted in another article in regards to it’s cousin, Eliminativism:
And another great quote I found recently from champion of these types of thought, BF Skinner:
What worries me is not that these theories might turn out to be true, but that the “Powers That Be” use this type of thinking as their operative philosophy. If they do, then free speech and public discontent is simply not threatening to them - because they don’t believe that human beings have internal states or minds, or that if they do, they are inconsequential - “folk psychology” as they call it.
How on earth do you fight an enemy who doesn’t even believe that you exist at all?
It’s always about legitimacy. If the Powers That Be acknowledge you, then you can fight. Presidential Candidates that are left out of the debates might as well not exist. Cindy Sheehan, ignored by the Bush Administration, can have no effect on that body until she is acknowledged. Constitutional arguments have no bearing on IRS Tax cases, as the court will not acknowledge the Constitution can be appealed to in that court.
You’ve experienced it with the Santeria. When you acknowledge there are currents that you may not have previously seen, they begin to affect you.
The militiaman who stockpiles weapons and dreams of taking down the US government gets very little attention. Timothy McVeigh, on the other hand, made the government acknowledge him. I’m not supporting what he did, simply saying that he forced their hand.
Unless protestors can force the government’s hand, they’re useless. In the 60s, it was new, it was news, and the media forced the government’s hand. Sit ins and other civil disobedience also had an impact. But now that it’s accepted, it can be ignored. The protestors are noise, and civil disobedients are simply law breakers, forced into their little protest zones and ignored.
The lawyers who argue about Guantanamo bay, on the other hand, are part of the system, and have to be acknowledged, eventually.
It gives a little credit to Saabs position, although not as much as he thinks. Racial Minorities are traditionally pushed to the margins, then ignored. It took black people doing the unthinkable (riding the the front of the bus! Marching on the Capitol!) to garner any attention.
Now that attention is enshrined in the system, and can be ignored again. MLK JR is no longer a radical, but a fond memory, a touch stone of a younger day when we still had dreams.
Behaviorism is closer to the truth than most are willing to admit, and yet (so says “I”) it is not the whole truth.
Gurdjieff asserted that man as he is has no “I”, “individuality”, “consciousness” or “will,” because he is an automaton solely motivated by external influences.
However, he also said that these things can be acquired through intentional efforts and sufferings.
In the macro sense of your political topic, this means that the government is never too worried, because they know that we are operating within their frame. We are “reactive” as a political body, rather than “(pro)active.”
Bush is an ideal front-man for the oligarchs and wingnuts because he dilutes their message and steals the focus away from what is substantively, actually happening. To focus on him, a symptom, is a mistake.
Your entries (if you care to cite them) on Jesus as a political protester give some glimpse into what is possible when people suffer and struggle to set up a new frame and control the political narrative. But almost no one tries.
Excellent reference point. More here and here on the vagaries of that topic.
Which relates very well to that now famous passage about the “Reality based community:
Scott said:
That’s more or less what I was getting at with regards to behavioralism. The government doesn’t know or care about what our dreams of innermost feelings are, because as an institution, these things don’t register in its consciousness. They may not believe we have minds at all, and they certainly don’t believe we have souls. But when our perceived inner feelings are manifested as action - as external behavior - then it is recognized.
The problem after that point is just as you very well put it: does the system make an allowance for the type of behavior/action which we engage in? If we protest, they put us into “protest zones”. If we riot, they put us into jail or kill us.
What we need to engage in, then, may simply be (as you both said above) action for which there is no precedence, and for which the system wasn’t designed to handle and for which they have no conceivable response.
Well put. Like, who the fuck is Richard Nixon?
I think this completely describes why it is tiresome to bushbash because he’s such a tool and easy target. We get it, he just ain’t that bright, but he’s got “heart” or some such crap. Choked on a pretzel and got a black eye. The list goes on and on.
BTW - Lofty is annoying but if he’s using a tactic to engage people to join amnesty international, it is interesting.
saab would like to think his tribe is the only one being marginalised. that whitey is fucking priveledged. well saab, we`re all in the same boat buddy, sitting in the margins. make the best of it.
and if we continue to bush-bash or whatever then we`ll always be caught up in a relationship with politics, and that`s no way to waste one`s life……….
what we can do is motivate, inspire, help and encourage the living of life to the fullest in the shadow of the castle and forget the issues of the king.
Alistair said:
I guess it’s the idealist coupled with the realist in me that says your approach is only half right. What you suggest is the only rational way to proceed (read: live your life) against the system but it isn’t enough.
To further your analogy - the toll exacted by those living in the castle on those in its shadow will become so steep as to make life unliveable AND eventually the enemies of the people in the castle will come home to roost and those living in the shadow of the castle will suffer the most. So, completely ignoring them would be a mistake.
While I agree you shouldn’t waste your life caught up in politics neither should it be ignored. You cannot completely disentangle yourself from politics no matter how much you try. A wise man once said that only the dull have time to sit on committees and another commented that the people who run for political office are exactly the type who should never hold power. Thus, the more enlightened of us can’t completely leave them to their devices.
Eventually, the credt extended to the people of the united states on the account of “the people are good but the government is bad” is going to run out. And sooner rather than later. Maybe not in our lifetime but if you have kids, like I do, it is easy to see how it will almost certainly affect them.
I say if Bush-Bashing is passe it is only passe for those who thought it was a fad in the first place.
Does anyone even read these the next day? I mean I could go on but I guess at this point it is only for me.
gary, i understand your concern for the potential of a mad king to fuck it all up and push the castle over on us all………but i`m an optimistic jester that thumbs my nose at silly kings and if he wants a go at me, well, so be it.
i read the first few pages of 1984 yesterday and realised that that is the fear. a total dystopian society where we`re afraid of big brother watching, anxious about writing in a journal and where there are no rules but people know what will get you executed. a vast paranoid culture. i liken that tale to post-adolescent fear of parental control. as we get older that passes and what we felt was a prison eventually becomes a vast creative potential……….if you can preserve your optimism long enough.
and i suggest not living your life against the system or in spite of the system but ignoring the system.
any energy you put into a thought validates it.
Gary wrote:
“Eventually, the credt extended to the people of the united states on the account of “the people are good but the government is bad†is going to run out. And sooner rather than later. Maybe not in our lifetime but if you have kids, like I do, it is easy to see how it will almost certainly affect them.
I say if Bush-Bashing is passe it is only passe for those who thought it was a fad in the first place.
Does anyone even read these the next day? I mean I could go on but I guess at this point it is only for me. ”
I’m listening. Don’t know if I understand any of it, but I’m listening.
There are a few truths: People are selfish; the world’s insane; nothing matters. Say you and your group (insert group of choice here) are rounded up by those in power, and maybe a few of you are put to death. Is said death better or worse than being smashed by a bus, drowned in a hurricane, fried by lightning, shot by a gangbanger, or gutted like a fish by a crackhead? Perhaps a quick heart attack is the best way to go, after all. How does one decide? Does a bug care whether its death comes by being eaten by a bigger bug or smashed by a boot or suffocated by pesticide or batted around by a cat?
At the dinner table one day, my youngest daughter said, “When I have a baby, you’ll be dead.” Could be.
Bush? He’s a funny little critter, ain’t he. I reckon he thinks about his childrens’ future as much as the next bug…er…guy.
Oh cool topic. It’s been a while since I’ve been here, glad to see an interesting topic posted. In my opinion the far left has been out of style for like the past two years, but of course you don’t ever hear this mentioned in the leftist crap media. That’s why stupid movies like X-men 3, and Mission Impossible 3 went straight to the dollar theatres, and “big shots” in the industry are still bashing on Bush. I think if we were ever in the think for yourself era, it is now. People seem to be getting smarter and wiser. We are beginning to figure out that we have the ability to turn off the television when its nothing but crap and negativity, and yes Bush Bashing is definitely out of style. (Most people have evolved to things that require a little bit more thought
)
Alistair said:
“any energy you put into a thought validates it”…
There is something that actually validates it, and the reason why we cannot just continue to ignore the system and that is tax money. By paying taxes you validate the system and ignoring it after the fact is just delusion. What you don’t see doesn’t bother you, or it does and you ignore it. I don’t understand how this is preferable to trying to change the system by protest or whatever…
Hesyourgnosis wrote:
Alistair said:
“any energy you put into a thought validates itâ€â€¦
There is something that actually validates it, and the reason why we cannot just continue to ignore the system and that is tax money. By paying taxes you validate the system and ignoring it after the fact is just delusion. What you don’t see doesn’t bother you, or it does and you ignore it. I don’t understand how this is preferable to trying to change the system by protest or whatever…
Change it to what? For what? You might please yourself, but you’ll never please everyone. And the struggle for power goes on. The world’s insane, I tell ya.
Agnes
Well,
Food for thought from all and I thank you for it. It is rare that I meet someone more optimistic than me and alstair you may have out done me. I find it hard to play the jester like I used to you with my two youngin’s coming up on deck. I will endeavor to consider redoubling my efforts.
A wise man once said, “Being aware of the world is like living in a two story building that’s on fire. While trapped on the second floor and looking out the window the only thing worth remarking and reveling in is just how beautiful the view is.” (badly paraphrased, I might add)
The same wise man also adds that to engage the dragon is not necessarily to validate it but you can “ride the dragon” try to steer it and enjoy the wild ride.
As far as the poster above said that nothing matters let me impart some further study to that phrase:
If nothing matters then everything is sacred. If nothing is sacred then everything matters. Living your life between those two phrases can be fun.
It’s never out of style to bash any leader, whether it is Bush, his father, Clinton, Winston Churchill, or The Pope.
People who think of politics in terms of style are forgetting that policy is not a fad. Policies don’t change on mere whims. Something like our foreign policy is not equatable to what Paris Hilton is into today or what movie is Number One at the box office.
As for the Left, they are lazy right now. The New Right co-opted their tactics from the ’60s and are using them to their full advantage today. But I suspect that the New Right (while they may have studied where the Left went wrong) hasn’t forseen the inevitable backlash that accompanies these political power shifts.
And everyone talking about WWIII nowadays obscures the fact that Bush and his ilk will be gone in less than two years… then again, so will the entire world, if we’re not careful. I am frankly more terrified of WWV, because I will be too old to fight the power by that time.
Hopefully, Bush will get out of office and then it will be time to bash another leader, regardless of their political party (personally, I’m one of those people who see NO DIFFERENCE in the goals and aims of either party)
God Bless America, and our right to trash our leaders without being taken out and shot!
That may be just it though: that they don’t care what we say - they only care what we do. And if the only thing we do is “trash talk” then they’d have no reason to shoot us.
No, The Powers That Be do care what is being said, which is why they pay all these pundits and talking heads to spin facts. If they could, they’d get rid of the 1st Amendment– some would argue that they already have, by neutering the Fourth estate.
Not to mention, “they” don’t need a reason to shoot us– they’ll make up any that they choose. The only reason we’re not all dogmeat right now is anyone’s guess, but I doubt it has to do with us being meek and compliant and non-vocal.
In short, the President (whomever he is, Dem or Repub) may not have any reason to worry about what is being said, but (as evidenced by Stephen Colbert’s recent speech) our current Prez cares enough that it makes him squirm when people trash him, esp. when it’s right in front of him and he has to keep a smile on his face and take it with good humor. Bush’s revenge comes when the lapdog press deflects the Colbert issue by saying he wasn’t that funny while saying that the Bush impersonator was.
It’s all about language. Language is power. “Trash talk” counts as language, and it’s mighty potent. Otherwise, all public forums would be useless and serve no purpose.