The conversation with my dad on 9/11 began as a discussion about who was involved in the events of that day ten years ago, and evolved into an argument about the causes of social injustice, environmental degradation, etc. I talked about how corporate interference in government has taken away the power of the people, and how our lives are contained in manufactured boxes of abundant distraction and conditioning. I said the response was to recognize this and respond through personal life choices (working toward self-sufficiency within local communities, avoiding putting money into corporate pockets by selective spending, and other actions). I also expressed anxiety that unfortunately many people have none of the means to access this perspective, or the energy or empowerment or know how to make such choices. In response to my concern that my voice--a single voice--is not enough to be heard in such an enormous system of influence and power, he simply told me not to be disheartened and not to "run away". In essence he encouraged me that I do have an influence and that being discouraged and removing myself completely was irresponsible. It's not that I totally disagree with that, but it got me thinking: there has got to be a balance that can be lived especially at this juncture in history when so much is happening--there's got to be a balance between living within "the system" in order to change it, and living without it.
If we are in collective transition between one way of living and another, perhaps we must straddle the line in order to be fully alive and active members of our race, of our communities, during this time in history. In Wendell Berry's essay "Think Little" he talks about this in a context that is very applicable to what has been going on these past few weeks in NY and across the country. He says:
It seems to me that the Civil Rights Movement and the Peace Movement, as popular causes in the electronic age, have partaken far too much of the nature of fads. Not for all, certainly, but for too many they have been the fashionable politics of the moment. As causes they have been undertaken too much in ignorance; they have been too much simplified; they have been powered too much by impatience and guilt of conscience and short-term enthusiasm, and too little by an authentic social vision and long-term conviction and deliberation.He goes on to say:
If this effort is carried on solely as a public cause, if millions of people cannot or will not undertake it as a private cause as well, then [this] is sure the happen. In five years the energy of our present concern will have petered out in a series of public gestures--and no doubt in a series of empty laws--and a great [...] human opportunity will have been lost."In context he is referring specifically to the environmental movement, but what he says is applicable to recent events and to all movements. My point (and his, I assume) is not to say that we shouldn't revel in the energy and enthusiasm bubbling up at these times. Trust me, I am riled up and ready to hit the streets. The occupations of public space and gatherings of people are great because we suddenly we are not one voice trying to be heard over the roar of political slander and mass media's deluge of distraction, we are the vast majority of people screaming our demands under the slogan of "we are the 99%." And so, in the midst of this, Berry is asking us (the people, the majority), to really examine what are our demands, and who are we demanding them from? Are we demanding them from the 1%, or from the 99%? Or are we really asking for major changes from 100%, from everyone?
Berry says "A man who is willing to undertake the discipline and the difficulty of mending his own ways is worth more to the [...] movement than a hundred who are insisting merely that the government and the industries mend their ways." If 99% of people made this thing their own personal private cause too, by asserting some autonomy from the present system by thinking up and creating alternatives, wouldn't that be revolutionary in itself?
Am I being idealistic? Or is this the way forward?
Possibly, both. In her article, Donella Meadows, a prominent systems thinker and a huge influence of mine, tells of her Envisioning Workshops in which she asks people to describe "not the world they thought they could achieve, or the world they were willing to settle for, but the world they truly wanted."
This exercise is totally idealistic. And it is idealistic to ask that the 99% to be the ones making the changes when the major destruction and oppression is happening seemingly so far out of our reach. It is idealistic because we are asking people--we are asking ourselves--to live up to our own ideals. But this is important, because it is our ideals that move us to the action of creating what we desire and believe in. As Meadows wrote:
"Vision is the most vital step in the policy process. If we don’t know where we want to go, it makes little difference that we make great progress. [...] Even if information, models, and implementation could be perfect in every way, how far can they guide us, if we know what direction we want to move away from but not what direction we want to go toward? There may be motivation in escaping doom, but there is even more in creating a better world."So what are our ideal visions for this world? How can we begin creating them through the present movement? What desires and demands do we have for our government, and what desires and demands do we have for ourselves. How to keep that balance of living within a system that oppresses us in order to change it, and living without it in order to live up to our highest ideals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment