Rejuvenating Resistance
by Rebecca Harris
The media announced on Nov. 7 that American troops in Iraq had stepped up their fighting and attacked Fallujah. I was deeply saddened by the death and destruction this renewed violence would entail. I wanted to express my opposition to Bush's continued abuse of power at the expense of innocent lives. The next evening, I went to downtown Chicago to protest.
I agree with and respect what the protest organizers were trying to do. Protests are one of the most direct ways for people to express dissent. They can be effective when leaders are willing to listen, when people are willing to be convinced. But I have a problem with the peace movement's reliance on conventional protests to get out its message. That night, I don't think our message got through.
When I marched on Nov. 8, I felt as though the apolitical and Republican bystanders saw us as another sort of invading army. Many of them looked simply tired — of politics and of us. I could see our irrelevance in their faces. To them, we were merely a mob. Our ceaseless, mindless shouting appeared uniform, robotic and cultlike — a direct contradiction of the values of critical thinking and diversity we say we espouse. (After all, what did Bush opponents think when they saw groups of people chanting "Four more years"?)
We were trying to be the nation's conscience, but our presentation made us easy to rationalize away. Our manner overshadowed our message. Our loudness steamrolled and goose-stepped over the spirit of empathy we were trying so hard to express.
Yes, Americans have good reason to be angry. Our president started an unjust war with Iraq on false pretenses. Millions of us are uninsured. Millions more work low-paying, unsatisfying jobs. Protests will remain a necessary way for people to express their anger. But we need more.
By spending so much time at the "Fuck Bush" rhetorical level, those who oppose the Iraq war throw away every possibility for those in the center, those undecided, and those who would join (but perhaps see authority differently or don't see any alternatives) to understand us as rational human beings fighting for the rights of innocent people.
In an essay critiquing current protests, Mark Sommer, a progressive radio host and media activist, wrote, "Other than in the most general terms, [protests] have utterly failed to articulate, let alone demonstrate, the many practical alternatives that have been devised to replace them. In the absence of clearly expressed and demonstrated alternatives, the great majority of those who sympathize with the critique of current policies decline to join the protests." Sommer proposes a new model for demonstrations: the “Global Village Gathering”.
"To be driven by fear and anger more than hope and determination is to catch the very illness we seek to combat," he wrote. "Where's the music, the dance, the life-affirming joy that's essential to constructive action? … We need to nurture the embryo of a vibrant and life-affirming society within the dying and death-driven husk of the obsolete existing order."
Sommer envisions gatherings that demonstrate concrete technologies for sustainability and solutions to current world problems, while emphasizing community, solidarity and interconnection. Though the gatherings would "decisively reject current trends and policies," that would not be what defined them. Participants would use music, dance, and stillness to show their unity and "facilitate coequal connections."
What is the goal of protesting? Usually, it's to stand up for one's principles — and send a message to the people in power and the citizens of a country by way of the media. Does that message get through?
People see the peace movement as opposing Bush, but I don't think its reasoning or its bigger criticisms come through, partly due to the limited spectrum of debate that the media imposes. Our ideas are reduced to rhetoric, slogans, a volleying of insults that becomes an irrelevant game. Instead of breaking down stereotypes, the tactics of marching and screaming encourage others to pigeonhole us. We end up reinforcing destructive ways of thinking that divide people into supposedly opposing groups — Democrats versus Republicans, liberal versus conservative, us versus them — instead of constructing something new and meaningful.
Another goal of protesting is to show and celebrate the power that we have as human beings. However, as Sommer wrote, "Paradoxically, to focus our greatest energy on protesting current policies and demanding that those in power change them is to reinforce their authority by conceding to them the sole power of making change."
Claiming space is an important part of the peace movement's expression of its power. Groups that challenge society and build community through the space they occupy don't do so by marching militaristically through an area while shouting. They work in other ways: dancing and setting up sofas in the street to refuse the destructive power of cars (Reclaim the Streets), serving food (Food Not Bombs), and creating artwork (graffiti artists). We need to celebrate the power we say we have. What is the point of gaining access to a street if all we're going to do is march through it yelling slogans?
Furthermore, the peace movement is in danger of losing its hopeful spirit, and its willing activists, if it continues to pour all of its resources into draining, confrontational protests. Yes, we need to speak truth to power and we need to criticize. But we also need a vision. We need a story, something to believe in and work for.
The religious right has its own visions of how beautiful its world would be: families not torn apart by divorce, people supported by close-knit churches and communities, an idyllic world where children respect their parents. The night before Christmas (you can rest assured) free trade proponents are nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of free markets (and their embodiment of the American Dream) dance in their heads. Any successful movement must be tied to a story, whether that story is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, an economics theory or the idea that all people are created equal. Although the left is fraught with disagreement over its "future plans," it could be so much more successful if it explored and put forth publicly a diversity of stories and ideas.
Counterculture author Tom Robbins once wrote that "Politics is for people who have a passion for changing life but lack a passion for living it." We should heed his criticism and orchestrate a vivacious, positive opposition to the systems we see causing so much death and suffering around us — an opposition that is also an affirmation of our values, our hopes, and what we hold to be true.
The media announced on Nov. 7 that American troops in Iraq had stepped up their fighting and attacked Fallujah. I was deeply saddened by the death and destruction this renewed violence would entail. I wanted to express my opposition to Bush's continued abuse of power at the expense of innocent lives. The next evening, I went to downtown Chicago to protest.
I agree with and respect what the protest organizers were trying to do. Protests are one of the most direct ways for people to express dissent. They can be effective when leaders are willing to listen, when people are willing to be convinced. But I have a problem with the peace movement's reliance on conventional protests to get out its message. That night, I don't think our message got through.
When I marched on Nov. 8, I felt as though the apolitical and Republican bystanders saw us as another sort of invading army. Many of them looked simply tired — of politics and of us. I could see our irrelevance in their faces. To them, we were merely a mob. Our ceaseless, mindless shouting appeared uniform, robotic and cultlike — a direct contradiction of the values of critical thinking and diversity we say we espouse. (After all, what did Bush opponents think when they saw groups of people chanting "Four more years"?)
We were trying to be the nation's conscience, but our presentation made us easy to rationalize away. Our manner overshadowed our message. Our loudness steamrolled and goose-stepped over the spirit of empathy we were trying so hard to express.
Yes, Americans have good reason to be angry. Our president started an unjust war with Iraq on false pretenses. Millions of us are uninsured. Millions more work low-paying, unsatisfying jobs. Protests will remain a necessary way for people to express their anger. But we need more.
By spending so much time at the "Fuck Bush" rhetorical level, those who oppose the Iraq war throw away every possibility for those in the center, those undecided, and those who would join (but perhaps see authority differently or don't see any alternatives) to understand us as rational human beings fighting for the rights of innocent people.
In an essay critiquing current protests, Mark Sommer, a progressive radio host and media activist, wrote, "Other than in the most general terms, [protests] have utterly failed to articulate, let alone demonstrate, the many practical alternatives that have been devised to replace them. In the absence of clearly expressed and demonstrated alternatives, the great majority of those who sympathize with the critique of current policies decline to join the protests." Sommer proposes a new model for demonstrations: the “Global Village Gathering”.
"To be driven by fear and anger more than hope and determination is to catch the very illness we seek to combat," he wrote. "Where's the music, the dance, the life-affirming joy that's essential to constructive action? … We need to nurture the embryo of a vibrant and life-affirming society within the dying and death-driven husk of the obsolete existing order."
Sommer envisions gatherings that demonstrate concrete technologies for sustainability and solutions to current world problems, while emphasizing community, solidarity and interconnection. Though the gatherings would "decisively reject current trends and policies," that would not be what defined them. Participants would use music, dance, and stillness to show their unity and "facilitate coequal connections."
What is the goal of protesting? Usually, it's to stand up for one's principles — and send a message to the people in power and the citizens of a country by way of the media. Does that message get through?
People see the peace movement as opposing Bush, but I don't think its reasoning or its bigger criticisms come through, partly due to the limited spectrum of debate that the media imposes. Our ideas are reduced to rhetoric, slogans, a volleying of insults that becomes an irrelevant game. Instead of breaking down stereotypes, the tactics of marching and screaming encourage others to pigeonhole us. We end up reinforcing destructive ways of thinking that divide people into supposedly opposing groups — Democrats versus Republicans, liberal versus conservative, us versus them — instead of constructing something new and meaningful.
Another goal of protesting is to show and celebrate the power that we have as human beings. However, as Sommer wrote, "Paradoxically, to focus our greatest energy on protesting current policies and demanding that those in power change them is to reinforce their authority by conceding to them the sole power of making change."
Claiming space is an important part of the peace movement's expression of its power. Groups that challenge society and build community through the space they occupy don't do so by marching militaristically through an area while shouting. They work in other ways: dancing and setting up sofas in the street to refuse the destructive power of cars (Reclaim the Streets), serving food (Food Not Bombs), and creating artwork (graffiti artists). We need to celebrate the power we say we have. What is the point of gaining access to a street if all we're going to do is march through it yelling slogans?
Furthermore, the peace movement is in danger of losing its hopeful spirit, and its willing activists, if it continues to pour all of its resources into draining, confrontational protests. Yes, we need to speak truth to power and we need to criticize. But we also need a vision. We need a story, something to believe in and work for.
The religious right has its own visions of how beautiful its world would be: families not torn apart by divorce, people supported by close-knit churches and communities, an idyllic world where children respect their parents. The night before Christmas (you can rest assured) free trade proponents are nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of free markets (and their embodiment of the American Dream) dance in their heads. Any successful movement must be tied to a story, whether that story is a literalist interpretation of the Bible, an economics theory or the idea that all people are created equal. Although the left is fraught with disagreement over its "future plans," it could be so much more successful if it explored and put forth publicly a diversity of stories and ideas.
Counterculture author Tom Robbins once wrote that "Politics is for people who have a passion for changing life but lack a passion for living it." We should heed his criticism and orchestrate a vivacious, positive opposition to the systems we see causing so much death and suffering around us — an opposition that is also an affirmation of our values, our hopes, and what we hold to be true.
posted by The Protest at 11/26/2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home