On the future of the world and other amenities
I'm not an activist, or at least that is not part of my personal version of that mind-construct people usually call identity. Even so, I feel there's a lot to be done and changed around the world. However, activism has grown beyond what one would think of as it's "original concept" into many directions, most which can't be really considered productive. The question then becomes: how to be an "activist" in the current times?
I'm a mid-lower class Brazilian John Doe. Not one particular trace would single me out all that much. I grew up in a position that allowed me to observe real poverty and other social problems, but at a safe distance. There's no way a human being in his right mind would see that much misery and not feel the urge to do something. But I looked at the people that were "doing something" and couldn't really wrap my head around it. Public hospitals were a bunch of people with good intentions and messed up personal lifes(?). Several scandals involving money laundering and fraud with NGOs and NPOs arised in the 1990s and in the early 2000s. Even simple things like giving money to bums or buying toys for those poor kids living under the bridge over the backstreet. Is that what activism is supposed to be? If so, I'm out.
Later on, specially in college, I was taught that doing some sort of voluntary work would help my resume. Only then I realized how weird is that dynamic: you do voluntary work playing with little children from Africa so that on your next dinner with the CEO of BP you'll have something to make conversation with. Being an "activist" became a source of social status. It became something that one can feel self-righteous about. On a tangent there are also almost pointless activists springing here and there. My most recent interaction with these was a Japanese girl walking the streets of Kyoto with some pamphlets fighting against the permanence of the American military base at Okinawa.
Now, seriously. How can someone effectively promote change? Pamphlets fit in with "doing something", but they're not effective. A millionaire that donates to NPOs and NGOs but doesn't follow up on the results isn't effective either. Contemporary activism could surely benefit from keeping a healthy distance to idealism and sentimentalism. People are emotional beings, but activism can be an objective matter of going from point A to point B. One simple example: davisfleetwood on YouTube. Using whichever resources are available to the activist is a no-brainer.
Cut the middleman.
I'm a mid-lower class Brazilian John Doe. Not one particular trace would single me out all that much. I grew up in a position that allowed me to observe real poverty and other social problems, but at a safe distance. There's no way a human being in his right mind would see that much misery and not feel the urge to do something. But I looked at the people that were "doing something" and couldn't really wrap my head around it. Public hospitals were a bunch of people with good intentions and messed up personal lifes(?). Several scandals involving money laundering and fraud with NGOs and NPOs arised in the 1990s and in the early 2000s. Even simple things like giving money to bums or buying toys for those poor kids living under the bridge over the backstreet. Is that what activism is supposed to be? If so, I'm out.
Later on, specially in college, I was taught that doing some sort of voluntary work would help my resume. Only then I realized how weird is that dynamic: you do voluntary work playing with little children from Africa so that on your next dinner with the CEO of BP you'll have something to make conversation with. Being an "activist" became a source of social status. It became something that one can feel self-righteous about. On a tangent there are also almost pointless activists springing here and there. My most recent interaction with these was a Japanese girl walking the streets of Kyoto with some pamphlets fighting against the permanence of the American military base at Okinawa.
Now, seriously. How can someone effectively promote change? Pamphlets fit in with "doing something", but they're not effective. A millionaire that donates to NPOs and NGOs but doesn't follow up on the results isn't effective either. Contemporary activism could surely benefit from keeping a healthy distance to idealism and sentimentalism. People are emotional beings, but activism can be an objective matter of going from point A to point B. One simple example: davisfleetwood on YouTube. Using whichever resources are available to the activist is a no-brainer.
Cut the middleman.
NZ has a high rate of NGO participation and activism, only without the types of poverty and corruption you get in Brazil. In spite of majoring in things like green politics and being surrounded by Greenpeace types throughout college and so on, I always couldn't help but view many of them as detached over-idealisitic "not in my backyard" liberal rich kids. Still, activism is strong in NZ because activist movements have been successful:
ReplyDelete- First country to give women the vote
- One of the first countries to introduce prohibition (while all the men were away fighting WWI in Europe)
- The anti-apartheid movement in NZ had a pronounced effect on South Africa when rugby matches between NZ and RSA were invaded and cancelled by activist protesters in the 1980s
- Like Japan, we introduced a ban on nuclear weapons in our ports, but unlike Japan, we sacrificed all military and for a time, diplomatic ties with the U.S.A. over it.
- NZ has a strong Green Party and the highest per capita Greenpeace membership in the world. This comes through with NZ's strong position on the whaling issue.
All the above actions and positions were the results of direct citizen activism, and so based on that tradition, we have new young people always stepping up looking for dramatic issues to have an influence on like in the past, even when there aren't really all that many, and many of the other decisions made based on activism weren't always necessarily good or smart ideas (not referring vote for women of course).
I guess the point is that although most activism is often portrayed as extreme and ineffectual, relentless effort driven by ideology can produce tangible results, and a lot of good things would not have happened in this world without it.
Also, I don't think it needs to be group based action, organized, or have goals of seeking governmental change to be effective. Individuals can have a surprising cumulative effect when large numbers of people consume, vote, or abstain from certain behaviours on a large scale, even where such behaviour is not coordinated or organized "activism" in a traditional sense. Media like the internet are making individualistic activism as strong now as any group based social activism was in the past. It's easier for lower profile causes to spread their message and gather concerned supporters, and people have more options for how they take actions to show their beliefs.
I guess I don't really have a point here. I have respect for people who believe in anything strong enough to take public action over it - like the person you met in Kyoto wanting US bases out of Japan - even if I totally disagree with them. I think it's important to have your own set of ethics that you stay true to, but when it comes to activism, I prefer a personal and quiet approach.
Peace