Advocates for social and environmental justice are often plagued by questions of efficacy? What works? What will win? What are appropriate means of using media to create social change? The answers to these questions, particularly the last, will influence the future trajectory of mass and local movements. Often the Left willingly acknowledges the coercive nature of the dominant media--its propagandistic impact generated by over one-hundred years of psychology, sociology, and other sciences designed to help people understand, and in a worst case scenario, manipulate human behavior. In doing so, it is left with an ethical question that will shape history for better or worse: should we traffic in coercive media strategies or should we inspire criticality through education, poetry, and non-coercive narrative forms? Should we do both? These are the questions we must answer through our praxis. Our actions will determine whether we win or lose.
A quick example can be found in the sloganeering of the election. "YES WE CAN." These three words offer many enormous hope. People feel that life might be manageable. Those who understand that in many ways after the devestation of Iraq, the environment, the education system, the economy, and ongoing wars against the poor, that the more appropriate slogan might be "Oh no we didn't" or even better "whoops,"the rallying cry of inspiration might be utter crap.
There are those who acknowledge that even if our future is grim in the shadow of post-industrial collapse, global warming, a recession, and the blowback from untold violence the world over, that it is still better to forward a message of hope rather than realism. This, to me, appears politicking, immoral, and ethically unsound.
Coercion is violent. False hope is coercive. It seems to me, hope, these days, is violent.
Many say that the dour Left will never win. Unfortunately, Right or Left, the outcome most people world over face is life with preventable or treateable disease, starvation, bloodshed, and poverty. This is not an accident. This is due to the intentional policies and politics of the U.S. and other Capitalist nations. This is not hopeful. It is apocalyptic, an apocalypse most people live daily.
Will optimism recuse us from Capitalism? Probably not. Is it good propaganda to say things feel hopeless? Certainly not. Are things hopeless? Probably.
Should we admit it?
Posts
2 comments:
You can call me crazy Kyle but I'm going to go out on a limb here :) ... I believe there is a middle ground between utter despair and blind "hopefulness" that's often rooted in ignorance. If we don't have any faith in humanity then what's the point of any type of action? It's that hope that drives me and that hope is more complex than any silly campaign slogan.
We are creating our vision of the a just world today, in our own communities, with friends, partners and others. That to me is powerful. Everyday I'm having amazing conversations with folks that show me what it feels like to build community from a place of love and compassion. And I'm thankful for that. word.
Crystal, you are the last person I would ever call crazy. I have no doubt that what you are referring to as hope keeps you going--but what I am hearing, and perhaps this is semantic and not substantive, is that you find power and possibility in experience--people engaged in inspirational conversation and action. I do too. I attempt to document many of those people, projects, and ideas that move me; however, I get disturbed by politicians manufacturing hope to get votes to maintain corrupt systems. I get disturbed by people who deny the crisis we are living in by pretending that things are all ok or who hope that governments, corporations, and communities will do the right thing. You are an inspiration. I don't feel hope because of you. I see real change, real power, real possibility in your actions. For that, I am thankful. That keeps me going.
Post a Comment