Doug wrote:
> Now you've got me wondering what exactly an activist is. My dictionary
> defines "activism" as: "A theory or practice based on militant action."
> and "militant" as: "Having a combative character; aggressive, esp. in
> the service of a cause."
> That seems a bit harsh. I think of an activist as one who actively
> works to affect some sort of social change in a public arena (as opposed
> to "monkeywrenching," for instance). In my view, this doesn't
> necessarily have to occur in a combative or aggressive way.
I think aggressive and combative don't always refer to violence or yelling
in someone's face. Your example of Gandhi was a good one. Aggressive
includes assertive and bold. Combative includes vigorous opposition.
Passionate belief in a cause and a willingness to continue to act in the
face of persistent opposition, do not require violent or rude behavior.
I think it would be a shame if "activist" is used simply to refer to people
who are willing to take a stand for what they belive. Having backbone
should be common, and an activist should be someone who is willing to
actively pursue change rather than passively resist it.
Jeff wrote:
>It often assumes being an activists involves influencing others.
I can't imagine how "activism" wouldn't involve influencing others.
Activism seems to assume that there is a "cause" or something that you
desire to change. If that something doesn't require anyone else to do
anything different (like finish my garage before winter), I wouldn't put it
in the category of "activism". Activism seems to be at least at the level
of community or larger, and therefore involves influencing others.
Jeff also wrote:
>The goal is sustainability which modifies "HOW" we
>implement activism. . . . We may get involved in fighting a
>local battle, but always think about balance in our life and
>recognize that "HOW" we fight impacts the future. This
>suggests we act in accordance with our model of a sustainable
>future. . . . If happiness is part of our future vision then it is
>part of our activism. If our model of the future changes
>then our life and activism changes also.
I agree with the general idea here that "HOW" we fight impacts the future
and therefore must be taken into account when choose a path of action.
But, I'm not sure how far I would take the idea that the vision of the
future must be reflected in our path to get there. Again, in general it
sounds good, but it seems that there would be many exceptions to this.
Since our future vision does not necessarily reflect today's actual
situation, it seems logical that you couldn't always expect a method in
harmony with one's future vision to be effective in a very different
current reality. I understand the idea that a violent path rarely, if
ever, leads to peace or that a power struggle rarely leads to democracy.
But I think it is too idealistic to apply this idea one hundred percent of
the time and not at least consider other options.
Both of the above ideas (Doug's and Jeff's) may be getting snagged in a bit
of idealism (ideas too pure to work with actual situations). The ideas
that one can affect change without upsetting or influencing anyone and that
one can affect change by living as if the change has already occurred may
be too idealistic. I say "may be" because I'm leaving room for someone to
explain to me how it works.
Part of this thinking may be an outcome of our current cultures view that
hurting someone else's feeling is the worst thing we can do. If you
strongly believe someone (company, community, government, individuals,
etc.) is doing the wrong thing, and there is some harm involved, I believe
you need to say, and possibly do, something. This can be done at first
assuming that the other person would be happy to be corrected, and in a
friendly manner. If they insist on their position, and the issue is
important enough, then you need to do some homework. You need to be clear
that you are not the one who is wrong. If you still believe you are right,
then you need to attempt to make your ideas clear to the other person.
This time it will more likely resemble a debate, but it can still be
personable and under the assumption that you are just as likely to be wrong
and the debate will help everyone see the situation better. Usually by
this time, if there is still disagreement, it is based on differing
assumptions or underlying values and or beliefs. When both sides (assuming
there are two) are clear about their assumptions, motivations, values and
beliefs and still hold their position, it's time to back off again. The
debate has shifted from mistaken ideas to differing values, and a new
approach is necessary.
This is where our current activism fails. The approach is usually
continued education and eventually gathering long lists of supporters and
taking a vote to see who is bigger. In the end little actually changes.
If enough people make their voices heard some actual situation, often
small, changes, but the number of people who hold this or that belief or
value rarely changes. The current activist approach only slows the
progress of the majority by making the majority point more visible. On
rare occasions the activist is representing an under spoken majority and
can bring about major change. This is why Jeff says that doing something
(definitely creating some change, even if small) is better than activism
alone (quite possibly a lot of thinking and talking without any real changes).
Since I assume that the times ahead will be smoother the sooner we change
toward sustainability, I think it would be useful to look at how people's
values, beliefs, motivations and assumptions develop and change. At the
very least it might help individuals change in ways they choose, and it may
even provide humans with the key to guide themselves toward fulfilling
lives within the limits set by Nature.
Eric Storm
