Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> I use the terms "consciousness" and "structure" in a somewhat technical
> sense - as they are used in social movement mobilization theory. . . .
> <snip>
>
> Later on, the theory got a bit more sophisticated and said that
> consciousness changes as a result of movement participation. That is, a
> person joined a movement without sharing its goals - simply because his
> girlfriend, a neighbor, or a friend was already involved in the movement
> and 'recruited' him (e.g. asked him to come to a meeting, etc.). As that
> person started to attend meetings, and then perhaps getting involved in
> various activities (tabling, demos, etc.) his consciousness started to
> change as a result of that, becoming more and more aligned with the
> movement's ideology. So after a while, the movement participants basically
> espoused that movement's ideology, but that congruence was a _result_ of
> their participation, and NOT the _cause_ of it.
>
> However, most idealistic philosophies put the "cart before the horse" and
> screw up the causal links, so ideas and consciousness become "causes" of
> material events.
This by itself goes far to justify the entire history of sociology. I have
been arguing on several lists for around two years now that the
question "How can the left reach people?" is a false question insofar
as it refers to the content of left propaganda or the form of left
rhetoric. We reach people by making our activity interesting. This
can be sloganized as "We talk only to the converted" -- i.e. to
those who have been drawn to us through the kind of connections
Wojtek describes. What Marx says of commodity owners applies
generally:
In their difficulties our commodity-owners think like Faust: "Im
Anfang war die That." They therefore acted and transacted before
they thought. Instinctively they conform to the laws imposed by
the nature of commodities.
*Cap. I* (Progress), p. 90
During periods of relative inactivity such as the last quarter of a
century (since, roughly, the defeat of ERA) leftists begin to act
like college professors (whether or not they are in fact college
professors): that is, they assume that they have an audience or
readership and they just need to find the right things to say
or the right way to say it (Moore's idiocies about humor for
example), and they begin to make slighting references to preaching
to the choir -- failing to notice that there is never anyone else
to preach to. In other words, no one who has not already joined
us will even know that we are preaching.
(Incidentally, there is one and only one element of college teaching
which relates directly to political practice: conferences in the
professor's office initiated by the student for other than academic
purposes. The lecture won't influence anybody whose practice
and (non-academic) social activity does not predispose to respond,
and what it will influence them to do in that case is seek further.)
This could be developed further by invoking the old distinction
between agitation and propaganda. Written materials can only
be propaganda: intended for those predisposed to agree but
desiring deeper understanding. Reaching beyond that circle
is strictly a matter of orality: talking to people with whom one
is associated in daily activities of some sort. Agitation is always
one or two relating to two or three or four -- never a matter
of mass appeal.
I have of course, but deliberately, left one huge gap here: the
of transition from a period of inactivity, such as the present,
to a period of activity, when what we write suddenly makes
a difference. How does such a transition occur? Answer: No
one knows, ever has known, or ever will know. The classic
illustration of this is the Peasant Movement in Hunan -- Mao's
report on that was a report on a burst of activity which had
occurred without any input from marxists at all. His thrust
was that it was a more or less spontaneous movement to which
communists had to attend.
Apropos here: Lenin's attack on spontaneism referred *only* to
the development of *revolutionary* consciousness -- and in fact
all of his writings assume that the contexts within which revolutionary
consciousness is on the agenda occur in some more or less
spontaneous fashion. We can't predict them, and theory cannot
help us particularly to generate them.
Doug, if your request for a scenario is a request for a description
of how such periods of activity can be brought about, there is
no such thing. But neither is there any such thing as a scenario
for the initiation of the process you describe. (Antiquarians of
the future looking back on us may be able to answer such a
question.)
Carrol
