expectation is the force to fight against
In my study over the past five years of nonviolent movements and nonviolent strategies for social transformation, as well as from my study of Walter Wink's The Powers That Be, I have reached the following conclusion: In order for true reconciliation and transformation to occur, expectations must be challenged and denied.
In other words, if we want to change the world, we have to do the unexpected. Over and over again.
Our lives are ordered by our expectations. I expect to get up in the morning, to eat breakfast, to go to work, to go to class, and to not have anything happen between these events.
Whenever something happens to me that I don't see coming, I am confused by it, and I am forced to deal with it, even if only to write it off as "a strange occurence."
Politicians expect protests. They expect rallies. They expect marches and people screaming in the streets. I hate to say it, but these types of actions aren't going to do a damn thing to transform the world and bring about reconciliation (though, perhaps, they might be effective in creating the type of pressure necessary to stop a current political trend, if the rallies themselves are unexpected, as in the case of Ukrainian citizens per their 2004 election).
The mistake that activists are making, I think, is that rallies and marches have become organizing principles and, hence, are treated as ends in themselves. This creates a situation where activists are trapped in their own expectations.
What has become of this type of organizing (i.e., organizing that is focused on creating more rallies and more marches) is the erroneous belief that large numbers of people are required to bring about transformation.
I want to stand firmly against this belief. Instead, I would like to argue that one person, acting in an unexpected way, can be (but is not necessarily) more powerful and more effective than a million people doing what is expected (like marching in an anti-war rally).
Firstly, I would like to offer a reminder that there aren't a large number of people determining the fate of our world right now, though it may seem as though the whole world is against "us." In fact, to use an illustration from The Wizard of Oz, sometimes it seems like there is just one guy behind the curtain who projects his voice and operates his machine in such a way so as to create the illusion that he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and the majority.
In short, a very few people -- albeit, extremely wealthy people -- have convinced us that they represent the majority of people on this planet. In our buying into this myth, we have effectively handed them our power.
Similarly, if a few people remain in control by deceiving the masses, then I want to assert that a few people can override their control by creating creative actions to reverse the deception and use it against the powers. In other words, a small group of people, when acting out of creativity and a sense of urgency, can create the illusion that they are the majority, even if they are unable to gain the majority's support right away.
And how can we do this? I would offer, by thinking in terms of doing something that is unexpected and creative. This, I think, should be the framework for progressive activists (and, especially, people of faith), even though it is extremely vague.
In other words, if we want to change the world, we have to do the unexpected. Over and over again.
Our lives are ordered by our expectations. I expect to get up in the morning, to eat breakfast, to go to work, to go to class, and to not have anything happen between these events.
Whenever something happens to me that I don't see coming, I am confused by it, and I am forced to deal with it, even if only to write it off as "a strange occurence."
Politicians expect protests. They expect rallies. They expect marches and people screaming in the streets. I hate to say it, but these types of actions aren't going to do a damn thing to transform the world and bring about reconciliation (though, perhaps, they might be effective in creating the type of pressure necessary to stop a current political trend, if the rallies themselves are unexpected, as in the case of Ukrainian citizens per their 2004 election).
The mistake that activists are making, I think, is that rallies and marches have become organizing principles and, hence, are treated as ends in themselves. This creates a situation where activists are trapped in their own expectations.
What has become of this type of organizing (i.e., organizing that is focused on creating more rallies and more marches) is the erroneous belief that large numbers of people are required to bring about transformation.
I want to stand firmly against this belief. Instead, I would like to argue that one person, acting in an unexpected way, can be (but is not necessarily) more powerful and more effective than a million people doing what is expected (like marching in an anti-war rally).
Firstly, I would like to offer a reminder that there aren't a large number of people determining the fate of our world right now, though it may seem as though the whole world is against "us." In fact, to use an illustration from The Wizard of Oz, sometimes it seems like there is just one guy behind the curtain who projects his voice and operates his machine in such a way so as to create the illusion that he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and the majority.
In short, a very few people -- albeit, extremely wealthy people -- have convinced us that they represent the majority of people on this planet. In our buying into this myth, we have effectively handed them our power.
Similarly, if a few people remain in control by deceiving the masses, then I want to assert that a few people can override their control by creating creative actions to reverse the deception and use it against the powers. In other words, a small group of people, when acting out of creativity and a sense of urgency, can create the illusion that they are the majority, even if they are unable to gain the majority's support right away.
And how can we do this? I would offer, by thinking in terms of doing something that is unexpected and creative. This, I think, should be the framework for progressive activists (and, especially, people of faith), even though it is extremely vague.
posted by jonathan meier at 8:56 AM
3 Comments:
jon,
I stole your post and put it on my blog. I think your ideas about creative dissent are wonderful. Obviously we can always take these arguments to extremes, but I do think mass protest still has its appeal, but as we know from the civil rights movement the protests were only successful when there was violence seen on TV and this caused people removed from the situation to get involved in many different ways. In the civil rights movement the oppression was manifest on television and then the entire country was witness to it. One person has the ability to manifesto a stance and communicate it to the world and thats where I believe creative dissent is wonderful. Ok enough said.
Like Kyle, I am stealing your post and putting it on my blog as well.
Love,
Michael
ah, you guys!
Post a Comment
<< Home