Oh, you Californians
From the BBC: "The environmental movement must become "hip and sexy" if it is to succeed, California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6546975.stm
It's an interesting idea that movements need to be "hip" to succeed. I remember Bob Hansman lamenting that he is coming to believe that the members of his generation only participated in the Civil Rights movement because it was trendy ("it could just as easily have been swallowing goldfish") and they were now letting down the cause... Now, from what we saw in seminar, the Civil Rights movement's success (although, as Professor Brown would be pointing out now, we still have a long way to go) is due to the courage of the activists who took a stand in the face of horrendous intimidation... So, should a movement actually be un-hip to succeed? (Nevertheless, I think Schwarzenegger is right about the need for "passion" in movements... )
(Speaking of un-hip but thoroughly passionate movements, the campaign to bring TEL back from the dead continues apace. More updates soon.)
posted by Hyp. lecteur @ 5:51 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I might have a rant about Darfur and how THAT'S getting thrown around as hip (though maybe not sexy) on Facebook.
^^^^
Shoot, this is the Tracy from UTASP.
Tracy, I'd like to hear that rant, because I don't quite understand why people resent participation in social movements that comes as a result of the movement being seen as "trendy" or "cool." First off, I think social activism is a far better trend than ugg boots or being a skank on myspace. I mean, if you can sweep otherwise uncaring people along for the cause, does it really matter if they're just motivated by the need to look cool? It still gets the job done. And while social movements need those thinking people, the people are fully committed, who comprehend the details of the situation and what should be done, they also need the masses. You need people aren't going to lead, but are willing to throw their voice in with a lot of other voices to make the whole thing that much louder.
of course i prefer people to truly care about what they're advocating for. and to a degree I do see that minimal participation in social justice absolves people of their affluence guilt and makes them feel like it's okay to continue to live an otherwise ignorant, wasteful life (ah, i'm so optimistic). but i also think generally the choice you're looking at is between people doing nothing, and people doing something (albeit often something small) with less than stellar motivation. and in that case, doing something wins.
i think the main danger of movements being "hip" is that sometimes when a cause becomes TOO accepted, the message starts to fall on deaf ears and people are more apt to ignore it. there was an interesting editorial in the economist a week or two ago about the way Amnesty International has weakened its own influence by diluting its cause and embracing more issues (ostensibly to gain more support).
however, in my opinion you're better off with a cause so well known as to inspire apathy than a cause so unknown as to force apathy (one hopes sometimes at least you can find something in between, sans apathy). at least in the first case you have a group of people who will probably be willing to stand behind an issue should the appropriate political/other leadership arise.
i don't do this really ever at all, but to quote the holy book, "he who is not against us is for us." word.
snaps to Ryan's comments.
And Tracy--I think I know what you mean. I joined the group "Darfur is Trendy," because I think it's true. People are starting to see that as an event that people are supposed to know about, that cultured / educated / worldly people know about. The message gets diluted. People join a facebook group to support Darfur and (usually) end it there.
It's the same with other issues. We can join the facebook groups supporting them, but it doesn't get anything done. Now, I know facebook is kind of an iffy example because it's a select group of people and such, but I think it's true for other things as well.
On the other hand, raising awareness even through sources like facebook can mean that people are more likely to have background knowledge of an issue and use that knowledge when elections come. Or something.
And as for Alison's original question, movements seem to succeed when they are 'hip' because 'hip' implies popularity, implying support, implying success.
Bre-
here's the economist article if you want to read it:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8888792
i actually meant to send it to you earlier, because I know you're big in AI and I was wondering what you thought about it.
The recent changes to Amnesty come as a surprise to me. And from what I can gather from the article, I don't like what I see. It seems like Amnesty is trying to make itself much more political than before--and I don't mean political like using politics to help prisoners of conscience and such, but political like trying to gather support from political parties and / or politicians.
Amnesty's (previous) focus on individual cases was one of its greatest strengths, and one of the things that makes participation in the organization so appealing. You can see the people you're helping, you know their names, you know you may be impacting an individual life.
These broad themes, while certainly noble, seem more like political platforms than constructive ways to accomplish something. And they're things that are very hard to oppose--positions like eliminating poverty. My concern is that they're too broad to get accomplished, and that Amnesty was better off when it was working on individual cases.
Having said that, I do think it's important to do both--to do individual cases and try to help solve larger issues that causes the individual problems--but thinking that Amnesty can do all of that effectively without spreading itself thin seems downright foolish.
"he who is not against us is for us"- I'd like to bring down the level of discussion a bit to point out that you can reverse a quote from God and get a quote from George Bush.
Also, to be the mega-cynic, has any progress been made in Darfur since they started showing it on the TV back it, what, 2005?
Also, I think a related and very interesting discussion to be had here, and which is surely had in the board rooms of all these NGOs, is: How much money should be spent on raising awareness, and how much on actually working to fix the problem? Because right now my subway station/train cars are blanketed with ads about Darfur. And, I mean, advertising as an investment already has a pretty sketchy rate of return...
Post a Comment
<< Home