The specialization of political involvement

[sabotabby]

So lately, I've noticed the contrast between people I choose to associate with and everyone else, or at least a random sampling of people who happen to be around. This isn't just a matter of all my friends being freaks—though that might very well be the case. It's also that, as wonderful as they are, the several thousand people I protested with in Ottawa aren't really a random sampling of the population. They were largely committed activist types, many of whom traveled from out of town because they either thought the protests were that important or because they thought it would actually be fun. Or both.

At any rate, it made me start puzzling over the concept of the "committed activist." While the "professional protester" slur is ludicrous, it is true that some people go to demonstrations regularly, and other people have never gone to a protest in their lives, even where an issue may directly affect them. Some people write a great deal of letters to the editor, or letters to their elected representatives, and most people don't. Voter turnout in Canada is relatively high but declining; in the U.S., just half of the population votes.

And worse? There are people who don't even follow politics. There are people who call themselves "apolitical" (or "moderate"), don't read the news, and find politics boring. If your response is: "Well, duh?" you probably know folks like this. They might vote, but I'm not sure I want them to.

Electoral participation is perhaps the least effective sort of political involvement, but it's the easiest indicator to quantify. These people quantified it. Among their findings:

High turnout is not solely the property of established democracies in the West. Of the top 10 countries in the 1990s only three were Western European democracies.

This is what I'd expect. Certainly, there are "activists" in non-Western countries. There are people who devote their lives—often literally—to politics. But beyond that, you have a lot more people participating in street demonstrations. And, I suspect, a lot more people who are quite well-informed, even in countries where much of the population can't read.

Only in the West would one have the privilege to pretend that politics doesn't affect one's life, after all. Like so many other things, politics here is specialized, and political participation is concentrated; far fewer people are involved. The day-to-day grunt work that drives social change becomes the responsibility of a handful of mostly volunteers, who get burned out. The mass of people participate by marking an X on a piece of paper once every four years and seem befuddled by those who want more of a say.

Needless to say, this is not a terribly healthy situation. I'm interested to know your thoughts—and experiences with the apolitical—and what you think we can do to turn this ship around.

Comments

[dorianeldritch.livejournal.com]

The sucky and scary part of this is that the nonparticipation and lack of interest are planned(as far back as the 1920's is documented but im guessing the power elites were trying for it long before)
TV especially was planned as a opiate of the masses to keep people quescient and basically-well if we can shop cheap at walmart and watch tv then alls good in our world, why complain?
Ive read piles about it but my brain is not as good at regurgitating info as it once was:-(

on the personal experience side ive met loads of people in the teens and 20's age groups who think its "cool" to be uncaring and uninterested-"since its all corrupt anyway, why get invovled?"
i have had some luck persuading them that as corrupt as global and national politics are, at least getting involved locally, and with local activism of all sorts CAN make a difference. Sadly Im nearly as jaded about teh corruption but i keep trying as giving up would just be depressing:-/ and because i think a lot of activism is not so much apoltical as it is creating new structures while we wait for the rotting fascist/capitalist structures to fall under their own inevitable weight.

it is hard to go vote knowing my vote often is not counted-and currently may not even matter thanks to a silly dispute betwee the national democrat party ad the state of florida as to a primary date.

if you want to know more on the planning behind the apathy culture(if you dont already) remind me and i will go back and findsome sources to post for you, its interesting if a bit sickening.

[sabotabby]

Well, I mean part of it is that people place emphasis on voting as the most important type of political involvement, when it's actually the least.

I'm not sure about TV, though. It has unintended consequences, like any technology. The access to war footage during Vietnam had a tremendous effect on the opposition to it.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

I find that when I discuss with such apolitical people, the first thing that I try to cut through is the disorganization of their thoughts. They spout off a ton of things that form little or no coherent whole. I usually try to find out some values that they have, find one that is at least not repulsive, even if not quite in check with mine, and try to make cases based on their values. It's much harder for people to argue against you when you use their own values rather than your own.

Last Christmas, I went out for breakfast with my sister, her boyfriend and a few of their friends... One of the friends was, as far as I am concerned, a nazi. She had two rants, one about prisoners, and one about mentally-challenged people (and one person in particular, which an in-law of hers is paid to keep care of), and basically she would have supported internment camp conditions for the prisoners, and simply death for the others. She in particular supported forbidding smoking to prisoners, even though she is a smoker herself, so I used that as a basis of argument. I didn't quite get through to her, but I managed to make her think twice about how prisoners should be treated. I didn't touch the other one, I couldn't think of a good repartee that linked to her values, and I didn't want to make the whole breakfast about her stupidity.

Amusingly enough, I've found out this week that Québec has banned smoking in prisons since before that debate, although it's a very recent development. They now provide nicotine patches to prisoners who want them. I think it's mostly a question of health for the non-smokers (inmates and guards alike), but personally I was quite supportive of smoking in the sense that you need to unwind somehow, if you're in prison. :]

But anyway. That's kind of an awkward example, but anyway. The Socratic method can be quite amusing. :]

[sabotabby]

I was reading somewhere an interesting analysis of libertarianism's appeal, and how for people who lack any sort of political analysis or critical reasoning, it sounds really good. It's easily sloganized, appeals to people's egos and desire for freedom, and sounds appropriately curmudgeonly.

I often find it very hard to even find common ground with these people, enough for a discussion, so I envy your efforts in that regard.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that it's fair to lump apolitical types and moderates together.

Most of the self-proclaimed moderates I know are fairly political; their politics just tend toward the centre, rather than left or right.

Most of the self-proclaimed apolitical types I know, however, are completely ignorant of politics. The ones who are ignorant, but also go to the polls, tend to vote conservative, surprise surprise.

[roter-terror.livejournal.com]

This is a good point! Moderates and self-proclaimed "Independents" are usually the most obnoxious, arrogant people ever.

[sabotabby]

Most self-proclaimed moderates are right-wing and just don't want to get a beating, I think.

[nom-de-grr.livejournal.com]

I'm betting these apoliticos hate Scrabble, too.

[sabotabby]

Probably. Only intellectuals play Scrabble, and how many apolitical intellectuals do you know?

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I think . . . that the subject is confused.

But this is part of what I think. I think that it is GOOD that most people don't care about politics. If we are to be anarchists, then government should not be considered. Most people, out there, are functionally anarchists. Yes, I know that their indifference to government is borne out of capitalist imperial exploitation and I think that they should NOT be anarchists, not yet, anyway, until everyone on earth can afford the same indifferent to politics that most people do.

I also think that . . . government follows people, not people the government. I think that the government responds to changes made in society, that it reflects society. In particular, I think that technology drives changes in government, and participation in a technologically advanced infrastructure goes farther towards bringing equality in the world than any government in the world. In time, they will come to reflect what has been created.

So, when I look at those politically indifferent people, I don't think that they're politically indifferent. They have merely chosen to express their politics in a way that we don't, normally, regard as political. Which any socialist should understand -- isn't one of the biggest hurdles to discussing socialism trying to get people to really "get it" that economics is part of the government. That the division between business and government is artificial. I think that the division between technology and government, and painting your house and government, and sitting down on your ass playing the Xbox and government are also artificial distinctions in a great many ways. I think that everyone is trying to enact their vision for the world -- considered or not -- on the world; that politics and government are ephiphenomenons of our day to day lives, whether strictly regarded as "political" or not.

It's still working itself out in my mind. Please, critique.

[sabotabby]

Maybe it's because I'm increasingly to the red side of the red-and-black (or, okay, I think anarchism is most useful in a broad movement that combines different leftist tendencies, as a critique of the more authoritarian branches of Marxism, rather than as a movement on its own), but I don't get "government should not be considered." Government is there, so it has to be considered.

I'm less concerned about increasing voter turnout than I am in increasing political participation in general. I don't think anyone's a functional anarchist—to me, anarchism has to go beyond "the government sucks; let's go listen to Against Me" to "how do we change our social structures from dysfunctional to functional." Anarchists with unexamined politics are the worst sort. We have a lot of apathetic people who don't like the government and don't want to be told what to do; we have very few actual anarchists.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i think people don't have enough cognitive resources to keep track of everything. and i think people don't have enough emotional resources to try.

[sabotabby]

Are our lives more complicated and emotionally draining here than in, say, Pakistan?

[roter-terror.livejournal.com]

The people who vote and prance about in the streets with signs suffer from something far worse than apathy (which, given the situation, is an intelligent response): they're delusional. I actually have a modicum of respect for the person who knows there's a difference between the American idols and not a damn bit of difference between any batch of capitalist politicians in any country.

That said, apathy isn't a way out of the mess. Neither is participating in the endless morass of bourgeois politics -- no matter how good it feels to "actually be doing something." I'll probably come off as a philistine for saying this, but really, the only solution to ANY of the problems we're facing today is proletarian dictatorship and the destruction of capitalism. Sure, that doesn't allow us much to do besides studying and trying to educate our class as we wait for (and create!) the revolutionary situation. For certain pseudo-radicals, there's the temptation to get involved with anything perceived as ameliorative, but I think this is moral grandstanding at best and bourgeois fakery at worst (in the vein of the middle class fellow in anarchists who said he "couldn't afford to be doctrinally pure," as if common sense and avoidance of interclassist bullshit is something purely aesthetic -- which just goes to show how serious was his commitment to socialism).

As far as the political sophistication of those in the "third world" goes, I personally wouldn't assume that, qualitatively, things are much better; slightly more people might be compelled to take notice of various things, but pretty generally the "solutions" coming out of the "third world" have been reformist (either radically reformist, in the state capitalist mold, or otherwise).

It's a very disappointing situation globally!

[roter-terror.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I was listening to the album of IWW anthems called "Rebel" voices as I wrote this, and this resonated with me quite a bit:

"The bosses have lied to us and divided us all along /
the only way to beat them is one big union strong."

- Which Side are You On

[peterbilt-47.livejournal.com]

To completely ignore the wise advice of the fellow above, I'm going to bypass the Socratic method here and just expound.

I think the "they're all the same anyway" argument is intellectually lazy. It's a shorthand for saying many of the same problems will remain regardless of who is in power. But it's pretty easy to look at history and see that it makes a huge difference who controls government.

But as with the point about political change really starting at the grass roots, I think a lot of people (particularly on the left in the US) don't really understand that, while important, which particular people end up in office is only the culmination of a LOT of factors, almost least of which is the formal campaigning and election process.

The right understands this tragically well, and has done an excellent job not only of dominating elections, but of controlling the political weather. The entire debate in the US occurs so far into the right hand side of the spectrum that our "left" looks like the wing-nut right in most countries.

People need to understand that protests, marches, and elections are just the tip of the political iceberg.

[sabotabby]

It's not an either/or situation. People get involved in mass symbolic protest, find out that it doesn't work, and our task as sophisticated revolutionaries is to use that opportunity as a teachable moment.

[troubleinchina.livejournal.com]

Apolitical *confuses me*. I run into it all the time, of course, but I just don't get it. But then, I grew up bickering about politics with my father, who Votes Wrong (just like Don. I truly believe men do not deserve the vote *firmnod*), so maybe I just was raised wrong or something?

I sometimes wonder if it's just an attitude of "what I do doesn't matter, so why should I do anything at all".

Australia having mandatory voting is interesting to me. I've yet to notice if this makes a more politically-aware population.

[sabotabby]

I grew up arguing politics over the dinner table and shouting things at the news. That this is not the experience in some people's families (including my extended family) befuddles me.

I don't approve of mandatory voting. I just got into a debate about it and I'm unconvinced that it serves any social function. I do approve of mandatory Civics classes in high school, though.

[dobrovolets.livejournal.com]

I think sometimes when confronted with people who are very intensely political, others will claim to be "apolitical" as a defense mechanism. If someone has a reputation for being very well-informed and rhetorically effective at arguing political matters, it can be easier to just pretend to have no interest in such topics rather than go through the exhausting process of an argument. After all, arguments rarely change minds; experience is what transforms consciousness. I've noticed this phenomenon of "apolitical" camouflage with my non-lefty friends whenever they're around me, and even [spouse], who has a reputation among her workmates for being the most inclined to union activism and the most likely to argue for left-leaning ideas around the lunchroom table, has been known to claim that she is "just not political" whenever I try and convince her to do something for which she doesn't particularly want to make the effort, like read Marx or attend a demonstration. For the most part, if one probes, one finds that such people do have political opinions of a sort, but they are also accustomed to disparaging their own opinions as ignorant and unimportant, and having them similarly disparaged by others. All it usually takes to get them to open up is to show a listening ear.

In the end, it comes down to what I said before: For the most part, experience changes consciousness, not the other way around. For much of the population in relatively wealthy nations, their daily existence is such that complacency is possible and represents the path of least resistance. And for many of those who are not so privileged, their are few enough examples of collective struggle working, rather than the individual hustle for survival, for it to seem like a realistic option. All I can say is that history shows plenty of examples of seemingly "apolitical" masses engaging in mass strikes or bread riots, and thus initiating a rapid acceleration in the development of political consciousness.

[sabotabby]

That's hopeful, at least. Though given the current political climate, I'm not unconvinced that a mass action might not look more like a pogrom than a general strike.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Ever notice how the feminist blog posts that seem to stir up the most ire and provoke the umpty-thousand-post comment threads are the ones about things like leg-shaving, breast-feeding, bl0w jobs, and pr0n (etc.)? Oh, and the neverending mommy wars?

People may engage with material that they see as having an immediate effect on their own privilege.

Wow. It made me really sad to type that.

[sabotabby]

It makes me really sad when I write one line disparaging the iPhone and it gets more comments than any of my posts about First Nations issues.

[hopita.livejournal.com]

The last big fight I had with pghwob was about voting. He is a well-read, well-educated, politically active man who doesn't vote, because he feels that voting makes no difference. I find that infuriating.

I called him a schmuck. He got really mad. We both apologized and we're friends again now.

[sabotabby]

Well, the question is "if it makes no difference, what's the cost in doing it?" Which is what I asked myself. I don't think that it necessarily helps, but does it hurt?

[mistersmearcase.livejournal.com]

Wait, though, are you saying that protests are "the grunt-work that drives social change?" and that protesting is more effective than voting? I guess I don't think that's true--they're pretty much equally ineffective.

[sabotabby]

No, organizing unions, tenant associations, community soup kitchens, and armed factions are among the sorts of grunt-work that drives social change. Symbolic mass protest is to get people aware and involved in some capacity.

personal perspectives

[begundan.livejournal.com]

1. I personally shy away from activities that involve many different people doing the same "together". I am an individualist and a quiet, thoughtful person. Yet, the main face of "activism" is precisely shouting on the streets and showing off how much you don't like somebody. That sort of thing is perceived by me as foreign to my nature, and I consequentially have no intention of participating. I'm pretty sure that many people are like that.
2. People in general, I think, act more willingly when they have a good picture in mind of what the possible results are and how likely those result are to occur. Yet I have no clue what the actual possible results of political protest on the streets (to name one kind of activism) are likely to be, I don't have any sense of definiteness or control, I don't have the sense that everything is up to how hard I work and how smart I am etc. There's a huge complex system out there and I basically have no idea what's going to make it move in one direction or another. I say this with a bit of shame, as it probably mainly means that I lack (basic?) education on the subject. I am still saying this because a. I'm fairly certain that many people share such a feeling and b. this is probably the main reason I began reading your blog - I learn new things.
3. Activism is often perceived (and presented) as a power struggle. Many people have enough struggles with life, and engaging in more struggles is not an appealing option. Unless the process itself is appealing for one reason or another - they feel close to other activists, enjoy drawing banners etc. For many activists, the act of activism is more important than the goal they try to achieve. I appreciate the value of such people. But it is hard for me to see myself being that way.
4. I honestly think that much more change can be done on a local level than on the national and international ones. And I think that people who go into large scale activism should be local activists first. I myself do not, in my own eyes, satisfy the latter criterion to my standards and am likely to avoid large scale activism until I do.

Re: personal perspectives

[sabotabby]

1. I loathe chanting in the streets on a purely aesthetic level. It's appropriate for some people and in some situations, but I find it tiresome to hear slogans and statements repeated. I would never be able to handle AA for much the same reason.

2. I agree. And this is one of the things that activist culture in North America—which suffers as much from the specialization thing I was talking about as the dominant culture does—hasn't been able to adequately address and deal with.

3. It needs to be framed in a manner that struggle now will lessen one's day-to-day struggles. If activism doesn't do that, there's no point to it.

4. Yes. But the two are so intimately connected that anyone sensible gets involved with both eventually.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

In the last elections I was watching it with a bunch of people who spent 3 or 4 hours waiting for the results and then when I asked them who they voted for they told me they didn't vote at all. I don't think they are apolitical and I don't remember if I asked them why they didn't vote, and the only reason I ever voted in Jordan, and that was five years ago, was just so I can find out what it's like so I can criticise and make fun of it later.

There's the common argument that voter turnout is low in our generation because people are now civically involved in different ways, through things like volunteer work for example. And it's been a while for me since I've met anyone who doesn't have any concern about any political issue whatsoever. I just have to poke deeply enough.

I also think that activists who get burnt out, get burnt out because they don't have the right perspective. For one thing, the large majority of people will not care about the same issues I do, and they never will. If I take action, it's not because I expect to see change, that would be missing the point. Things don't change in an organised fashion or overnight, so there is no point in doing something just cause we wanna see something happen in 50 years time. For me, political activism is not wanting to change things but wanting to be part of a better community and one that wants the same things I do. It's more about being where I feel I belong. That is my personal vision and I try to align what I do everyday with that vision. If, instead, I cared about politics because I want to change things, then I'd be pretty much screwed cause I'll get burnt out in a week or less after never seeing any results.

Now, when you post something that requires a thoughtful response, try to schedule it a little closer to my weekends so that I am not too late in joining in on the fun :)

[sabotabby]

And it's been a while for me since I've met anyone who doesn't have any concern about any political issue whatsoever.

I don't think it's a particular problem with our generation. Most of the "apolitical" types I've met have been a bit older.

If, instead, I cared about politics because I want to change things, then I'd be pretty much screwed cause I'll get burnt out in a week or less after never seeing any results.

Good point. This is what got me burned out the first time around.

Now, when you post something that requires a thoughtful response, try to schedule it a little closer to my weekends so that I am not too late in joining in on the fun :)

Ah, but I'm never around on weekends to post.