This affirms the Zizekean idea of political activism.
http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=1476
I would also say that this shows that political activism is a feminine vs. a masculine strategy of political engagement. What makes me say this is seeing Melissa Harris-Perry interview a couple of women from the BLM movement.
What I appreciated from Ms. Harris-Perry is at least she tried to pin them down-what exactly do they want from the Democrats they keep shutting down? I mean Hillary on the first day of her campaign laid out a comprehensive plan on things like the incarceration of black men, police brutality and she also has a plan for early voting.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/29/hillary-clinton-seizes-on-baltimore-riots-calls-fo/?page=all
So why does BLM act as if she's done nothing? She's not brand new to caring about the problems African-Americans face like Bernie Sanders.
I think this is kind of how political activism works. You make endless demands and never admit the slightest amount of progress. I mean BLM has said things like 'no person of color has every benefited in any way in America' which is just patently not true.
Why is it necessary to so wildly exaggerate? Now as for my comment that activism is a feminine mode of engagement I'm basing it on Zizekan analysis as well. Think of the classic line of a woman when she fights with her man: Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you.
The point is you have to be a mind-reader. This is the same thing with activism-I'm not speaking only of BLM, I'm speaking of activism in general as it's been practiced for 200 years.
Another point is that such activism is meant to be disruptive. On the level of principle I agree with anything tangible BLM proposes. But what can be off-putting is the tactic of being disruptive. Understand I'm not saying they're wrong to be disruptive-they would argue that its' the only way to get the attention they need to get an issue addressed.
Just that by its very nature such tactics are polarizing. If activists shutdown a street that you need to drive through on your way home are they justified in doing this?
They would say yes. But from your stand point it's as if for that moment the laws of the city have been suspended and supplanted by the activists' own laws.
So it's a polarizing thing. But these are polarized times.
http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=1476
I would also say that this shows that political activism is a feminine vs. a masculine strategy of political engagement. What makes me say this is seeing Melissa Harris-Perry interview a couple of women from the BLM movement.
What I appreciated from Ms. Harris-Perry is at least she tried to pin them down-what exactly do they want from the Democrats they keep shutting down? I mean Hillary on the first day of her campaign laid out a comprehensive plan on things like the incarceration of black men, police brutality and she also has a plan for early voting.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/29/hillary-clinton-seizes-on-baltimore-riots-calls-fo/?page=all
So why does BLM act as if she's done nothing? She's not brand new to caring about the problems African-Americans face like Bernie Sanders.
I think this is kind of how political activism works. You make endless demands and never admit the slightest amount of progress. I mean BLM has said things like 'no person of color has every benefited in any way in America' which is just patently not true.
Why is it necessary to so wildly exaggerate? Now as for my comment that activism is a feminine mode of engagement I'm basing it on Zizekan analysis as well. Think of the classic line of a woman when she fights with her man: Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you.
The point is you have to be a mind-reader. This is the same thing with activism-I'm not speaking only of BLM, I'm speaking of activism in general as it's been practiced for 200 years.
Another point is that such activism is meant to be disruptive. On the level of principle I agree with anything tangible BLM proposes. But what can be off-putting is the tactic of being disruptive. Understand I'm not saying they're wrong to be disruptive-they would argue that its' the only way to get the attention they need to get an issue addressed.
Just that by its very nature such tactics are polarizing. If activists shutdown a street that you need to drive through on your way home are they justified in doing this?
They would say yes. But from your stand point it's as if for that moment the laws of the city have been suspended and supplanted by the activists' own laws.
So it's a polarizing thing. But these are polarized times.
No comments:
Post a Comment