[…] This political moment
was an opportunity to prise open a crack in our undemocratic, socially and environmentally
unjust, political and economic structures to create a gap, a space to begin to rip
apart these structures that have served only a tiny elite minority – who will never
speak for us, who will never make concessions should it threaten their ability to
amass power and wealth for themselves – and a chance to fill the space with more
positive alternatives. I’m not naive in thinking this would have been (will be
– the struggle is clearly far from over) easy, given the broader global neo-liberal
agenda, but it would have been a pretty good start. […]
I’m worried that [...]
we will sow the seeds of our own demise as a significant, diverse, creative movement
for transformative change. If we choose to identify as ‘The 45%’, we are setting
up a group identity that relies on the notion of negation. How can we expect the
movement to grow, to eventually encompass more than 45%* (which it should go without
saying will be necessary if we are to realise our vision of sovereignty and a more
just society), if we, in naming ourselves ‘The 45%’ set ourselves against (intentionally
or otherwise) the remaining 55%. […]
We might want someone
to blame, but pointing fingers at those who voted differently (including those who
did not vote at all) will only further entrench binary thinking, that we are two
sides against one another, which in reality is convenient only for the small elite
in whose interests the existing power structures work. It’s the same divisive politics
at work as when those who have been disenfranchised and forced into unemployment
and poverty by devastating structural inequality are encouraged, by politicians
and elements of the mass media, to blame immigrants for their situation; or when
those struggling financially even whilst working are encouraged to blame the ‘benefits
scroungers’. This is ‘divide and rule’ politics, which thrives on internalised oppression
and horizontal violence. Let’s not let it win by distracting us from working against
the real roots of our unequal and unjust society. Let’s not alienate and distance
people by falling into this trap, not call each other fearties or shame each other
into silence. […]
I’ve heard many people
in the last couple of days talking about distancing themselves from the mainstream
media, never again watching the BBC or buying a newspaper, developing new ways and
spaces where we can share information and continuing to ‘be the media’ via social
networks. Much of this is profoundly necessary, but let’s not cut ourselves off
completely – we need to remain acutely aware of the messages coming out of the mainstream
media complex. If we are to weaken their influence and speak truth to their lies,
we need to know exactly what we are dealing with. We also need to be aware that
those who will use any new independent media, and those who engage in what is already
there, are typically a self-selected group- those who are seeking out a progressive
voice which reflects their own and, I suspect, not those people over whom the mainstream
exert influence. We need to find other ways to weaken this influence to encourage
dialogue and critique and questioning, to increase critical thought and media literacy.
We need to keep making use of our streets and public spaces and work places, not
in a display of defiance, nor to ‘recruit’ people to a campaign, but to engage in
real dialogue, to talk about our experience, to ask ‘in whose interests does the
current system really work’, to ask ‘why are we being asked to believe this or that’,
and to keep on creating and nurturing a real vision for change and an open, inclusive,
creative and diverse movement for eco-social justice. […]
Questions of Identity: ‘The 45%’, 21 September 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment