yayacanada.com| Social
Analysis of Activism: Hippies, Militants, Liberals, and Fascists Lecture by Prof. Denis Rancourt University of Ottawa, Canada Text + Slides October 11, 2006 SCI 1101 AC Science in Society Activism Course - 5th Session |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| . | |||||||||||||||||||||
| First,
let me
say that, at this stage in the course, if you are not pissed-off and
deeply disturbed, and if you still have passive hope rather than a more
realistic sense of despair, then you have not been paying attention –
you have missed the point! Let’s try again. The truth gives one the moral incentive to act. To reach out, to act, to risk, is to live. To isolate oneself, to compulsively seek out security and comfort, is to die. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Said
another way, as one
student put it: “Activism is sexy!”
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| In
this talk I
want to present a theoretical model of the people involved in both
progressive and regressive change, and in resisting change. This model can give us a deeper understanding of societal dynamics, from the perspective of individual psychology, thereby enabling more effective strategies for good. But first, before I describe this model, I want to talk about the engineering of our mental environment, the role the university plays in this project, and the tapestry of lies that we feed upon. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Let
me start by talking about the university itself. If you want an education: Get out. The only way to get an education at university is to get out, get out of the classroom, get out of the mould, get away from the requirements and the soulless tasks. Yes read. Yes meet. Yes argue. But don’t ‘excel’. Educate yourself instead. The Statement of Institutional Purpose of the University of Toronto (where I excelled but barely survived my M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in physics) reads like this: |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| “Within the unique
university context, the most crucial of all human
rights are the rights of freedom of speech, academic freedom and
freedom of research. And we affirm that these rights are
meaningless
unless they entail the right to raise deeply disturbing questions and
provocative challenges to the cherished beliefs of society at large and
of the university itself.” (end of quote) It is understood that these rights are, in theory, those of professors and that they obviously do not extend to students. The statement continues as: “It is this human right to radical, critical teaching and research with which the University has a duty above all to be concerned; for there is no one else, no other institution and no other office, in our modern liberal democracy, which is the custodian of this most precious and vulnerable right of the liberated human spirit.” (end of quote) Wow! The university certainly thinks highly of itself: It’s “the only place where you can be a radical critical thinker”…! That the authors believe that we live in a democracy gives some hint that the statement is not completely consistent with the real world… In particular, if the statement were true, then you should not expect freedom of speech or egalitarian treatment in any other workplace… Some of these beautiful words would be great if, in fact, they were anywhere near the truth. The University of Toronto is just like other Canadian universities: It thinks highly of itself yet it is a repressive, elitist, and racial place. Just look at its worker demographics and its treatment of dissenters – students and professors. Students sell their souls and lose their intellectual independence and dignity so as to enter the privileged professional classes. The rewards are real, as are the sacrifices – that go well beyond the $30,000 debt. Let’s dig a little deeper than the institution’s feel-good platitudes in order to more closely approach the truth. I cite Harold Pinter (2005 laureate of the Nobel Prize for literature) when I say: The ruling elites (quote) “are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.” (end of quote) If this is true, and I believe it is, and if, in addition, we admit that the university is an essential part of the power structure that allows a minority elite to undemocratically control the economy, and therefore all natural and human resources, then we should conclude that the true purpose of the university and the true mission of obedient academics and intellectuals is to construct and maintain this tapestry of lies that keeps us in ignorance. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| I
politely call
the latter obedient intellectuals ‘service
intellectuals’. This
distinguishes them from the ‘true intellectuals’ of Edward Said who
“speak truth to power” and defend the oppressed. There are
virtually
no true intellectuals in university. The institution has devised a highly efficient mechanism to weed out any such potential true intellectuals. It’s called tenure. Tenure is given to those who have demonstrated that they will never use it. That’s how you become part of the club. You must show your ability to neutralize dissent, first in yourself, then in your students. You must also accept the notion that you are confined to your discipline and that your job is to supply piecewise theoretical rationalizations for society’s injustices. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| You must not
debase yourself with action, unless it is ineffective action – that can
be tolerated. If you are particularly devoted you might cross
into the
corporate executive elite and serve on boards or switch between
academic management and corporate management or corporate
politics. To be involved in the grassroots, beyond researching a book, is to disavow your class. To side with the students, beyond helping them to better brainwash themselves, is to disavow your class. To publicly criticize the university or to act independently for good is to be uncollegial and is punishable by shunning, by attempted character assassination, and by harassment. I say these things from experience. We live and work in a mental environment where: “motivated” means “compliant” “critical thought” means “rationalization of the status quo” “constructive” means “non-critical” “[…] a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed”… Noam Chomsky has elaborated sections of this tapestry in some detail and I might quote him (from ‘Understanding Power’) and paraphrase him in developing a ‘Chomsky’s dictionary of honest meanings’, as follows. Instead of their usual dictionary meanings, the terms of ideological warfare are used to prevent thought. This is what power really means when it and its service intellectuals use the following terms. Communism: The far right, indistinguishable from fascism – Nothing to do with the left. Critical debate: An effective component of indoctrination, developed in modern democracies (see democracy), that incorporates the basic assumptions of the official doctrine, thereby marginalizing and eliminating authentic and rational critical discussion, all in a context of free speech (see free speech). Free speech: A system whereby citizens are not jailed for practicing critical debate (see critical debate). Indeed, free speech is honoured and often glamorized. Authentic critical expression, on the other hand, in those rare cases where it is effective, carries serious consequences for the individual. The Economy: The conditions that control the degree to which corporations and capital are able to maximize profits – Nothing to do with public welfare. The economy is strong when profits are high and weak when profits sag and is often anti-correlated with public welfare, such as in the current period of massive transfers of public property into private hands (e.g., public utilities, public infra-structure, university research labs, etc.). Democracy: A system where business interests dominate the state far beyond their numbers and where mock elections are held to give the illusion that the population takes part in running the place. For example, elected socialist governments are only democratic if they preserve the corporate and financial power structures. If not, they are illegitimate by definition. In democracies, the right people are running them; if the right people aren’t running them, then they’re not democracies. Defence: Aggressive acts of war; includes ‘preemptive defence’ and ‘self defence’. No state, including Hitler’s Germany, has ever admitted to attack or aggression, only self defence against a hostile world. Canada’s participation in the recent war against Afghanistan was officially an act of self defence†. Canada’s role in deposing Haiti’s Aristide was helping the peace process (see peace process), promoting democracy (see democracy), and in the national interest (see national interest). Government secrecy: A system of information management and control designed to prevent the population from knowing what’s going on. No technical information can be of any use to technologically inferior states; Technologically equal states are able to reproduce any of the competitor state’s technology – Only a short time lag may give an economic advantage, to be remedied by patent legislation (see patent legislation) in conjunction with globalization. Patent legislation: A system that ensures that corporations make profits from (mostly public funded) research, far beyond their own investments, for an extended and steadily increasing period of time without any competition, thereby allowing effective monopolies based on exploitation rather than economic efficiency. Its main purpose is to ensure that invention primarily serves capital rather than the public good. It stifles invention by encouraging non-disclosure of the great majority of discoveries that would lead to products with insufficient profit margins. Moderate: An absolute totalitarian (and usually brutal) state that follows US orders (see radical). Radical: Any state, of any political persuasion, that does not follow US orders (see moderate). Modern medicine: A system designed to keep the general population in a state of ignorance and dependence regarding personal health, so as to monopolize the distribution of expensive experimental treatments and pharmaceuticals, working hand in hand with the corporate sector and its government arm and driven by the professional status and corporate profit motives. Medicine is antagonistic to public health, by definition. As with any system of power, it is based on secrecy and a healthy fear factor related to personal safety. According to MDs, women live longer because they consult their doctors more often... National interests: Corporations and business in general. (Compare ‘special interests’) Special interests: Labour, women, immigrants, visible minorities, queers, the poor, the elderly, the young, etc. Synonym: The general population. The term is never used for corporations or business in general. National Security: Justification for removing civil liberties, for supporting national interest, and for government secrecy (see national interest and government security) – Nothing to do with personal safety or welfare of citizens. Anything that threatens corporate and financial power and business interests in general threatens national security, by definition. Peace process: In the US this means whatever the US is doing, without exception. Therefore, the US is always supporting the peace process, by definition. Terrorism: What other people do. Not: Killing Afghans to keep your warlord friends in power. Not: having military bases in 150 countries. Not: genocides in South America intended to suppress political uprisings that would threaten capital interests – That’s just spreading democracy (see democracy). US military spending: America’s method of keeping its economy profitable for its business, in a way that minimizes pesky public intervention. Social spending would not do, as the population would take an interest in such spending that is relevant to people. Ideally, military spending produces useless things that are either buried in silos or launched up in space and is controlled by military manufacturers that supply a single willing client, the state, which is the representative of business (see democracy). |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| And
let us end with… University: Institution dedicated to developing, perfecting, and practicing critical debate (see critical debate) in order to strengthen democracy (see democracy), enable free speech (see free speech); and generally dedicated to our national interest (see national interest). It also trains our doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers (see modern medicine) and performs research for industry (see patent legislation). “[…] a vast tapestry of lies,”… |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Here are some major lies: That we live in a democracy … say plutocracy. That activism does not work … say civil liberties. That we are all the same: Just sensitive people who need love and who want to share … say class warfare. Say ruling elite living in a segregated society. That we just need to imagine a better world … say privileged idiot. Say head in the sand. That modern medicine extends life expectancy … say third leading cause of death in NA, after cardio-vascular and cancer, are medical accidents. Say pharma profits. Say poverty kills. That global warming is the greatest present threat to humankind … say globalized financial and corporate exploitation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Which
brings me to the
topic of environmentalism, a perfect
introduction to the social model of activism that I then want to
present … Many of you have seen Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”. All of you know the PEN (Peace and Environment News). Well I wrote a negative critique of the Gore film that was published in the PEN. Several readers responded with disgust. For PEN readers to respond in this way, you have to really hit a nerve. Here is the review as it was published: |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| An Inconvenient Truth Is Too
Convenient I recently saw Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. It was exactly what I expected, like getting the Big Mac you expect when you go to Mac Donald’s. It is an American mainstream film that serves the same political purpose as any Hollywood blockbuster – to neutralize political awareness and response. Yes, the atmospheric trace gas CO2 has the highest concentration it has had in the last million years. Yes, this is due to fossil fuel burning. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, there have been intense weather events in recent years and yes glaciers are melting. Therefore, let us abstract away the greatest assault on the planet and its people in the history of humanity, namely finance-driven corporate devastation and exploitation backed by military might, and change our light bulbs to the energy saving kind! Our moral responsibility extends far beyond checking out Al Gore’s web site, and has relatively little to do with most lifestyle choices; including vegetarianism, fair trade purchases, renewable consumer choices, not owning a car, etc. Our responsibilities instead include getting informed, and demanding moral accountability of all those who should serve people (including the corporations and private banks). To demand is to put yourself out there. To demand is to show what you stand for. To demand is to risk. We must risk as much as will make us as effective as possible in producing justice. Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc. Concentrated power and capital are not about to give up their practices or their imperative for profit. Resistance to the insane return-on-investments hydra that inhabits our planet is our main responsibility if we are concerned about future generations. It’s time to declare bankruptcy and start again, in collaboration, without debt or interest. One cannot control a monster by asking it not to shit as much. The monster is the problem, not the fact that it shits. In Al Gore’s masterpiece there is not a single questioning at the root. A sanitized problem of atmospheric chemistry is used to funnel attention into lifestyle choices or filling out feedback forms for the monster’s suggestion box. My point is that global warming is part of our mainstream mental environment because it does not threaten power. Wars are being fought to secure fossil fuel exploitation and transportation profits. It is completely naïve to think that world politics based on atmospheric chemistry and computer modelling projection arguments will lead to an effective cap on fossil fuel burning. As a related example, the so-called “ozone victory” was a corporate ploy to eliminate CFCs just as US corporation CFC patents were running out, thereby ensuring that the replacement US products with new patent protection would have a world market. The acid rain problem of the 70s was another such global catastrophe myth. Agriculture and forestry combined with the cottage industry and sports fishing crippled boreal forest lakes and their ecosystems, not acid rain. Nor did acid rain destroy the boreal forest – blame corporate clear cutting for that. More sulphides are being emitted by coal-burning power plants than ever before and the US has enough coal reserves to keep it in energy for the next 1000 years. SO2 is not the problem, corporate and financial power is. Pollution is a symptom, as are exploitation and oppression. We need to see straight before we can hope to take more democratic control over our resources. The ‘sanitised global problem abstraction’ (e.g., world overpopulation as a statistician’s dreamland) is a red herring. It deflects attention away from the root causes and neutralises effective action based in direct confrontation at the source. ---------------------------------- Now we are ready for my social model of activism… Even if you are upset by some of the things I have said so far, please consider the following. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| (Now
that’s a student protest.) ===> The Model… If I say “hippies, militants, liberals, and fascists”, many of you are tempted to place them on a continuum, that might also include conservatives and all those people who just want to be left alone and are just trying to get by as best they can without rocking the boat or confronting authority. Maybe we could call it the “mental sanity or emotional wellness” continuum? But I want to make a different point. I want to add a second dimension. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| I want to place these
groups in
a
two-dimensional space of two variables: Two variables that are
independent a priori and that now need to be defined. The first variable is an ‘attitude and moral position’ variable. We might call it the inclusiveness variable. It runs:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| OK,
you get the picture. The inclusiveness variable
goes from +10 on the left to –10 on the right. Along this moral-position-inclusiveness-variable, as we go from left to right, positive to negative, the corresponding attitudes go from being motivated by a sense of security and confidence, a sense of trust in people, to being motivated by fear, insecurity, and mistrust. I believe that the guttural positions of the right are psychologically based in a fear of others – a belief that others are out to get you if they can: A realistic position to have against oppressive power but not against fellow victims. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| While the first
variable, the inclusiveness variable, is an attitude
and moral position variable, a variable that quantifies a state, the
second variable relates to action. The second variable is a
methods
and strategy variable and we might call it the methods variable. The methods variable runs:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| The
methods variable goes from +10 at the top of a vertical
scale to –10 at the bottom – where the action is. Along the methods variable, as one goes from high-risk direct action to comfortable accommodation, the underlying emotional motivation generally goes from anger and disgust to seeking warmth and comfort. Of course, within any one individual activist, action can be motivated by anger and by love simultaneously, while needed warmth and comfort are supplied by community and solidarity. |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Individuals are complex
and can be one way at work and different on the
street or at home. Likewise, individuals can completely overhaul
their
world views and be different in different periods of their lives.
Nonetheless, there is a left and there is a right. There are
extremes
of oneness with humanity and nature and extremes of protectionism and
competition. These end-points are needed references to understand
society. Now let’s see where groups fit into our model. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Add lib:
differences of strategy versus differences of moral
position… 1964: Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price watches a memorial
march
for the three civil rights activists he helped to kill. Photo: Jack
Thornell. Guardian Weekly, July 16-2004, p.15. Comments on model inter-group interactions… There are times when militant action or grassroots organizing are effective and the liberals go into overdrive with spin… They will even admit a ‘democratic deficit’. Hippies and militants are on the same side of justice but their endless debates about strategy are essential, because the best strategy depends on the circumstances and the circumstances keep changing and are different in different places. Also one’s strategic contributions are personal choices, as is the degree of personal risk that one is willing to take. I believe we all have a responsibility to risk as much as will maximize our effectiveness in fighting for justice. You cannot convince a fascist to be a humanist using a rational argument because his position is visceral and emotional – rooted in fear, mistrust, and a desire to rule. Similarly, it is difficult to get a liberal to not be elitist because his social status is rooted in privilege and service to the class structure. The liberal left and the right only argue about the best way to maintain the class structure or modify the class structure to their common advantage but they both want hierarchical structure and obedient others. I would like to end with short descriptions of a few of the grotesque crimes that all non-militant non-activists condone. These are from the small book “The Gruesome Acts of capitalism” by David Lester. They are good examples of the power of words and the impact that true intellectuals can have in their communications. → $13 billion a year (about as much as the people of the US and the EU spend each year on perfume) would satisfy the world’s sanitation and food needs. Ignacio Ramonet, Le Monde Diplomatique, 1998. → The amount of money spent on pet food in the US and Europe each year equals the additional amount needed to provide basic food and health care for all the people in poor countries, with a sizeable amount left over. UN Human Development Report, 1999. → The three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 48 least-developed countries. UN Human Development Report, 1999. → Coke represents 10% of the total liquids consumed in the world. UTNE Reader, 2003. → It would cost between $7 and 8 billion a year to provide primary education for everyone in the developing world. This amount represents 4 days of global military spending, and 50% of what the US spends annually on children’s toys. Guardian Weekly, 1999. → Almost two thirds of US companies paid no tax between 1996 and 2000. [No tax on profits, no profit sharing…] General accounting office report, US Congress, 2004. → In 1970, the average American CEO made 40 times the average worker’s salary. In 1998, the average American CEO made 1000 times the average worker’s salary. Guardian Weekly, 2003. Related: Afghan MP Malalai Joya opens the fall season of Ottawa University's "Science in Society" Course This article Includes some background on the ongoing struggle for survival of the Activism Course. Criticism of Activism Course by Ottawa Citizen, and responses |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments yayacanada |