How many of us uphold the status quo out of fear of being inconvenienced? And how do we convince people who are basically trained to equate collectivism and community with a loss of individualism that community is the best way to nurture individualism and cultivate true freedom?

My answer to the first question is, "I don't think a whole lot." I think people uphold the status quo because 1) we've been taught that "The Other" in any form is bad 2) most people doubht the status quo can be challenged and 3) there's a lot of mixed consciousness, i.e. people identify one problem (for example not having money in a wealthy nation) but draw conclusions that in reality don't make a whole lot of sense (I didn't work hard enough).

This is exactly the opposite of the consciousness in your post. Unfortunately, though, I think the idea of meritocracy holds on pretty tight. But that's just one example. Patriotism is another mixed consciousness idea starting from a good notion (community) but ascribed to something nonsensical (allegiance a nation-state run by those would keep us down).

As for the second part, I believe the greatest teacher is Activity. We can talk to people on a one-to-one basis and talk about collective society and win them to that idea. But the real changes in consciousness come through people struggling together.

I don't mean to be a big downer, but I have found that my experiences with what I think you mean by "Activity"--in other words, activism or something similar--have been some of the most disillusioning of my life. They've created a degree of cynicism that I've found it difficult, even impossible, to get over. When I was more naive, and before I did much activist stuff, I felt like there were people out there working on issues even if I didn't have the knowledge or the confidence to do it myself yet. Now I feel like occasionally activists accomplish something good even though most of them are insane jerky egomaniacal fucks who almost never apply their ideals to their own lives (e.g. self-styled antiestablishment types who encourage rule by the few--and the white, and the male, etc.--in activist organizations).

I still find some hope in the idea of community, certainly. In lots of different ways, some that fit the description "struggling together". And I'm glad there are activists, because there should be protests sometimes and someone has to organize them, and who knows, maybe they'll actually succeed in radicalizing someone without sucking their soul out first. But I don't really want anything to do with those people.

I hope I haven't totally misunderstood your point, zagg. If so I just went on a weird tangent. Maybe I'm just having some kind of extended activist exhaustion, maybe I've just accidentally ended up in lots of unusually hypocritical groups and if I try again I'll end up somewhere I can feel better about. It's possible. But I'm not convinced. And I can't help wondering if there are other people out there who are feeling the way I do, and find themselves wondering if there's a way they can act on the kind of consciousness dru is describing without getting into the same old hopeless traps in the activist scene.

Now I feel like occasionally activists accomplish something good even though most of them are insane jerky egomaniacal fucks who almost never apply their ideals to their own lives (e.g. self-styled antiestablishment types who encourage rule by the few--and the white, and the male, etc.--in activist organizations).

A few thoughts on this:

Essentially the arguments I'm making in those pieces is the "Case for Building a Movement," but equally important is "How We Build that Movement."

That's a separate discussion, but obviously extremely important. However that was beyond the scope of what I was looking at.

Not to excuse the behavior, but people are shaped by the society they live in. That's a hard nut to crack sometimes and people will fall back into patterns of behavior echoing that rather than applying the principles they supposedly are working for. It's a constant battle.

That doesn't make them bad people. It only makes them people. I feel like that it's entirely appropriate, though, to call this stuff out either in the group or in one-on-one conversations later.

But I also think we need to have a little more patience for people who are on Our side and should spend extra time making arguments to root out these problems.

No matter how we apply it democracy is messy. People's feelings are going to get hurt. People are not always going to be uplifted by the experience. But in the long run I think the good stuff will far outweigh the negative stuff.

One thing I will lodge a minor disagreement with, though, is the notion of activism being dominated by white males. On one hand, it's certainly true that a lot can be done to increasing diversity and creating environments that are less hostile. On the other hand, the notion that most activist circles are lily-white is, I feel, exaggerated. Of course I'm saying that in NYC. Our experiences could be vastly different.

I hope I haven't totally misunderstood your point, zagg. If so I just went on a weird tangent. Maybe I'm just having some kind of extended activist exhaustion, maybe I've just accidentally ended up in lots of unusually hypocritical groups and if I try again I'll end up somewhere I can feel better about. It's possible. But I'm not convinced. And I can't help wondering if there are other people out there who are feeling the way I do, and find themselves wondering if there's a way they can act on the kind of consciousness dru is describing without getting into the same old hopeless traps in the activist scene.

I am talking about activism probably as you know it, but also a lot of other things. I'm also talking about workplace struggles--which have been largely absent in the past few years.

Moreover, when I talk about people's ideas changing through struggle, I'm talking about when people are actually engaged in organizing and fighting--not just idle meetings of activists.

For example, being in a union doesn't necessarily shift anyone, but when involved in a well-organized strike that is met with resistance, that kind of fight can teach people a whole lot about society.

I also think the antiwar movement did change some people's ideas. In New York City, for example, 500,000 people came out on Feb. 15. Many people's ideas were that we were there to send our elected leaders a message. They did not expect any resistance from the cops. After all, we had a permit and most people felt we had a Right to be there. But the cops did target people randomly, arresting hundreds, barreling their horses into crowds, etc. People didn't walk into that demonstration as liberal and walk out as radical, but a lot of people realized for the first time in their lives that the police's role is not to protect and serve, but to protect and serve just certain things.

I think I know what you're talking about, though. I've certainly been to my share of activist coalition meetings or interacted with activists that left me frustrated/puzzled/etc. I'm sure I've left other people with that impression at various times as well.

—

I feel like one of the key things in figuring out how to move forward, though, is looking back. The history of the Left in the U.S. is remarkably instructive both in understanding why a somewhat apolitical culture has emerged within the Left today as well as seeing what people in the U.S. have been able to accomplish through struggle.

In the longer pieces I use "movements" as a catch-all, but that's not to gloss over the fact that movements won't have their problems or issues to work through.

For now it's necessarily about mostly thinking small. But the small struggles of today can be the seeds for more later.

My experience, and my focus lately, is on really just forming small communities of people. I think activism takes all shapes, and that there is lots of focus placed on activists who participate in more public protests and actions, but there is a lot to be said for quiet discussion and introspection - even group introspection - or demonstration by example or any of a number of other ways one can employ to educate people, including self-education.

But, it all goes back, really, to building small, functional communities which can branch out to include larger and larger communities, and spread and enforce and rethink and restate ideas and ideals for living collectively.

I'm not really interested in getting into a whole thing about how activism should work, either. I do feel like I should say that the behavior I was referring to in my comment was not just "people getting their feelings hurt" or the kind of inevitable personality clashes that are bound to occur in a group. I have experienced systematic, conscious efforts to maintain control over others through means that ranged from underhanded sneaking to bullying and physical intimidation. I have also experienced blatant, unapologetic racism and sexism. And activism in Austin is, in my experience, almost totally racially segregated. And in almost every group I know of here, men dominate the leadership roles.

To be honest, I found your response kind of patronizing. It's belittling to have someone explain something as obvious as the fact that sometimes in group situations people's feelings get hurt. Yeesh.

But maybe I'm just being oversensitive again.

Anyway, when I wrote earlier that other forms of community still appealled to me outside of the terms of conventional activism (e.g. rallies), I meant something along the lines of what dru described. Forming communities--that are based on a real affinity and exchange between people, not power struggles and guilt-trips like most activist groups I've been part of. Where ideas can be developed and exchanged instead of dictated and disseminated.

My negative experiences in conventional activism left me with a greater awareness of the politics of the personal. After dealing time after time with people that were so hypocritical they seemed to have multiple personalities, I realized in a new way how important it was for me to apply my ideals to my own daily life in seemingly small ways and to be open to thinking critically about my own assumptions and behavior. (Although that's still a struggle for me, as I think it must be for everyone if they're challenging themselves.)

By the same token, the politics of the personal mean that when I do things that build community, strengthen myself in the process, and create opportunities for exchanging information and help, it's a kind of political act. That doesn't mean I still don't think I should be doing more. Though I try to reject the kind of guilt-trip mentality I internalized in activism, which is used as a means of control--I try to keep things constructive and not beat myself up. At this point I would like to do something more intentional and concrete activism-wise, but I don't want to get involved in anything like the situations I got sucked into before. I'm not sure how I would go about it, but I'm working on figuring that out.

To be honest, I found your response kind of patronizing. It's belittling to have someone explain something as obvious as the fact that sometimes in group situations people's feelings get hurt. Yeesh.

That was not my intention.

I think I chose the wrong words because reading it now describing the phenomenon I'm thinking of (which I believe is similar to what you're describing) cannot be called merely "hurt feelings." I was fumbling for words and it definitely came off patronizing. So I apologize for that.

— not power struggles and guilt-trips like most activist groups I've been part of. Where ideas can be developed and exchanged instead of dictated and disseminated.

This is the part I was trying to respond to in the earlier post. What I was trying to say, though, is that it seems that even though activist groups are supposed to be political, the political discussions are ripped out of the equation. They become completely organizational, which I think is part of what contributes to the atmosphere of non-discussion and personalities ruling the day. And it's true that some people use non-democratic means to subvert the process. But what I was saying that this weakness is a function of the fact that the history and lessons of organized struggle in the U.S. are largely ignored--for good and for bad.

At this point I would like to do something more intentional and concrete activism-wise, but I don't want to get involved in anything like the situations I got sucked into before. I'm not sure how I would go about it, but I'm working on figuring that out.

I've been in situations where the only solution--rather than fighting within an existing coalition--was starting a new formation.

I know what you mean about "new formations," zagg. "Formations" is a good word, too, because I'd like to be involved in something that is formed in a really different way from anything I've been involved with in the past--in a really concrete, obvious, visible way. The question then is, what kind of formation?

I have some ideas but they're kind of hard to explain. On one hand, there are these sorts of social groups that have been forming for centuries and are historically undervalued, that fit (to varying degrees) dru's description of small community spaces. I don't know if it's larger dynamics or a different chapter in my life or what but I have been finding myself more drawn to potlucks and knitting circles and stuff lately. On the surface these things might seem traditional (and traditionally feminine) in a limiting way, but in my case they've been a way of connecting with other people and feeling like a part of a social network in a way I haven't in a long time. Anyway, groups like that are undervalued--which has something, if not everything, to do with sexism. Even though the groups I'm finding myself in are hardly exclusively made up of women, they are spaces where women sometimes outnumber men (heavens!) and always feel on equal footing with them.

So I've been finding myself thinking about having a similar sort of group that's also oriented towards activism. Something like an affinity group that also does things that are, on the surface at least, more purely "social," like eating together. But that seems sort of dorky.

I feel like whatever I do it has to be something where I can work in a small group with people I know and trust. That's a requirement. Or at least, it can't be anything where I have to work with certain infamous people from the activist scene that seem intent on being a member of every group in existence.

Thanks for listening, and being open. If only more people could manage that!