On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Doug Henwood wrote:
> public opinion on Iraq has moved a lot since 2004, and there's no movement
> at all to show for it.
Is it possible that we just have an obsolete picture of what constitutes a movement -- i.e., people marching in the street and at rallies?
Marching in the street provided an outlet for expressing strong emotions with purpose of persuading other people (and reinforcing ourselves).
Just hypothetically, let's imagine that nowadays yakking online has provided an alternate outlet to the same desires to express, reinforce and persuade. Which is why people don't demonstrate as much.
Now normally we think of yakking online as inaction and marching in big rallies as action.
But maybe that's backwards. Because there's two interesting things to be explained here. One, why were some of the most massive anti-war demonstrations in the history of the planet so impotent? And two, why has public opinion turned against the war so much faster this time than it did against the war in Vietnam?
Why isn't the answer that, in the present set-up, online manifestation is more effective than streetside manifestation? And not only more effective now, but more effecive than streetside manifestation was 40 years ago?
Perhaps what's happened here is that people that people stopped marching because it was so inescapably ineffective. And that what they've done instead -- naturally, without thinking about it -- has turned out to be much more effective in accomplishing all the goals that demonstrations originally answered to.
Because something certainly has been accelerating public opinion. Could it be that this changing nature of public discussion made possible by a world of virtual connections that weren't there 40 years ago?
And if what we're doing now is more effective than what we were doing then, does it make sense to say there was a movement then and no movement now?
I mean, I'm not sure calling what we're doing now a movement is the best idea. But just for devil's advocate purposes, why isn't a movement?
Is it because it isn't organized? But is that true? Listservs and blogs and email networks where we forward articles aren't forms of organization? It's true that it isn't centrally organized. But then, isn't the very picture of an authentic movement -- something that is a spontaneous growth of connections between people without an overarching central organization? Which leads to a very clearly marked worldview that people on both sides instantly recognize as a polarized identity?
It's true that in the old days there were lots of organizations with names. But come to think of it, there are lots of organizations with names now too. They just impinge on our lives mainly virtually. Perhaps precisely because we don't actually have to move our bodies anywhere to manifest ourselves (to take part in the discussion and suck in others). So logistics aren't a big deal. Maybe our model of organizing is mainly logistics -- getting spaces, reserving busses, putting out and distributing newspapers.
Admittedly, it doesn't feel like we're doing as much when we spend hours every day reading and forwarding things as when we got up at 5 am and rode a bus to Washington. But once again, if opinion is moving faster than it did before, and there isn't being pushed demonstrations or pulled by political leadership, maybe it isn't as weak-ass as it feels -- maybe this is what's doing it. Fwiw, I think we're spending more average people hours per day at it.
I'm just throwing this out. I'm just wondering. It seems odd to blame us for doing so little at the same time as we wonder why opinion is changing so fast. Who's doing that if not "us?"
Michael