I'm having a hell of a time just trying to get fellow students to take a
flyer from me. I don't have much time for handing them out, either. They
look at me as if I were very odd, and some will take one from me and
drop it in the garbage, right in front of my eyes. If I were
petitioning, I'd probably get one signature or listening ear for a
thousand rejections. They are in such a hurry, and they look so bitter.
I'm the only student I know who is protesting the proposed merger of my
University's library with the city's public library. I have many reasons
for believing the merger would be a disaster, and for distrusting the
motives and operational philosophies of the powerful folks trying to
make it happen. We, and the public, won't even have a chance to vote on
it-- planning is well underway, and no one was asked how they felt. It's
the City's re-development baby, and plans have been going on rapidly and
undercover.
I think there is an institutional, conservative wash over youth today,
and it's very stifling and imposed. I suspect it may often be the cause
of many youth suicides--though i haven't looked up suicide statistics
from the 60's & the 90's, to compare.
thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Wish I'd seen them sooner.
karen
TED MORGAN wrote:
>
> A while back Anne Marie Ellison posted a thoughtful piece about attitudes
> towards activism among folks of her age group (graduating from college)
> compared to that of her parents' (60s/our) generation. I wished I had
> responded right away, and would like to see some discussion of these themes on
> the list if others are so inclined. Clearly we live in different times --the
> global economy, the pervasive media/consumer culture of entertainment, the
> 15-20 years of "Right Turn" (Reaganism/Thatcherism), and the various sectarian
> splinters from the 60s.....
>
> I'm always asking my students how their world view is different from/similar to
> those expressed in 60s movements, and how/why their behavior is different.
> Anne's post suggested several familiar themes...
>
> > Among my age group, though,I think activism has taken on a
> >different lilt than in my parents' generation. <snip> "Activism" has moved
> >closer to "volunteerism" these days and you have folks from the Points of Light
> >Foundation on C-SPAN talking about what good people we all are for doing what we
> >should do, as citizens. I think anything much beyond that, and people are
> >afraid.
>
> The ideology of "individualism," of the market as "most efficient" distributor
> of goods. That's one big thing that undermines collective action. I think
> Anne's making the crucial distinction between "volunteerism" (a good thing,
> but not activism) and "political action" which after all is all that will
> CHANGE the conditions that cause the problems (oppression, poverty,
> destruction of the environment, 3rd world exploitation, wars/invasions...).
> But political action requires awareness of the idea of "acting-with-others"
> and I'm not sure how much younger folks have ever experienced this as
> something meaningful? The consumer society teaches that one "acts" or "is
> empowered" by selecting among already-produced commodities ON ONE'S OWN.
>
> The other piece in here Anne mentions is fear --an interesting one. Fear
> about careers? Stepping off the ladder or treadmill (or as Paul Goodman put it
> years ago, escaping the "apparently closed room"). An ideological piece
> thoroughly taught by our schools and political and economic "respected
> leaders." ANd a reality to this one: the economy is being wrung out by
> globalization, so the competition is keener.
>
> Anne mentions the difficulty in getting students involved on protests --a
> familiar experience for anyone involved in student (or other) organizing, I'm
> sure; sure rings true at Lehigh. She mentions the lack of a central
> mobilization issue like vietnam, which I think is relevant. But there is
> something deeper, in her comments about the kinds of "politics" her generation
> has experienced (scandals galore, political ineptitude, empty promises,
> etc.)... which, in my view, adds up to a kind of powerlessness/ inability to
> envision effective political action of virtually any kind.... Political
> leaders have something to do with this. With all their horrific warts, it
> strikes me that there's some intangible difference between Kennedy, Johnson,
> Nixon and the likes of Bush & Clinton (& Carter & Reagan) --or is it just the
> structure within which they operate. Perhaps more to the point, there were
> highly visible leaders who could inspire people with the belief in acting to
> change things --King, Malcolm, RFK.... Re there likes anywhere around, or do
> the media just destroy them before they get too big (or scare the good ones
> off)?
>
> Anyway, I'd be very interested in how others explain these obvious big
> differences, the enormous difficulty in getting any kind of significant
> mobilization going. Especially (?) among the young? And I know there are a
> host of grass-roots things going on out there; it's just that there optimal
> effect is a kind of rear-guard defense of something threatened by huge forces.
> I might also add, that in my participation in a local chapter of the Labor
> Party, we seem to tap into a strong DESIRE among quite a few people (I suspect
> it's a majority) to somehow right this train-heading-for-a-wreck and make this
> a better world. But there's a powerful lot of fatalism, too. MUCH different
> from the early 60s.
>
> Ted Morgan