I appreciate Marty's lengthy comments about Gitlin, the flag, PC in the
60s, etc. As my earlier comments about dismissing people's whose
arguments we feel are wrong indicate, I am right with Marty when he
criticizes the Marxist study group that 'read him out,' turned to
Marxist-Leninism, and now are mostly Democrats. I think that bizarre
history, in addition to perhaps reflecting some personal histories of
the people involved, is a sad commentary on left politics in the United
States. I come again and again up against the reality that we have
lived for a long time in the shadow cast in the aftermath of our various
Red Scares. The left has been a pathetically fragmented, sectarian and
marginalized 'presence' in American politics for most of the past
century, at least since the Palmer raids & Red Scares of the 20s
(excepting, of course, its relative strength in the 30s and, in a
different way, the 60s). It seems to me that in the American tradition,
a natural course for the left to follow is to bridge the gaps between
Marxian analysis of capitalism and indigenous American traditions of
populism, grass-roots democracy, etc. (with the identity transformations
of the 60s and beyond added to this). How tragic it is that it is so
incredibly difficult for this to happen, at least for this kind of force
to enter into public (as opposed to private, repressed, marginalized)
discourse. It simply can't happen in the mainstream mass media, for
example.
But I do want to comment on Marty's point about the flag, since he
asserts that the flag stands for the US as a country, not a government,
and it was the government that waged the Vietnam war, not the country. I
appreciate that this is Marty's MEANING of the flag --I would like to
see the same thing in the flag, and I sometimes try to. And there is
clearly something to be said for not letting the Right and the
militarists 'capture' the flag.
However, apart from my personal feelings about the flag, there is
something lurking in here that is problematic, and I think it may go to
the heart of what was wrong, or short-sighted, or counter-productive
(pick the best word) about the Abbie Hoffman/Yippie approach which
sought public, symbolic expression as a primary vehicle for ridiculing,
opposing, and criticizing the system. Namely this: people who "show
the flag" at a time like the present (at least after S 11) do so for a
variety of personal reasons. Thus the flag's 'meaning' varies from
person to person. Many have shown the flag out of a need to express
their personal solidarity with and compassion for those who were killed
on S11. So far so good. Yet, if you look at the mainstream media
culture, the flag rapidly (well, immediately) got associated with the
military and the US "War" response to the S11 attack. And this is
always the case; like it or not, it's the prevailing historical meaning
(through use) of the flag. In other words, our private meanings when we
show the flag --our private meanings for our public expressions-- get
transformed in fairly pervasive ways into public meanings as interpreted
through the lenses of mainstream media culture. Flag means support for
the war (which is also supposed to be equated with support for "our
boys" --whereas opposition to the war gets equated with disregard for
'our boys.'). The question is, in the prevailing atmosphere and amidst
all the propaganda spewed by government officials of both parties and
all major mass media, how will other people, strangers, etc. see my
showing of the flag? They won't see MY meaning, they'll see the
prevailing meaning. So, in effect, I'm not in fact communicating what I
would like to communicate to them through this symbolic act. My message
has been co-opted.
I realize then that there are contradictions in this (and I realize that
Abbie's message wasn't co-opted in a direct sense; I might argue that it
was, however, over the longer haul, amidst all the commodification &
sanitization of, and attacks on the 60s). If "we on the left" don't
claim the flag, that can feed the also pervasive perception of us as
'traitors' etc. In part, this dilemma is built into the shortcomings of
symbolic action, at least in our culture where symbols tend to take on
pervasively hegemonic public meanings. But, perhaps there are ways in
which we can use or claim symbols like these and then in the same
"message" or action connect them with our critique of the warmakers,
etc. At least that is, I think, what those of us who want to express
ourselves through symbolic action need to try to do.
My own reflexive response to S11 was that I wanted to wear a black
armband and perhaps show a black-bordered US flag (or one with a peace
sign) --though I ended up doing neither. I found words, explanations,
analysis, conversations a much better vehicle for conveying my meanings.
Ted Morgan
PS. Re. the Gitlin LA Times piece, I'd ask Marty what exactly about the
piece's "tone" makes it "effective for a mainstream audience," because
therein may lie the problem of getting one's arguments into the
mainstream media, vs. remaining largely on the outside (a la Arundhati
Roy). Maybe he can help those of us drawn to Roy's writing understand
better how to be 'heard' by the mainstream (assuming, of course, that
what we write will get printed).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 16 2001 - 18:29:59 EST