Rebecca Solnit on climate change, activism, and the 'rectification of names:' http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12387-our-words-are-our-weapons-against-the-destruction-of-the-world-by-greed
Excerpts:
"Let's rectify some names ourselves. We often speak as though the source of so
many of our problems is complex and even mysterious. I'm not sure it is. You can
blame it all on greed: the refusal to do anything about climate change, the
attempts by the .01% to destroy our democracy, the constant robbing of the poor,
the resultant starving children, the war against most of what is beautiful on
this Earth.
"Calling lies "lies" and theft "theft" and violence "violence," loudly,
clearly, and consistently, until truth becomes more than a bump in the road, is
a powerful aspect of political activism. Much of the work around human rights
begins with accurately and aggressively reframing the status quo as an outrage,
whether it's misogyny or racism or poisoning the environment. What protects an
outrage are disguises, circumlocutions, and euphemisms -- "enhanced
interrogation techniques" for torture, "collateral damage" for killing
civilians, "the war on terror" for the war against you and me and our Bill of
Rights.
"One of the great accomplishments of Occupy Wall Street was this rectification
of names. Those who came together under that rubric named the greed, inequality,
and injustice in our system; they made the brutality of debt and the subjugation
of the debtors visible; they called out Wall Street's crimes; they labeled the
wealthiest among us the "1%," those who have made a profession out of pumping
great sums of our wealth upwards (quite a different kind of tax). It was a label
that made instant sense across much of the political spectrum. It was a good
beginning. But there's so much more to do."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I see it fit to call name to the situation at hand but doesn't doing that then limit the overall purpose of what is needed to be done? If you call a name by a name it makes it easier for the confronted to target its objectors. Wouldn't it be easier to use other means of getting out your message to build followers and support?
Not sure I understand the question. The fundamental Confucian insight is that we can't solve a problem if we don't understand it clearly, and to do that we must call things what they really are (Eschew Obfuscation!). You seem to suggest that too much clarity makes us a target for criticism -- but we WANT that sort of honest criticism! How we articulate -- or obscure -- issues matters very much, and it matters that our articulation be reality-based.
I understand that honest criticism is what is wanted by the confronted but I don't understand why they would want to become the target. Yes they want to articulate their voices and be heard but shouldn't how they go about that be determined on the situation and its turn of possible outcomes?
I am still not certain that I understand your point. Can you restate it for me?
Post a Comment