Whole Foods, Hemp, Thriftstores, and the Folly of Lifestyle Activism
| By RevolutionAM - May 24th, 2006 at 12:54 am EDT |
(disclaimer 1: I know that I too am guilty of a lot of what I am railing against in the following paragraphs... but I'm working on it.)
(disclaimer 2: Most of this criticism is aimed at those activists who envision or promote an alternative societal/economic organization, though it might be useful for Mainline Liberals to read too.)
I've been musing over the "lifestyle" activism that I've been seeing more and more of (and granted, have at times taken part in). And by lifestyle activism I don't mean simply wearing Amnesty pins or drinking fair trade coffee - it's when people are judged by how well their lifestyle conforms with external political/economic ends that it becomes a real problem. I know so many people who cringe or ridicule a fellow activist who happens to be wearing Nike footwear, or even watches American Idol (because it's owned by FOX). By striving for ideological purity and eliminating any potential "hypocrisy" from every aspect of our lives, I fear we activists have lost sight of what is truly important - building the movement(s). By paying attention to every single thing we purchase, every book/magazine we read, and every conversation we have, we have lost sight of larger goals, and better uses of our time.
It's fantastic that you buy clothing and furniture from thrift shops. Good for you. But the fact that you do so does not a) make you a better activist, nor b) absolve you of greater responsibilities to the causes you are using your money to indicate solidarity with.
Being an activist does not mean just buying fair trade coffee at Starbucks - or buying anything for that matter. I don't have much respect for the activist who wears hemp clothing, eats organic food and drives a hybrid but whose activism does not extend much further than her/his checkbook.
I do respect the activist who is bedecked in horrible, sweatshop-produced clothing, drinking soda from a company that exploits workers, but who puts in hours upon hours each week supporting social justice.
We fall into a trap of consumerist myopia: we can't see meaningful activism extending past our individual actions. Michael Albert calls it The Political as Personal: the reversal of The Personal as Political (the idea that sparked many of the movements of the 60s and 70s was one that taught that the injustices occurring in our individual lives were part of a larger societal problem, and not just merely our own personal issues/shortcomings).
Often when I'm at a teach-in, or activist conference, the question comes up, "Well what can we do about it?" Almost invariably the facilitator or other activist 'leader' will instruct us on how to purchase wisely (sweatshop-free, organic, GMO-free, depends on the issue), and of course to write our congresspeople. Very few people offer real suggestions beyond that, especially empowering ones. The one notable exception I can think of is USAS - they've got their bag together: they have a game-plan, a way for students to get involved, and concrete goals that not just individuals, but entire campuses must work together to achieve. Consumer-activism is an inherently anti-social act. It compartmentalizes us, and prevents social bonds that would be made if we middle-class white activists got our hands really dirty.
And really, comfort I think is a big, big part of this shift to consumerist activism. It combines the capitalist, socially-programmed glee of purchase/acquisition with the left's knee-jerk moral elitism. What an irresistably delicious combo!
There are lots of problems with the left as it stands, and they all link directly to why the left is so far out of power in society. Why are activist movements so overwhelmingly white, male and middle-class? Doesn't it seem odd that the most militant advocates of the poor and pro-poor social restructuring aren't actually members of the poor/working classes (someone smell vanguardism)? Why is most of the population completely ignorant of left ideas? These questions cannot be answered by drinking Green Mountain coffee, wearing No Sweat apparrel, or alienating those who don't. There are good answers out there, however. Ward Churchill offers one:
Activist consumer habits have become a sort of activist "badge" that one must wear to "belong" to a movement. But, if Noam Chomsky wanted to speak to a group, and he happened to be wearing Nike shoes because they're the shoes that fit his foot best, would he be shouted out of the room? Of course not. But this tendency does breed elitism in the worst kind, the kind of elitism that hinders communication between activists and those in the outside world we want to fight alongside.
We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back after buying clothing at a thrift store, or buying a Black Spot sneaker, or eating organic fair-trade potato chips - because it's not very exemplary action, and not that important in the big picture, comparatively speaking. We still reside in our relative comfort zones when we do this "activism." It's the people who take risks, who put themselves out there in myriad ways, who make movements vital and strong.
I understand that it's good to support eco- and labor-friendly businesses, but it's a small, non-required part of being a successful activist, and participating in a successful movement.
How I use my checkbook is miniscule compared to how I use my feet, my fist and my heart.
(disclaimer 2: Most of this criticism is aimed at those activists who envision or promote an alternative societal/economic organization, though it might be useful for Mainline Liberals to read too.)
I've been musing over the "lifestyle" activism that I've been seeing more and more of (and granted, have at times taken part in). And by lifestyle activism I don't mean simply wearing Amnesty pins or drinking fair trade coffee - it's when people are judged by how well their lifestyle conforms with external political/economic ends that it becomes a real problem. I know so many people who cringe or ridicule a fellow activist who happens to be wearing Nike footwear, or even watches American Idol (because it's owned by FOX). By striving for ideological purity and eliminating any potential "hypocrisy" from every aspect of our lives, I fear we activists have lost sight of what is truly important - building the movement(s). By paying attention to every single thing we purchase, every book/magazine we read, and every conversation we have, we have lost sight of larger goals, and better uses of our time.
It's fantastic that you buy clothing and furniture from thrift shops. Good for you. But the fact that you do so does not a) make you a better activist, nor b) absolve you of greater responsibilities to the causes you are using your money to indicate solidarity with.
Being an activist does not mean just buying fair trade coffee at Starbucks - or buying anything for that matter. I don't have much respect for the activist who wears hemp clothing, eats organic food and drives a hybrid but whose activism does not extend much further than her/his checkbook.
I do respect the activist who is bedecked in horrible, sweatshop-produced clothing, drinking soda from a company that exploits workers, but who puts in hours upon hours each week supporting social justice.
We fall into a trap of consumerist myopia: we can't see meaningful activism extending past our individual actions. Michael Albert calls it The Political as Personal: the reversal of The Personal as Political (the idea that sparked many of the movements of the 60s and 70s was one that taught that the injustices occurring in our individual lives were part of a larger societal problem, and not just merely our own personal issues/shortcomings).
Often when I'm at a teach-in, or activist conference, the question comes up, "Well what can we do about it?" Almost invariably the facilitator or other activist 'leader' will instruct us on how to purchase wisely (sweatshop-free, organic, GMO-free, depends on the issue), and of course to write our congresspeople. Very few people offer real suggestions beyond that, especially empowering ones. The one notable exception I can think of is USAS - they've got their bag together: they have a game-plan, a way for students to get involved, and concrete goals that not just individuals, but entire campuses must work together to achieve. Consumer-activism is an inherently anti-social act. It compartmentalizes us, and prevents social bonds that would be made if we middle-class white activists got our hands really dirty.
And really, comfort I think is a big, big part of this shift to consumerist activism. It combines the capitalist, socially-programmed glee of purchase/acquisition with the left's knee-jerk moral elitism. What an irresistably delicious combo!
There are lots of problems with the left as it stands, and they all link directly to why the left is so far out of power in society. Why are activist movements so overwhelmingly white, male and middle-class? Doesn't it seem odd that the most militant advocates of the poor and pro-poor social restructuring aren't actually members of the poor/working classes (someone smell vanguardism)? Why is most of the population completely ignorant of left ideas? These questions cannot be answered by drinking Green Mountain coffee, wearing No Sweat apparrel, or alienating those who don't. There are good answers out there, however. Ward Churchill offers one:
"If you want to talk to factory workers, you need to connect with them where they are, not where you think they should be. You need to get over your prohibition on ashtrays. You keep asking me why nobody shows up, except you, when you organize an event - there's the answer. I've answered the question about 15 times. You may have ideas, you may have counter models and they might be constructive, but if people - coming from the bowling alley or something - have to spend 15 minutes reading your fucking signs about what they can or can't do in exchange for the privilege of entering your sacred premises, they're going to go bowling instead. Get over your bicycles and go down and bend a wrench with a gear-head for a while. Do what he's fucking doing.
Maybe he'll learn how to talk to you and vice versa. [...] [Activists] posit an implicit demand that people are supposed to acknowledge the superiority of their vision as the price of admission. So get the fuck off the university campus and down into a union hall. Put ashtrays on the goddamn tables. Make some babysitting services available. And try to package it in a set of terms that can appeal to the people you're trying to reach. [...] Because you're ultimately demanding that they respect you. That's a reciprocal proposition." [link to article]
Activist consumer habits have become a sort of activist "badge" that one must wear to "belong" to a movement. But, if Noam Chomsky wanted to speak to a group, and he happened to be wearing Nike shoes because they're the shoes that fit his foot best, would he be shouted out of the room? Of course not. But this tendency does breed elitism in the worst kind, the kind of elitism that hinders communication between activists and those in the outside world we want to fight alongside.
We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back after buying clothing at a thrift store, or buying a Black Spot sneaker, or eating organic fair-trade potato chips - because it's not very exemplary action, and not that important in the big picture, comparatively speaking. We still reside in our relative comfort zones when we do this "activism." It's the people who take risks, who put themselves out there in myriad ways, who make movements vital and strong.
I understand that it's good to support eco- and labor-friendly businesses, but it's a small, non-required part of being a successful activist, and participating in a successful movement.
How I use my checkbook is miniscule compared to how I use my feet, my fist and my heart.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
America needs tweaks here and there, not an overall overhaul.
Why not simply vote, live your life as an informed consumer, engage in political organization when you feel it's necessary?
Why the need for an overarching "movement"?
On a similar tact, why use the word "Revolution" in your handle? Talk about fitting the silly stereotypes.
as audre lorde says, "the master's tools will never destroy the master's house."
Oh, and I'm not a "shadow" DLC'er. I've said plenty of times on this site that I think the DLC is the single best organization in progressive politics today, and that many of their detractors are in fact members of the illiberal, unprogressive Left.
Easily the stupidest thing I've ever read from you, if not just for the various political meanings of "radical."
"I've said plenty of times on this site that I think the DLC is the single best organization in progressive politics today, and that many of their detractors are in fact members of the illiberal, unprogressive Left." And many of us just want to see actual progressivism in our "progressive politics," as opposed to being thrown under a bus for thinking that we need a higher minimum wage, accountability in government and an exit strategy in Iraq.
Do you respect right-wing activists who fight for what they believe in hours upon hours every week, but in their personal lives completely contradict themselves? Such as those who espouse so-called family values while violating their own moral code?
Most likely, you think they are hypocrites and should be exposed as frauds.
Some people cannot work hour upon hour for social justice every week because they have jobs and a family. A life, you might say. But they choose to live their life according to what they believe and lead by example. These people deserve no respect?
So, a question: If everyone became a hardcore anti-sweatshop activist and still wore sweatshop clothes what exactly would this accomplish?
I would look a little deeper when it comes to finding the root of his problem, though - I'd say his problem is that he's possessed of too much certainty regarding the rightness of his causes.
When one is irretrievably convinced that they're right, winning becomes all that matters - personal hypocrisy becomes easily excused.
And a lot of what people on the left/liberal side of things are clamoring for is made much more doable when power is handed back to communities. For example: if your town's electric company is polluting your community, the easy thing to do is change your electric company to some Green Energy firm (assuming energy is deregulated in your state). However an effective, long-term thing to do is to organize your community and force something like a remunicipalization of the utility, with a citizen-controlled board. We all know that organizing requires funds. So if it comes down to it, do we spend our money on Green energy, or do we use it to organize? If you're familiar with Saul Alinsky, it's essentially the same argument: do we ask the people with power to act nice, or do we reclaim said power?
As for the analogy to family-values conservatives, I don't think it holds. Doing something like cheating on your wife while you campaign to criminalize adultery is unjustifiable because cheating on your wife isn't the accepted norm. However, buying clothing of unknown or disreputable origin is the accepted norm, and it's the path of least resistance to being clothed. Just like buying factory farmed meat is the quickest and cheapest (and most popular!) way to get meat (assuming you don't go veg or some such). If you are committed to changing the fundamental nature of society, and along the way some of your habits lapse back to the mass-accepted norms, then I don't think you should be shouted out of the movement. If you want a better conservative metaphor, it'd be like being a major opponent of Theresa Heinz Kerry, someone who hates her and wants to see her image go down in a ball of flames, and has raised funds and organized people for just that purpose, but who also likes ketchup on his burgers and doesn't carry W Ketchup with him every time he goes out. Would refraining from ketchup really bring her down? Would she even notice if everyone in your group just stopped using Heinz ketchup? Hardly. So it's not that important. Even that metaphor is strained, because it's not like it's a huge hassle to ask for no ketchup. It is a huge hassle, comparatively speaking, to buy sweatshop free clothing, purchase a hybrid (or alter your lifestyle so everything is in biking distance), or invest in a solar panel on your roof.
It's about deciding that spending your time and money trying to change the underlying reason why all outlets sell sweatshop clothes is more impactful than purchasing stuff from the AFLCIO store or American Apparel (and, this is crucial, if you think you can't do both effectively or within your budget). But let me just reiterate: spending the time and money to buy socially and ecologically-conscious things is a good thing. But, I'm just saying there are much better things you can do with that time and money.
I think it also comes down to whether we voice our opposition to what the markets have given us by interacting with the market, or by working outside the market to subvert it. I think for left activists the answer is clearly the latter, 1) because we're not huge fans of the free market, and 2) because we're investing ourselves in the development of alternative institutions that embody the future society we would like to see.
Isn't the joy of America's comparatively limited government that people mind their own damn business a bit more than in other parts of the world?