A Call To Protest Ignites A Call To Arms
Why are Americans such wusses? Threaten the Greeks with job losses and benefit cuts and they tie up Athens, but take away Americans' jobs, 401(k)s, even their homes, and they pretty much roll over. Tell British students that their tuition is about to go up and they take to the streets; American students just amp up their doses of Prozac.
The question has been raised many times in the last few years, by a variety of scholars and commentators -- this one included -- but when the eminent social scientist Frances Fox Piven brought it up at the end of December in an essay titled "Mobilizing the Jobless," all hell broke loose. An editor of Glenn Beck's website, theblaze.com, posted a piece sporting the specious headline "Frances Fox Piven Rings in the New Year by Calling for Violent Revolution," and, just two weeks before the Tucson shootings, the death threats started flying. Many of the most provocative comments have been removed from the site's comment section, but at one time they included such charming posts as: "Bring it on biotch [sic]. we're armed to the teeth." Or: "We're all for violence and change, Francis [sic]. Where do your loved ones live?"
If the dozens of Beck fans rhetorically brandishing their weapons at Piven were all CEOs, bankers, hedge fund operators and so forth -- i.e., the kind of people who have the most to lose from mass protests by the unemployed -- all this might make more sense. But somehow, and I may be naive about these things, it's hard to imagine a multimillionaire suggesting that "folks buy battle carbines with folding or collapseable [sic] stocks and 16[-inch] barrels so they can be more easily hidden under jackets and such. Also, buy inNATO-approved calibers (5.56/.223, 7.62/.308) so you can resupply ammo from the bodies of your enemies too." One of Piven's would-be assassins even admits to being out of work, a condition he or she blames, oddly enough, on Piven herself, adding that "we should blowup [her] office and home."
So perhaps economically hard-pressed Americans aren't wusses after all. They may not have the courage or the know-how to organize a protest at the local unemployment office, which is the kind of action Piven urged in her December essay, but they stand ready to shoot the first 78-year-old social scientist who suggests that they do so.
Americans were not always so myopic that they saw the world through the cross-hairs of their rifle sights. During the depression of 1892 to 1896, unemployed workers marched to Washington by the thousands in what was then the largest mass protest this country had seen. In 1932, even more jobless people -- 25,000 -- staged what was, at that time, the largest march on Washington, demanding public works jobs and a hike in the inheritance tax. From the '60s to the '80s, Americans marched again and again -- peacefully, nonviolently and by the hundreds of thousands -- for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, economic justice and against wars. In fact, this has been a major focus of Piven's scholarly work over the years — the American tradition of protest and resistance to economic injustice -- and it's a big enough subject to keep hundreds of academics busy for life.
There are all kinds of explanations for how Americans lost their grass-roots political mojo: iPods have been invoked, along with computer games and anti-depressants. And of course much of the credit goes to the so-called populist right of the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck persuasion, which argues that the real enemy of the down-and-out is not the boss or the bank but the "liberal elite" represented by people like Piven.
But at least part of the explanation is guns themselves -- or, more specifically, the recent and uniquely American addiction to high-powered personal weaponry. Although ropes and bombs are also mentioned, most of the people threatening Piven on Beck's website referred lovingly to their guns, often by caliber and number of available rounds. As Joan Burbick, author of the 2006 book, "Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy," has observed, "The act of buying a gun can mimic political action. It makes people feel as if they are engaging in politics of political protest." She quotes one gun enthusiast: "Whenever I get mad at the government, I go out and buy a gun." Jobless and overwhelmed by bills? Hunker down in the basement and polish your Glock.
Never mind that there are only a few ways you can use a gun to improve your economic situation: You can hock it. You can deploy it in an armed robbery. Or you can use it to shoot raccoons for dinner.
But there is one thing you can accomplish with guns and coarse threats about using them: You can make people think twice before disagreeing with you. When a congresswoman can be shot in a parking lot and a professor who falls short of Glenn Beck's standards of political correctness can be, however anonymously, targeted for execution, we have moved well beyond democracy -- to a tyranny of the heavily armed.
Barbara Ehrenreich's most recent book is "Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America."
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZVideos
Books
The Power of Myth
By Burke, Richard at Jan 27, 2011 14:44 PM
Perhaps a recent article by Ira Chernus posted on TomDispatch (How the Power of Myth Keeps us Mired in War, 1/20/11) provides a clue to a way out of the dilemna examined by Ms. Ehrenreich. The irony is that the left, trapped in it’s own myth of the 18th century Enlightenment-which requires giving up myth for reason- is unable to tap into the mythic forces which motivate many of our fellow citizens, and come up with a compelling alternative myth. What Ms. Ehrenreich describes here is a perfect example of what Chernus calls “the myth of national insecurity.” Reason and facts are necessary but not sufficient, and the left’s inability to tap into deeper sources of human motivation dooms it to political impotence-in a century in which economic and environmental crises threaten the very survival of our species.
As Che Guevara pointed out, successful guerilla warfare depends on the ability to capture the enemy’s weapons and use them against the enemy. We can adapt this advice for use in non-violent political struggle. The right has proved itself adept at mobilizing the power of myth. Let’s steal their weapons and use them against them, metaphorically speaking.
Reply this comment
Re: The Power of Myth
By Nguyen-tri, David at Jan 27, 2011 15:45 PM
Your fallacious appeal to authority regarding how one should use the enemy's weapon against itself has one gaping problem: if an enemy uses, say, rape and murder of innocent people as a weapon to get its way, does it somehow follow that those who oppose rape and the murder of innocents should do the same?
What dooms the left to political impotence, as you say, is not the power of myth so much as it is control over doctrinal institutions. If you want to create myths of your own, you're free to go ahead, but without an outlet to popularize it, be it schools, media, etc., your myth will go nowhere. Should it catch on, it would simply be amalgamated into the larger myth, in the end strengtening it.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Burke, Richard at Jan 27, 2011 16:20 PM
Perhaps you should read Mr. Chernus' article before rushing to judgement. To begin with one has to stop thinking of myth as "lies" and realize another meaning to meaning to the word in which it represents a story that allows us to make sense of the world, connect us with a bigger reality, and give us a sense of 'who we are, where we come from, and where we are going to.' No human being lives according by purely rational standards-that is a "myth" in precisely the negative sense that you have used it. In addition to 'rational' and 'irrational' there is also a third category, the 'nonrational' which is not hostile to reason and even conducive to it. Complaints about lacking control over doctrinal institutions are true and have been repeated endlessly by leftists over decades, but really don't address how we are to go about this, much less put out a message which might resonate with the people we are trying to reach.
After all, when being told about Ms. Piven's work, why was it that those who made threats didn't go and check her work to find out what she was really saying, and then perhaps even agree with it when thus informed? I suspect that a major factor is precisely that we on the left are good at reasons, arguments, and facts but have lost the ability to appeal to those nonrational factors which would prove decisive for success.
The problem is not me, or even a committee, coming up with a new myth to inspire action, but rather a collective effort to find the way to frame our message in a way that inspires others to join our revolution.
Assuming , of course, that the U.S. left really wants to win rather than just complain!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Nguyen-tri, David at Jan 27, 2011 20:11 PM
I have read Chernus' article, and to be honest, I took away something rather different from it than what the author intended. For starters, the left does have its own narratives to counter those of the right: for instance, the "myth" of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict and what should be done will vary greatly depending on who you ask.
"To begin with one has to stop thinking of myth as "lies" and realize another meaning to meaning to the word in which it represents a story that allows us to make sense of the world, connect us with a bigger reality, and give us a sense of 'who we are, where we come from, and where we are going to.''
Listen, if you want to use a value-ladden word like myth then say that it doesn't mean what it actually means, then go ahead. As commonly understood, myth is an unfounded belief, usually one that is widespread. If you want to use a word that doesn't have the connotation that "myth" does, then I suggest you use another word.
"No human being lives according by purely rational standards-that is a "myth" in precisely the negative sense that you have used it."
I wasn't aware that I had made the claim that people are purely rational, nor that this belief is widespread: quite the contrary, I think that people not being rational enough is precisely a large part of the problem because it makes people easier to fool. Maybe it's because I respond best to logical appeals and I find emotional ones manipulative and often phony.
"After all, when being told about Ms. Piven's work, why was it that those who made threats didn't go and check her work to find out what she was really saying, and then perhaps even agree with it when thus informed?"
For starters, that the problem is often that some people believe what they want to believe based on convenience and studiously avoid any conflicting evidence. That has nothing to do with myth, or narrative, or whatever you want to call it, and how compelling it is or not. The folks who make death threats against Frances Fox-Piven in your example have, in this particular case, given up on reason. Just the fact that they would make death threats in public establishes that.
"I suspect that a major factor is precisely that we on the left are good at reasons, arguments, and facts but have lost the ability to appeal to those nonrational factors which would prove decisive for success."
I find it interesting that you would use the term "nonrational factors" without defining them in any way. My own experience with trying to convince people is that whether they're receptive or not is largely context dependent: if it's the midst of some sort of debate, even friendly debate, odds are that you're not going to convince them, regardless of whether you have all the facts on your side, simply because the context is one of opposition: to change one's mind in such a context is admitting defeat. When I did manage to change their mind, it was more when we'd have a discussion that was more along the lines of shooting the breeze.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Burke, Richard at Jan 27, 2011 22:42 PM
in the sense that historians of religion use it. I use it in the same sense. Perhaps you were not aware of this, but the use is quite justifiable.
On top of that everything you say points to the fact that humans are not purely rational creatures, and are not convinced simply by facts and rational argument. Why then should we tie our hands behind our backs and insist on being merely rational when reason alone simply won't do the job? Something in addition to reason is necessary.
As for your question of what "nonrational factors" are, the fact that you have to ask the question alone proves my point that the left has lost the ability to deal with these factors in any effective way. I'm almost embarrassed that I would have to point these out.
What about creativity, creative art? This relies on faculties such as imagination, inspiration, intuition; faculties which are not themselves rational but not necessarily hostile to reason, and even conducive to reason. I note that even someone like Voltaire did not simply write the "Philosophical Dictionary," he also wrote novels and stories such as "Candide" to present his views.
What about humor, is this "rational." Is humor necessarily contrary to reason?
What about Love, arguably an "irrational passion." Yet there is quite a bit of philosophy, starting with Plato's "Symposium" that speaks of love as the basis for reason!
I could go on in this lyrical vein, but I think you get my point. Perhaps you are most convinced by rational approaches. My point is that not everybody is, and perhaps most people aren't. In that case a movement which attempts to appeal to people purely by rational means is doomed to failure, I think the time has come for a regeneration of the revolutionary imagination, which includes a certain amount of creative myth making in the sense that I've been using the word
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Nguyen-tri, David at Jan 28, 2011 18:21 PM
in the sense that historians of religion use it. I use it in the same sense. Perhaps you were not aware of this, but the use is quite justifiable."
Listen, I didn't think that the article was good at all. It was obvious that the guy's religious study background influenced his (mis)understanding of the situation: he offers litterally no evidence whatsoever to support his most important assertions. I find it ironic that the man speaking about the power of myth would be writing something like:
"President Obama is trapped at this point. He risks losing both a war and a presidency. Yet if he tries to ease up on the war accelerator, he knows he’ll be pilloried by an alliance of military and right-wing forces as a “cut-and-run” weakling.
If he’s ever tempted to forget that domestic political reality, the mass media are always ready to remind him. Just glance at the 145,000 Google hits on “Obama wimp.” Even his liberal friends at the New York Times have asked in a prominent headline, “Is Obama a Wimp or a Warrior?”...
...A strong progressive myth could make it safer for a president to change course and perhaps save his presidency."
Just that he would write nonsense like this goes to show that he's bought into the Obama myth, among others. Fact of the matter is that Obama responds to interests, and the interests he responds to are not anti-war. The US population is largely against the war in Afghanistan that Chernus decries in spite of the warmongering depiction of the scenario, as Chernus says, a "wimp vs. warrior" situation. So, as I understand it, the problem isn't what the population wants or believes is the best course of action in this case, but rather a disconnect between the decision-makers and the media on one side of the divide and civil society on the other. Further, Chernus' article completely ignores any and all institutional factors that impede a left narrative of the Afghanistan war gaining traction: to him it's because such a narrative doesn't exist. To me, it's because such a narrative is unpalatable for large papers like the New York Times.
"On top of that everything you say points to the fact that humans are not purely rational creatures, and are not convinced simply by facts and rational argument. Why then should we tie our hands behind our backs and insist on being merely rational when reason alone simply won't do the job? Something in addition to reason is necessary."
Actually, once someone has given up on reason, there isn't much of anything to be done to convince them. I very much doubt that a staunch supporter of George W. Bush's policies would, for instance, be swayed by a really funny joke or a really cute song making fun of Bush: either case would appeal to the converted. Not saying that it's not worth doing, but a large part of the problem, to me, is that people are trained to behave like irrational fools precisely because it makes people easier to manipulate.
If you want to engage in an ever increasing war or propaganda, as Keith Keller put it so well, with an apparatus that is far more powerful than you, one of three things will happen, you will either suffer crushing defeat (most probable), you will have moderate success, which will lead to your myth being absorbed into the larger myth and ultimately strengthening it, or in the process of winning, your side becomes so indistinguishable from "the enemy" that it is functionally no different.
"As for your question of what "nonrational factors" are, the fact that you have to ask the question alone proves my point that the left has lost the ability to deal with these factors in any effective way. I'm almost embarrassed that I would have to point these out. "
Actually, I was trying to get a better feel for what you're aiming for, because, to be honest, you had been more than a little vague about what you meant. To be honest, it sounded like something straight out of a PR handbook.
"What about creativity, creative art? This relies on faculties such as imagination, inspiration, intuition; faculties which are not themselves rational but not necessarily hostile to reason, and even conducive to reason...
...What about humor, is this "rational." Is humor necessarily contrary to reason?"
I agree, here, but as far as I understand, the left already makes use of all of the above, and I have no problem with it. However, this is still not myth making. Further, may I point out that, say, making jokes about the absurdity of war or the insanity of trashing the environment is guided in large part by a rational understanding of the situation?
What I do have a problem with is that what you wrote sounded more than vaguely like something that Edward Bernays would have written about the need for controlling the masses being an essential democratic exercise. That was essentially accomplished through making use of various methods to manipulate people. What I understood your statement as is (and I'm very sorry if I misunderstood you): "they manipulate people using myths, therefore we should also engage in the practice as well."
Hence, my take on it is much closer to Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World". That is, I think that it's far more important for people in general to be good at detecting baloney and recognizing manipulation simply because the problems are so serious and the lies, fallacious arguments, manipulation, so pervasive: that can only be accomplished through reason. For instance, how else except scientific data and investigation could one counter the claims of, say, a global warming denialist? The lesson to be drawn, according to me, is for people in general to no longer be manipulated by myths rather than engaging in the practice of generating counter-myths.
"Perhaps you are most convinced by rational approaches. My point is that not everybody is, and perhaps most people aren't. In that case a movement which attempts to appeal to people purely by rational means is doomed to failure, I think the time has come for a regeneration of the revolutionary imagination..."
I find it interesting that you would make a blanket assertion like "appealing to people by purely rational means" as if it were true. My own experience with it is that when people start talking that way, in practice, it actually means doing away with reason when it comes right down to it.
"... which includes a certain amount of creative myth making in the sense that I've been using the word "
I like to use the word circle to designate a square. It's not my fault that people think I actually mean circle when I say "circle". Of course, there is a reason that the word "myth" has taken on the meaning "superstition" in everyday parlance.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Keller, Keith at Jan 27, 2011 22:45 PM
David, you make many excellent points with which I am in full agreement. Trying to counter the myth-making of a well funded right wing propaganda machine with counter myths is a losing proposition. We lack the funding. Plus, where would it all lead? A never ending battle of propaganda? On the other hand, elite myth-making does need to be countered. Not by creating alternative myths, but by attacking the myth straight on. Framing and vocabulary are extremely important. For example, US/NATO troops are not “peacekeepers,” they are imperial storm troopers. Israeli “settlers” are in fact illegal occupiers, some of whom are paramilitary terrorists. Potent imagery rather than lengthy rational arguments. The rational arguments to follow later after the myth has been discredited.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Burke, Richard at Jan 27, 2011 23:52 PM
One of the points that Chernus makes in his article is the old complaint about the left being clear about what it is against, but not what it is for. Many people have been known to react to the approach you advocate by becoming even more disillusioned about the possibility of change We have not been very good about creating an alternative narrative, and relying on purely rational appeals alone is simply preaching to the choir. Breaking out of this mind-set is totally necessary precisely because we don't have the same access to the media that the right does. If the left is unable to fire the social imagination it will loose.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Burke, Richard at Jan 28, 2011 01:41 AM
Can anyone give me even one example of a successful revolt that was touched off simply by rational appeals? I think a good look at history will show that revolutions are rather passionate affairs! Even Gandhi's non-violence relied on the ability to inspire the masses. Satyagraha was a tactic to appeal to the hearts of the opponents.
Good night and good luck!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Power of Myth
By Cooper, Curtis at Jan 28, 2011 02:38 AM
As a secular intellectual type, I'm not wild about the power of myths, even "good myths" that fit my political program. On the other hand, there is something to be said for the fact that many people are motivated by things outside of secular intellectual interests. The "public relations" industry has demonstrated this in liberal market economies, as has the persistence of religious beliefs. Moreover, movement building certainly relies on qualities like charisma and solidarity.
Regarding the science of motivation, WH Auden wrote-
Free will is a mystical
Myth as statistical
Methods have objectively shown
A fad of the churches
Since the latest researches
Into motivation it's known
That honor's hypocrisy
Honesty a joke
You live in a democracy
Lie like other folk
Frances Fox Piven's Mobilizing (not Motivating) the Jobless article is quite impassioned, while seriously addressing its topic. She points out that the unemployed overall are dispersed, diverse, and less likely to meet up than in prior times, and that they need a common identity to coalesce around and concrete demands to press against resonsive targets.
Reply this comment