Think in systems, dammit.
When I am frustrated (i.e. always) with the “left” endlessly reheating and repeating the same things (“wasn’t 1970s social democracy great?”, “the main problem is we don’t have enough diverse voices” (1) ) through truly wretched online events that are every bit as stultifying and wrist-slashingly excruciating as their meatspace equivalents, I often – through laziness and stupidity – ascribe the failures of others to laziness or stupidity.
But think in systems, dammit.
If you WERE to say, for example
“part of the problem we need to think about is that our shopping list of the ways the world ‘should’ be won’t get us there, but that people can gain and maintain status simply by repeating this shopping list. They get brownie points for doing so, because we are so keen to hear their soothing words, and they are our bosses, and we are, ultimately, wanting to be saved by bosses. We are like the sheep in Animal Farm, hoping for a better kind of pig, while still incanting the all animals are equal thing.”
Well, three things would happen
a) you’d open yourself up to criticism for having done your own shopping-list incanting in the past (and people rarely really like to open themselves up, unless they are particularly neurotic), and the fatal question “well, why should we listen to YOU then?”
b) you’d be implicitly (explicitly) rebuking your chums, including probably the people who organised this event and invited you to be on the panel (so, this might be your last panel for a while or -checks notes – for fucking EVER.)
c) you’d be implicitly (explicitly) rebuking those in the audience for having taken false comfort in shopping lists in the past. They won’t thank you for that condemnation. Fur monkey may have no milk, but she’s got fur, fur goodness sake. Life under ecocidal capitalism is already quite uncomfortable enough without some wannabe whistle-blower adding to it. So, the questions will be hostile, the invites to speak at other events will dry up, your books won’t get read, your tweets won’t get retweeted. Siberia beckons.
So far so banal. If a culture doesn’t have homeo-dynamic mechanisms for keeping within certain parameters, it’s not really a culture is it? Throw in some (rightful) righteous indignation and cognitive limitations (Kahneman Thinking Fast blah blah) and you’ve sort of explained why the key question of ‘what do we need to do DIFFERENTLY so that we have a chance of getting a different result?’ rarely gets answered (though often – as at a recent terrible-content, good-format/facilitation Zoom – gets asked.)
Somehow though, this isn’t satisfying me. We “ought” to be better at this. We are supposed to be the ones who can challenge power. But do we use up all our courage and cortex in spotting the obvious, and then hunker down? Do we find new tin gods to worship, and then let them rule us?
Or is it just so damn hard to think of ways that the incredibly embedded/entrenched/tooled-up status quo (that is endlessly capable of adapting/defending itself – T1000, not T800) could be defeated, that we retreat into soothing lullabies and never face any real challenge from the audience to sing a different song?
I will try, for what it is worth, to
a) have more compassion for those with nothing to say who say it at great length and to relatively great acclaim
b) understand the dynamics/incentives that keep them in place, and keep them from actually trying to answer the ‘who will bell the cat?’ question
c) provide clear cat-belling ideas and then implement them as best I can at a local level
d) obey the Cocker Protocol, in these dark, nay, shitty days
(1) For the sake of clarity: I am not – of course – disputing that we need more diverse voices. What I am disputing is that if they are saying the same banal and info-deficit things that the middle class white men are saying, we (collectively) are not actually any further ahead. And I would very much like us to be collectively further ahead.