Oh god, what a waste it was.
There’s a bunch of stuff I wish I had known at the outset. Some of it I was probably told, by many people, on many occasions. I probably ignored those people because I was “smarter” than them, and they were just old, or poor or women or whatever. What a dickhead. Oh well.
And some of it was probably wrapped up in Marxist terminology (subsumption, for instance) which I was generally allergic to, because of the people peddling the stuff.
Anyway, it’s over now, I can’t be bothered to waste what mental energy I still have on thinking about “climate action” (whether it’s the kids, the “professionals” or whoever else is supposed to be the agent of history now – I can’t keep up.)
It’s all kayfabe, it’s all smugosphere. We are so entrenched in ways of seeing/thinking/being that are about hierarchy and fossil fuels that returning were twice as tedious as go o’er. Even if we had the time and legs for it, which we don’t.
I will of course write further on this (or promise to). I’ve got some thoughts actually typed up about this that I can cut and paste into another post. For now, this – the NGOs and SMOS are
- stable [which is not to say permanent] social systems, capable of repelling attacks/maintaining themselves.
- do not work to achieve their publicly stated objectives, but why on earth would expect that they would? What are you, seven?
So, I think you can divide their responses to a critique into three categories. There will be overlap, but this seems about right to me. I am curious to hear other people’s thoughts.
Ignore the critique altogether
This is possibly the most common, and is done unless a lot of high-power people all say things are wrong and what should be done about it.
- Studied silence (“X is a well-known malcontent, and we won’t dignify it with a response. We are too busy getting on with the actual work to waste time engaging with someone who is never happy” i.e. claim the empty ‘high’ moral ground etc)
- If forced to actually engage, go straight to ad hominem (“malcontent”, “mentally unwell” “needlessly negative” etc etc). This takes up bandwith and helps to marginalise/memory whole the substance of the critique, or else to misrepresent it and reconstrue it in an easily dismissable way (strawmanning)
Defend themselves “in principle”, without engaging in specifics
“But we’re good people (“volunteers/precariat/etc) and you should be directing your ire at [insert name of corporations etc]. We do the best we can with a very limited budget.”
“Look at all the ‘good things’ we’re doing (have done in the distant past) – marches, petitions etc”
Point to ‘feedback’ received “we are a growing vibrant movement etc”
Misconstrue the critique argument (in the sophisticated version, eschew ad hominems so it seems you are actually engaging)
“You seem to be saying we shouldn’t hold these meetings/events.”
“We’re getting on with the important work of xxxx.”
Jacques Camatte was right.
Leave a Reply