Yesterday, the Vermont state legislature voted by a narrow margin to overturn their governor's veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. 100 votes were needed to override the veto; the final count was 100-49. On September 1st, Vermont will become the fourth state to allow and recognize same-sex marriages, joining Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
This is a far cry from the result of the hotly contested Proposition 8 in California last November, a bill which banned gay marriage within that state. Both contests are also a far cry from the civil rights movement of the 60's. Over four decades ago, that quest for equal rights was marked by marches, speeches, passive civil disobedience, assassinations, riots, death threats and military action against civilians. Today's movement is marked by blogs, editorials, "calling in 'gay' to work", boycotts, and the requisite marches and speeches. Our current struggle towards equal rights for all seems vastly more "civil" than its predecessor.
Have we truly become more civilized in our approach to political and social change? Are we now more committed to discussing our conflicting viewpoints in polite conversation than we once were? Has our society grown-up? Or are we instead simply more passive, more complacent, more lazy? Do we, as a generation, lack the fire and drive necessary to wage an all-fronts war for rights as was done in the 1960's?
New technology and the internet in particular have enabled us all to become armchair activists. We can sign an online petition, email our legislators, put a blinkie on the signature line of our public comments that reflects our position, and anonymously sympathize with whichever side we choose. At no point do we have to get up, leave our cozy living rooms, head down to some public event, and expose ourselves to any form of discomfort. We can lobby for or against any position without risk of being arrested, beaten, shot with rubber bullets, hosed down with a fire hose, trampled in a crowd, or having our picture taken while having a bad hair day.
I have to wonder, since activism comes so easily now, have we embraced the new technology and risen to the challenge of addressing our issues firmly and aggressively? Do we fight harder and longer for what we believe in, or have we become shallow and shortened our attention span? Do we simply pay lip service to what we claim to think is right, or is this the age where everyone is finally using their voice to accomplish change?
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an excellent and thought-provoking 'report', critique, and question, Tami. I'll have to think about a response, and if it gets too long, I'll divide my response in parts. Just don't think I didn't read it! :)
ReplyDeleteI think you have some great points. And there are definitely pros and cons to both sides.
ReplyDeleteThough I admit I'm too young to know, I think there is something to be said for actually going out and being counted - standing up with other like minded individuals to publicly and clearly show, "We don't agree with this. It needs to change." And getting a visual of a large group of people is something our brains can more easily grasp than numbers and names on a petition.
On the flip side - internet activism has opened up a new arena to those who were previously disconnected. I know in a few of my classes we've talked about how it's now easier for teens to get involved with issues. They don't need parents to drive them somewhere to be able to blog, hyperlink, or join an online activism group (and there are some really interesting ones out there geared specifically for teens). There's also greater opportunity for people in rural communities to make their voices heard if they feel so inclined. In the past the majority of dissent was seen in cities. While this may, in part, be due to the fact that city-dwellers tend to be "more progressive", I also think there is just more opportunity to make one's voice heard. Additionally, when you have more people gathered in one spot you're more likely to find someone who shares your opinion. Simple laws of probability.
But you certainly gave us all some food for thought.
You both make good points. However, the role of teens is shocking me, and potentially very dangerous to the national health. Without wisdom, whatever we do is dangerous at best and tenuous, and deadly at worst.
ReplyDeleteTeens, in order to have wisdom, need a rootedness in history and to their elders, who have lived it. Today more than ever, in Our Time, that connectivity is absent in disconnect.
Thus, their engagement is little more than navel-gazing too often, lacking in wisdom, and thus, the Internet becomes harmful to society as a whole rather than helpful. I speak only towards social activism. There are amazing exceptions, but these exceptions do not disprove the rule because, on analysis, (nearly) every instance shows those teens have wisdom by virtue of their appreciate for history, i.e., Tradition. Tradition and their elders inform their lives, giving them wisdom.
Mara, I too like the fact that rural residents seem to get more involved, perhaps offering a more balanced spectrum of activism on each issue.
ReplyDeleteLucius, historically, the majority of protesters and activists in any movement are college students. These are, in essence, children who have been removed from the homes, parents, families and communities that raised them and moved into a new home populated by other youngsters with a scattering of faculty. In many many cases, the faculty is so far immersed in academia and college culture that they don't have a good grasp on any other perspective. Yet almost all change has been initiated by these college students, with their faulty guidance, and virtually no wisdom whatsoever. It's all about ideals.
In fact, if wisdom were the guiding force in social change, would Tiannenman Square have even happened? What wise person faces down tanks and believes they won't get run over?
Your statement that "tradition and their elders inform their lives, giving them wisdom" has a correlary....Without the young to push the boundaries and challenge the norms, society would stagnate and die. So although I agree with you that it can be alarming to see such young people dictating the course of any society, I think it would be equally disastrous to deny them their voice.
I think you underestimate several things, not least of which is the driving force of Christianity in sound Orthodoxy, or those who effectively borrow the best of the Judeo-Christian, to make their case for social change, often AGAINST those of their brethren who fight the change (and to my own personal, and I believe, that of Christ's, shame).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I grant you the point, as I did in my original comment, that the youth do push for good change. My only point was that they often have no freakin' clue what they're really doing. They just hate the tradition of their elders, and push hard against it. The baby ain't goin' out with the bath-water in my mind. But rather, I'd like to think I'm giving credit where it's due...on BOTH sides.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I am not sure I fully agree with you either. You are right that the way someone is raised is a very strong factor in their outlook and actions, and the morals they are taught growing up with always have a bearing on their decisions. But you seem to be implying that teens are really just rebelling...anything that is the opposite of the traditions in place is fair game. I disagree.
ReplyDeleteJust as animals and small children instinctively like or dislike people on first sight, I believe that teenagers still have a large portion of their instincts intact, unlike most adults who learn to suppress and stifle their instincts in order to get along. I furthermore believe that most true activism results from these instincts screaming "this is wrong", even though they have been raised to accept the way things are.
Now, I'll grant you the rebellion insofar as the FORMS of social protest that are employed. The 60's are probably the prime example of an entire generation flouting all the rules of their elders in order to prove their point. They definitely got everyone's attention.
I really do think we need to differentiate between the REASON and the METHOD. There are, I believe, different driving forces behind each.
Yes I agree. But I keep saying it, that I'm not speaking in absolutes, and qualifying it all by "often" or "usually", and I stick my ground there. All the teenagers I've taught, from Cairo to Jackson to Chicago, to NYC, there's about four groups:
ReplyDelete1) Those who rebel because they are unwise, arrogant, and clueless, usually very bitter as well (sometimes for good reason, sometimes not).
2) Those who rebel because they are informed, intelligent, and see the lack of wisdom in the system against which they push.
3) Those who are too passive to do anything, and simply tow the party line, and when something breaks out, they sit in a corner and hope for self-preservation (for various reasons).
4) Those who are comfortable with the status quo, but not passive, and are actively trying to learn and change and grow, and are willing to push against The Man if they become convinced of the necessity, or just to have a good time (different from the other group in #2, but very similar).
I'm sure there are other groups, but I just woke up. And that's all I can remember. But I'll keep you informed, as I think I'm going to take this new teaching job for 8th-12th graders lol.
Teens are largely looking for someone to listen to them - they each have something to say. If you can get them to open up. This is a segment of society who realizes that a lot of adults simply discount what they have to say solely based on their age and inexperience in the "real world". I think today's brand of peaceful activism offers not only a great opportunity for everyone at every level of ability and status to contribute, but it also opens up a "safe" place for teens to be heard.
ReplyDeleteNo, they may not have all the answers and they may be acting on a gut feeling without the ability to fully explain why they feel as they do about an issue. How many adults have all the answers? But amidst the outcry that young people are totally apathetic, I think the internet as a tool for activism offers a great number of teachable moments. With guidance teens can be aided in developing wisdom instead of becoming jaded and apathetic.
Maybe I'm just idealistic... I think any time we can get people involved is a good thing. I've seen young people make a difference. A year ago New York State was planning to make over a $180 million cut to the state university system, while looking to raise tuition. There was such an outpouring of organized reaction for the state's young people. My state senator alone received hundreds of letters from area high school and college students with well-reasoned arguments against this move. In the end they only took $40 million and tuition wasn't raised at that time.
Unfortunately the economy continued to deteriorate and for spring semester they did end up raising tuition $300. But the point is that young people saw something that wasn't right, realized they didn't have to blindly accept it, and they organized to make themselves heard. Twenty years ago it would have been much more difficult to organize a state wide movement - there was news coverage, a facebook group that posted representatives' contact information and what replies people were receiving with links to articles from business and educational journals that facts and figures could be drawn from.
So, I certainly do argue with you, Lucius, that teens need guidance and are still lacking in wisdom, the growth needs to start somewhere. And given useful tools, I think we can all be amazed by what youth can do.
The key is the phrase, "useful tools." And the real question is, how can we take something that inherently lends itself to the useless, dangerous, narcissistic, false-virtue, i.e., The Internet, and harness it for the good?
ReplyDeleteThis of course, is a silly question. It's (virtually) impossible to answer. It's debated in every public forum, even the beast itself. The problem is, it allows for interaction without commitment.
And it seems to me, the best use of the Internet is when it will be used WITH that actual commitment in the local community, rather then being used to send pot shots in a vacuous environment (cyberspace). When we commit to something, as y'all have already said, and commit to using every tool (including the Net), great things can happen.
I'm just not sure how to get people with no interest in keeping morality tied to Wisdom (case in point, the curious case of Mr. Invictus and his massive cheating, which he would never do in real life or he'd be beaten to a bloody pulp!), to see what they're doing, to care, and to change.
Maybe we can use the Internet? ;)
(So I hope this is seen for what it is: agreement with y'all. The bigger question I have no idea how to answer. Clearly, the Net is a good tool, especially for the Developing World disenfranchised. But clearly, it can and is used in very wicked ways.)
Oh, I know we all are mostly in agreement - I just love the discussion. I'm one of those people who believes in co-construction of knowledge and working with others to come to levels of understanding greater than we could do singularly.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I'm just not sure how to get people with no interest in keeping morality tied to Wisdom (case in point, the curious case of Mr. Invictus and his massive cheating, which he would never do in real life or he'd be beaten to a bloody pulp!), to see what they're doing, to care, and to change." I feel like this ties back to the comments we all had when we were talking about the economy. We live in a society that takes all positions on all issues as equally valid, or at least claims to do so. The problem with this is that when you accept everything then there is no absolute - in morality or anything else. And without absolutes there is no standard by which to measure one's own actions or the actions of others. People's use of the internet is reflecting this flaw in society. Look at all of these people getting arrested for massive financial scamming - it's not just online that people like Invictus are taking advantage of the system.
So while I know it's not Tami and I against you, I am still enjoying the discussion. :-)
Why does everyone gang up on me? lol. I didn't see it that way. But maybe now:
ReplyDeletegirls are not as good as boys.
I like the discussion, too. Debating is fun, and I enjoy the fact that we can come at the issue from several different angles, even if we all happen to agree.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope you aren't afraid of upsetting the girls here Lucius. We don't bite. :) Stop being so conciliatory and give us a good rousing debate. We promise not to take it personally.
Don't lie, Tami... saying we don't bite. Psh! ;-)
ReplyDelete