I am not sold on activism being an inherently good thing, for nothing is an inherently “good” thing. Not to sound like a total nihilist, but applying these sorts of absolute merits to concepts in a vacuum is not only irrational, but irresponsible as well. Granted, I just contradicted myself in characterizing one act (generalizing things indefinitely) as fundamentally flawed; however, it may be useful to entertain this idea as potentially valid. My aim is not to prove a theory; it is simply to offer a perspective, which some may or may not accept.
Beyond any socially constructed perspective activism evokes—such as the one for which President Roth recently expressed his fondness in the Huffington Post—I want to further examine its meaning. Although this is not officially Webster Approved, I trust that many will concur with my definition: activism is the support and/or vehicle for various forms of cultural growth. This may not sound so bad: the prospect of change and enhancement. Politically, our country is grounded on self-corrective activism; biologically, our species has sustained its existence based on a similar ability to adapt to circumstance. So why am I hesitant to jump in the activist bandwagon? Because jumping in bandwagons is reckless and—more alarming—unoriginal.
While, when effective, activism carries out change, the way it does is not always beneficial. Among other forces, a fundamental prerequisite for successful activism is unity. The unification of a small group—be it a political party or genetic phylum—is the means by which a population collectively adapts. What makes the United States Constitution and Homo sapiens seem like “good” products of activism is the genuine basis of their solidarity. Many find the dynamic of members admiring their own group to be a “good” thing. However, this type of unity is distinct from products of activism that merely survived—without collective self-respect. Unity and ultimately activism in this case exists solely through conformity.
This brings me back to the bandwagon problem: if we are to be activists for the sake of being activists, we may become something that is not “good”. I will refrain from swaying in a particular direction regarding the housing policy change—at least in this forum. However, I urge students to be activists only if they are compelled internally to do so. If yes, they should, as well as recruit others to follow them, but by means of transparent communication and not deceptive coercion. Maybe it’s best to refrain from jumping on the activist bandwagon, following the “good” only when it comes from within.
Kirdar is a member of the class of 2013.
Leave a Reply