In Another Life We Would Have Been Artists

An activist's manifesto.

I don't usually like cross-posting, but, prompted by Vashanti I've been meaning to write a blog post about what activism means to me/why I do it. This is my column that's running in today's issue of The Eagle. A little background:

• I a write biweekly column. About hipsters. I know, right?
• This happened. Campus politics exploded. Activists and journalists alike suspended the notions that cigarettes are not a food group and that drinking every night is socially unacceptable. It was a time of crisis, y'know? A list of demands was made by the campus community, and then this happened. I'm not sure if anyone knows what to do with themselves right now.

-----

Dissent: it’s a theme I’ve covered in this column all semester. I’ve discussed it in the context of hipster history (hipstory, I suppose) – bandanas, skinny jeans, flannel, they’ve all at some point been donned as signs of solidarity, as separation from and statement against the mainstream. But their meanings now have largely been stripped of significance and appropriated into the fashion of the contemporary hipster, leaving histories of rebellion in their wake hidden under the guise of – you guessed it – irony. And although individuals sporting this style may catch a lot of flack, hipsters are not what’s threatening our generation. Rather, they are indicative of a much bigger, much more harmful issue: complacency.

It is easy for us to take for granted the freedoms we enjoy as a result of our predecessors’ struggles. Because of this, it is even easier for us to assume that these struggles are over, that all those nasty “-isms” don’t exist, and that there is little to nothing left for us to fight or defend. We have watched the most radical generation in our nation’s history age into conservativism, and we have watched the generations after that follow their lead, assuming either that the fighting is done or that it is futile.

But there is a greater stirring in our lives. It is a wave of recognition that some things (many things) are still just not right. We are the most highly educated generation that our country has seen, and as a result, we recognize injustices – whether they be the inadvertent results of misinformation, or atrocities spurred by ignorance or motivated by hatred.

Our generation does not know exactly what it is fighting for; we do not have one single cause, but honestly, it’s nice to see someone care about anything anymore. The only thing worse than the passive aggressive Hobbesian nightmare that is Internet fighting is passive progressiveness – the ability to realize injustice but the inability to speak up or take action. Perhaps the dissident publication Adbusters said it best: “This is our decisive moment. Either we wallow in debt as passive observers of history and pray that technology will eventually solve all our problems or we actively seize power and deal with the consequences.”

Despite all the controversy we (as a community and a generation) have been experiencing (potentially the largest understatement of my AU career), I am more than proud to have participated in and witnessed the way that various communities have overcome their differences and united in response to that which they oppose.
We have realized that it is not about the differences in our personal solutions but about the greater problems that we all have in common.

No, it is not right that this unification happened at the personal expense of individuals, and no it is not right that anyone must feel responsible for cleaning up the mess that another person or another group has made, but the vigor of response has been simply admirable and nearly unprecedented. We have recognized that the solution is not to walk way from the problem, leaving it for someone else, the solution is to refuse to be silent until satisfied. Talk about “ideas into action,” eh – not bad, right, Kerwin?

We are recognizing that as long as there exists injustice for one, there is injustice for all of us – that once a group’s rights or ability to live safely are taken away, then all of ours are at stake. Yes, in fact, the dignity and safety of one is more important and more powerful than the hatred of others. This is an ideal, and we must fight to make it a reality, or else we are being irresponsible to ourselves.

We can borrow from feminist rhetoric – as long as we live in this world, we are survivors, not victims, of injustice, and we can either continue to live through it like nothing is wrong, or we can take action to correct it. We cannot ask to see our vision realized any longer – we must demand it.

Our rights, our beliefs and our ideologies are not something to be taken and twisted into dirty words used to shame us by those who feel threatened by our liberation. These are ours to value and keep and to empower us to achieve greater things. You cannot claim to know fully (and therefore claim the right to speak on behalf of or judge) the suffering or indignities experienced by an oppressed group unless you yourself are a part of that group, but we can all do our best to act as allies and recognize what is wrong and how to help.

So yes, injustice is everyone’s problem, but I’ll acknowledge that activism isn’t everyone’s solution. Thankfully, we have been given the gift of diversity, so that individuals may utilize their different talents to effect change. Activism takes many different forms – it is not limited to the picket-sign protest of yester-generation. Activism comes down to who you are on the day-to-day, if you are living what you believe in. The opposite of hate isn’t love – it is justice, fairness and respect.

So if we’re truly going to be defending all those abstract nouns that we believe in so strongly, then all of us – journalists and activists (we have more in common than you think) – must commit to achieving it, not just by discussing it but by owning up to our responsibilities and living it – and there’s nothing ironic about that.

Why Same-Sex Marriage is a Threat to Society

...and why we want to keep it that way.

Okay, it's 10 pm, so I'm going to assume that everyone knows what happened already.
The California State Supreme Court upheld the passage of Proposition 8, ratifying the decision made by voters last year to ban same-sex marriage.
If you're into legal jargon and have time to read 185 pages of it (WHAT?! Seems like an awful lot, when "discrimination" is only one word), the pdf can be found here.

Now wait, before you go getting your American Apparel boyshorts into a bunch, consider the direction in which you're focusing your anger. On the surface, it's really easy to become outraged at the blatant refusal of "rights" and the all-too-typical refusal by the government to acknowledge that, yep, queers are people too. But, like everything else, the issue goes much deeper once deconstructed.

1. Majority sucks
And by that, I mean majority rules.
When it comes down to the really bare-bones, unemotional, unsentimental machine that is our lawmaking body, we need to remember that for the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8 would be to outright deny the voting process, as well as the power of the people (no matter how wrong they may be). It's that simple. The Court refused to overturn the decision of the public. Imagine if Prop 8 was turned down in November instead, and it was brought to the Supreme Court again, this time to achieve the opposite goal. The very idea that seven people would be able to overturn the decision of thousands (who made the right decision) would be absolutely mortifying, and there would be nationwide protests in the streets.

Oh wait, there already are.

So here's the thing. All this evening there have been protests/rallies/riots (too optimistic?) opposing the Supreme Court's decision. Anger and disappointment and frustrating directed at the seven justices, not at those who in November were really responsible for the passage of Prop 8--the voters, the heterosexist, homophobic culture itself. We shouldn't be rioting in the streets for one day because a court upheld a decision, we should be out and loud and resisting every fucking day because the decision made today is nothing more than a slight reflection of the culture in which we live.

2. "I mean, I'm not surprised, but..."
This has been a resounding qualifier used by queers and our allies all day before stating our disappointment. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that we take it completely for granted that we have no faith in our government to uphold or even grant us rights? Why are we unsurprised that our government refuses to acknowledge us as real people? Just think about that. We are so conditioned to believe that we are undeserving of being treated fairly that we are completely unsurprised that we are not being granted rights. I said it once, and I'll say it again, if the state refuses to accept me as a real person, then I refuse to accept them as my lawmaking body.

To quote a wise (read: badass anarchist) friend:

all i have to say (as per usual) is that government has never seen citizens, but as human capital for their projects of wealth. rights are something given and allowed by the state. fuck rights, i'll take my freedom right from their goddamn hands by any means necessary.

3. I don't believe in Modern Love, or Call It Off
Yeah, that's right. I just simultaneously referenced David Bowie and Tegan and Sara.
So why do we give a fuck about getting married anyway? Please, please don't get me wrong. I am not calling every queer who wants to hit up the chapel (or town hall or whatever) an assimilationist or obsessed with "trying to be straight." I know that, for some people, marriage means a lot in terms of sentiment and love and all those things written on Hallmark cards. And that's fine.

The problem is that one of the main arguments made in favor of same-sex marriage is that the lack thereof is preventing couples from attaining rights (healthcare, visitation rights, ease of adoption, financial aid, etc etc). But allowing same-sex couples to get married is only a band-aid solution to this problem. A straw man, if you will.

It's not the fact that same-sex couples have to fight for marriage equality, it's that marriage is necessary to reap the benefits that the government so graciously allows these couples. This further instills in us the societal idea that marriage is the only way to validate self-worth or success or happiness. Feminists know this already. The battle over marriage not only supports the idea that one can only be acceptable if they follow the old go-to-school-get-married-have-children-be-productive-to-the-state deal, it also takes the sentimental value out of what marriage should be, a symbol of love and committment, not fraud and an easy way to get money from the government.

4. Rebel, Rebel
All that being said, the passage of same-sex marriage would be pretty fucking sweet to throw in the face of heteronormative society. It would force Americans to acknowledge that, yep, we're real and we are redefining the institution that you weilded for so long as a weapon against us. It would be like a big metaphorical middle finger with a wedding band on it.

Yeah, we're real, and we won't shut the fuck up, and we want our freedom, and we have SEX, whoa, yes, scary non-hetersexual sex both in and out of wedlock because we don't give a fuck about your standards of sexual morality. You've already kicked us out of there, and, baby, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Edit: I feel like I may not have clarified the point behind my subject line. Same-sex marriage is a threat to society. Why? Because society is built on patriarchal, homophobic, sexist standards, and allowing da gays to get married would inherently be throwing it in the face of all those things. Essentially, calling something a threat to society is the greatest compliment I can give.