Years ago I shared a flat in Tel-Aviv with a guy called Teddy. He didn’t do most of the housework, but I did appreciate his storytelling: he always had hilarious tales of disastrous dates, pompous bosses and army commanders whom he had managed to outsmart (he spent most of his service near the beach in the resort town of Eilat).
Every Saturday evening Teddy had a rite: he dressed up in the uniform of his favorite soccer team, including the shoes, and watched their weekly match. There was a proper way of doing this – for instance, I couldn’t disturb him, since I could cause “Nakhs”, or bad luck. For about two hours I could hear him from my room, yelling (”you idiot, make a pass!”, “kick it already!”, “no, no, not that way!”). Unfortunately, the players on the screen never seemed to listen, and they mostly lost. I think on some level he realized he was having very little effect on them by screaming at the TV, but every match it was the same.
Teddy’s soccer spectator attitude reminds me of the way most of us experience politics. “Why don’t those politicians do something already about all these problems?;” “Why aren’t the feminists/animal rights activists/vegans worrying about other issues?;” “Why are these people so violent? don’t they realize non-violence would work better?”… we complain to the nearest person, or the newspaper or the TV set, but unfortunately “those people” never seem to get it, no matter how loud we yell.
Over the years, I’ve come to recognize that there is another way of doing things, which can ultimately be more satisfying and fulfilling. It’s about taking baby steps outside of our comfort zone. People around me do small and large things to actually get involved in the issues they are passionate about. They’ve given up on waiting for someone else to fix things. There aren’t enough responsible adults around – it turns out we need to take responsibility ourselves.
Taking responsibility doesn’t have to mean pledging to do everything to save the world right now – it can just mean taking one small step you’ve never done before, which could potentially be effective: one small thing that will make you feel you actually are getting involved, that you’ve gone beyond bitching or being cynical.
Here’s one small idea: Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization I have huge respect for, sends one email a week about an issue you can influence (check out http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ ).
Last week they wrote about Ezra Nawi, an Israeli human rights activist who tried to prevent the army from demolishing the shacks of some pretty poor Palestinians in the South Hebron hills, a discreet form of ethnic cleansing off land adjacent to a settlement. Publicizing this is important – it educates people about the issue and it could contribute to releasing him or shortening his jail time. All it takes is one email, and they give you the address – http://freeEzra.org
Here is his article in The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/nawi
I’m sure others could comment and provide links to more organizations. For instance, Amnesty International publishes regular calls for action about a whole range of issues. This one is to call on the Israeli government to cooperate fully with the Gaza fact-finding mission:
Writing an email a week for a progressive cause is one example of how we can integrate political activism into our everyday lives. Note to self: keep asking – where is my comfort zone? what are my next steps for going beyond it?
Tom, the infuriating thing about the whole spectator thing is that it's doubled… not only am I spectating what happens in the world through the tv screen, but the news anchors themselves are spectators, whose detachment they share with you! So you are spectating on a bunch of spectators… crazy.
I think this post gets to the question of the morality of criticism. Is there a difference between criticism one offers and their relationship to a given issue (active or passive) or their understanding of who the agent is in a given situation (the nation, the government, the politician, etc.) For example, many criticisms of anti-apartheid activists concerns their 'aggressiveness' or their hurtful rhetoric, and there are many debates that play out about such topics. But these debates are a waste of time if the power position of each discussant and their relationship to the goal, rather than the strategy. What disagreements can you have about tactics when you don't agree that there is a problem at all?
Anyway, your post causes me to think about politics as spectator-sport.. Perhaps it is the question of the difference and similarity between citizens observing politics and fans observing sports games. Or it might have to do with the question of how 'politics' is made to seem like a type of sport. If you think about it, a sport is basically a totally self-conscious, intentional attempt at fashioning a set of rules and guidelines followed equally by two sides made equal in every way but the elements that sport is trying to isolate: willpower, teamwork, skill, etc. What are the consequences of thinking about the relationship between different states (and pseudo-states like the PA, Lesotho, or Puerto Rico) as relationships between equal teams struggling against each other on the international diplomatic field, performing their displays, going to each other's summits, sending subtle and not-so-subtle messages to each other that comprise the corporate media's myopic view of what 'politics' is. The Israeli government's negotiators speak with the Palestinians', reinforcing their illusion of sovereignty. South Africa is the 'neighbor' of Lesotho, rather than an artificial bantustan totally dependent on it for everything. Rather than people empowering themselves to analyze and act to resolve their problems, the spectacle of politics presented by the media channels the often unnamed frustrations of everyday life into the idolization of powerful people who act on our behalf as agents of history. They know everything there is to know, and they are doing everything that can be done. All we can do is shake our heads and deal.
Anyway, maybe that's not what you meant to evoke at all, but I thought about that.
interesting – i didn't think of the media aspect, but you are both quite right, I think most of what they do is falls into the same category of pretending they are not active players and packaging other people's struggles as some kind of sports competition between semi-equal players – although you do occasionally get the brave investigative journalist willing to take on the powers that be (Gideon Levy wrote nd excellent piece in today's Haaretz about discreet displacement of Palestinian shepards in the Jordan Valley today, which may have contributed to the army backing down).
interesting – i didn't think of the media aspect, but you are quite right, I think most of what they do is falls into the same category of pretending they are not active players and packaging other people's struggles as some kind of sports competition between semi-equal players – although you do occasionally get the brave investigative journalist willing to take on the powers that be (Gideon Levy wrote nd excellent piece in today's Haaretz about discreet displacement of Palestinian shepards in the Jordan Valley today, which may have contributed to the army backing down).