| Number 146 | February 22, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, (That last headline is a bit mysterious, so here's a sneak preview/excerpt from that essay: "What I am arguing is that we have in the United States today an overarching ideology that is based in the Three Pillars of individualism, dualism, and fetishized Freedom.") I apologize for the last two Nygaard Notes issues being excessively lengthy. I haven't actually gotten any complaints, but I feel like apologizing anyway. I always sort of think that each issue should be short enough to read in one reasonably relaxed trip to the bathroom. Am I wrong to think this way? Anyhow, I have such a huge backlog of things to comment on that I think I temporarily lost my mind. Back to "normal" length this week. Discipline, Nygaard, discipline! I've been heavy into the media criticism lately, but this week it's time for something completely different. It's time for a Nygaard Notes "theoretical" essay, this one having to do with fetishes, ideology, and mental emancipation. I think you'll like it. It's all part of the variety that is Nygaard Notes. I like to think of the Notes as sort of the Ed Sullivan Show of political publications. The feature this week called "Social Change Opportunity of the Week" is usually called "Website of the Week," but this one is so much more than a website I had to modify the title. I'm excited about this one, because it appears to be bringing theory and practice together in important ways. I'm also excited about the many ways that progressive forces are using the opportunities presented by the events of September 11th to move from the largely defensive posture of the past 20 years into a new era of creative imagining and visioning. How can I be hopeful in such a time of repression? You'll find out in coming issues of Nygaard Notes. Until next week, Nygaard |
|
|
Nygaard Notes is still relatively small, and has yet to reach a large enough audience to be "influential," in the political sense. Still, the Notes has an effect on many of those who read it, as evidenced by the many, many comments I get from you all. Since I am the only one to see most of these comments, and since sometimes it is good to know that you are not alone in your appreciation of this public service, I thought I would pass along a small number of the things that Nygaard Notes readers have said or written about the project over the past few months. Maybe this will be the final inspiring note that will prompt you to get out that checkbook and do your part to support this independent, original journalism. I hope so. Here, then, are a few examples of what readers are saying, to me and to others, about Nygaard Notes:
That last one is my favorite. You won't see any pledge drives for a while, so please send your check NOW! Finally, a gigantic THANKS to all of you for your financial and moral support of Nygaard Notes. |
|
For those looking for some hopeful news, here is some in the form of a concrete example of real-world peacemaking. A new project called the Nonviolent Peaceforce (NVPF) is now up and running. This project is exciting both for those who want to learn more about alternatives to war and violence, as well as those who want to take action to build peaceful alternatives. The idea of "third party nonviolent intervention" in areas of conflict as a proven alternative to war has been around for many years. At the present time, under the auspices of various organizations, so-called "peace teams" are working in such conflict areas as Colombia, the Balkans, and Israel-Palestine. The NVPF aims to further develop the theory and practice of such interventions by training and deploying teams that are well-versed and practiced in the actual work of making peace. At the Hague Appeal for Peace in 1999, two North Americans, Mel Duncan and David Hartsough, committed themselves to begin building the broad-based support and organizational structures necessary to create a standing trained nonviolent "Peaceforce" that would function on a global level.The idea is that the project will develop a functioning group of people who will, in their words, "deploy to areas of conflict and demonstrate a different way to respond to such human tragedies than by ignoring them (as in Rwanda) or bombing one combatant into uneasy submission (as in Iraq and Kosovo). This is exciting stuff! I am a person who cut his political teeth on the words and actions of such non-violent revolutionaries as Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., so I have never doubted the power of principled non-violence. The Nonviolent Peaceforce is a concrete manifestation of the power of nonviolence, with a diverse steering committee from all over the world. The NVPF has been endorsed by hundreds of groups and individuals from all corners of the planet, and I can't possibly do justice to their efforts in this little space I have. So you may want to visit their up-to-date website at http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/. While the NVPF is busy setting up a global infrastructure, there is a local event coming up that would be a great place for young people to go to and get their nonviolent juices flowing. The NVPF "Youth Force" is hosting a convening event on March 1, 6pm, at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College Student Center. This event will draw together youth from around the state to discuss the possibilities of non-violence for our world and to connect those youth who are ready to advance nonviolent strategies on the international level. Here are the goals of the event:
For more information on this event, contact Michael Pokawa, the NVPF Youth Coordinator, at 801 Front Ave St. Paul, MN 55103, or by email at Michael@nonviolentpeaceforce.org. He can tell you directions, buses, parking, etc. |
|
"American ideology"—by which I simply mean the "way of thinking" about the world that is the most common and powerful in the United States—is a big and enormously complex creation. I think that there are three main pillars of this powerful ideology, namely individualism, dualism, and the fetishization (a new word?) of Freedom. In this essay I will briefly describe each one and explain how the three, working together, function to limit our humanity. Freedom Fetishism "Fetishism" is when someone exhibits "excessive devotion or blind adoration" to something. That "something" is called a fetish. The idea of Freedom, more so than the reality, has come to occupy a highly exalted place in American political culture. The words of Patrick Henry—"Give me liberty or give me death!"—were for the young Nygaard, as for millions of American schoolchildren, formative in the development of my conception of what it means to be an American. No one hinted, and it took me many years to figure out, that Freedom might best have some limits, or that there might be cases where more Freedom might actually be a bad thing. It is in this sense that American Freedom has become a fetish. Many people blindly adore it—in the abstract, anyway. The American conception of Freedom is a limited one, focusing almost entirely on the freedom to do things, such as travel, raise a family, and own property. I love those Freedoms. At the same time, largely excluded from the American idea of Freedom is the equally-important freedom from things, such as freedom from fear, from want, and from oppression. Such protections are understood in American political culture to be "rights," or sometimes "privileges," which are much less revered than the fetish that we call Freedom. If you read our Constitution carefully I think you will see what I mean. The broader conception of Freedom from is better understood in other cultures, and is expressed quite clearly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly the sections that are little-known in this country, such as Articles 28 and 29. Several decades ago educational pioneer A.S. Neill articulated the distinction between Freedom and what he called License. "License" he defined as unlimited freedom, a fundamentally self-centered "right" to do, well, whatever one damned well pleases. License, in other words, is freedom without responsibility. A broader conception of freedom than the one fetishized in American culture is a many-sided Freedom, including both the freedom to and the freedom from. To embrace this broader conception is to understand that the expression of one's Freedom in a selfish way, in a way that impinges on the Freedoms of others, is to pervert the idea of Freedom and turn it into License. The Cult of Individualism The cult of individualism, which I explored more thoroughly in Nygaard Notes #s 111-114, is also deeply rooted in the American mind and, not coincidentally, routinely becomes attached to the idea of Freedom. In fact, the American fetish of Freedom cannot be fully understood unless it is firmly situated in the context of individualism. That is, American Freedom is best understood as the unfettered right of each individual to do whatever he or she wants. Such a disconnection from any greater social or public good, and thus from any responsibility to anyone other than Self, almost guarantees that the fetishized form of Freedom will express itself as License. And it often does, as I plan to show next week. Either/Or, or Both/And? A dualistic thinker believes that there are two radically independent choices upon which understanding is based. This way of thinking is quite appealing to many people because it's a lot easier to deal with something that has only two sides than to deal with something that is complex and multi-faceted. Consider September 11th: If you believe, as I do, that the origins and causes of the terrorist attacks are very complex and rooted in all sorts of social and political realities, then you necessarily believe that the most effective responses to them would have to address that complexity and those roots. Yet our so-called President gets loud applause when he reduces the national response to a series of two-part multiple choice options: the fight between "good" and "evil," nations are either "with us" or "against us," and each of the earth's inhabitants must be either one of "us" or one of "them." I wish I could say that most Americans find such oversimplification completely ridiculous, but it doesn't seem to the case. What I am arguing is that we have in the United States today an overarching ideology that is based in the Three Pillars of individualism, dualism, and fetishized Freedom. Carried to their logical conclusions, these intertwined ways of thinking can be expected to lead us to exactly where we are, which I also plan to show next week. An infinite range of possibilities for creative thought and action awaits those who can resist the temptation to oversimplify and begin to embrace the true complexity and richness of the context from which our actions, and the actions of others, arise. In the practical sense, if we understand this richness we will be better able to predict where we are likely going as a society. This power to see where we are and where we are going, combined with the imagination that is unleashed by our mental emancipation from the tyranny of the Three Pillars, can help to give us some important guidance as we begin to develop the alternative ideologies that will ultimately take the place of today's inhuman and limiting ones. Next week I'll give a specific example of how the Three Pillars can confuse what should be a fairly simple issue, and hint at some short- and long-term strategies for change. |