Action vs. Dialogue

This article that Tyler brought to my attention is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

The time has come to rethink our methods of eliciting social change.  

There are, I assume, many people that believe if you are not "taking action," then you are wasting time.  Okay, but does this mean protesting? Making signs and gathering friends and shouting clever slogans?  

This is great for drawing attention in the attempt to raise awareness of an issue.  But then what?

After attention and awareness needs to come another form of action: coming up with an actual plan for change.  Is this done with a piece of posterboard written in block letters with a giant Sharpie?

No.  It's done with conversations in which thoughts and ideas are exchanged until an idea becomes a plan.  Action is great, but it needs to include a Plan of Action.  

Another method of change is continual conversation within the social body itself.  This has a specific, but integral goal: to exchange ideas until you change minds.  

I believe that most people, when seeing a picket line or hearing those clever slogans being chanted on the steps of this or that public building, go deaf and blind.  I'll admit that I do.  

I roll my eyes, and roll up my window, and think, "Oh boy, what are these people all worked up over today?"  Because I know that today's issue-du-jour will become next week's faint memory to most people, including the ones doing today's chanting and marching.  This is how we do things.  We get emotionally charged, wound up like toys, and then when the next big thing comes along we abandon our current bandwagon for the new one.  

The people who are truly passionate about the issue were never holding a sign; they were holding meetings with community members or organizations, or proposing plans and taking action at the policy level all along. They were discussing the issue in a meaningful way, not just chanting slogans, and they were working to change minds.

Don't get me wrong, the people doing the protesting are an important part of the process, but they are just a part.  That can't be where it ends.  But I've heard many times that if you aren't willing to get arrested for your issue than you aren't really a believer.  I'm saying that this type of action isn't the only option for those of us who are seeking true social change.

Besides, if we're all in jail, who will be left to talk about the issues?  The people who oppose social change are the ones who truly benefit from our voice being taken away (which is what going to jail does), so perhaps this idea was started by the other side to begin with. 

Bottom line: I believe that every time you have a conversation about an issue you are starting a ripple, and the more we are willing to talk about things - in a rational and effective way - the more of an affect we are going to have on society as a whole.

It's all a part of the process, and every little bit helps.

Freedom Isn't Free(dom)

This has been an ongoing theme for me over the past several days.

I would really like to put an end to the perpetuation of the creation myth of the United States that says that it was founded on "freedom" and "equality" for all.  This picture of America as a shining example of all things free and equal since its creation in the late 18th century is a fake.  It's not even a good fake.  It's like the Mona Lisa drawn with crayons.

The Constitution of the United States is spoken of as a religious text (American Civil Religion is another post for another day); one that lays out the beautiful notions of equality and freedom for all!

Cue Maury Povich:

The Declaration of Independence - another sacred text - begins with the sweeping statement 

"... all men are created equal, ..."

But we know this didn't literally mean ALL men, did it? I mean, we can ignore the fact that women were still unable to vote, hold office, or own property for the moment (it does say MEN), but can we ignore the fact that equal status was not given to Jews, Catholics, Africans, Native Americans, or other non-Europeans?

So then what does this statement even mean?  Which term is relative? Is it the "all?" The "men?" Or is it the "equal?"

Introduction

I started this blog to be a place of discussion, where we can share ideas and have deep conversations in a more substantial way.  I have noticed that while posting a lot of my more serious thoughts and philosophical musings on facebook does spark conversations, these threads are quickly lost in the stream of likes and shares, family selfies, and restaurant check-ins that is the constant flow of social media.

I decided that I needed one place to hold all of these ideas, so that I can return to them, reread them, or perhaps build on them as new ideas come as a result of new stories and experiences.

I am excited to start an ongoing dialogue with the other contributors as well, as good ideas are often made better when you can share and exchange them with others.

~E. Lee