Since September of this year, I have been enrolled full time in a Masters of Public Health program at the University of Toronto. I am fortunate to be able to focus my learning and research on strategies of more effectively engaging in advocacy and social action. As part of my studies, I will be writing and sharing a series of reflections; I will tag them "masters" if you're looking (though it may be unlikely that I post about much else over the next little while!). I am finding that the concepts that I am learning are giving shape to deeply held values and perspectives, though some of the lexicon and frameworks are giving my brain a workout. This was the required title of a midterm paper I recently submitted ... when I first saw it, it felt so beyond me, but I'm pleased to say that it's starting to settle into my understanding, and I'm excited to put these ideas into practice! Enjoy! At a direct action focusing on the climate emergency last summer, I found myself engaging a young white male wearing a “MAGA” hat in conversation. It fascinated me that a young man in this day and age in Toronto would hold the values typically associated with “he who shall not be named”. Curious, I dug into his thoughts and ideas. We talked for about 45 minutes, with my own young white son at my side, before my ability to be compassionate started to falter and I excused myself. We took a wander through his belief that taxation is theft. That welfare disincentivizes work. That people should earn what they have through hard work. I posed a number of scenarios to him to challenge his ideology. I asked if someone with a debilitating physical or mental health condition should be left on the street to die if they are unable to work. I asked if he was attending university and who was paying for it; and if a young racialized person growing up in poverty, without sufficient nutritious food or a sense of safety should be denied an equivalent education and condemned to a lifetime of low-paying work, poor health, and possibly crime as a consequence of the systemic circumstances that influenced his upbringing. I asked if the disproportionate number of Indigenous individuals who are incarcerated in this country was due to a moral failing on the part Indigenous communities, or if it was related to years of trauma, abuse and genocide. He struggled to respond to every scenario. He was convinced that capitalism was the only logical way that society could operate. I asked him how then one would break the reinforcing cycles of poverty and privilege so that everyone could benefit equally from the forces of the free market. He struggled to respond. Oddly, we didn’t even touch upon the climate in our wanderings. But of course climate justice is intimately and inextricably linked to a culture that is dependent on extraction, privatization/corporatization of the commons, and colonization. All of which is overlaid with the principles of capitalism and imperialism. This conversation occurred before I had been exposed to the construct of “neoliberalism” (here’s my attempt at a definition: capitalism with an emphasis on decentralization and meritocracy; defunding of social services, and a deliberate shifting of the state’s relationship with the free market, leading to concentration of wealth, the rise of corporate welfare, reduction in social spending; the market dominating society, with excessive emphasis on individualization and privatization). While I had painted this young man as a far right conservative, I wonder if the values he espoused might not easily be argued as neoliberal. We didn’t dig deep enough into his personal morality or religious beliefs for me to get a grasp on that - and at the time, I was unaware of a distinction between neoliberalism and neoconservatism. However, as Brown argues, the two overlap in ways that enable one another, divides those that advocate for equity and social/ecological justice, and ultimately maintain systems that privatize, individualize, and ostracize. In Canada and the US, this plays out time and again with even our “leftish” major parties perpetuating these very injustices. It has always been interesting to me that anything that hints of moving away from capitalism is “accused” of being socialist. My upbringing, my education, my travels, and my faith have conspired to bring me to this point in my life, in this place in time, and with this set of values and understanding of the world, which I can now call deeply anti-neoliberal … although I’m just as complicit and entrenched in the system as if I was wearing a MAGA hat myself. I benefit from these systems, and find it exceptionally difficult to step outside of the existing framework and structures to live according to my values. All of the challenges I’ve seen and felt in efforts to make the world a more equitable and just place seem rooted in this enormous and deliberate power differential between corporations and those that invest in them, and the politicians that are in their pockets; and the “masses”. It explains why socially-funded services are always sorely inadequate while huge wealth accumulates in the sectors that have the potential to provide equitable support to those that need it - I’m thinking here of the military-, real estate-, pharma-, energy-, data-industrial complexes that turn what should be the commons into a wealth building enterprise. The vulnerable end up relying on the charity of the wealthy (philanthropy that is arguably an attempt to launder unethically accumulated wealth and the donor’s conscience) when that wealth ideally would be systematically available to ensure everyone has enough to begin with. Even the non-profit sector is reliant on this mechanism. Even those that rely on their pension plans - public or otherwise - are playing a role by being recipients of these investments. Deeply effective community development strategies then are not likely to be found in relying more on neoliberal ideals, despite the rhetoric of private-public partnerships. The entire system needs to shift toward the common good, including radical alternative structures to the status quo, such as microcredit, cooperatives, regenerative practices, and democratic reform. The use of the word “radical” doesn’t seem quite so … radical … when used in its truest sense - fundamental changes to the foundational - or root - systems that create inequity. From a somewhat simplistic perspective, our governance, policy and taxation structure must be revolutionized in order to increase collective resources available to provide adequate services to those that need them. Housing, food security, education, safety, access to choice in health care, sociocivic engagement … these are basic human rights that many go without because of the polarization of wealth and systemic inequities (ie. the social gradient) that result from a long history of capitalism leading to this current stage of neoliberalism. As Janine Brodie so assertively states, “the necessary task of reforming social justice may very well hinge upon our collective insistence on putting the social back into our way of seeing and contesting neoliberal times.” We talk about the concept of critical mass, of needing only 3.5% of the population to revolutionize a system (Chenoweth E. 2013). But powerful structures are deliberately designed to placate and suppress such uprisings; to foster “ignorance by design”, as a friend recently put it. How can community development strategies effectively engage and mobilize? Effective social action requires a careful assessment of the system, identifying stakeholders, and the power differentials between them; it calls for deliberate organization, and tactics that match the target and climate (McAveley 2018). An examination of the complex web of causes and consequences at the proximal, distal and foundational levels can reveal strengths and opportunities for each community. Taking action on a local level that improves the quality of life of community members now also builds solidarity, energy and capacity of that community to push for further system change. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Jesus are examples of well-known leaders who inspired mobilization against tremendous forces in a way that centered justice and love, and spoke directly to the hearts of those who were moved. What I find challenging with respect to the climate movement is that the “who” as described by Rathke is ultimately everyone. Whereas MLK, Gandhi, and Saul Alinsky had very specific targets and a very clear base, there is no one who is excluded from the impacts of ecological collapse. But the effort to engage everyone requires an “if you build it they will come” approach against which Rathke cautions. That base should ideally include the neoliberals and neoconservatives who are not immune to the devastating effects of what is to come. I think about the stages of change often discussed in behaviour theory, and wonder about its application to organizing - some folks will be ready for action, while others may be contemplative and in need of support to prepare. Still others are “pre-contemplative”, either willfully ignorant, or victims of propaganda. Reaching individuals within each of those circles - as in motivational interviewing theory - will require different tactics that are organized and coordinated. The exploration of economics and politics is a new realm for me, but I know where my values lie. As I dig deeper into the history and theory of capitalism, of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, of socialism and democracy, of resistance and action, my values settle within frameworks that give them order and direction. No system is perfect. Stephanie Zvan recently provided an intriguing wander through the history of one faith community’s relationship with politics and economics over the past 100 years … it strikes me as simultaneously discouraging and hopeful that these are not new concepts, although the consequences appear to be getting more dire - for all.
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2024
Categories
All
|